Item: The Supreme Court, contrary to the actual words of the law, upholds Obamacare subsidies in states that didn’t set up “health care exchanges.”
Item: The Supreme Court, contrary to millennia of self-evident commonsense and, oh, biology, dictates that all 57 states(1) have to recognize “gay marriage” as real marriage.
- Regarding “Gay Marriage”: There are parasites whose existence is dependent on the continued life of their host. Still, relentlessly, they push forward and kill the host, thereby killing themselves. This, it appears to me, is a perfect description of the various branches of the now vast and sprawling American Grievance Industry: The Race Grievance Industry, The Feminist Grievance Industry, the Climate Grievance Industry, the Gender Grievance Industry and its sub-branches the Trans Grievance Industry, and the newest superstar, the Gay Grievance Industry.
- Regarding Obamacare: Justice Antonin Scalia said it correctly: The plain language of the law indicated that subsidies to the states without exchanges were illegal. Chief Justice John Roberts said that there would be serious problems if they invalidated the subsidies. The only possible, ethical answer to that is: Then Congress should have written the law so that there wouldn’t be such problems. The Supreme Court absolutely does not have the legitimate power to decide that the law doesn’t really mean what it says it means. The only legitimate responsibility of the Supreme Court is to pronounce on the constitutionality of the actual law. If the actual law, as it’s written, is unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court’s only responsibility is to invalidate the law, and tell Congress to try again. That’s it. Purely and simply: if Congress meant something, they should have written it to say what they meant.
- Regarding Obamacare: Concerning the previous bullet: Chief Justice Roberts surely knows what the actual responsibility of SCOTUS is — it’s pretty much Supreme Court 101. It’s not out of the question — in light of this decision and the previous crucial decision — that someone knows something deep, and dark, and buried in John Roberts’ past, and hinted to Roberts all the way back in 2010, that he knew it … and might be tempted to reveal it, if he didn’t vote to uphold Obamacare. Roberts’ tortured logic in both decisions hints at this.
- Regarding “Gay Marriage”: There are gays — more than just a few — who, very quietly of course, have long been suggesting that this wacky whole movement never should have existed. The problem, they say, is that marriage itself really is a crucial pillar of human civilization, one that has allowed the world to progress beyond caves. They have said that mandating acceptance of gay marriage is only the first step on the path to eliminating marriage entirely as an institution. They argue: what is to stop the polygamists now? Is that really to be the next “civil rights issue of our time?” Apparently. Furthermore, what’s to stop two brothers, or two sisters from getting married? The qualms about “incest” are purely from concerns that biological reproduction resulting from incest tends to result in serious birth defects. That’s not an issue between two brothers, or a father and son, or two sisters, or a mother and daughter. Furthermore, and most importantly, say these gays, if you pull a pillar of civilization out from under it, and the civilization collapses, then it’s likely that the society that emerges from the ashes won’t have nearly the solicitude for homosexuality as today’s western world does. These gays make no bones about the fact that homosexuality is not normal. They know it, and no amount of tolerance, acceptance, celebration or other glossing over will change it. We pointed that out here and elsewhere. However, these gays are reluctant to seek out a cure for their particular abnormality. They recognize, in addition, that if the western world were to embrace homosexuality in a widespread way, it would spell the end of the western world, whose numbers would decrease because of a decrease in biological reproduction. This would be, and is, happening, at the same time as the islamic world — which has very few gays because it kills them — is accelerating reproduction. I don’t see a good ending when those two currents arrive at critical mass.
- Regarding “Gay Marriage”: It’s interesting how operatically the left is now in love with the institution of marriage. An institution they have been shredding for many decades. Turns out they love it only when gays are lobbying for it.
- Regarding “Gay Marriage”: Some, even on the right, have argued that this is good “for the children.” Now, they say, the children of two gay parents will have parents whose union is recognized as valid by the law. Well. Where to begin with this one? Now that “gay marriage” is recognized as real marriage, gay divorce will be the same as real divorce. As happens today, that will then leave children with only one parent. That parent will have nothing that will be able to teach the children about normal intimate relations with members of the other sex. Now that gays are admitting that homosexuality has nothing of the genetic to it, and that the whole “gay gene” thing was fabricated, that means that the remaining gay parent will likely indoctrinate the child into homosexuality.(2)
- Regarding Obamacare: If you have it, you are not necessarily covered. In these pages (here and here), we covered that fact. Here are a couple of meaningful quotes from those posts (not all mine):
- The hardest-hit: the middle-class. Americans with an annual household income of between $30,000 and $75,000 began delaying medical care over costs more in 2014, up to 38 percent in 2014 from 33 percent last year; among households that earn above $75,000, 28 percent delayed care this year, compared to just 17 percent last year.
Before Obamacare, people might not have been insured, but they actually obtained health care. Now, they’ll have insurance, but won’t be able to obtain medical care. And it’s not just because he can’t afford to pay the deductible and the premiums, but also because doctors have recognized that they can’t continue to be doctors under Obamacare, so they’re leaving practice.
We’ve said it here, and on other pages many times: “Free” healthcare, no matter the quality, is perfectly worthless if no one can get it. You can paraphrase that a bit to tell the tale of Obamacare: “Healthcare insurance — no matter how ‘affordable’ — is perfectly worthless if you can’t get healthcare with it.”
Or, as we have said: All the insurance in the world, no matter how “affordable,” is perfectly worthless, if you can’t use it to obtain medical care.
This may fall in the broken record department, but you can read about the real-life, concrete results of so-called “free healthcare” in action, here: Obamacare in the Very Near Future — This is Deeply Frightening!
- Regarding Obamacare: This decision is just possibly a favor to the opponents of Obamacare. If words mean only what you can convince the Supreme Court they mean at a given moment, then that opens the door to lawsuit after lawsuit on any language in the law whatsoever, no matter how ambiguous. The law is, what, 1900 pages long? And each page was written by morons. Believe me, the questionable language is in there. Go in and find it… and sue, sue, sue!
We’ll have more thoughts on the topic of both Supreme Court decisions in upcoming days.
(1) – Obama once said that he had visited “all 57 states,” or some such. Since words no longer have any meaning, or, rather they mean whatever the Supreme Court’s whim that day is, who am I to deny that there are really 57 states? Let’s hope that we can all fit in those extra seven states when the accelerating dismantling of western culture has sunk the original 50 into anarchy and dystopia.
(2) – Look, everyone knows that sex is hugely “mental” as much as physical. And, yes, there’s an “indoctrination” component to parents teaching kids that they should strive to grow up and meet someone of the other sex, get married and set about to producing grandchildren. However, there is no debate that such “indoctrination” results in children learning to act in accord with actual biological reality. As such, while it’s indoctrination — as is training in other subjective realms, like disapproval of racism, or being nice to others — it’s plainly good indoctrination.
In light of this, the reason for homosexuality is likely very simple: A person is able at some point — through personal effort or indoctrination — to suppress the “eeeewwww” reaction to what gays do with their sex organs. It’s at that point that he or she “becomes gay.” Sometimes we tend to way overthink things.
An important point about this: just because you’re doing something with your sexual organs, doesn’t mean it’s sex. If I bring my tennis racket to the river and start trying to scoop fish out with it, I’m not playing tennis. Even if I start trying to hit the fish with tennis balls, I’m still not playing tennis. I’m fishing. Poorly, but fishing all the same. If I bring my sex organs out to the local fence post and get all romantic with it, I’m not having sex. Even if I buy it dinner and tell it I’ll call it in the morning, I’m still not having sex. I’m masturbating. Same as if I were to buy my same sex “partner” dinner and start getting all romantic with him (I don’t have such a relationship, I’m straight, and it’s a hypothetical :) ), no matter what we each do with our respective intimate parts, it’s not sex. It’s elaborate masturbation.