Look, it's not the end of the world.
Everyone's equal, everyone's happy, love conquers all, and we are absolutely not heading to some dark, divisive place where the fabric of our society will be torn apart by people who, having invented "gay marriage" and imposed it on the entire country by a single Supreme Court justice, use it as a cudgel to wreak havoc on a host of other social and legal compacts which have ... Oh. Hold on. Couple pieces coming in over the transom ... Let's check them out.
Here's Fredrik DeBoer in Politico claiming that social justice demands we now legalize polygamy. Here are the mouthbreathers at Gawker doing the same, using Rod Dreher's Law of Merited Impossibility. Here's the ACLU's Louise Melling declaring that "religious freedom" is nothing more than illegal discrimination. (Note how the Washington Post headline actually puts scare quotes around the term "religious freedom" in the headline.) Here's Mark Oppenheimer arguing in Time that we ought to strip all religious groups-not just adoption agencies and schools, but actual churches, too-of their tax exempt status. Because gay marriage. (He's willing to let hospitals stay tax exempt, because Obamacare will keep them in line. So there's that.) And here's the delightful Felix Salmon, who thinks that Oppenheimer perhaps goes too far, because we need only target religious organizations--and again, he means not just para-church groups, but actual churches--who aren't onboard with "gay marriage."
At the risk of belaboring the point: This isn't a radical activist-this is a mainstream (-ish) financial reporter who now declares that individual churches not only could, but should be forced to perform same-sex weddings. Or face the loss of their tax-exempt status.
So maybe this love, pride, and unity stuff is a little more zero-sum than gay activists have been letting on for the past few years. And maybe the gay-marriage project doesn't really intend to stop with "gay marriage." Though in fairness, I should point out that the Politico call for legalized polygamy didn't come until nearly two hours after the Supreme Court decision. So clearly there's no link between those two beautiful expressions of #loveislove. And anyone who suggests that there is, is a homophobic bigot. And by next week, anyone objecting to polygamy will be a poly-phobic bigot.
So, since it's not the end of the world just yet, we might as well take in all of the absurdities from the last few days.
My favorite was a series of McSweeney haikus summarizing the various SCOTUS opinions. Here, for instance, is their version of Clarence Thomas's opinion:
"Liberty" _ this word,
I do not think Locke means what
You think it means. Sigh.
And here's their Anthony Kennedy:
Hark! Love is love, and
love is love is love is love.
It is so ordered.
That's high-caliber funny. Though not, perhaps as funny as Jonathan Rauch, who's been banging on for "gay marriage" from the very moment this foundational human right was discovered in the early 1990s. Rauch decided to evaluate how his predictions about the future of "gay marriage" have held up over the years. And you'll be pleased to know that all of the wonderful aspects of "gay marriage" that Rauch predicted have turned out swimmingly, except for the handful of areas where he wasn't optimistic enough.