Posted on 05/18/2015 12:19:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The groom and groom strolled down the aisle to the mellow strains of “Mr. Sandman.”
Wearing her black robe with her signature white lace collar, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over the marriage on Sunday afternoon of Michael Kahn, the longtime artistic director of the Shakespeare Theater Company in Washington, and Charles Mitchem, who works at an architecture firm in New York.
The gilded setting was elegant: Anderson House in the Embassy Row neighborhood, the headquarters in Washington of the Society of the Cincinnati, a club for the descendants of the French and American soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War. During the ceremony, the couple slipped black and gold Harry Winston rings onto each other’s fingers.
But the most glittering moment for the crowd came during the ceremony. With a sly look and special emphasis on the word “Constitution,” Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.
No one was sure if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage is constitutional.
But the guests began applauding loudly, delighted either way. Justice Ginsburg, who has officiated at same-sex weddings in the past, also seemed delighted, either by their reaction or, perhaps, by the news that she will be played in a movie by Natalie Portman (who, in a strange casting segue, will play Jackie Kennedy Onassis in another film).
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Yes.
But she won’t.
Well, guys, now you know why most theater in this country stinks.
Geez....we are so screwed.
Yes, she should have recused herself because there is no way she could be a fair, independent juror.
We should remember the Republicans that voted to confirm her. She was confirmed by a 96 to 3 vote. The three negative votes came from conservative Republican Senators – Don Nickles (OK), Bob Smith (NH) and Jesse Helms (NC). All the rest - spineless.
Gee, that includes me!
I have Huguenot and English ancestors who were in the Revolution, can't think of any of them who would approve of this!
In fact, being mostly hard edged radical Protestants, they would have barfed at the thought.
And this freak Communist in a black robe dares to mention the Constitution?
The witch knows she has a bias and she just doesn’t care. To her, the Constitution is what she says it is. She has absolute power with no accountability. (I would say that about the federal judiciary in general, actually.)
It’s all a shameful disgrace and sham.
Ruth-Bader should have been forced to recuse.
Perversion and treason spew from the soul of leftists like Ginsburg.
Well, since she already has shown how she will rule. She might as well hit the bottle and pass out during the rest of the hearing.
When the states ratified the Constitution,
was gay “marriage” a right?
No, of course not.
Now, what amendment was ratified that made it a “right”?
None? Well, then, the Constitution has nothing to say on the matter, and it’s up to the states.
The other Justices know she’s hammered. Look at their faces.
I agree, but the 14th Amendment is played like a wild card. “Equal protection” means whatever most of the justices decide.
Gay is in the US Constitution - right under the part about free abortions for all and gun control. :)
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
They are sneering at us.
It’s not enough just to debase America’s moral foundation, the Progressive Left just can’t resist rubbing it in our faces with stunts like this. They see no need anymore to even pretend that there are impartial judges making a careful constitutional determination here.
From their attitude one might think the next Presidential election had already been rigged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.