I am very much pleased with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that same-sex marriage must not be denied anywhere the U.S. Constitution has authority. Great, I think to myself, and like yesterday’s 6-3 ruling on the Affordable Care Act, it’s the dissenters who are most entertaining. I found Scalia’s frothing at the mouth particularly delicious.

Today’s,  would surely not disappoint, I thought. Let’s dive in, shall we?

Chief Justice John Roberts:

“This universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history — and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians,” Roberts wrote. “It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.”

Nice, John. Invoke nature. Seriously, that’s the best argument your legal mind can come up with? Nature? It’s always been this way, it evolved naturally. You know what else nature likes to do, John? Turn you inside out and reduce you to plant food. Nature is brutal, cold, uncaring, and life within it is short.

If nature is so great, how come we do so much to change it? It’s too hot; air conditioning. It’s too cold; fire. We invoke the “natural” way when it is convenient to our predilections.

Now, why would Justice Roberts write such a thin non-legal argument in his dissent? I’d wager he just finds gays icky.