Except that we have laws at every level of government which forbid such discrimination… and iwth good reason.

The question for you to answer is this:why is this particular form of religious discrimination a good idea, while all the other forms of religious discrimination are not?

Answer: maybe it’s really about plain old bigotry, given a very thin veneer of respectabilty by being disguised as religious belief.

You needn’t worry about the children. Catholic Charities has not “shut down operations” but has instead transferred operations to the National Center for Children and Families.

So the taxpayer funded adoptions will continue, they just won’t be administered by the Catholic Church any longer.

The Catholic Church may continue to be Catholic and discriminate all they like on whatever issue they want, just not with the public’s funds.

Unfortunately, we seem to live in a zero sum world. It’s hard to make compromises between gay rights and religious freedoms. I, for one, think that there are realistic compromises that accommodate both sides, if only both sides were willing to meet in the middle. Sadly, that’s not the case.

So we have a mixed blessing here.

I don’t want to force Catholics to act in an un-Catholic fashion. I think they should be able to be Catholic till the cows come home, just as I should be free to be gay till the cows come home.

Petitioners argue that this action was improper, because D.C. Council legislation providing that a referendum is not required cannot trump a provision of the D. C. Charter specifying that a referendum is required.

In other words, the Council back in 79 exempted Human Rights issues from the referendum process stated in the Charter. But that the Council had no authority to override the Charter’s provisions and thereby usurp Congress’ power. That being the case, referenda which violate the Human Rights Act – no matter how egregious – are perfectly legal and allowed.

Roberts said that “This argument has some force.” But he also noted that Congress had an opportunity to veto the Human Rights Act and it’s usurptation on its power and chose not to.

He also noted that Congress chose not to act at this time, implying that if it felt that the Human Rights exclusion violated the intent of Congress it could have remedied the situation.

He also noted that the issue wasn’t over because there is an appeal for an initiative (as opposed to a referendum).

I believe Roberts made the point that Congress could have stopped it in his writing.

I’m no expert, but a three-page stay strikes me as unusual. That it mentioned other cases that, legally, have absolutely nothing to do with the petition at hand, fills me with foreboding.

Kennedy agreed with the other four right wingers that cameras shouldn’t be allowed during the Perry trial because it was “very likely that irreparable harm” would come to the Prop 8 defendants as the hands of the gays. That’s what you call a “tell”. We’re done, the rest is just biding time.

Might Chief Justice Roberts view same-sex marriage as a minority/civil right that the D.C. council was perfectly entitled to bestow upon its citizens, but one that was beyond the those required by the Constitution?