We don't know whether to credit
the Napoleonic fatuousness of
Louisiana's legal lineage for
any of the ingeniously still-
worry for intact children in
woolly families, or whatever
he was thinking, against the
plain and glaring defense of
children in Justice Kennedy's
opinion for the Supreme Court
of the United States in the
cases striking down populist
homophobia in recent preced-
ents; we just know to relish
the sight of such desperate
dislocation twixt subject and
judgment, while we can, in
these waning hours of bigot-
ry's hoariest stand.
Sometimes a perfect radiance percolates from the dankest muck. It is the gift of any anguished exposure of ignobility, to furnish in the extremity of its indefensibility the very predicate and path for a resolved exodus to loftier ground.
In his stunningly personal
declamations, extending dir-
ectly into passive aggressive
self-pity for epistemological
isolation, this judge went way
beyond the call of this duty,
in resounding tones of Confed-
erate martyrdom at its lowest.
Could anyone be ungrateful to
notice, that Marty was enter-
ing a rant against a settled
matter, the right of unmar-
ried couples to adopt child-
ren, as an illegitimate human
interest for Louisiana to
resist, against children's
spilling out into congenital-
ly innocent hands? Such was
his deliriously inventive
way of asserting that mat-
rimony is not a fundamental
right - a position bound to
strike a chord in every home -
but that propagation more or
less is obligatory, maritally
ornamented or not.
Stella!
