"By the same token"

Like you, I can say I am often
wary of an image of something
seemingly familiar, if it does-
n't correspond with expectation
in my experience. A physiognomy
stamped in red, white and blue,
for example, is not unlikely to
have me groping for the religi-
ous freedom to have nothing to
do with it, if not succumbing
to fears for social cohesion.

And then I realise, there are
not a few places where I'd ra-
ther sit, than on the United
States Supreme Court. Can you
imagine, having to nanny the
permutations of phobia, through
every iteration of inexperience
as if it raised a Constitution-
al consternation?

Yes, you were about to say:

coming out must be bad enough;

just imagine, shepherding so-

ciety through every phase of

the dissolution of panic.

And how ringingly the forbears

of today's inventors of divine

mandates for discrimination,

did regale us with the horror

of military indiscipline, many

will recall within the careers

of half the United States Sen-

ate. Wasn't it our dear John

McCain, for example, who hec-

tored witnesses before that 

same Committee on Armed Ser-

vices which he now so richly

abuses to disturb Executive

conduct of diplomacy, for un-

dermining the sacred phobias

of seamen slumbering in their

bunks, with erotic suggestion

second only to Eisenstein's

in Battleship Potemkin? It

was - and aren't we all glad

for the context of our life?

Any moment, one almost expects

a disciple of genuine "strict

scrutiny" to intone from the 

Bench, that it's high time to

accept a change of experience

before running off to Court

to suppress an image. Yet who

can blame an institution, for

reluctance to turn away its

most anxious supplicants, in

view of the mischief to be

enjoyed in trade. Thus, yes,

money is speech, and corpor-

ations are persons, by such

sleight of hand as to inspire

any nitwit to assert a piety.

By the same token, isn't it

endearing when yesterday's

testament for discrimination

becomes today's for getting

on with experience? I refer,

for example, to the brief

lately tendered by the aug-

ust firm of Sidley & Austin,

as friend of the Court, for

the class of retired officers

in the United States military,

imploring the Court to recog-

nize a universal right of mar-

riage, in order to protect

unit cohesion in the armed

forces of the United States.

The Army and Marines cannot

recruit, the Navy cannot re-

tain its own officer corps,

the brief stipulates, if the

Court ignores our experience.

Compliments to the revolution

would not seem premature. We

are almost moot. What ever

shall we wear?

Adam Liptak

In Brief to Justices ..

The New York Times©

20 April 2015

ii  Sergei Eisenstein

       director

    Eduard Tisse

       cinematography

    Battleship Potemkin

    1925