Her headline makes me smile:

gallagher Maggie Gallagher Complains About Prop 8 Ruling

This should be fun. Whine, Maggie:

In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.

Uh, that’s not what they said.

Dishonestly, the court claimed it did not require any heightened scrutiny to reach this result.

No, actually they used Romer as precedent. It’s a famous case, Gallagher, look it up.

The very timid dissent (“please don’t go after me!”) points out that Baker v. Nelson is ruling precedent and that the differences between same-sex and opposite sex couples in terms of the state’s interest in responsible procreation could be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Yep, and Romer was two decades later. I mean, I’m sure there are folks out there who’d like the courts to appeal constantly to Dred Scott but they’re not good folks.

Back in 2004, when we fought about a Federal Marriage Amendment, gay rights advocates said we were alarmists for claiming that they would go to federal court seeking a right to impose gay marriage on all 50 states.

That was so last decade.

Boo hoo.

[h/t Blue Texan]