"Remember these? Words. They have meaning."
Today, the Supreme Court handed down a 7-2 decision in Burgermeister v. Hodgepodge that relied on those precedents to eliminate political donations on behalf of families.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority, highlighting the corporate nature of family and the powerful necessity to keep corporations from interfering with elections.
The centrality of the late Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in Obergefell became clear as Roberts quoted it:
Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, the denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them.
After a brief poetic ode to the late Justice and a non-denominational curse on the runaway harvester that caused the bizarre reaping accident in which he died, Chief Justice Roberts went on:
Though I originally dissented from this opinion, written by a jurist of seriousness and only mild turgidity, I have come to appreciate its wisdom. Families change. The definition of family changes. The Constitution changes, not literally, of course, but through the interpretations of this Court, which coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension. Our rulings, to scale to the pinnacle of freedom that America promises through its founding documents, or at least our interpretations of them, must change as well to make sure that nobody's feelings get hurt.
A history of the development of the family followed, detailing the Supreme Court cases that enabled polygamy, same-sex adult incest marriage, marriage of two or more personalities in a person with multiple personality disorder, single-person marriage, adult incest, and ultimately, in The Krogsberg Forty v. Connecticut, the extension of marriage rights to any number of any people or personalities who "think it would be pretty cool to get married".
"This was the summit of human freedom," Chief Justice Roberts wrote,
and it led to an offshoot case, Buncha Dudes v. Alabama, in which the 23 (or 24, it was hard to tell sometimes, but it wasn't really our place to question) members of the Buncha Dudes family demanded, and won, the rights of an incorporated body that have been so enjoyed by corporations. The freedom to marry literally became the freedom to incorporate. They are now identical, in that there is no possible logical test that could differentiate between the adult members of a family and a corporation. And as such, groups of individuals who incorporate into a marriage fall under Conservative Footsoldiers of Doom, and are ineligible to donate money to political campaigns.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a lengthy dissent, but crumpled it up and threw it away just before turning it in. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with it anyway, stating, "That's still better than what they have."
Justice Antonin Scalia -- the octagenarian hater recently called "the (in)justice who just. wont. die." by influential news magazine #GQ -- startled court observers by filing a separate concurrence and reading it from the bench. In its entirety, it read, "As screwed up as this is, you idiots deserve it."