Mike Luckovich by Mike Luckovich

Mike Luckovich

Comments (22) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. ARodney

    ARodney said, about 2 years ago

    What a neanderthal. He’s been getting worse, too. I loved Kagan’s comments, she’s the smartest one on the bench. Certainly the wittiest.

  2. Darsan54

    Darsan54 said, about 2 years ago

    @Omnius

    Whoa, don’t be insulting neanderthals. They are way higher on the evolutionary ladder than Scalia.

  3. Darsan54

    Darsan54 said, about 2 years ago

    @HOWGOZIT

    No, probably just objective observations.

  4. echoraven

    echoraven said, about 2 years ago

    @SkepticCal

    No it should be:
    “Grow up and let them marry, THEN mind your own business”

  5. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 2 years ago

    @SkepticCal

    No, it should be that government restrictions on the personal life of consenting adults who are American citizens, especially those from a specific religious motivation, should be struck down. If they took American freedoms as seriously as they took the 2nd amendment, they would strike down DOMA instantly.

  6. wbr

    wbr said, about 2 years ago

    if 2 or more competent adults want to hook up that is their business but what i object to is they expecting me to subsidize them. the 1st case bho decide not to enforce doma was a case involving inheritance tax on the estate of a donor

  7. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    Scalia is becoming a poster boy for term limits on the SCOTUS, or at least reading in the Constitution where it states that appointments are for a term “while on good behavior” and that impeachment IS possible, though incredibly rare.

  8. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, about 2 years ago

    @tig
    the 14th amendment makes it a federal issue. and so long as “married” couples have more rights than other couples UNDER THE LAW, there is a federal equal protection issue here.

  9. Gary McSpook

    Gary McSpook said, about 2 years ago

    @HOWGOZIT

    What a dirty and pointless little dig.
    Is this your idea of discussion on a higher level?
    Or are you just projecting your own failings onto others?

  10. mikefive

    mikefive said, about 2 years ago

    @davefrompaterson

    How did you determine that “the guy” was not worried about the “all of the rest of the children.”

  11. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, about 2 years ago

    @SkepticCal

    Under the equal protection clause of the US Constitution in amendment 14, gays should be allowed to have “Civil Unions” with the same “Civil” rights as married heterosexuals.


    At the same time, under the 1 St amendment with its implied separation of religious churches from the civil laws of the US Constitution, no governmental agency in either the federal government or more local governments has the civil “Right” to force any church to sanctify marriages for anyone but heterosexuals. You do not have to be either a constitutional lawyer or even a Supreme Court Justice to be able to read and so interpret the US Constitution.


    And YES people, it is really that simple!!

  12. JoeCoolLives

    JoeCoolLives said, about 2 years ago

    @Tigger

    DOMA made it a federal issue…DOMA is a federal law.

  13. pirate227

    pirate227 said, about 2 years ago

    @Tigger

    Wrong, as usual. Imagine if it was left up to the states to decide to “allow” interracial marriage.

  14. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    @Robert Landers

    “no governmental agency in either the federal government or more local governments has the civil “Right” to force any church to sanctify marriages…”

    No church can be forced to marry a couple that they don’t wish to marry. Many Churches will not marry anyone who is not a member of the congregation. There is no threat of that changing. Many churches DO want to be allowed to marry same sex couples. Why is the government allowed to intrude there?

    We call unions performed at the courthouse marriages, so why are we making up a new name for same sex couples?

  15. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, about 2 years ago

    dannysixpack said, less than a minute ago

    @Robert landers

    “civil unions” that could/would presumably do exactly what marriage does is the same as having separate water fountains for black and white. the law of the land is that separate but equal is neither separate nor equal.


    under no scenario would a church be forced to marry anyone they don’t want to.



    the right wing nut jobs made it a federal case when they made the first amendments in history that restricted the rights of a group of people. Sotomayor asked some very eloquent questions today. and read from the congressional record behind doma where congress stated the purpose of the law was to demonstrate moral disapproval of homosexuality.

    that alone is ground to strike it down. Legislating morality is a bad idea. the right wing overstepped its bounds and now is hung by it’s own petard. this petard detonated way earlier than the right wing thought it would.

    the best the court can do for the right wing here is to defer – wait for a better case (no standing). I don’t think the right/center of the court wants to be on the wrong side of history. but we will see.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (7).