@chrisgeidner Thank. You.
-
-
-
@AnthonyMKreis Not actually drafting, just making it clear the piece was absurd.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
.
@chrisgeidner Overhyped, yes, but I'd like to see more discussion of how ridiculous arguments aren't sanctionable only b/c they're popular. -
@emily_esque There is still discussion of Baker, for goodness sakes. I can't take seriously a Rule 11 argument. -
.
@chrisgeidner But that's the Kafkaesque (or maybe Brazil-esque) nature of this issue. -
.
@chrisgeidner The anti-marriage arguments are so patently absurd and yet so accepted that sanctioning them is seen as *more absurd*. -
.
@chrisgeidner "We're discriminating on basis of sex, but totally not because *GAY*." - every anti-SSM argument ever. -
.
@chrisgeidner I can't remember a single argument that a ban on marriage equality met an intermediate scrutiny burden; maybe they exist?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@chrisgeidner Yeah, that seemed like a stretch. Even the article backed away from the headline by the end.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@chrisgeidner Yeah...I was skeptical of that Slate pitchy piece.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.