Speaking of special snowflakes: Don’t breastfeed your bundle of joy on the steps of the Supreme Court!

MotheringFeaturedImageSpeaking of special snowflakes:

One of the Cincinnati mothers in the same-sex marriage case was not only denounced by protesters on the steps of the Supreme Court this week, but she also was admonished by security for breastfeeding her baby there.

Kelly Noe – who was in the nation’s Capitol fighting to have her wife, Kelly McCracken, listed as a parent on the birth certificate for their daughter, Ruby – had been quietly sitting on the steps Monday evening, discreetly breastfeeding the 10-month-old girl, when a male security guard spotted her and snapped, “You are not doing that here.”

McCracken started to argue with the guard, but Noe begrudgingly acquiesced. She stopped feeding Ruby and pulled out a pouch of baby food instead.

The couple acknowledged that on the surface, the nation’s highest court might seem a controversial place to breastfeed, but the scene around them wasn’t exactly one of heightened decorum: Nearby, protesters supported traditional marriage by yelling through a bullhorn that gays and lesbians will be condemned to hell. They also preached about the importance of doing what’s best for children.

Amber Hunt, Moms: You can’t do this at the U.S. Supreme Court (May 1, 2015).*

I hope that Ruby grows up to avoid the narcissism that her parents displayed on the steps of the Supreme Court.**


*Ms. Hunt’s makes no effort to conceal her outrage. I wonder, Ms. Hunt, exactly how one goes about “discreetly” breast-feeding a kid on the steps of the Supreme Court with protestors, television crews and reporters swarming the place on the evening before the gay marriage case was being argued.

**Please don’t start on me about breast-feeding in public. In general, I think that is perfectly fine when a covering is used. My daughter and daughter in law are both doing so. I doubt, however, they would do so on the steps of the Supreme Court discreetly or otherwise while being denounced by protesters. If they did, I would raise hell with them for using their kid as a prop and for an utter disregard of decorum at the high Court.

H/T How Appealing.

Update: An earlier version stated that these events took place on the day the SSM case was being argued. Apparently, this took place the evening before the case was argued. I have corrected my apparent error.

A note to a few special snowflakes on the pro gay marriage side: Grow the fuck up!

I used to have a note on my bench. I wrote it in my childish handwriting, It said something like: “Rich, shut the fuck up!” I removed the note when I realized I would never follow the injunction.

That brings me to the oral argument in the gay marriage case. Some guy, who probably speaks to himself in tongues most of the time, disrupted the arguments and got his ass hauled out of the courtroom. Before his exit, the guy screamed, “If you support gay marriage, you will burn in hell!* It’s an abomination!”

Chief Justice John Roberts took a brief timeout before calling on the next attorney. In turn, Justice Scalia quipped, “’It was rather refreshing, actually,’ he said. His tone sounded jovial, and laughter could be heard in the courtroom.'” Bob Egelko, Scalia’s quip about gay-marriage protester stirs bias debateSan Francisco Chronicle (May 2, 2015).

Now a few special snowflakes supporting gay marriage have asserted that Scalia’s remark was biased and improper. Id. For example, a law professor on legal ethics was upset and solemnly proclaimed:

It was “a gratuitous comment that could be heard to legitimize an offensive outburst,” said Deborah Rhode, a Stanford law professor who teaches legal ethics. While judges often reveal their viewpoints when questioning lawyers, she said, a remark like Scalia’s tends to “diminish popular perceptions of the justices as disinterested neutral observers.”


On the other hand, a non-snowflake supporter of gay marriage gave this adult response to Scalia’s critics:

 One gay-rights advocate in a forgiving mode is Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry and an early organizer for equal-marriage rights. Wolfson, who was in the courtroom Tuesday, said he’s willing to give Scalia “the benefit of the doubt, that it was a joke, in the moment, about the tension in the room.”

More important, he said, was the message that the protest itself should send to the court.

“I think this was a real vivid piece of evidence about why gay people should not have to put their rights up to a vote,” Wolfson said. “Not that everyone’s a hater, but that there is hatred out there.”


For those few special snowflakes in the gay marriage movement who believe they are unique, that we should watch our words around them to avoid triggering unpleasant feelings, who love being victims and who see the bogey man at every turn, please, please “grow the fuck up!” At least to me, you have become tiresome.



*I came to grips long ago with the certainty that I would burn in hell. I plan on taking an air conditioner, a straw hat and a Hawaiian shirt, a plush recliner and a boatload of margaritas.

H/T How Appealing.

%d bloggers like this: