Upworthy's book GOOD PEOPLE, now available - take a look!

Shop
 Explore 

antonin scalia

Ancestry

In the run up to the Supreme Court's landmark marriage equality ruling in 2015, some opponents of marriage equality voiced big concerns.

These concerns, they'd be the first to tell you, weren't rooted in hatred or bigotry. Of course not. Opponents were simply worried about what marriage equality could lead to in the future. If this were allowed, what would come next? Now that it's been 1,096 days (but who's counting, really?) since the court ruled, we're checking in on some of the doubters to see how many of their predictions came true.

Here are eight anti-equality arguments, fact-checked.

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

1. "Marriage equality will lead to legal bestiality."

This was a really common argument made by anti-equality pundits, politicians, and religious leaders leading up to and after the Supreme Court's decision.

"Watch what happens," warned Pat Robertson during a July 2015 episode of "The 700 Club." "Love affairs between men and animals are going to be absolutely permitted."

Appearing on "The Glenn Beck Show," Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) mused over a similar question. "If we have no laws on this, people take it to one extension further — does it have to be humans? You know?" Oh, we know, senator.

Verdict: FALSE.

2. "Marriage equality will lead to legal polygamy."

Another common argument against the court's ruling was the fear that it would result in people having five or six spouses and eroding the institution beyond recognition.

In 2006, Charles Krauthammer argued that because gay people believe the definition of marriage being one man and one woman is discriminatory, that it'd only be fair to consider "the number restriction ... similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible."

Just months after the Supreme Court's ruling, Ben Carson, a major opponent of marriage equality, said that now that the court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, polygamy was "the natural next question."

Spoiler: It's not.

Verdict: FALSE.

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

3. "Marriage equality will lead to child marriages."

The talking point has its roots in anti-gay fear-mongering centered on the idea that gay men will try to "recruit" children or that they have a predisposition towards pedophilia. Obviously, none of that is true; it's just a way to scare people into seeing LGBTQ people as sexual deviants.

CNN unearthed a video of Sam Clovis, President Trump's former nominee for the role of chief scientist (despite no actual history working in science) at the USDA, offering what he believes are "logical" things to worry about if and when same-sex marriage were to become legal: "If we protect LGBT behavior, what other behaviors are we going to protect? Are we going to protect pedophilia? We're not thinking the consequences of these decisions through."

Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage posed similar concerns, just as unfounded. "Will pedophiles become 'minor-attracted persons' in our culture?" he asked in a 2011 blog post. "Will courts which endorse orientation as a protected class decide down the road that therefore laws which discriminate against 'minor-attracted persons' must be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest?"

Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh claimed in 2013 that the push for marriage equality was part of the LGBTQ community's secret plot to make pedophilia OK. "They want us to all think that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation," he said, baselessly. "You know who's gonna fall right in line is college kids, just like they have on gay marriage, just like they do on all other revolutionary social issues."

While no, there hasn't been some LGBTQ community push for the legalization of pedophilia, it is worth nothing that in dozens of U.S. states itis legal for someone under the age of 18 to marry an adult — and has been for a long time. Opponents of measures to raise the minimum marriage age are not members of the LGBTQ community, but often, social conservatives.

Verdict: FALSE.

4. "Marriage equality will lead to the outright criminalization of Christianity."

"Christian convictions are under attack as never before," former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said in 2015. "Not just in our lifetime, but ever before in the history of this great republic. We are moving rapidly toward the criminalization of Christianity."

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) lamented the fact that people might judge others who think gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married.

"We've reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater," he said in a 2015 interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. "So what's the next step after that? After they are done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church is hate speech, and there's a real and present danger."

Both men will be relieved to find out that no one has been jailed for believing in the Christian God or for praying the rosary.

Verdict: FALSE.

[rebelmouse-image 19397674 dam="1" original_size="750x500" caption="Anti-equality protestors have not been thrown in jail for their religious beliefs, for reading the Bible, or for calling gay people "an abomination." All of that remains perfectly legal. Photo by Ty Wright/Getty Images." expand=1]Anti-equality protestors have not been thrown in jail for their religious beliefs, for reading the Bible, or for calling gay people "an abomination." All of that remains perfectly legal. Photo by Ty Wright/Getty Images.

5. "Marriage equality will lead to more abortion."

This was a bizarre notion put out into the world by Gene Schaerr at the Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal blog. Presumably meant to target people who don't see the harm in marriage equality but oppose abortion, Schaerr cobbled together a few stats and made some ... shall we say ... creative connections.

Schaerr argued in 2015 that some would see marriage equality as devaluing heterosexual marriages and some straight couples would opt against getting married at all. "A reduction in the opposite-sex marriage rate means an increase in the percentage of women who are unmarried and who, according to all available data, have much higher abortion rates than married women," he wrote. "And based on past experience, institutionalizing same-sex marriage poses an enormous risk of reduced opposite-sex marriage rates."

His conclusion: an additional 900,000 abortions over a 30-year span. As a number of news outlets pointed out at the time, this number seems to have been pulled from thin air.

The truth is that abortion rates have been decreasing over the past several decades, largely as the result of comprehensive sex education programs and increased access to contraception. If anything will spike the number of abortions, it's likely to be proposals to embrace so-called abstinence-only education and attempts to repeal the health care law.

Verdict: FALSE.

6. "Marriage equality will lead to mass killings."

This is another head-scratcher from Ben Carson. During a 2016 speech, Carson warned that marriage equality would lead to "mass killings," adding that defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is all that "stands between peace and utter chaos."

For Carson, this seems to come down to a belief that without the Bible, there'd be no incentive not to murder every person you come in contact with. What starts with marriage turns into genocide, apparently.

"Why must they change [marriage]? I believe the reason is, if you can change the word of God in one area, then you can change it in every area," he said. "It's the camel's nose under the tent, and it will just be an avalanche of one thing after the other. We won't have anything that we can use as our reference point because we will have thrown out God's word. It'll be every man for himself, every man deciding for himself what is right and what is wrong, and that can't possibly lead to a good place."

Verdict: FALSE.

7. "Marriage equality will lead to the downfall of democracy."

This example comes from former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges itself. In it, he lamented the fact that rather than putting the question of whether non-heterosexual people should be allowed to marry up to a public vote, the Supreme Court was stepping into a situation in which it had no business. "I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," he wrote.

He later added that "this practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

There's a bit of irony in Scalia having argued that it's the marriage ruling that would undercut democracy when just two years earlier he joined a 5-4 majority in striking down a crucial section of the Voting Rights Act. As a result, countless voters have become disenfranchised, effectively blocked out of the democratic process altogether.

Verdict: FALSE.

On the night of June 26, 2015, the White House was lit up in rainbow-colored lights to mark the historic occasion. Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images.

8. "Marriage equality will lead to the downfall of society."

By the mid-2000s, it had started to become clear that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) might not be as constitutionally sound as opponents of marriage equality would've liked. It was around then that they began trying to pass a bill called the "Marriage Protection Act," which would have amended the judiciary code to essentially say that federal courts weren't allowed to rule on DOMA at all.

In 2006, then-Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) laid out his argument in favor of the bill, warning of the dire consequences that could come with marriage equality.

"I believe that if someone chooses another lifestyle than I have chosen, that that is their right in a free society," he said, paying lip service to LGBTQ people's right to exist. "But tolerance does not require that we permit our courts to redefine an institution upon which our society depends. Marriage matters, according to the researchers. Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that throughout history, societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family."

The sociologist Pence mentioned, Pitirim Sorokin, published the opinion being referenced in his 1937 book, "Social and Cultural Dynamics." It was controversial, to say the least. Citing Sorokin — and later saying "marriage should be protected because it wasn't our idea," pointing to the institution's supposed creation by a higher power — was a clever way for Pence to argue that his views that some people should have more rights than others was based in concern for society as opposed to bigotry.

Pence will certainly be happy to learn that society still exists, and if there is some larger threat to it, the origin likely has its roots in the current occupant of the Oval Office, not a happily married lesbian couple.

Verdict: FALSE.

Conclusion: Turns out that all the stuff equality advocates said was fear-mongering was, well, fear-mongering.

I could be wrong, but it doesn't appear that any of the people who offered up these concerns about the marriage equality ruling have walked back these statements. I mean, if you're going to put an entire group on the hook for the downfall of civilization or the coming wave of fashionable bestiality, it'd be nice if you could pop in to say "my bad" when it doesn't happen.

For those of you wondering what's next, stop by our marriage equality #UpChat on Twitter on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 1p.m. ET.

— (@)

Who is Merrick Garland? Let's find out.

Last month, President Obama penned a guest editorial for SCOTUSblog about the responsibility he has as president to nominate a replacement for the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

In his words, he was looking for "an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity."

This morning, the president announced Merrick Garland as his nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

After making shortlists in President Obama's past Supreme Court replacements (which eventually went to Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagen), it's finally Garland's time to shine. However, going from nominated to confirmed won't exactly be an easy task, as prominent Republican Senators have pledged to block anybody Obama nominates.

President Obama is flanked by VP Joe Biden and nominee Merrick Garland. Photo by Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images.

Who is Merrick Garland? Here are three things to know about the man who might soon be weighing in on important constitutional issues:

1. He's a 63-year-old chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Let's start with the basics. He's 63. He graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude and became a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals after being nominated to the circuit court by President Bill Clinton (twice, in 1995 and 1997 when he was confirmed by the Senate).

As the name suggests, appellate courts hear appeals of rulings from the lower circuit court. The Supreme Court hears certain appeals from the lower appellate court.

2. As a prosecutor, Garland oversaw two high profile cases of domestic terrorism.

During his time as principal associate deputy attorney general, Garland was given the responsibility of overseeing the prosecution of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, that resulted in the death of 168 people. And up until his appointment to the Court of Appeals, he supervised the prosecution of Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

While Garland hasn't been vocal about a stance on capital punishment, it should be noted that McVeigh was sentenced to death by lethal injection. Kaczynski is currently serving eight life sentences.

Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh is escorted by police and FBI. Photo by Bob Daemmerich/AFP/Getty Images.

3. Perhaps more importantly, Garland appeals to people on all sides of the political spectrum.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who served on the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1995 until 2005, has praised Garland on a number of occasions. During 1997 hearings for Garland's current spot on the appeals court, Hatch said, "I believe he is not only a fine nominee, but is as good as Republicans can expect from this (the Clinton) administration. In fact, I would place him at the top of the list."

"I have no doubts that Garland would get a lot of [Senate] votes, and I will do my best to help him get them." Garland's confirmation to the appeals court passed the Senate by a vote of 76-23 with overwhelming bipartisan support (43 Democrats, 23 Republicans).

Sen. Hatch during a 2013 Senate Finance Committee hearing. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

More recently, Hatch told Conservative site Newsmax that he'd support Garland for the Supreme Court, but doubted President Obama would nominate someone so moderate.

"The president told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him," he told Newsmax. "[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election."

So what comes next for Merrick Garland? That's up to the Senate, who will hopefully at least hold confirmation hearings.

The Senate's role in confirming judges is that they are to offer "advice and consent." A tweet from Senator Mike Lee doesn't come with a whole lot of hope.

But hopefully cooler heads will prevail, and the Senate will take up their constitutional duty of working with the president to replace Justice Scalia. But as President Obama concluded today's announcement, "I have fulfilled my constitutional duty.Now it’s time for the Senate to do theirs."

Let's not waste time arguing about politics on this one, OK?

President Barack Obama's list of traits he wants from a new Supreme Court justice reads a bit like a dating profile, and maybe that's not the worst thing in the world.

Over at SCOTUSblog, the president wrote a guest editorial about the current Supreme Court vacancy, outlining what he's looking for in a nominee. Among the qualifications listed, he writes that he's looking for somebody with "an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity."

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images.

Also making the list: somebody with "a mastery of the law" who "recognizes the limits of the judiciary's role" and "judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to facts at hand."

Whether you'd swipe right on the president or not, we can all agree that this is a pretty solid-looking profile for a potential addition to the Supreme Court.

Sadly, news out of the Senate Judiciary Committee seems to suggest it has deleted this particular match-making app from their phones.

Here are three reasons the Senate Judiciary Committee needs to stop all the posturing and work with Obama instead of dragging out this nomination.

1. If we're interested in a truly independent thinker, the best time to have the debate about a new candidate is when the president comes from a different party than the one that controls Congress.

We can all agree that Supreme Court justices shouldn't be blatantly partisan, right? The best way to ensure a truly independent mind on the court? We need to find a candidate that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on, with both sides making a few ideological concessions here and there.

That's how we wound up with Justice Anthony Kennedy, and while you'll find a good number of liberal-minded people willing to say he's too conservative and vice versa, he's the de facto "swing vote."

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

If Democrats controlled both the Senate and White House, Republicans would be unhappy with the nominee. If Republicans controlled both the Senate and White House, Democrats would be unhappy with the nominee. Maybe that means now is the perfect time to have this debate.

For the good of the country, it's time we used the c-word — no, not that one: I'm talking about compromise!

Will any person who makes it through the confirmation hearings be the next Antonin Scalia? No, probably not. But they might be the next Kennedy, and honestly, that's probably better for the country. If we can find somebody who both Democrats and Republicans can agree on (they exist), even if neither side comes away perfectly happy, that's the person we want deciding our most important questions.

If we wait until after the election, there's the possibility that both the Senate and White House will be controlled by a single party, and we will again wind up in an awkward position.

2. "We, the people" know that, at the end of the day, politicians will say what they need to say to help their parties whether or not we agree with them.

Through the years, politicians have made a number of statements both for and against filling judicial vacancies. Unsurprisingly, it always seems to work that the party with the most to gain from filling the vacancy tends to find itself on the side of supporting just that while the party that doesn't, well, doesn't.

Check it out. Here's Republican President Ronald Reagan making the case that the Senate (which was controlled by Democrats at the time) should "join together in a bipartisan effort to fulfill our Constitutional obligation":

And here's Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa) arguing in favor of confirming this nominee (Kennedy) during an election year:

Then there's Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), who in 2005 urged Democrats to stop obstructing President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.

And on the other hand, here's then-Democratic Sen. Joe Biden in 1992 threatening to do exactly what he, as vice president, asked Republicans in the Judiciary Committee not to do in 2016:

So maybe it's not the politicians we should listen to? Here's what Scalia himself had to say about leaving the court with only eight justices:

Basically, "Fill that spot. It's your job." Which brings us to the last point...

3. Senate Judiciary Committee, you have one job. This is it.

Nobody says you need to like Obama's nominee. Nobody says you need to confirm the nominee. But you should at least hold hearings and go on record saying why you don't like the nominee. The argument that you just don't replace Supreme Court justices during election years is simply false.

This is politicizing the whole process, and that's something even the man you're charged with replacing was against.

Everybody involved in appointing our next Supreme Court justice is coming from a position of good faith and really does want the best for the country.

That's why it's so important that we come together, have this debate in public, and yes, compromise. To go back to the dating site analogy, you might not match with the very first person you're shown, but if you don't even bother to set up a profile, you never will.

So go on, Senate Judiciary Committee, be open to the idea of a match. You've got an important role to play in this process, and I believe you can do it.

There are 3 questions you should ask someone you disagree with.

Almost everyone has at least one issue they feel strongly about.

Maybe yours is marijuana legalization. Maybe it's abortion. Or maybe it's even an issue that's local to you, like whether your city should put in a trolley.

But somehow, in spite of all the information out there that you've carefully considered, there are all these "weirdos" around who feel differently than you do.

Do you say to yourself, "Ugh. What an idiot, right? How could they possibly arrive at such a different conclusion when the facts are the facts?"

And yet, thinking, caring people disagree with each other all the time. In fact, one forward-thinking lady has an idea so wild, it just might work. Elizabeth Lesser, author of the best-selling "Broken Open: How Difficult Times Can Help Us Grow," thinks we should do something radical with people we don't see eye to eye with — take them to lunch.

To understand why, consider the story of two contentious coworkers.

They worked in a small but busy office and often grabbed lunch together. They didn't know each other very well at first, so they only talked about safe topics, like their workload and their families. They really enjoyed the pleasant conversation and company to break up a long work day. They had a few laughs and even began to consider themselves friends.

Image by Karolina Grabowska/Pexels.

Pretty soon, conversations started to get deeper and onto trickier topics. It surprised them both to find they barely agreed on anything. Whatever happened to come up, be it women's rights, unions, gay rights — you name it, they held diametrically opposed views.

They would get in fervent matches of one-upmanship, escalating their pitch and volume until their conversations devolved into shouting matches and then huffy silence.

They stopped inviting each other to lunch. No longer did they speak to each other about anything — not even about their spouses or children. One had no idea when the other's wife fell ill. One was completely in the dark about the challenges the other was going through with her daughter.

Image by Jörg Möller/Pixabay.

And so they sat, with their backs to each other every day at work. They were two humans with the capacity for human caring and connection — not to mention two humans who really could have used a good friend — choosing to not demonstrate it because they were so put off by disagreeing with each other about world issues.

The two coworkers' story is a sad one, but it doesn't have to be like that.

Elizabeth Lesser is on a mission to make people of the world better able to connect with those they have fundamental disagreements with. She points out two of our inner human traits — the "warrior" and the "mystic" — and counsels us on how to set aside the warrior in order to have fulfilling connections. Yep, even with people with whom we think we can't possibly agree on anything.

Lesser wants us to seek out these people in our lives and take them to lunch. While we're there with them, she wants us to bring up these three questions or prompts (and to offer up your responses as well).

1. Share some of your life experiences with me.

More often than not, you're going to be surprised to learn you have some common ground in some aspect. When it comes to children, relationships, caring for aging parents, or other personal items, there is an awful lot of room to find something to connect on.

2. What issues deeply concern you?

Surprise! While you couldn't disagree more when it comes to abortion, maybe you are both on the same side when it comes to the vote your city is taking on its water sourcing (work with me here!). Furthermore, perhaps you're both ready to get more active in alerting your communities. You could be valuable resources to each other. Or something like that.

3. What have you always wanted to ask someone from the other side?

This is a fun exercise in identifying the distortion that can happen when we only listen to people who agree with us. Both of you will probably find that the other's perceptions really need the context you can provide in order to be more accurate. Here's what Lesser and her lunch partner discovered:

"I asked her why her side makes such outrageous allegationsand lies about my side. 'What?' she wanted to know. 'Like we're a bunchof elitist,morally-corrupt terrorist-lovers.'Well, she was shocked.She thought my sidebeat up on her side way more often,that we called them brainless,gun-toting racists,and we both marveledat the labels that fitnone of the peoplewe actually know.And since we had established some trust,we believed in each other's sincerity."

Why should anyone take the time to do this when we could be having lunch with people we already agree with?

Lesser's argument for taking the time to do this is compelling. At some point, it becomes untenable for people to only care about and interact with those whose ideas they like. The world around us, in its everyday operations as well as coming together to solve big picture problems, needs us to learn how to be more inclusive.

In addition to her three questions, Lesser recommends setting some easy ground rules to make your lunch date go smoothly. Her full talk is worth the watch.

So what about the sad story of the two coworkers who couldn't get along?

This may have been a plot twist you saw coming, but that's actually just how their story could have gone. Luckily, Ruth and Antonin took a different path. That's right — I'm talking about Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. Instead of focusing on their differences and turning their backs on each other, they spent their energy together on their similarities. And for a great many years, they enjoyed a wonderful friendship that defied everyone's expectations.

Scalia and Ginsburg. Supreme Court Justices and the ultimate "odd couple." Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

Justice Scalia died. I still don't like him. And that's OK.

I didn't like Antonin Scalia.

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

I never met him, but, boy, did I not like the guy.

I think most of his votes on the Supreme Court made the country worse.

I think too many of them made ordinary people's lives more difficult.

He said some pretty horrible things about gay people. In Lawrence v. Texas, the case that ruled sodomy laws unconstitutional, he made jokes about "flagpole sitting" during oral arguments.

In that case, he argued in his dissent that because "many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, [and] as teachers in their children's schools," that was reason enough to keep Texas' sodomy ban intact.

He called the Voting Rights Act a "racial entitlement."

His dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey — the 1992 decision that affirmed a woman's right to chose — alludes to Nazism and slavery.

His last vote — in a lawsuit brought against the EPA by 29 states — made it more difficult for the United States to enforce regulations designed to combat climate change, one of the greatest existential threats to humanity in the 21st century.

Literally, the last act of his professional life was to make it harder to prevent global ecological catastrophe.

Like an actual supervillain.

Pretty much. Photo by J.J./Wikimedia Commons.

There are a lot of reasons not to like the guy.

And now he's dead.

I'm sad he's dead. He had a family, who must be reeling. He had friends, who are certainly devastated. His fellow justices liked and respected him. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, his ideological opponent in every way, was reportedly one of his closest friends.

I'm sad he's dead. And I think his professional legacy is a highly destructive one.

I'm sad he's dead. And I still don't like him.

There's no "but." It's just "and."

I think that's fine.

It's complicated, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

I can be angry at him for steering our society toward more racism, homophobia, and sexism without being happy he's dead.

I can be excited that someone new will replace him on the court without being happy he's dead.

Just because someone dies doesn't mean you have to stop disagreeing with them. And disagreeing with them doesn't mean you're glad they're not alive anymore. When public figures die, it's natural to want to assess their records. It's not too soon to criticize them.

It's more respectful to his legacy, honestly — to remember it clearly, the way he laid it down.

"It would be not much use to have a First Amendment, for example, if the freedom of speech included only what some future generation wanted it to include," he once said. He'd almost certainly support the right to call him out on his worst tendencies, even after death.

It wasn't all negative, of course. It never is.

Photo by Paul Morigi/Getty Images.

There were a couple of moments where he came down on the right side of history, mostly in favor of people's right to free expression.

He was a terrific writer, even if he frequently wrote odious things. He was funny.

"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie," he wrote in a footnote to his stinging dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that finally made marriage equality the law of the land in 2015.

Unlike many political figures, he knew how to take a joke.

In my opinion, Scalia was a pretty terrible Supreme Court justice. But you know what? I don't think he'd really care how much I couldn't stand him. His opinion, when he was alive, counted way more than mine when it mattered.

He was a giant. He was a huge jerk. He was human.

Rest in peace.