Justice John Robert's Lesbian Cousin To Attend Prop 8 Hearing

I know this doesn't mean anything. Not a thing. I'd be crazy to read anything into this. Absolutely batty, right?

The fact that Roberts is hosting his lesbian cousin in the courtroom for the hearing on Prop 8 is absolutely nothing to worry about, right?

And it means nothing that his lesbian cousin has actively pushed for gay marriage, right? This is just Matt being crazy, right?

The LA Times reports:
Jean Podrasky, 48, a lesbian who wants to marry her partner, will be at Tuesday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Proposition 8 in seating reserved for family members and guests of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

“I am so excited,” said Podrasky, an accountant and the first cousin of the chief justice on his mother’s side. “I feel quite honored and overwhelmed.”

Roberts is a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005. Podrasky, who is more liberal, said she rooted for his nomination to be approved by the U.S. Senate. “He is family,” she said.

Podrasky lives in San Francisco and usually sees Roberts only on family occasions. His mother is her godmother, whom she adores. She said Roberts knows she is gay and introduced her along with other relatives during his Senate confirmation hearing. She hopes he will meet her partner of four years, Grace Fasano, during their Washington visit. The couple flew to Washington on Sunday.

“He is a smart man,” she said. “He is a good man. I believe he sees where the tide is going. I do trust him. I absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction.”

Podrasky obtained the highly coveted courtroom seats by emailing Roberts’ sister, Peggy Roberts, and then going through his secretary. Roberts knows she is attending, she said. She, her partner, her sister and her niece will attend Tuesday’s arguments on Proposition 8. On Wednesday, her father will take her niece’s place for the hearing on the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act.

Although Podrasky has no personal knowledge of her cousin’s views on same-sex marriage, she expects the court will overturn the 2008 ballot initiative, leaving her free to marry Fasano.
I actually think that the Court is not going to "Roe" us on the issue of gay marriage. I actually think that the court will believe that states are beginning to overturn marriage all on their own. But what do I know? I thought the Roberts court would find Obamacare illegal.

There's two options here:

1 - He fully intends to overturn Prop 8
2 - He's not going to overturn it but he wants people to know he's not a hater.

I wouldn't bet on the second option.


  1. Does anyone really believe that once the gays have the right to marry they'll be completely satisfied that "equality" has been achieved? Not a chance. After they get marriage they will move right on to the next issue. My guess is they'll go after churches and/or speech next. This isn't about "equality" for gays. This is about forced normalization.

  2. And the gay crowd might say, "we aren't redefining marriage." And, "this is not harming anyone."

  3. It seems that it would be a conflict of interest and that the Justice should excuse himself from the proceedings. However I highly doubt he will do so.

  4. I agree with David C and Cal on all counts.

    This doesn't bode well. God have mercy on us.

  5. In heterosexual relationships, it is obvious, in the privacy of their nakedness, that their sexes are different. In homosexual relationship, it is obvious in the privacy of their nakedness, that their sexes are the same.
    Homosexual behavior is about dominance, trying to achieve dominance of oneself and one’s surroundings. It is not possible to achieve dominance of one’s surroundings unless a homosexual finds another who will embrace dominance in their soul and in their surroundings. A member of the opposite sex is the quintessential proof of victory over oneself and conquest. The savage’s marriage ritual of carrying off the mate is the conquest of oneself, for which the homosexual is searching. The ritual of carrying off the mate is what it is. The husband will carry his mate through life, their destiny into eternity. Lesbians and homosexual practitioners cannot carry their mate through life, their destiny into eternity, because they cannot mate. Without the faculty of mating, the same-sex couple have no destiny, nor eternity, only have they the assault and battery of each other in the here and now. In my estimation, homosexual behavior is the most boring here and now and in eternity. The only aspect and redemptive quality of heterosexual behavior is that it reflects the love of our Creator for His children. If the Supreme Court chooses to lead its adherents down the path to eternal boring, and I believe it will, the Court needs to join them… because our constitutional posterity deserves the best of the truth.

  6. A good man "Sees where the tide is going" and goes with it. The new morality in a nutshell. His argument concerning Obamacare was so spectacularly muddled and wrong, I expect the worst.

  7. Homosexual relationships strike me as narcissistic because they are not complementary. As far as gay dogma: you're darn tootin' that sooner or later any words disagreeing with the rights of gays to marry will be treated as hate speech.

  8. I can understand Roberts. The Bishops only give lip service themselves! Money talks.....

  9. This will not end until they have secured the "right" to other people's sperm and eggs and the "right" to make children.

  10. It doesn't matter where "the tide is going"....God parted the Red Sea and He can surely turn the tide of a debased society. May He do so in my lifetime.

  11. I don't know....something does smell rank to me!!
    Don't think SC are goin' DOE VS BOLTON and drop a bombshell.

    Don't think they want to go into a fed vs state conflict in view of antagonistic, emerging social changes.

    I recall, the married partner of the deceased had trouble with the inheritance "taxes"?, because of a disputes over "state and federal taxation laws" DOMA? It is the taxes that the partner is going to have to pay?
    Engaging in lateral thinking skills: SUPPOSITION, They could remove "marriage" from the federal tax codes for taxation purposes. Acknowlege "Primary Associates (parents, domestic partners or WHATEVER) and Secondary Associates (dependents).
    Defining the word, marriage, itself by secular standards has become too ambiguous. This is tying everything in a knot, beyond belief.

    If this is the problem, resolution could be a definition away. Marriage by the state and fed REALLY doesn't MEAN anything to them anymore except to tax!!!

    I'm attempting to take the state and federal baseball bats away from these morons and learning to dodge better!!!......
    Getting sick and tired of NEW UNTOUCHABLE ELITES EXPLOITATION PRACTICES!!!......defining everything from their ONE WORLD VIEW!!

    From Southern California!

  12. We are now entering into the lowest level of hell, that no one can escape. We are truly ripe for judgment as a country.

  13. It seems as if almost the whole country is forsaking God to endorse the perversion of gay marriage. I mean are we all required to loose our souls in order to appear tolerant and accepting? Who could be behind such a massive delusion? God will not be mocked.


  14. If they rule in favor of same sex marriage, then they need to be able to answer one question: how can states prevent any adult from entering any marriage that they want to? Here in Washington State, I find it ironic, and illogical, that relatives are still legally prevented from marrying. Why is that? Isn't it all about rights? Isn't it all about putting no bondaries on whom you love? Isn't it?

    1. Carolyn Moynihan just wrote a great essay on mercatornet on exactly that point.

  15. Just because the "supreme" court says it is so, does not make it so. Homosexuality will never be defined by marriage, love, children, etc. It will always be defined by a perverted sexual act. Until consummation of the sexual act, the relationship is (questionably) a friendship. Were sex not involved the relationship could not be homo-sexual.

  16. Thank You, Margaret
    Read the Carolyn Moynihan article.

    EXCELLENT ARTICLE!!!.......A real must read!!!

    Supreme Court is going to be opening nothing but cans of worms!!!..............We are the losers. It has already been mucked up and taken too far. The genie will never go back onto the bottle!!!!!..

  17. Justice Roberts could be inviting her for a different, double-pronged reason: First, so that she can see and hear for herself what the arguments are, and how the discourse on both sides, as well as from he Justices, goes; and Second, IN CASE her side loses, Justice Roberts can speak with her & other family members later... It was so very complex....I had to vote as I did because LEGALLY________ I wanted my niece to see she Court's very difficult work in action, etc.

    If the niece is a reasonable person, then I think she would understand her uncle's efforts to genuinely include her; and at the same time, his need (under pain of the highest legal body in the land!) to vote according to the Constitution as he best understands it.

    I say, please give Justice Roberts the benefit of the doubt!

  18. "Only a living thing can swim upstream" G.K. Chesterton


  19. I think it will be a variant of 2 - he won't overturn it directly, but he WILL do it effectively.

    Precedent is to always give lip service to the Constitution, while providing rationale that lets the government expand as desired.

  20. Why should CJ Roberts recuse himself? In 2013, who doesn't have a gay or lesbian cousin?

  21. All that really changes for a faithful Catholic is the contrast gets more stark. I expect our numbers to decrease, but our fidelity to increase. Why? Because no one is going to be Catholic for the perks when it's a hate crime to merely exist.

  22. even if same-sex marriage/union be civilly recognized through civil courts/'churches', still it will never make a family at all to the fullest extent.

  23. Time of pray. Let's offer up masses, say the rosary, the short miraculous medal prayer, and the prayer to St. Joseph!

  24. In those days there is no king in Israel; each doth that which is right in his own eyes.

  25. Any law which would purport to give recognition or status to a relationship based on an intrinsic evil is invalid, and void ab initio, for being irrational, against the Natural Law, and inimical to the individual and common good. If the Supreme Court of the State of California were to find for homosexual relationships requiring public sanction and the status of marriage, the Court would be in error.

  26. are they going to delete the words husband and wife? Crazy world. Even a male dog and a male dog know their natural limits.


Post a Comment