Do you know who Manny Pacquiao is?  I had heard the name, but I was unaware of his significance.  After learning that he is a boxer, I'm still not overly sure of his significance, but at least I know who he is.  Then again, Forbes magazine listed him at Number Four on their list of most influential athletes in the world.  Huh.  So there's that.  The point here is that he came out and said that he was against same-sex marriage.  He said that he didn't have anything against gay people (a lot of his friends are gay, of course), but he just wasn't into the whole dudes marrying dudes and chicks marrying chicks dealio.  And that's fine.  It's his deal.  Just like President Barry said, most people that are against gay marriage aren't coming from a hateful perspective.  This should be reiterated to the folks who run some mall in Los Angeles, as they have banned him from the premises because of his opinion. 

The mall is called The Grove and this was their tweet after hearing about another person's opinion:  

 

Quick! Someone call in the irony police!  He's NOT welcome at your mall because he holds the very same opinion that the majority of people in thirty states also hold?!  Is The Grove aware that same-sex marriage is NOT legal in the very state that their mall is IN?!  Do they realize that there is a constitutional amendment in their state that bans same-sex marriage?  Do they also realize that it was voted upon by the people of that state?!  That's right, folks!  The majority of people in the ridiculously blue state of California voted against same-sex marriage.  Over seven million of them. And The Grove is banning someone who holds the same belief as a majority of those voters?  Good Lord. 

My favorite part of that is "not a place for intolerance".  Really?  Cause y'all seem a little bit intolerant yourselves there.  Not letting someone into what I'm assuming is a public mall (as I have yet to see a private mall) because they believe something different than you for reasons that are not rooted in hate?  Yeah, that seems intolerant.  See, tolerance goes both ways, you jack holes. See, tolerance can be defined as "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own". How tolerant are you being, The Grove?  Doesn't sound like very tolerant at all.

Again, this has nothing to do whether I am for or against gay marriage.  I am simply pointing out the idiocy of it how it is portrayed in the media.  The media has done a fine job making it seem like everyone is in favor of gay marriage and it's really just a handful of bigots who are holding everything back.  In reality, it's quite the opposite of that.  The majority of Americans are not in favor of gay marriage.  That's just the reality.  I know that you wouldn't get that impression from everything you read or see on the news, but that's where we're at.  So knock it off, The Grove.  Start practicing your tolerance by accepting that there are a whole lot of people who are different than you. 

Sphere: Related Content

From The Idiots At Newsweek

You know, when President Barry announced his "newfound" position on the gay marriage, I thought that I was one step closer to having a dream of mine realized.  That dream being that I might never have to hear about this subject ever again.  Yeah, that didn't happen.  In fact, it was quite the opposite.  Now, all of my news feeds are inundated with the glowing media reporting of his "announcement".  And since it would seem that no one else is going to do it, I guess I'm going to have to be the one to report this accurately.  I certainly can't leave any sort of unbiased reporting up to Newsweek.  Look at their cover!  Look at it! 

Are you freaking kidding me, Newsweek?  A gay halo?  A gaylo, if you will.  This isn't news!  And even if it was news, you're reporting it wrong!  Ahem...allow me...

See, before President Barry was against gay marriage, he was for it.  That's right.  When he ran for the Illinois Senate for the first time in 1996, he was all for the gays getting all married and stuff.  But then when he ran for re-election in 1998, he wasn't quite sure about it.   And then when it came to run for the U.S.Senate in 2004 and for President in 2008, that's when he decided that he should be against it.   I should also mention that he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.  That would have made it so that marriage would have been defined as being between one man and one woman.  So he was against that.  But in 2008, that's when he said that he personally felt that marriage is between a man and a woman and that he isn't in favor of gay marriage.  And now here we are in 2012 and he's all for it again.  Good grief.  And now we're supposed to be all excited about his "announcement"?  No one else but me sees it as a transparent political move that just works for him right about now?  OK, then. 

You know, there's one part of his sudden "enlightenment" that I think has been under-reported.  And that's probably for the same reason that other key issues about this story have been under-reported as well.  It just doesn't fit the narrative that the sucky, sucky media wants so badly to portray.   It's the part where he said, "I think it's important to recognize that folks who feel very strongly that marriage should be defined narrowly as between a man and a woman, uh, many of them are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective. A bunch of them are friends of mine."

EXACTLY!  Just because people aren't exactly for gay marriage, doesn't mean that those people are hateful bigots.  Now, don't get me wrong.  Some of them absolutely are.  Those sorts of people are commonly known as a-holes.  But the folks who have a strong religious component to their opinions or those who just aren't quite very comfortable with redefining something that has been the same since the beginning of time, those folks don't deserve the wrath that is sometimes placed upon them.  That's a component to this issue that I have always found fascinating.  Those who want to be treated equally even though they're different lashing out at those who don't agree with them.  Uhhh, didn't you just say that it's OK that you're different?  So, it's OK for you to be different than them, but it isn't OK for them to be different than YOU? 

Let's also make sure that we don't overlook the caption.  "The First Gay President".  Holy crap!  Did he come out?!  I always thought that he looked a little TOO lovingly at Biden, if you know what I mean!  Jesus, Newsweek.  Just because someone comes out in favor of something, that doesn't mean that they ARE that thing.  President Barry has drones bombing the crap out of terrorists in foreign lands.  Is your next cover going to be of him with the caption "The First Homicidal President"?  "The First Murdering President"?  Of course not! You know why?  Because it would be not only incorrect, but completely freaking asinine as well!  Oh, how the mighty have fallen.  (OK, I don't know for sure if Newsweek was ever 'mighty'.  But that cover is definitely crap.) 
 

Sphere: Related Content

Patience, Young Grasshopper

The peculiarity of where this country decides to focus its attention on occasion completely baffles me.  In case you've been under some sort of glorious rock lately, I will tell you that President Barry, during an interview with Robin Roberts, came out in favor of gay marriage.  I think.  And from the reactions I'm reading, you'd think that something wonderful just happened instead of just one guy changing his mind.  Or not. 

Look, President Barry is a pretty progressive guy.  I have a hard time believing that he, deep down in his heart, was ever really against gay marriage.  I'm more inclined to believe that he was against it for purely political reasons.  Whatever the reason is, here is his latest statement on where he stands in regard to gayrriage:  "I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married." 

While that's a lovely sentiment, I don't know that it's going to make a difference in anything.  And that's for a variety of reasons.  First of all, I just want to point out that he did include the word "personally".  That's what he now suddenly believes on a personal level.  Is that going to translate to a political level?  I have a hard time believing that it would.  That'd be great if he wanted to go and campaign in states that are putting gay marriage bans on their ballots, but I just don't see that happening.  And the reason I don't see that happening is because he also said that "..states should have the right to decide what marriage is".  Of course.  This way, he can be for gay marriage and appease those folks who have really made it their number one social cause, while at the same time allow himself to stay out of the issue because he sees it as not being a federal issue.  Tricky. 

But here's one of the things that I find just fascinating about this whole dynamic.  Until now, President Barry had been, essentially, against gay marriage.  But no one gave him any crap about it.  Everyone was just fine with it and continued to sing his praises as if he were the second coming of Christ himself.  No one called him a bigot.  No one called him a hater.  No one pressed the issue.  There weren't rainbow flag protests outside of the White House.  None of that.  People just let his ideas evolve on their own until he came to a different conclusion that they were happy with.  Why aren't other people who are against gay marriage (or who aren't sure about it) not given that same sort of time and/or leeway for their opinions to change?  Why are people automatically so angry at those folks?  I don't have an answer for this, by the way.  It's merely an observation that I've made. 

Here's another angle of this that I find interesting.  So far, every single state that has put gay marriage to a vote has voted against it.  Every.  Single.  One.  The states that allow gay marriage have only been able to do so through legislation.  But every time that it's given to the people for a vote, they have voted 100% against it.  Every. Time.  What's that all about?  And with the recent passage of the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman in North Carolina, that brings the grand total up to 30 states with similar laws on the books.  Thirty!  Yet the topic is still covered in the media as if it is a minority of people who feel this way.  Clearly, that's not the case. 

All I'm trying to say here is that it's a tricky issue for a lot of people.  And the whole gay acceptance thing has come such a long way over the years.  Things just take time.  And really, just because someone is against gay marriage doesn't mean that they hate gays.  Sometimes it does.  But sometimes it doesn't.  In fact, most of the people that I've met or that I know who are not exactly for gay marriage are absolutely NOT people who hate gays.  I just think that we just need to be patient with people in the same manner that everyone seems to have been patient with President Barry. Do you have any idea how long it took civil rights legislation to go through?  Longer than you would guess and definitely longer than I would have liked.  (In case you were wondering, Lyndon B. Johnson passed a minor piece of civil rights legislation in 1957.  That was the first legislation passed since the Civil War had ended.  See?  Takes a long time.)  People just need to be patient and see it for what it is.  An evolution of thought.  And evolution is not a speedy process. 

Sphere: Related Content

No One Cares!

I'll be honest with you.  When I heard about President Barry's newly evolved thoughts on gay marriage the other day, I cringed.  It wasn't because I disagree with his re-newly formed stance. (This is the third time that he's changed his mind of the issue.  Not that you would know that because the media sucks so bad.)  No, it was because I knew that once he waded into the issue that it would be all I'd have to hear about for days on end.  Non-stop talk about gay marriage and how "evolved" the President is.  Are you kidding me?!  No one took the time to look at how gay marriage is really perceived in this country.  (That would be that every single state that has voted on gay marriage has voted against it.  That would also be that there are 30 states that ban gay marriage.)  No, all it ended up being was a bunch of feel-good crap that makes everyone involved feel like they're so enlightened on the issue.  You want some enlightenment?  I'm here for you! 

How's this for enlightening?  Gallup did a poll over April 9-12 of this year.  The question was "What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?"  Now, if you went strictly by how the news cycle has been reporting things over the past 48 hours, you would swear that gay marriage was at the top of the list.  At the very least, you would have to assume that it was in the top ten, right?  Here are the top ten non-economic (even though gay marriage, and more so, gay divorce court, would do wonders for the economy, it isn't really considered an economic issue) responses from people as gathered by Gallup: 

Dissatisfaction with government.  Healthcare.  Education.  Ethics/Moral/Religious decline.  Foreign aid.  Immigration.  (Have I said gay marriage yet?  I haven't?!  Then I shall continue.)  Energy.  Lack of respect for each other.  Judicial system.  War.  (That's ten.  Not yet?  I'll keep going.)  Poverty.  Care for the elderly.  Crime.  National security.  Abortion.   Lack of military defense.  Race issues/racism.  (Bet you thought that racism would be a little higher up too, wouldn't you?  Nope.  It clocks in at number seventeen.  Huh.  Thanks, media.)  Situation in Iraq.  Welfare.  Environment.  (Environment is at number twenty.  Again, thanks to the reporting of the weak, weak media, you'd have thought that all anyone ever thinks about is global warming.)  Social security.  Situation in Afghanistan. (I'm starting to get tired.  I hope it shows up soon!) Unifying the country.  (I don't even know what this one means.  The Civil War IS over, right?)   International issues. (How this doesn't include the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not quite sure.)  Elections.  Terrorism.  War.  (See previous war comments.)  Drugs.  Gay rights issues.  There it is!  I found it!  Coming in in twenty ninth place, gay rights issues!  Just barely eeking out The way children are raised, Overpopulation, Guns/gun control, The media, and The advancement of computers/technology.

I should also take this time to point out the the gay rights issues received less than 0.5% of the responses in the most recent polling of this question.  It got 1% back in February, but that was the only time this year that it ranked above 0.5%.   But would you get that from everything you read in the media?  Hell no, you wouldn't!  No, instead you'd be left with the impression that everyone wants gay people to be able to get married and that issue is first and foremost on the minds of all Americans!  Not only is it not first, it's damn near DFL (Dead Effing Last).  But that's all I'm hearing about.  Non-stop.  It will stop one day, though, right?  Please?  Why can't we have a President who has affairs again.  At least that was interesting.  (OK, it was still mis-reported, which probably explains why so many people still think that Bill Clinton was impeached for having an affair, but at least it had some substance!  I'll take Presidential blow jobs over gay marriage any day of the week, starting NOW.)

Sphere: Related Content

He's Not The Only One

I just wanted to say one more quick thing that I left out (and that everyone else always leaves out) about the college students attacking Rick Santorum for a) being against gay marriage and, b) asking about how polygamy will fit into our laws if we're going to be OK with gay marriage. (Contrary to popular reporting, Rick Santorum was not comparing gay marriage to polygamy. But that's how it has been reported in most of the articles that I've read. And that's because...? The media sucks, that is correct.)

I want to speak to that chick that was asking Mr. Santorum the initial question about why he was against gay marriage. I want to speak to her (and the rest of the sanctimonious college students who booed Mr. Santorum during his town hall thingee that he did over there in Concord, N.H.) and I want to ask her one question. OK, fine. I want to ask her several questions, but only one that pertains to this discussion. The pertinent question is: Do you know that President Barry is against gay marriage? Because he is.

Not only is President Barry against gay marriage, but Vice President Biden (aka Joey Veep) is against gay marriage also. Not only that, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (who was very nearly the Democratic party's nominee candidate for President last time around) is also against gay marriage. They're all against it. But no one ever talks about that! No, whenever this subject comes up with any candidate out there, if they're against it, it's portrayed in the media as if they're some sort of pariah who is so out of touch with the rest of the world. And every person who asks these questions of these candidates acts the same way. Would all of those college students who were booing Rick Santorum been cheering the President? Of course they would have. Because they just don't get it.

For some reason, the media portrays gay marriage as something that is just universally accepted by everyone in the country and if you're against gay marriage that there is something wrong with you and you are in the minority. And I'm not pointing this out because I'm against gay marriage. I'm not. I'm pointing this out because no one else will! Out of the fifty states in America, there are six (plus Washington D.C.) where same-sex marriage is legal. And in all six of those states, same-sex marriage was legalized through legislation or a court ruling. It was not legalized through a vote put to the people. In the states where a vote was put to the people? Yeah, those states didn't vote in favor of it. Yet Rick Santorum gets booed and the media portrays him as being out of touch. Oh, someone's out of touch here. And while that might include Rick Santorum (but for reasons other than this), it includes a whole lot of other people that don't even know how out of touch they are. Media, I'm talking to you!

Sphere: Related Content

He Has A Point

First of all, I am not a Rick Santorum fan. I think that he's a little too gung-ho on too many Christian fundamental issues and I really don't think that those sorts of things should have much of a part in determining American policies and politics. Besides, it just opens the door for other sorts of fundamental religious groups to start acting like nutjobs. And they do it so well that the very thought kind of frightens me. But back to Mr. Santorum. Even though I think that he's kind of a tool, I think that I did find something that him and I might agree on. Actually, it's more of a theoretical agreement if anything, but it does lend credence to the fact that you would really be surprised at the things that you have in common with people that you don't particularly care for.

Here's the thing: According to USA Today, Mr. Santorum was doing a little town hall meeting in Concord, New Hampshire and he got booed by a bunch of college students when he brought up what I feel is a realistic and logical argument. Now, Mr. Santorum is against same-sex marriage, also known as a gayrriage. (Well, known here as a gayrriage.) And one of the students said to him, "How you justify your belief based on these morals you have about all men being created equal when two men who want to marry the person that they love ..." That is when Rick interrupted and asked, "What about three men?" Needless to say, this wasn't well received among the oh-so-worldly (in their own minds) college students, who began booing him.

The woman who had posed the original question responded with the equivalent "I know you are but what am I?" Or maybe "I'm rubber and you're glue." She answered, "That's not what I'm talking about." It might not be what you're talking about, but it is something that is going to need to be addressed at some point as I don't see how you can argue that gayrriage is OK, but plural marriage is not. If you're going to take what is known as a 'traditional marriage' and start making an addendum to it, you're going to have to take other things into consideration. And I don't really see how, on a basic level, you would be able to deny plural marriage to people if you're going to allow gayrriage for people. If you think that this isn't a reasonable discussion to have, then you're simply being intellectually dishonest.

Mr. Santorum went on to say "Reason says that if you think it's OK for two, you have to differentiate with me why it's not OK for three." I agree. The students did not. They booed him. But he still was able to add, "Let's just have a discussion about what that means. If she reflects the values that marriage can be for anybody or any group of people, as many as is necessary, any two people or any three or four, marriage really means whatever you want it to mean." From what I can tell from the article (which really did an extremely poor job of summing up how the discussion actually went after Rick asked his question), the discussion went nowhere and the students booed Rick as he left. Good Lord, people.

I respect the man for wanting to have a reasonable discussion about this issue. What I don't respect are a bunch of self-righteous college students who think that they have everything all figured out, but aren't even willing to engage in a reasonable discussion about a subject that they are so blindly passionate in favor of that they won't even entertain the possibility that there is more to it than they think. Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to gay marriage. And I don't really think that I'm opposed to polygamy either. (Regular polygamy, that is. None of that FLDS nonsense.) I think it's a bit weird (I can barely manage ONE relationship at a time, let alone several) and it's definitely not for me, but I'm not quite certain that it's hurting anything. But I do think that the polygamy question is one that has to be answered, as I don't see it being any fundamentally different than a gayrriage. And I was really disappointed that I don't know how those students feel about polygamy and, if they're against it, their reasoning for that position. Very disappointed indeed.

Sphere: Related Content

Husbands and husbands

Look! I still made it in time for this to count as Tuesday's post! Twenty minutes to spare. Ah, you don't know. You gave up on this a long time ago, didn't you? I don't blame you. I'm sorry it's this late.

What we have here is a little boy meeting his first married gay couple. They're a couple of dudes and that throws him for a couple of seconds, but after he kind of grasps what they're telling him, he doesn't seem to have much of a problem with it. After all, he does invite them to play ping-pong with him. And the kid is right when he says that it's "funny" that there are two guys married to each other. He's not used to that. They're his very first "husbands and husbands" encounter and I think that he doesn't really give a fat rat's ass about it. I don't know if his parents are doing something right or if he's just a really cool kid on his own, but I'd play ping-pong with him any day.

Sphere: Related Content

Don't Sign That

People amaze me. Not just regular people. Politician people. Michele Bachmann, to be exact. Look, she's hot and all, but she has way too many toys in her attic. Or not enough toys. Something. Because she's coming across as being bat-s*** crazy.According to the fine folks across the pond at The Telegraph, Ms. Bachmann is now linking slavery to family values. Maybe I should be more specific. She's now comparing families that were in slavery to families now. I think. I think that's what she's doing. It's so idiotic that it's really hard to follow what she's trying to say. But she signed a pledge saying that she believes this, so let's see if we can sort out some of this psychosis, shall we?

It appears that there is some sort of a group called The Family Value. They seem to have come up with some sort of a "...pro-traditional marriage pledge" that they have "...given to White House contenders" for them to sign. Now, I don't know who this group is and let's face it, it's likely that you don't either. Therefore, I don't know why anyone would give a fat rat's ass what their pledge said. I also don't know why anyone who is seriously thinking about running for President would give it a second look. But apparently Michelle Bachmann did. She looked, she looked again and then she signed this thing which has no bearing upon anything.

From what I can tell, this "pledge" condemns "...gay marriage, abortion, infidelity and pornography." Hmm. I can really only condemn the infidelity. You want to get gay married? Have at it. You want to have an abortion? Please think about it beforehand, but have it if you must. You want to look at pornography? As long as it's not kiddie porn, have at it. But being a cheater just makes you a scumbag, so I'm kind of against that. But it's not like I think that there's anything that can be done about infidelity. You're either a scumbag cheater or you're not. It's not something that can be regulated.

But all of this non-influential pledge contents aside, it's the "preamble" to this thing that really has folks talking. It reads like this: "Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President." Umm...wait. What now?

There are so many things wrong with that sentiment that it's hard to know where to begin. First of all, (and this is in no way in defense of President Barry) I'm pretty sure that the African -American household has been in disarray long before President Barry was elected. And I'm also pretty sure that no one expected his being elected to have a major impact on that social circle. If you did think that it would, then you need a helmet at all times to protect your soft, soft head from damage. According to a one Cheryl Contee who has a blog called Jack and Jill Politics (which bills itself as "a black bourgeoisie perspective on U.S. politics"), "Given that families were broken up regularly for sales during slavery and that rape by masters was pretty common, this could not be more offensive." She would seem to have a pretty good point there. It's really hard to argue with that, so I think I'll stop there.

Seriously, why would anyone sign anything that alludes to the implication that slaves had it better than black folks do now? You should probably have your head examined if that's something that makes sense to you. Actually, I'm pretty sure that you should never imply that families that were slaves were somehow better off than anyone today who is not a slave and that those who are not slaves today are somehow the victim of politics. Or...something. See, I get lost in my own explanation because what I'm arguing about is so ridiculous that I can't believe I have to go over this.

Hey, potential Presidential candidates. A word of advice. Don't sign meaningless pledges placed before you by unheard of groups that do...something. Just don't. Don't pander. Just get out there and say what you stand for. Why do you need to sign something that could not be any more meaningless? It makes you look like an ass is what it does. And you don't want that, do you? DO YOU?

Sphere: Related Content

Coming To A Relationship Status Near You

You politically correct types are going to be the end of me. I swear. I know you're going win in the end, but I'm going to try and fight it as long as I can. And while I've got a lot of fight left in me, this sort of stuff really tires my ass out.

According to a Huffington Post article, Facebook is branching out and giving you more, yes, more choices for how to describe whatever your relationship status might currently be! How enlightened of them! Apparently, "Facebook has added two new relationship status options users can include in their online profiles: "in a civil union" and "in a domestic partnership." OK. So, why does this bother me? Well, you know I'm going to tell you, so what say you just calm down a minute there, Sparky? (Sorry. I'm a little cranky. Stuff like this just gives me a full head of steam.)

Before all of the enlightening, the choices were "limited" to: Single, In a relationship, Engaged, Married, It's complicated, In an open relationship, Widowed, Separated, and Divorced. OK. That's all fine and good. Are you seeing my problem with including "in a civil union" and in a domestic partnership", yet? The answer is: It seems unnecessary to me.

And it's not just the new ones that I have a problem with. How is "In an open relationship" any different from "It's complicated"? What the what is "It's complicated" supposed to mean anyway? Is it like, "I'm going to break up with him, but I'm waiting until after my birthday to see what he gets me"? Or is it "I haven't found anyone else to sleep with without emotional attachment, so I'm waiting for that first"? Or is it simply "I'm cheating on him and he doesn't know it yet"? (Did you like how in that example I made the woman the cheater instead of the man? See? I can be progressive, too!)

But back to the new options. Isn't "In a relationship" good enough? You'd think (back when the whole gay marriage debate was going on in California) that the civil union and the domestic partnership options would have been frowned upon by gay marriage proponents. Good Lord, that's all we heard about was how nothing less than a marriage would do! I mean, I guess if folks who it applies to are OK with it and everything, then I suppose it's fine. Maybe I'm just irritated that I never know what's fine and what's not with these things! It's always changing! And it's NEVER the same. Folks were absolutely militant in California about civil unions and domestic partnerships being soooo not good enough. Second-class compared to being married is what I heard a lot of. (I also heard a lot of the opposite of that. "What's next? People marrying dogs?") Which one is it?!

How come "polygamist" isn't an option? Is it because it's illegal and, therefore, doesn't have a legal status? (I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why polygamy is illegal, by the way. Two consenting adults? Seems like that's their business. I wouldn't do it, but if they're not hurting anyone and I'm not supporting their lifestyle in any sort of financial way, then why would I care? Why would anyone care?) What about "swinger"? That's a choice without a legal status, just like "In an open relationship" is a choice without legal status, right? How come "swinger" isn't on there?

Maybe they should be more specific with some of these. "Engaged to an inmate". "Looking for love". "Will screw for food." I really don't know. If you're perfectly OK with a civil union or a domestic partnership tag, well grand. I just don't know that they were needed. And I've just re-read this entire thing and it's entirely possible that I'm either overreacting (not a shocker) or wrong (not a shocker, either). But it does kind of bother me for the reasons stated and probably for a couple more that I'm not quite sure about just yet. When I figure those out, I'll let you know. Just don't hold your breath. I don't plan on devoting a whole lot of time to thinking about this ridiculousness.

Sphere: Related Content

Prop 8...Again

I had thought that if I heard one more word about Prop 8 in California that my head would explode. Turns out, that's not the case. Don't get me wrong; I do feel a wave of nausea come over me. But there is no cranial explosion, so that seems good. That doesn't mean that I have the stomach for some long and droning post, because I do not. That just means that I have the capacity to muse over a point that some guy who thinks his point matters is trying to make.

If you have been blissfully living under a rock or in a world where you don't have to hear about Prop 8 all the live long day, I envy you. But here's the scoop: On Friday, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker (probably related to Jimmie Walker...Dyn-o-mite!) essentially overturned California's ban on gay marriage, aka, Prop 8. And now a one Tony Perkins, who is the head of something called the Family Research Council, says that the judge never should have stayed on the case in the first place because of the judge's own alleged gayness.

A homo judge?! Blasphemy! Whatever. Tony Perkins (not Anthony Perkins; that was Psycho) says that Judge Walker "...should have recused himself from the case due to his own sexuality." Perkins was apparently on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday and said, "I think what you have is one judge who thinks he knows -- and a district level judge and an openly homosexual judge at that -- who says he knows better than not only 7 million voters in the state of California but voters in 30 states across the nation that have passed marriage amendments...This is far from over."

Now, now, Tony. Let's just calm down a little. Try and keep your homophobia in check so that you can get your facts straight (no pun intended), all right? OK, then. See, Judge Walker is not openly gay. It's a rumor, but it's not an open secret and/or fact, depending on which moniker you prefer. Usually when there's a rumor that isn't true, especially if it involves one being gay, folks tend to speak out and set the record straight (pun totally intended this time). I'm not saying that means that Judge Walker is gay. I'm just saying.

And regardless as to how I feel about Prop 8, I really do hate it when something is voted on by the people and then it is struck down by a judge. That frustrates the hell out of me. Aside from the incredible waste of time and money, the right of the people to vote is kind of an important element in this country. Having it taken away or essentially nullified by one judge could be doing more harm than good. And I realize that the people can be as dumb as a box of hair a lot of the time. That isn't up for debate. What's up for debate is when people vote for something and then they're told by a judge that they can't do that. Well, if they can't do that then don't have them vote on it in the first place. Why don't you folks get those ducks in a row and stop spending my money on rearranging your ducks?

But Tony Perkins isn't the only one with his boxers in a knot. No, according to The Huffington Post the American Family Association called the decision "outrageous and unconscionable" as well as saying that it "...should never have been allowed to happen." They insisted that "Walker...should have recused himself "because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity." Hmmm. Interesting.

OK, I get their point. But the problem here is that there point is coming from their interests and from what they want. Of course they think that a gay judge is going to rule in favor of the gay side of things. But why wouldn't the same litmus test be applied to the other side of that argument? If it had been a straight judge and the straight judge had ruled in favor of Prop 8, wouldn't gay folks be saying that a straight judge should have recused himself because his judgment would have been "clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity"? I think that's a fair argument to make.

The thing that the AFA and that Tony Perkins guy are overlooking is that Judge Walker is just that. He's a judge. It's right there in his title: Judge Walker. Part of being a judge is being impartial. That's the inherent underlying implication of being a judge. You're supposed to be impartial. I have no idea whether or not Judge Walker's alleged gayness had anything to do with his ruling. I do know that his ruling was 136 pages long and that seems a little meticulous for someone who is just flying by the seat of their pants.

But don't worry Tony Perkins and AFA folks. You're right. This isn't over yet. Of course it is going to go to a higher court. And after that court rules (and it won't matter either way because it will be appealed by the losing side) then it will inevitably end up with the Supreme Court. Is that a good idea? I don't know. I think it's poor strategy, personally. I think that the tide is slowly turning in California in regard to gay marriage. I think that there were several factors that contributed to Prop 8 being passed. And the majority of those factors could be eliminated or remedied at another election. Giving the whole thing time might have been a better way to go. This way, even though the judge has ruled Prop 8 to be a no-go, there still isn't gay marriage in California. No, it's going to be put on hold for years. Several years. And when the Supreme Court rules, there is a fifty-fifty chance that they're going to rule in favor of state's rights. And if it comes down to that, then it's done. It becomes a Roe v. Wade situation which will be highly and hotly debated for future years, but will never change.

In conclusion, I expect Judge Walker's ruling to be overturned by one of the higher courts. I base that on the basis of his ruling which is something called "rational basis". He said that there was no "rational basis" for Prop 8. From what I can tell, rational basis is one of the easiest rulings to overturn. Therefore, it will be. It won't be soon, but it will likely happen. And you know what will happen then? I'm going to have to figure out how to soundproof my walled-off compound because people will never stop talking about it ever when that day comes. Maybe I need some sort of a dome. Like in The Truman Show? I'm open to suggestions. All I know is I can't take much more of the incessant debating on either side. I just want it over already.

Sphere: Related Content

Jackass Blogger v. Miss California

Wow. I didn't think I had it in me. I didn't think I had anything left with which to discuss the whole gay marriage debate turned debacle. Apparently, I DO have something left! Thanks to Perez Hilton. Jackass.

If you are so blissfully unaware of current events that you've missed all of the flack over Miss USA Pageant contestant Miss California Carrie Prejean's (Whew! That's one hell of a moniker that gal has there!) answer to blogger Perez Hilton's question about gay marriage, well, I envy you. I'd like to be so unaware. Unfortunately, I am not. :::sigh:::

Here's the scoop: A one "openly homosexual blogger" Perez Hilton somehow managed to weasel his way into being a judge for Miss USA. How that is possible, I'm not quite sure. I don't know what the qualifications are for being a Miss USA judge, but I can't imagine that they're very difficult standards. Regardless of that however, I still highly doubt he'd be qualified. (He seems to be operating on the brain power equivalent to that of a turnip.)

Then it came to be Miss California's turn in the Answer The Question part of the pageant. (What that has to do with anything is completely beyond me. Answering questions has nothing to do with parading around in a lovely little white bikini, does it? It does not. Only if the question is something like, "Are you going to take that off?" would it be relevant. But to ask them their views on world peace and puppies does not exactly clarify the relationship between the two.) And by the "luck of the draw", Perez Hilton's name was drawn from the mandatory pageant fishbowl that is used whenever there's a drawing. (Sadly, there are never any fish in the fish bowl. An aspect of the drawing which, if used properly, could be a huge ratings grab!) The question that the openly gay and even more openly obnoxious celebrity blogger asked was as follows:

"Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not."

OK, well, did you hear the sound of gun safeties being unlocked, because that was a loaded question if I've ever heard one. Just wait. Wait for her response before you answer that. Behold!

"Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what? In my country and in my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised and that's how...I think that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you."

Oh, dear God. Here it comes. As you can imagine, Senor Hilton didn't like that answer very much. HOW much he didn't like it wasn't all that clear until he posted a video on his website after the pageant was over. In the video, he made the following statement (which is only a portion of his rant): "She gave the worst answer in pageant history. She got booed. I think that was the first time in Miss USA ever that a contestant has been booed. She lost not because she doesn't believe in gay marriage. Miss California lost because she is a dumb bitch."

You jackass.

So because she didn't agree with you about gay marriage, she's a dumb bitch? Apparently, according to him, yes, she is. He would have rather her give an answer that was ambiguous or, at the very least, in support of something that she clearly does not believe in. From the way that she gave her answer, it appears to me that isn't gay people that she is against. She doesn't seem to have a problem with the people themselves. But she is against the whole gay marriage deal. I'm more OK with that viewpoint than I am with those who just hate gay people for being gay.

He also said that "She gave an awful, awful answer which alienated so many people and Miss California, Miss USA, she doesn't alienate, she unites, she inspires. I am so disappointed in Miss California in representing my country, not because she doesn't inspire gay marriage but because she doesn't unite." Um, what?

Really? Miss California unites? Inspires? WHO? Who does she do those things for? I could not tell you the name of ONE single Miss California EVER and I grew up here! In fact, the ONLY Miss whoever I could name would be Vanessa Williams and that's only because she had her precious crown taken away because there were nude pictures of her out there somewhere that no one had ever seen! THAT I remember! But only for the nudity! Otherwise, I wouldn't have had a clue as to who she was either.

But those were not the only words of wisdom from one Perez Hilton. No, there were more! (I know! Joy!) These words come in the form of the response he gave when asked during an interview with MSNBC if he had apologized for his above stated comments. Hilton (whose real name is Mario Armando Lavandeira. Wow. Lavandeira? He never had a chance, did he?) responded with: "I don't apologize....I'm going to stand by what I said just like she's standing by what she said. And I called her the 'b' word, and hey, I was thinking the 'c' word." OK then. That's a bit clearer. Man, you're a jackass.

That's real respectful of you there, Not-So-Super Mario.

I was under the impression that any and/or all of the Miss Wherevers are supposed to 'represent' something. Their state, their country, their county, whatever. Their job is to represent wherever it is that they're from and to look pretty. (And good Lord, does Miss California look pretty! Holy crap, how come she can't win based solely on the white bikini alone? If I had been a judge and seen that, I would have stood up and announced, "She wins! The rest of you can go now! She's the winner! Welcome!" In fact, let's just keep seeing more of that white bikini shot, shall we? That should calm things down a bit. In some ways.) So if she's 'representing' California, then her answer (unfortunately) represents California, as the majority of voters decided last November to pass Proposition 8 and declare that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

And one of the reasons that Proposition 8 passed was because of people like YOU, Mario. Jackasses like you who were vitriolic toward those who disagreed with you. People like you who spewed your hatred of anything and anyone who was in disagreement with you were one of the reasons why Prop 8 passed. People like you who insisted that anyone who was against gay marriage was a bigot. And other folks got really tired of hearing that. Folks like Miss California who didn't have anything against gay people themselves, but who were not comfortable redefining what a marriage is. And folks who felt that way but were on the fence as to how to vote on it were easily persuaded to vote FOR Prop 8 after repeatedly hearing asinine statements from people such as you, Senor.

Super Mario wanted Miss California to give a more politically correct response. He wanted her to say something ambiguous regardless as to whether or not she actually believed what she said. I find that sad. Sad that he would think that and sad that he has a brain the size of a walnut that would allow him to think that. I don't care who you are or what your position in life is, I would rather you be honest and have some integrity that to lie because it's what people want to hear. Even if you're an ass. If you're an ass and you're honest about the fact that you are, in fact, an ass, then at least I can respect you for being an ass and admitting it instead of being an ass and denying it.

I wonder if that's what he would like our politicians to do. Would he just prefer that they blow smoke up our ass (actually, given his orientation, he'd probably enjoy that. But I digress...) and tell us what we want to hear in order to get elected and then just go about and do what they really want to do when they're in office? I don't think that's a very good idea. Seems...horribly misguided.

Really, the biggest tragedy in all of this is that the funniest part of her answer was totally missed by everyone. Come on! 'Opposite marriage'? That's hilarious! That should be the focus of all of this discussion, not what her answer was! Gay marriage and opposite marriage! That's just funny. I hate it when perfectly good humor goes to waste. This whole thing has been such a debacle, it makes me long for the days of the Miss Teen USA Pageant and pretty little Miss South Carolina's response to the question she was posed.

Why? Why can't those moments come back? We were such a happier people during the days of things such as, um, the Iraq and the South Africa and such as.

Sphere: Related Content