Archive - Sep 20, 2007
Adam And Steve Hate You
20 September, 2007 - 18:49 — Bryan Lambert
Memo to Bruce Hausknecht, Stephen Dunne, and Katherine Kersten: YOU ARE DUMB.
It's apparently that time again. With Democrats nominally in charge of Congress, the battle over gay marriage has moved to the states, and in recent weeks, news of vital interest to moron-watchers has broken out in three different states. So let's do a quick roundup.
But before we begin, I must remind you that, as per official decree of You Are Dumb Dot Net, all opposition to gay marriage is blatant bigotry from people who think butt sex is icky and girls kissing is reserved for straight guys' porn. That's not how they PHRASE it, of course, but it's what every single one of their arguments boils down to. They don't like gay people, and think gay people don't deserve to be married.
That's what Stephen Dunne thinks. Which is especially problematic for him because, well, he lives in Massachusetts. I'm sure that every morning, he wakes up, goes to the window, and checks to see if the societal Apocalypse caused by legal gay marriage has transformed his front yard into a Mad Max meets Village People* wasteland.
Dunne is the dipshit who failed the Massachusetts bar exam, claimed it was because he refused to answer a question on gay marriage, and sued to pass the bar. Of course, it seems to me that by bringing the suit in the first place, he demonstrated clearly he was unfit to be a lawyer in the first place, but it doesn't matter now, because he's dismissing his lawsuit and claiming victory, due to the fact that the question wasn't on the exam in July.
Of course, that's because they change the questions every time. It's the fucking Massachusetts Bar Exam, not a third grade vocabulary test. Not exactly the triumphant ending you'd want for an act you once described thusly: "I have preemptively fired the first shot that has been heard around the world." Which is patently not true, because if it were, I'd have been able to save almost a paragraph of backstory.
Meanwhile, in Iowa, a court overturned the state's gay marriage ban, and one whole gay couple managed to get married in the state before the judgment was tabled pending appeal. That couple, of course, is a dire threat to the straight heterosexual happily married couples of Minnesota, a dire threat that everyone's favorite columnist Katherine Kersten responded to like dog drool to a bell. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!
"Assuming that a handful of higher court judges upholds the decision -- which he stayed pending their action -- laws supporting male-female marriage will be a thing of the past in Iowa. Are you listening, Minnesota?"
Well, no. You're a columnist, not a podcaster. We're reading. And we're only doing THAT because you're so damned predictable. Laws supporting same-sex marriage aren't under discussion here. The laws that allow men and women to marry, and to receive benefits from the state for staying married, aren't threatened by Iowa's courts. Oh, sure, the state's Defense of Marriage Act is threatened, but that law only supports male-female paranoid insecurity.
There's a reason that the official answer to "how does gay marriage threaten straight marriage" is "IT JUST DOES IT JUST DOES IT JUST DOES". And that's because the real reason is that butt sex is icky and girls kissing is solely for straight dudes to spank it to. In a sane world, their inability to answer that question would disqualify them from the public discourse, but in that world, I'd have to find a completely different excuse for telling dick jokes, so I guess it's a trade-off.
And as long as we're talking about dicks, let's not forget about Bruce Hausknecht. I know he's a dick, because he's a "judicial analyst" for Focus on the Family, and every member of Focus on the Family is an epic knob. He was on hand in Maryland to throw out a pithy quote over the 4-3 decision by the state's highest court to uphold THEIR defense-of-paranoid-marriage law. And here he goes.
"We're happy that still another court has found that the definition of marriage is placed in the hands of the legislature, not in the hands of judges."
But wait... who were the seven people ON that court who found that? They were... JUDGES. So the definition of marriage, which shouldn't be placed in the hands of judges, was placed in the hands of judges, but that's OK, because the judges said that the gay-hate was constitutional.
Now, I may be mischaracterizing the court's ruling using a layman's understanding of a journalist's understanding of what they said, but when four judges basically come out and say "gay people don't have it THAT bad, so they can't claim discrimination about marriage", that seems pretty fucking active to me. Which is fine. That's what judges are supposed to do, whether I agree with their stupid ruling or not. Just because they're wrong doesn't mean they're not doing their jobs.
You'd think that reasoning would have a particular appeal to Focus on the Family's judicial activist, whose job duties consist entirely of being wrong. For money. But I suppose if he took that point of view, his statement to the press wouldn't have been wrong, and then he'd have gotten fired. I'd call it a classic Catch-22, but since Hausknecht is obviously uncomfortable when two of the same anything are that close to each other, I'll spare him the awkward literary reference.
*Damn near redundant, I know.