Main Column

Snake-Hatin' Friday

« March 2006 »
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
4
5
11
12
16
17
18
19
25
26
30

First, a minor correction. One year ago, I was fairly harsh on St. Patrick's Day. However, I believe I was in error when I said:

"I mean, if you're actually Irish, or Irish-American, go ahead. Celebrate your island's herpetelogical ethnic cleansing however the hell you want."

In retrospect, FUCK THAT. If anybody should boycott St. Patrick's Day, it's... me. But after me, it's the actual Irish. Irish people celebrating St. Patrick's Day is like BET showing an Amos and Andy marathon in honor of Kwanzaa. Did you hear the Catholics got a special dispensation to violate their Lenten dietary restrictions so they could eat corned beef on a Friday?

I love that. Fucking hypocrites. They can bend the rules to lick a big slab of salty meat, but they can't bend the rules on homosexuality.

And speaking of which, memo to Katherine Kersten: YOU ARE DUMB.

It's taken me a very long time to get around to Katherine Kersten. This is because while she is dumb, she is also unforgivably BORING. The kind of dull that makes a John Kerry policy address seem like a blowjob on a rollercoaster. Just fucking tedious.

You see, Kersten is a columnist for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, put on staff last year to fill a perceived quota for right-wing content. Which she does. Consistently. Several times a week. Which is funny, because you'd think filling a quota would be exactly the kind of thing she'd oppose, in the most plodding, boring way possible.

Kersten lacks the zazz of an Ann Coulter, the self-hatred of a Michelle Malkin, the unabashed insanity of a Pat Robertson, or the ego of an O'Reilly or Matthews. She has a job to do, and she does it. A few hundred words of talking-point reinforcement, guaranteed to inspire between one and three letters to the editor correcting her facts or lambasting those self-same talking points.

She's big on the gay-marriage thing, although, again, not in an interesting way. But there's a drive for one of those bigoted, anti-gay-marriage, anti-civil-union constitutional amendment. It hasn't gotten that far, because there's a couple of major metropolitan areas smack dab in the middle of an otherwise Midwestern hell, but it's out there. And Kersten's behind it all the way, because that's her stupid, boring job.

And part of that job is to apparently scare us all with polygamy. Now, polygamy's been the next step on the gay-marriage slippery slope for as long as that slope's been greased up. But it's closer than ever! Why?

Well, first, there's "Big Love", the HBO series about polygamy, the ads for which make me question the very existence of cable. But it's on the air, so Hollywood must be trying to make us accept it. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"But cultural expression can pack a powerful wallop - witness the much ballyhooed bid by 'Brokeback Mountain' to normalize same-sex attraction. Influential voices are already calling for allowing polygamy."

Sweet merciful fuckmonkeys, someone get me a six-pack of coke and some crystal meth, STAT. That's prose that'll put you in the kind of coma even Bill Frist can diagnose from his office. And who are these influential voices?

The influential voices are John Tierney. Who Kersten claims is a libertarian, although my own readings have returned a judgment more along the lines of "completely bugfuck". Tierney's history suggests that he didn't write a pro-polygamy column for the Times because he's pro-polygamy, he just "took one for the team" so that the Kerstens of the world could cite him and write stupid shit. Such as.

"The fact is, once you adopt same-sex marriage -- legally changing the standard for marriage from one-man, one-woman to a 'committed relationship' -- there is no principled way to prevent its extension to polygamy or other forms of 'plural marriage' or partnership.

Which is complete bullshit. Not that I have a problem with polygamy as such, but it's an entirely different argument than gay marriage. They just sound similar. We need gay marriage because there's a significant portion of the population being denied certain civil and governmental benefits because of their biological wiring. END OF.

Polygamy, on the other hand, is a lifestyle, no matter what the hairy fat guys on HBO documentaries might say. And a poly marriage, from a purely practical standpoint, would have to have special rules drawn up because the extra numbers complicate things in a way genital-matching doesn't. Should people be prevented from drawing up those rules? Probably not. But the relationship between gay marriage and polygamy is like the relationship between "feet" and "feat". They sound the same, and thus frequently get confused by barely-literate morons. Boring, barely-literate morons.

Syndicate content