Discrimination: It’s good for business!

There are different types of conservatives out there. There’s just the run of the mill conservative, a person whose beliefs differ from my own liberal beliefs, but who isn’t an asshole or a bigot. Just different. Then there are the assholes and bigots, the ones who pick up on conservatism because it gives them an excuse to attack some racial or sexual minority. There are the True Believers (aka god-humpers), the ones so caught up in a religious ideology that they believe it without question and see implications of it in everything. There are also the plutocrats, heartless elites interested only in augmenting their own wealth and power, and constantly pushing for lower taxes even if it means the environment is raped and poor people die of preventable diseases. (Seriously, fuck those guys.)

But then there are the libertarian types. They’re generally easy to get along with in comparison to the assholes and god-humpers. They tend to be mostly rational and willing to see other people’s viewpoints. The points they have to make are not always irrational, authoritarian or just downright ignorant. They are often intelligent, informed and politically engaged. Honestly, if the libertarian types ran the Republican Party I wouldn’t find it loathsome like I do now. (Unfortunately, the plutocrats hold the real power in the party and the base is overrun with assholes and god-humpers. Hence the loathsomeness.)

But the libertarians do have one really, really, REALLY fucking annoying tendency. They have difficulty seeing the political, social, or legal value of anything apart from its economic value. If they get it into their heads that a law hurts the economy, then they’re against it, and their money-hardened brains don’t really even process the concept that it could be a good law apart from whatever (real or imagine) economic damage it does. Case in point, Joshua Steimle at Forbes.com, who recently spat out this bit of Libertarian Wankery:

Entrepreneurship Threatened By Ruling In New Mexico Gay Marriage Case

It should be noted that this case wasn’t about gay marriage per se. Gay marriage is in fact advancing in New Mexico and is already being carried out in some counties. But the case in question took place at a time when gay marriage was not allowed and the case is not about legalizing gay marriage. Rather, it’s a discrimination case about a photographer who refused to work at a gay wedding ceremony several years ago.

Steimle (I don’t have the foggiest idea how that letter-salad of a name is supposed to be pronounced) begins reasonably enough:

Whenever the law interferes with entrepreneurial activity it creates a barrier to entry and makes the practice of doing business less efficient. Some would say certain inefficiencies in an economy are good and desirable, as when bad people are prevented from doing bad things by laws and regulations that catch them before they do any harm. This realm of “positive law” includes laws against drunk driving and insider trading. These laws create criminals where there is no victim but merely the perhaps likely threat of harm, and reasonable people can debate the merits of such laws.

This is why I like the libertarians (Steimle doesn’t claim to be one, but comes across to me as one, so I presume he is). Even when I  disagree with them, I don’t entirely disagree with them. Part of what they say usually makes good, rational sense.

The recent ruling wherein the high court of New Mexico ruled against Elaine Huguenin, a professional photographer who refused to photograph a gay marriage ceremony due to her religious beliefs, goes far beyond merely attempting to prevent harm. Rather, it aims to criminalize behavior that has no potential to cause physical harm, but at worst can only be considered offensive. If allowed to stand, the consequences will be negative for all entrepreneurs whether straight, gay, black, white, male, or female.

And then he turns around and says something stupid. The worst harm discrimination can do is to be “considered offensive”? Do you know ANYTHING about the history of this country?

Elaine Huguenin is the co-owner of Elane Photography along with her husband. Their small business is based in New Mexico. In 2006 she refused to photograph a gay marriage ceremony for Vanessa Willock and her partner, citing religious beliefs. Elaine and her business came to national attention after the couple sued her, claiming discrimination. According to the New Mexico Human Rights Act, it is illegal for a business to refuse its services to an individual because of that person’s sexual orientation. The same law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry and gender.

On August 22nd, 2013, New Mexico’s highest court ruled against Elaine, stating “When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.”

It cannot be disputed that Elaine broke the law.

And now he’s being sensible again. Yes, she clearly violated the law. Whenever a god-humper talks about issues like this, that part is often lost on them. If Steimle were a god-humper, he would probably “dispute” it by regurgitating Bible verses and whining that he’s being persecuted just like the Jews under Hitler.

What we can dispute is whether the long term consequences of having such a law in place are beneficial for society.

After the ruling, Louise Melling of the American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement saying “When you open a business, you are opening your doors to all people in your community, not just the select few who share your personal beliefs.”

Were this reasoning to be applied equally to all cases, as blind justice demands, then a business owned by a gay individual must provide services to the Westboro Baptist Church, if asked to. A Jewish entrepreneur must provide services to a neo-Nazi.

And now he’s being stupid again.

Dear Mr. Steimle, would you please LOOK AT WHAT YOU YOURSELF WROTE JUST A FEW PARAGRAPHS AGO.

According to the New Mexico Human Rights Act, it is illegal for a business to refuse its services to an individual because of that person’s sexual orientation. The same law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry and gender.

Do you see “political affiliation” or “organization membership” on there? No. And that’s the law. What Melling says is not the law. She’s just someone from the ACLU who said something that doesn’t accurately represent the law.

The reasoning behind anti-discrimination laws is to protect groups that have historically been given second class citizenship on a basis of something that is either not under their control (race, sexual orientation, place of birth) or that is specifically protected in the constitution (religion). There is no history of persecution of the KKK–in fact, they’ve historically been the ones doing and promoting discrimination.

That’s why we need these laws. What Melling said is irrelevant, and you know this, because you said so just a little while. Please pay attention.

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 85% of Americans believe Elaine had the right to refuse service to the gay couple. I suspect the percentage would be even higher if respondents had been asked not if a Christian woman could refuse to photograph a gay marriage ceremony, but if a business owned by an African-American woman must provide services to the KKK.

What do you think the percentage would be if it were a klansman refusing service to a black woman? People don’t exactly think very clearly on issues like this.

And a black woman refusing to serve the KKK is not comparable to a photographer refusing to serve someone just for being gay. The KKK actively hate and attack black people. Gays do not have anything against photographers.

It is important to reiterate that no harm was done to the gay couple other than to offend their sensibilities.

Utter bullshit. It cost them time and resources to find another photographer. If this practice were allowed to proliferate to other businesses, it could seriously impact the lives and well-being of gays by making it more difficult for them to obtain services than straights. Real harm, even ECONOMIC harm (since that’s how Steimle thinks) has been done here.

How do I know this? Because that’s exactly what happened to blacks back when it was allowed to discriminate against them. Ask anyone who played on an integrated football team in the 1950s who had to scramble to find a hotel for 80+ players and coaches when they learn that the one they booked didn’t allow blacks. Or any hungry black many who had to search around town to find a restaurant that would serve him. It hurts people.

If you are a Christian woman who a week ago was thinking of starting a wedding photography business in New Mexico, might you be thinking twice today?

I’d be impressed if you could think once.

If the Court’s ruling is allowed to stand, this sends a chilling message to entrepreneurs—if someone, anyone, doesn’t like you, your business, or what you stand for, then all they need to do is claim discrimination, and they can sue you.

Utter paranoia. Hypothetically, someone might attempt to abuse the law in this fashion, but whether they could actually succeed would require them to prove you actually discriminate.

It does not matter whether the entrepreneur is black or white, gay or straight, liberal or conservative, male or female. Anyone can be targeted. It’s only a matter of time before alleged inferior service, rather than outright refusal of service, is all that is necessary to claim discrimination and bring suit. To those who claim this is unrealistic and will never happen, I would point out this is exactly what I was told about the type of lawsuit Elaine Huguenin just lost.

“I was told this by my imaginary friend Steve the Wonder Chicken. He’s never done me wrong before!”

Entrepreneurs already face enough hurdles. They must deal with the IRS, The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare), and other city, county, state, and federal regulations.

Yeah, I’m sure wedding photographers are really struggling with Obamacare.

Add to this the threat of an expensive lawsuit based on your beliefs, even if you pick no one’s pocket nor break anyone’s leg, and for some it will be the difference between starting a business that brings us an innovative product or service that improves our lives, and getting a safe job working for someone else.

Anti-discrimination laws are bad, because people who want to discriminate won’t do business in your state. Think of the economy!

So should we allow discrimination against blacks or Hispanics or Muslims or Jews so that people that want to discriminate against them will do more business in our state? According to Heimle’s stupid argument, that’s exactly what we should do.

But the argument is utter nonsense. For one thing, there is more at stake here than merely who’s doing business in one’s state. There’s also the interest of protecting the rights of a class of people who have been historically subject to widespread discrimination. Even if that means a few bigots won’t do business in your state, it’s still worth it. But libertarians simply can’t process this. They see something that might hurt business and immediately conclude it’s bad without further consideration.

But even if we limit ourselves to economic arguments, it’s still stupid. Yeah, anti-discrimination laws might drive the bigots away, but so fucking what? Smart, educated people are more likely to favor gay rights and equality, and they also make for great entrepreneurs, and they would find a state that protects gay rights to be more attractive for business. And it’s not just entrepreneurs. Many big businesses today, including big ones like Google and Boeing, are actively pushing for protections for gays and lesbians and would find a state more attractive if it had laws to that effect. One could easily argue that protecting gay rights could improve the economy.

And as for a bigot who’s so petty and hateful that he/she wouldn’t open a business in NM simply because they won’t allow him/her to discriminate? Fuck ’em. Who needs ’em? Let ’em move to fucking Saudi Arabia and live in the repressive theocratic nightmare that they apparently think society should be. Let ’em move to fucking Russia, where discrimination against gays is now enshrined in federal law. I don’t see why we should need or want their business.

They’re probably shitty photographers anyways.

Advertisements

More Oklahomans make fools of themselves

I already looked at one idiotic argument against gay marriage from my home state of Oklahoma. That particular bit of stupidity was from just some random schmuck in Edmond. Today’s bit of drooling inanity, however, comes from people with actual power. Three state legislators, to be precise.

Young Oklahoma Republican lawmakers: Sanctity of marriage must endure

BY STATE REPS. ELISE HALL, JUSTIN WOOD AND JOSH COCKROFT

Note to bigots: If you want people to represent your position on gay marriage, you should not get guys called “Wood” and “Cockroft” to do it. You’re basically just inviting assholes like me to make fun of you.

As the three youngest members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives Republican caucus, we continue to believe that the push for a new definition of marriage is an attempt to carve out a special right that has no basis in the traditions of our country.

Since when do rights need to have a basis in tradition? Did women’s right to vote have any basis in tradition? Did equal rights for blacks have any basis in tradition?

We believe that all Americans deserve to be treated with dignity…

Okay. I’m not playing bullshit bigot boilerplate any more. Just move on to the obvious contradiction of this statement that you will inevitably make…

but that equal treatment has no bearing on the question of how marriage is defined.

So we can just throw out Loving v. Virginia and start banning interracial marriage again. Because the definition of marriage has nothing to do with equality. Nothing at all.

You see this thing I’m doing here? It’s a rare (on the right wing) form of thinking called “following a sentence through to its logical implications.” You might want to try it some time. Because I don’t think equality having nothing to do with marriage is anything you would ever actually want to stand by.

Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. It’s not defined as a union between a man and another man nor a woman and another woman.

Don’t you just love how right wingers suddenly turn into strident lexicographers whenever the prospect of people they don’t even know having a relationship they don’t approve of comes up? We can’t redefine marriage! Think of the damage it will do to our dictionaries!

Doing so would represent creating a new right, not adhering to any previously understood right.

Bullshit. Giving women the right to vote didn’t “create a new right”. It took an existing right and extended it to a new group of people. That’s how this whole “equal rights” thing works.

Is gay marriage gaining traction with young people? Yes. But that is because of the moralistic relativity that is constantly being promoted by Hollywood and in many areas of pop culture today. The idea that is too frequently becoming the norm is that everything is allowed and nothing is off limits.

It’s pop culture’s fault! If we censored movies and made it harder to have this conversation, then we could be bigots all we want without ever having to worry about public exposure!

Whenever there’s some kind of moral panic, people often target some aspect of pop culture as the supposed cause of all our problems.  In the 20s it was jazz music and dancing. In the 30s it was movies.  In the 50s it was comic books. In the 60s it was rock music. In the 70s, heavy metal. Pornography, video games, horror films, gangster rap music, reality TV–all have found themselves in the cross hairs of sanctimonious culture warriors who want an easy target to solve all their problems. The reason is simple: pop culture is an easy target. It’s highly visible, and there’s always someone out there who finds some aspect of it offensive (usually because it depicts something unfamiliar to them). And, as any rational person might suspect, there is little evidence that pop culture actually has the power over people’s minds that the culture warriors say it does. Pop culture reflects us much more than we reflect it.

But culture warriors rarely care about facts. They care about airy principles and vaguely defined “values”. The myth of American “moral relativism” is a perfect example of this. Whenever right wing douche-nozzles like these guys talk of “moral relativism”, replace the term with “moral system different from my own” and you get their real point. I doubt there are very many Americans who believe “everything is allowed and nothing is off limits.” If there were, the murder and rape rates would be MUCH higher than they actually are because of all the people who just kill and take whatever they want. But the vast majority of Americans do in fact realize that these things are wrong, and don’t do them. They’re not moral relativists–they just have a moral system that differs from the Evangelical system, which is good, since the Evangelical system is based on bigotry, ignorance, superstition, venality, hatred, and pervasive stupidity.

God intended one man and one woman to be tied in holy matrimony for their entire lives.

No. God intended for Evangelicals to shut the fuck up and leave gay people alone.

I have just as much evidence to support my hypothesis as you do yours.

Proponents of gay marriage will point fingers at straight couples getting divorces, but that’s not the fault of traditional marriage — that’s an issue for each individual couple to deal with and answer to God. Humans are flawed individuals and fall short of the grace and glory of God. That, unfortunately, includes marriages that end. It is a straw-man argument.

It’s still better than “God says so.” Unless you’ve got a good solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma, your divine command ethics is up shit creek without a god-paddle.

And, no, it’s not a straw man. Bigoted douchenuggets repeatedly argue that gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed because children need both a mother and a father. Pointed out that divorce results in children being raised without one or the other–but we still don’t outlaw straight marriage–is entirely relevant.

Gay marriage proponents argue that long-term gay couples deserve the right to marry so they can maneuver certain legal matters dealing with things ranging from wills to being put on life insurance policies. There are alternate ways to address legal issues. A widespread acceptance of nontraditional marriage is not the way to go.

Not there aren’t other ways. Oklahoma has a frickin’ constitutional amendment which specifies that there not be any. Not only is gay marriage outlawed, but so are domestic partnerships and civil unions. There is no legal recourse, and assholes like your are precisely the reason why.

This is like putting someone in a cage, locking the only door, then saying, “It’s your fault for not finding another way out.” And it confirms one of the most important lessons we can draw from this whole gay marriage debate: The Religious Right is made up of a bunch of assholes.

We feel young Republicans and conservatives are open-minded and, in some ways, are very different from their parents’ generation. That doesn’t mean we are ready to stand for allowing the legal definition of marriage to be stretched into areas it does not belong for the pursuit of convenience or social pressure.

Go fuck yourself.

Is the ability to visit your spouse in the hospital a matter of “convenience”? If you think it is, then you really are a completely inhuman piece of shit. And the state legislature of Oklahoma is starting to fill up with these. I keep hoping that the next election will give it a good flush, but find myself disappointed year after year.

Sigh. Why do you do this to me, Sooner State? Why?

America: Teabagged by God

Over at the WingNutDaily, legendary deep thinker Pat Boone has copiously spewed forth once again on gay marriage, and gifted us with yet another nuanced and erudite rumination on sexual politics in America.

LAW OF THE LAND

Still one nation under God, or not?

Exclusive: Pat Boone prays for ‘9 humans who will decide future of America’

When WingNutDaily calls an article “exclusive”, it can mean only one of three things:
  1. It’s not actually exclusive, and a dozen other websites are reporting it.
  2. It’s actually a thinly disguised advertizement for some charlatan “natural” cure or survivalist claptrap.
  3. It’s an op-ed so stupid, crazy, malevolent, incoherent and/or pointless that no one else would dream of publishing it.
This is definitely an instance of case #3.
Would you allow a doctor, no matter his credentials, to infuse you with pig blood?
Wait, I thought this was about gay marriage… Is pig blood code for dick?
My mother, herself a trained registered nurse, received a pig valve in her heart in her ’80s, and it apparently extended her life to almost 91.
So your mom’s gay? What the hell are you babbling about, Pat?
But pig blood? In her veins, mixing her human blood with that of a pig?
You’re fine with tissue, but incredulous about blood. Okay. Where is this going?
Never! And no doctor worthy of his certificate would ever suggest it.
Fine. I won’t infuse you with pig blood, or dick, or whatever it is you’re going on about.
Why? Because human beings are created different from other animal forms. While we can accept blood from other humans, we dare not corrupt or pollute our human blood with that of any other life form.
A few points:
  1. Ever heard of blood types? You can’t take just any human blood and put it in anybody else.
  2. You can’t put walrus blood in a yak, either. And I don’t see sharks being very receptive to a pig blood transfusion. The immune system would reject it. The fact that you can’t put just any blood in our veins doesn’t exactly make us special.
  3. What the fuck exactly is your point?

Our DNA forbids it, and it’s not negotiable. Messing with our created state is deadly.

Then why are the pig valves okay? Did the DNA just get sloppy?

What is America’s DNA?

An overplayed, Ur-Fascist and essentialist metaphor abused by self-righteous nationalists to disenfranchise those who supposedly aren’t American enough?

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” – Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

Catch that word, their “Creator”? Our founders knew – and publicly proclaimed – that our rights, and life itself, flowed directly from the power and benevolence of our Creator!

Actually, it’s just a bit of rhetorical flourish that you’re reading way too much into.

And that a democratic republic, unprecedented in human history, must be comprised of, and governed by, individuals who would diligently endorse and obey the rules laid out by that Creator for the continuance of that free society.

Again, a few points:

  1. America was not the first democracy or the first republic or the first mixture of the two. There are these things called Greece and Rome you might want to look into.
  2. If you actually read what the founders such as Jefferson and Madison wrote (rather than just regurgitating fake or out-of-context quotes you get from frauds like David Barton), you’d realize that they were keenly aware of the fact that the will of the “creator” differs depending on whom you ask.
  3. Again, is there a point to any of this?

There was no other way to perpetuate our new liberties, including equality for all citizens.

Yes, all the citizens get equally butt-fucked by the patriarchal Christian tyrant in power.

That way was based completely on the Bible, and on the precepts God had revealed unmistakably in His Book. Without the Bible, we would never have had our Constitution.

In fact, the Bible is so important to the Constitution that it is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, and the drafters of the Constitution actively resisted attempts to put religious language in the document.

The signers of the Constitution knew that full well. Has anybody ever informed you that virtually all the 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution of 1787 were members of Christian denominations?

Has anybody ever informed you that literally all of them were wealthy white males, and many of them owned slaves? If the fact that most were Christian means that Christians should dominate everything, then the fact that they were also wealthy white male slave owners should mean that we should role back rights for women, blacks and the poor, right?

Some revisionists today want you to believe otherwise. When I talked about this with Bill Maher, a cynical unbeliever, he sent me an Los Angeles Times article declaring that all the framers were deists or outright atheists, not Christians.

I responded, drawing his attention to the byline, attributing the distortion of facts to a member of an atheist organization who deliberately lied, ignoring the historically recorded truth.

It’s by an atheist, so it must be false!

The truth is that the Founders were much more diverse than either Maher or Boone realize. There probably were very few outright atheists, but they certainly weren’t uniformly orthodox Christians. Many were Deists or very liberal Unitarians. Many rejected the divinity of Christ and the reality of miracles. Many viewed the Bible as a collection of useful moral tales rather than actual truth. However, it is also true that many really were devout Christians who believe all the stupid dogshit that Christians believe.

The point is that no one can claim that The Founders were a monolithic group that is totally in line with exactly what anyone believes in 2013. No one gets to claim the Founders as their endless allies.

I also sent him a quote from John Jay, appointed by President George Washington as the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, who helped form the Constitution itself:

“Providence (God) has given to our people the choice of their rulers,
And it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our
Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Why? Because it was Christians, guided by the Judeo-Christian Bible, who created the profound document guaranteeing liberty and equality to all, including atheists. They were – and are – the veins through which the blood of freedom flows!

First off, let’s look at some of the context for that quote, from Wikipedia:

Religion

Jay was a member of the Church of England, and later of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America after the American Revolution. Since 1785, Jay had been a warden of Trinity Church, New York. As Congress’s Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he supported the proposal after the Revolution that the Archbishop of Canterbury approve the ordination of bishops for the Episcopal Church in the United States.[27]He argued unsuccessfully in the provincial convention for a prohibition against Catholics holding office.[28]

Jay believed that the most effective way of ensuring world peace was through propagation of the Christian gospel. In a letter addressed to Pennsylvania House of Representatives member John Murray, dated October 12, 1816, Jay wrote, “Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war. Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”[29]

[Emphasis added]

We can learn a few things from this.

  1. The attitude which John Jay was expressing failed to prevail, since the Constitution explicitly prohibits having any religious test for office.
  2. John Jay had a rather naive view of history, seeing as Christian rulers have provoked war over and over and over throughout the entire existence of that noxious religion.
  3. John Jay seemed to have a view of “equality” similar to Boone’s, which boils down to “Christians are better than everyone else, so all non-Christians get to be equally pushed around and disenfranchised by Christians.”
  4. The mere fact that John Jay said something doesn’t make it law.

And the blood of freedom is the Word and will of God.

No. Whenever someone brings up the “word of god”, it is almost always something along the lines of “Believe this, without evidence, or else.” That is not freedom.

So what’s my point? I hope it’s obvious.

That’s some funny shit right there.

Just as your body, and mine, is created to run on one fuel – and only one – so our America was created to operate on only one set of principles. They are our very DNA. And those principles are found only in the Bible. Yes, the Bible.

Yes, the Bible. Where God orders his chosen people to commit genocide, slavery, rape, polygamy, torture, and a host of other things that are part of our principles.

And can we at least start circling around something vaguely resembling a point at some juncture in this article?

“Separation of church and state?” Take the “church,” the institution that promulgates Bible principles, out of the “state” – and you will not have the “state” called America. It will be something else (and some today seem to prefer it), but it will not – could not – be the America that became the greatest nation in history.

Except for the part that that’s exactly what it would be. It wasn’t the Bible that created our vast industrial system, our scientific excellence or our gradual march towards expanding civil rights to more and more Americans.

Our Supreme Court is faced right now with its greatest challenge, ever.

Because whatever topic I’m discussing at the moment is, in my goldfish-like mind, the most important thing that ever happened!

By June, concerning the very definition of marriage, nine human beings will decide whether we remain “one nation under God,” governed by the God who created us and them – or take on a new fuel, the treacherous, fickle, amoral “popular opinion,” a synthetic mixture of poll results, ignorance of unchangeable biblical principle and outright hedonistic rebellion.

Yeah, fuck democracy!

Don’t you right-wingers usually say that the Supreme Court is evil because it (sometimes) overrules the popular opinion? But now it’s evil because it might reach a decision that’s in line with popular opinion?

Why don’t you assholes just admit it? You hate the concept of an independent judiciary. You hate the concept of Americans reaching their own conclusions about other Americans rather than just accepting what your church tells them to think about others. You hate the fact that most people don’t give a flying fuck about your superstitions. You hate the fact that the things that are most important in your lives don’t mean shit to the rest of us. You hate the fact that you’re losing the so-called “culture war”. And you hate the fact that the very constitutional republic you pretend to idolize is your #1 enemy in all of this. You just hate the fact that the American people have a voice, and your voice is a tiny, screechy, obnoxious minority in it.

Already this court has ruled against equality, dictating that innocent babies still in their mothers’ wombs have fewer rights than their mothers. And in so doing, they’ve ruled against life itself – at least for the near 60 million babies aborted since their infamous decision in 1973.

Actual living, breathing, feeling, thinking women should be beholden to undeveloped fetuses that don’t even have higher brain functions yet. You know. “Equality”.

If you have any knowledge at all of our Founding Fathers’ intentions and guiding principles, can you seriously imagine their considering marriage, even for a second, as anything but the union of a man and a woman?

I can seriously imagine them thinking that it’s okay to own another human being. I can also seriously imagine them thinking that a marriage is only between a man and a woman of the same race. Because that’s exactly what they did. Why should I have to align every belief I have with theirs?

Were they stupid or naïve or ignorant about human inclinations?

No, but you are. They were a product of their time. You are a sad, pathetic twat trying desperately to pretend you don’t live in yours.

And as true now as then, our concepts of morality and virtue come directly from God, through His Bible. That’s undeniable.

It’s totally deniable. “Deniable” and “Morals come from the Bible” are so close they might as well be gay fuck-buddies. Every Christian on Earth, including Holy Pat himself, denies it every day. No one has ever actually derived their moral system from the Bible. They instead adopt the moral system of those around them, and then shoehorn Bible verses into it.

His love is universal, for all of us.

God loves you. And he created a place of eternal torment where you’re destined to go if you don’t believe in him. Because that’s how love works.

But His blessings are promised only to those who honor and obey His Word.

Because that’s how you treat people you love!

When a society decides to substitute its collective will for His, it changes its spiritual and moral DNA – like pumping pig’s blood into human veins.

Again, a few things:

  1. The collective will is this thing we call democracy. Get used to it.
  2. “His” will always seems to coincide with the prejudices of whatever old white male happens to be speaking. Can’t help but notice that “He” doesn’t actually pipe up very often.
  3. Putting the blood of another species in your body won’t change your DNA, you fucking dumbshit. Your analogy sucks.

People, we must pray, and pray very earnestly, for the nine human beings who will soon decide the future of America. Only if we remain “one nation under God” will we long survive.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Anyways, let’s take the obligatory look at what the commenters at WingNutDaily have to say on this topic.

nolejoea day ago

Decent NORMAL people don’t get sexually excited over people who are of their same sex. Mentally deranged perverts do.

BobCactusFlower William Wilson5 hours ago

You mean those NORMAL people, who, when constantly confronted by a deviant sexual behavior, find anal sex between perverts ABNORMALLY disgusting?

Nope. That’s as normal as (blechh) apple pie. It’s just that the perverts are still PERVERTS and rather than be legalized, they should be caged and retrained like the filthy animals that they are.

No need to thank me!

Equality! Biblical morality! Universal love!

proclaimingGodsTruth12 hours ago

I think judgment has already come to America; only now the judgments are increasing. The fabric of America’s Christian heritage is coming apart at the seams. We are on the verge of a huge financial collapse that will devastate this land.

It’s time to get right with God, it’s time to proclaim Him in the streets, in the churches, among family – everywhere! God means business – He doesn’t joke, kid around or play games.

We’ve got over 3,000 years of people saying this shit. The well’s gotta run dry at some point, right?

Nottolate buzz13195011 hours ago

When the framers of the Constitution spoke of freedom of religion, they were referring to Christianity only. How do we know? First, the majority of them were Christians (some deist mixed in). Second, other religions were not present in the land at the time. Third, what does that have to do with what I wrote? I spoke on the issue of gay marriage and not freedom of religion.

Can’t argue with that non-reasoning!

BobCactusFlower buzz1319505 hours ago

Brilliant assessment of American founding principles notwithstanding, this country remains OURS and when you try to take it from us, you’re going to find out just how much freedom of worship costs to create and keep.

You’re going to find out that it takes a lot more than a couple of filthy communists in the White House to make God’s people accept sexual perversion, murder, and open worship of satan and your other pals….lol

Freedom for all, as long as you recognize that this country is OURS and you can fuck off!

Larry Bohannon Michael Leone11 hours ago

I can tell that you are ignorant public school student. [sic] You don’t even know the difference between “you are” and your. [sic] Why should we even listen to foolish talk. [sic]

There’s this thing you should look out for when correcting the grammar of others…

Chris Farrell Michael Leone5 hours ago

Where did you gather that the Christians only argument against so-called “gay” marriage is that “Jesus doesn’t like it?”

Marriage, to a Christian, is a covenant in which one man and one woman enter into with God.

I couldn’t possibly have gathered it from exactly what you’re saying.

BobCactusFlower Michael Leone5 hours ago

lol…….get MARRIED to a pervert homosexual? (yeah, you call them gay, but I have YET to see one even marginally cheerful)

That’s probably because they’re stuck being around you.

02word6 hours ago

As one judge said, the gay rights/same sex marriage people haven’t even been around (I mean come out) for but a few years. It’s a made up excuse to push their beliefs into society.

Yeah, fuck them! Only an asshole would do that! Now let’s get back to that part where freedom of religion only applies to Christians and America’s laws all have to be based on the particular Biblical exegesis of a small number of self-righteous bigots.

Idahopeless: More Marriage Police

So a while back the marriage police in Oklahoma were shifting their focus to attacking straight people’s marriages, since there was nothing left for them to fuck the gays over with. But the Okie godbots aren’t alone. Now the mashed potatoes between the ears of several Idaho marriage police have developed this bright idea:

BOISE, Idaho (KBOI) – A number of Idaho lawmakers are targeting a topic they say should be taboo on television – premarital sex.

Yes, we must ban premarital sex on TV. Because not depicting it means it’ll stop existing, obviously. As we all know, back in the 50s when you couldn’t even use the word “toilet” on TV,  people didn’t shit.  Instead they excreted digested food as golden Prayer Nuggets that floated immediately up to heaven to redound to the glory of god.

And they’re taking a symbolic stand.

“Symbolic stand” is politicalese for “time-wasting pandering”. Of course they have no hope of actually banning premarital sex on TV, but Idaho has no shortage of sanctimonious fuck-buckets who clinch their shit-speckled assholes any time someone fucks on TV. These cum stains, unfortunately, are often registered to vote and love to be reassured that getting upset about stuff like this is what actual humans do.

Idahoans are also thumbless (they broke ’em off in their asses), and therefore incapable of changing channels. I’m sure they’d appreciate this cynical gesture to the crippling busybody voyeurism that causes them to continue to watch a show that offends them so much.

Lawmakers are against references to premarital sex in dramas, comedies, reality and talk shows as well as advertisements.

The time machine the lawmakers used to travel here from 1955 is yet to be found. Scientists are still baffled at how they could operate any such vehicle without thumbs or cerebral cortices.

“We need to take a stand and stand up for for the morality of what is best for the citizens of Idaho,” said Rep. Darrell Bolz, (R-Caldwell).

I hereby declare that if you cup a boob to which you are not lawfully betrothed, then I shall bravely and mightily relegate you to late night cable! For I am so strong and so brave and so powerful that I cannot abide by even the existence of a TV show that in any way makes me even slightly uncomfortable! Also, you liberals are such pussies! Raarrrr!

The measure that easily passed the house state affairs committee would urge the federal government and the FCC to prohibit the portrayal, even implied, or even the discussion of premarital sex on TV between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Ah, the FCC. The government’s big FUCK YOU to the first amendment.

It’s important to note that they want even discussing sex outside of marriage to be banned. This is a classic right wing approach to governing: If something doesn’t fit your worldview, then force the entire world to stick their fingers in their ears and go “LALALALALALA”, and the problem vanishes.

But this isn’t mere solipsism or Berkeleyan idealism. The best way to control the cultural dialogue is simply to prevent it from happening altogether. No one can point out how pig-fuckingly stupid your ideas are if the topic can’t even be brought up for discussion.

The measure that’s moving forward is not a bill. Under the rules of the Idaho Legislature, it’s called a Joint Memorial and is simply a symbolic statement.

The statement symbolizes the hundreds of thousands of votes that the people of Idaho flushed down the [censored] by electing these [censored] dribbling [censored] [censored] who waste tax payers’ money on [censored] [censored] [censored] with a goat’s [censored] [censored] and a Roomba.

People KBOI News talked with call the effort a waste of time.

“I think its infringement on freedom of speech, don’t want the government telling me what I can or cannot watch,” Viola Hauck of Boise said.

Uhhh… “Waste of time” is not the same as “violation of the basic freedoms we Americans purportedly hold so dear that our country is said to be founded on them.” Is that previous sentence really supposed to lead into the one that follows? Because I don’t see it.

Supporters say the Idaho Constitution requires government to protect the virtue and purity of the home.

Supporters also would rather you didn’t know what they like to do with a potato and a tube of KY in their oh so pure and virtuous homes.

What else does this dingleberry Darrell Bolz have to say for himself?

HJM 2, sponsored by Rep. Darrell Bolz, R-Caldwell and six GOP cosponsors, cites the Idaho Constitution’s statement that “the first concern of all good government is the virtue and sobriety of the people, and the purity of the home,” and says, “Inappropriate and indecent material is being broadcast more frequently.” The measure also notes that the FCC is charged preventing the broadcast of indecent programming between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., “when children might be watching,” and calls on the federal agency to “resume enforcement of traditional American standards of decency.”

Think of the children! We have no choice but to force our morals on others, because of THE CHILDREN!

Well, those were some rotten potatoes. For dessert, let’s see what those Freedom Loving Patriots who comment over at WingNutDaily have to say about this:

Snooper2 days ago

They need to ban Pornagraphy [sic] and the sex industry in this country once and for all! i’m [sic] tired of watching it. and Yes Bring [sic] back 7th Heaven!

William Wilson3 days ago

Abuot [sic] time! But it’s only a start. Also ban: prostatution, [sic] drugs, murder, and homos.

And bring back 7st Heaven. [sic]

The_Northwesterner William Wilson2 days ago

Ban Islam, Communism and feminism as well and we’ll really be ahead of the game.

wearyconservative1946 The_Northwesterner2 days ago

And illegal mexicans. [sic]

If these guys are the kind of geniuses we get from people watching Seventh Heaven, then I would suck the FSM’s dick with gratitude for the fact that it was cancelled.

But I still wouldn’t have Seventh Heaven banned, even if it turned people into the drooling, retarded illiterates that populate the WND commenting boards. I actually kinda like the First Amendment, in case you haven’t gathered.

DJesus Freaks Uncorked

The fact that SNL somehow still finds a way to remain relevant convinces me that the American public hates comedy and wants to see it crushed beneath the iron heel of predictability, laziness, and immaturity. The show is almost always utterly unfunny, and yet somehow remains on the air after almost forty years of Nickleback-level mediocrity and scrotum-scraping tediousness in almost every sketch the show has ever aired. It is rare to see a skit that is actually funny (a few of the Celebrity Jeopardy skits managed some genuine laughs).  Most of the time the best “comedy” that the show can come up with is a sketch that’s funny in concept, but lazy and predictable in execution.

The recent Tarantino spoof called “DJesus Uncrossed” is an example of this. Is a movie about a vengeance-crazed DJesus storming through DJerusalem viciously killing Romans and avenging the plight of the DJews a funny idea? Fuck yeah, it is. I would like to see it done well. Alas, this is SNL, so ’twas not to be. Instead, we just get Jesus killing people. Obviously a Jesus parody based on Django Unchained will involved Jesus murdering Romans. That’s supposed to be the starting point of the DJoke. It’s the premise of the DJoke, not the DJoke itself. You’re then supposed to build on that, adding new humorous layers and observations. Maybe have DJesus walk across the water to kick off the heads of swimming Romans like footballs off a tee. Maybe have a weird thing about the holes in his feet to parody Tarantino’s creepy foot fetish (we all know he’d love to fuck a foot-hole). Or point out that, unlike Inglourious Basterds or Django Unchained, there’s no evidence to show that it didn’t actually happen this way. (At least, no less evidence than what the Gospel accounts have.)

There might have been ways to make these things funny, and that’s what they should do. But that requires the writers to make an attempt to do their jobs. Instead we just get 2 minutes of DJesus killing Romans in re-creations of scenes from various Tarantino movies, as if the mere sight of it will be funny every single time. It’s not. The humor wears off almost immediately, and there isn’t an attempt to build on the premise until the very end, when a fictional critic describes it as a less violent version of the Passion of the Christ, followed by a swipe at the fact that Tarantino likes to include the word “nigger” in his scripts a lot. Too little, too late.

“SNL skit sucks” isn’t news. It’s in the same category as the Pope’s Catholicism and bears’ woods-shitting. But at least I can get some enjoyment out of this crappy skit, because (quite predictably) the god-humpers are freaking out about it. All it takes is a couple jokes about their imaginary friend, and their heads go *POP* as tears come gushing out over the sad plight of the adherents of the most dominant religion in the Western Hemisphere. Yes, Christians, let me taste those sweet and salty tears!

The following comments were also posted on “SNL’s” website:

–”Seriously SNL? I am one of your biggest fans, but you really crossed the line with this. I am thoroughly disgusted…”

–”Interesting how SNL continues to mock Christ. As a Christian, I was highly offended. No doubt you would not dare to attack other faiths; Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, You can do better.”

–”This is just wrong. Once again, Christians are slammed. I find it ighly unfunny making fun of something that so many hold dear…”

It’s funny how people on the right wing love to talk tough every chance they get, but when something hurts their precious religious beliefs they turn into the biggest pussies on planet earth.

My favorite response so far comes from some dingleberry named Frank Kaufmann, who seems to be yet another religionist who thinks that unthinking, reactionary, gut-based babblings can be made respectable by adding a thin veneer of superficial erudition.

The LA Times explains, “DJesus Uncrossed” may have crossed the line, with some calling it the single most offensive skit in “Saturday Night Live” history.” [sic]

A lot bothers me about the SNL airing of Djesus Uncrossed using the risen Lord Christ as subject matter to parody Tarantino’s Django Unchained.
Something tells me it’s not going to be the right things about it that bother him. Maybe it’s the pomposity of saying “risen Lord Christ” rather than just simply “Jeebus”…
These include the giddy cheers of the SNL live audience following the piece, the comments under the YouTube video of the sketch, the patent and far reaching double standard about whom it is fine to offend in American culture, the worrisome depths and numbness to which popular entertainment culture has declined, the pathological schizophrenia the [sic] obtains among left wing entertainment elite on the matter of violence, and the timing of the piece (namely the start of Lent).
Nope. None of the right things. Let’s go through these one by one.
  • the giddy cheers of the SNL live audience following the piece, [Dude. They’re told to cheer. There are frickin’ signs in the studio that say “Applause” and “Laughter” on them for this purpose. Obeying them is part of the agreement for being in the audience. Your complaint is like yelling in response to the laugh track on Full House, “Hey! That wasn’t funny! Stop laughing!”]
  • the comments under the YouTube video of the sketch, [Fucking YouTube comments? Haven’t you figured out how the internet works yet? ALWAYS IGNORE YOUTUBE COMMENTS!]
  • the patent and far reaching double standard about whom it is fine to offend in American culture, [It’s fine to offend anyone as far as I’m concerned. One of the reasons I feel that way is that “offensive” only sounds like a legitimate objection to someone who is him/herself offended. Case in point, Christians who cry persecution whenever someone makes fun of Jesus but don’t give a shit when gays complain about a gay joke.]
  • the worrisome depths and numbness to which popular entertainment culture has declined, [Getting even more pearl-clutchy and offended by every little thing would only accelerate that decline.]
  • the pathological schizophrenia the obtains among left wing entertainment elite on the matter of violence, [“Pathological schizophrenia”!  Gotta sound smart when attacking the “elite” straw man that every dumb Christian blubbers about whenever the TV appears to be smarter than he/she is.]
  • and the timing of the piece (namely the start of Lent). [We demand that shitty comedies on networks hardly anyone watches any more schedule according to our silly holiday rituals! But just ours. No need to pay attention to Ramadan or any bullshit like that. We might get offended if you avoid offending Muslims.]
Six objections have been raised, not a single one of which is even remotely legitimate. This was definitely written by a Christian.
The core of my disappointment lays [sic] not in moralist or liturgical obsessions involving legitimate charges of blasphemy (in my view a proper injunction) but in more widely applicable negatives namely that material like this is ignorant and childish. [sic]  Like a 1 year old smearing poo everywhere thinking herself an avant-garde rebel against constraining norms. [sic]
Or maybe said 1 year old wiped her ass with a thesaurus and needlessly smeared “liturgical” and “injunction” on the walls. Oh, and if you’re trying to look smart, you probably shouldn’t confuse “lay” with “lie” and put a run-on sentence right next door to a sentence fragment.
The difference between SNL’s skit and the little one smearing stink is that the child is not heavily funded, and does not participate in a network of self important figures in the multi-billion dollar entertainment industrial complex, spending your money and drinking your wine. The 1 year old thankfully is limited to her own rear-end, her own walls, her own face and hair, and she doesn’t have a thousand people excitedly cooing, under [sic]  a YouTube video imagining themselves champions of courageous and daring horizons of self expression.
I’ll give Frank this: I have never before seen a poop-based analogy pursued with such dedication. Bonus points for the overly-elaborate poop joke in a paragraph accusing the opposition of being immature.
I have, however, seen the kind of mind-reading Frank is attempting. I’ve seen it precisely 378 gajillion times (using Steven Seagal math). It’s pretty common for religious dingbats to create straw atheists motivated by whatever pet boogedy-boo(s) the author obsesses over. Obviously, Frank’s boogedy-boo is (perceived) transgressiveness in the art world, and he imagines a world full of liberals who think anything that offends Frank is therefore a masterpiece of rebellion. Never mind if anyone actually thinks that way, and in this case I would say hardly anybody possibly would. I find the mind-reading particularly amusing in this case, since no human being in this world or any other could use terms like “avant-garde” or “courageous” or “daring” to describe SNL. It does say a lot about Frank’s understanding of what the rest of the world considers to be daring or transgressive, though.
The putrid outcome of the little one in her diapers further resembles the Djesus skit in that neither is funny.
Jesus. You are really fucking committed to this poop thing, aren’t you?
SNL has long been lazy in creating elaborate enactments of profoundly average ideas. This skit had a single funny line, calling the SNL grotesquery less violent than Mel Gibson’s cartoonish and bloody depiction of Jesus.
You’ll get no argument from me on this point. It shows that at least part of you sees the real problem with this sketch. Now, let’s get back to the part of you that’s stupid and whiny.
The delighted squeals and cheers from the SNL live audience can probably be forgiven. Anyone who’s ever been a part of a live TV audience knows the demeaning experience of being manipulated by second rate comics or MCs telling you when to laugh and when to applaud. It is embarrassing. Some years back I went to see Tracy Chapman on the Letterman Show. Loved her, hated being told what to do all night long by cue card holding clowns.
Then why in the fuck did you object to it at the beginning of your op-ed? And why in the holy cunt-shitting, cocksucking, ass-badgering, poodle-fucking hell would anyone ever go to a Tracy Chapman concert? If Tracy Chapman were headlining the Free Limitless Beer and Pussy Festival I still wouldn’t go.
The freedom to offend Christians in a politically correct America is a disgrace.
Yeah! Fuck freedom!
Calling an athlete athletic has cost commentators their jobs and careers.
CITATION PLEASE.
Defiling the sacred and offending sincere religious believers is fine.
Especially if it’s someone else’s “sacred” that’s being defiled. How many people wanna take a bet on whether Frank complained when South Park ridiculed Scientology, Islam, or Mormonism?
A US army handbook in preparation reported by WSJ warns “that soldiers should avoid “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” [and] “any criticism of pedophilia.” [sic] So we must be careful not to criticize pedophilia, but it is fine to portray the beloved object of worship and love for millions of Americans as a violent, underdeveloped, sadistic thug.
“We”? Are “we” all in a combat zone in Afghanistan? Because that’s the only possible way the two situations would be comparable. Oh wait. I forgot your were doing that Muslim Dog Whistle thing. The thing where you treat two completely unrelated situations as the same, but it’s okay because it involves Muslims.
This is the contemptible double-standard in contemporary America.
No, this is the safety-standards for soldiers serving in Afghanistan (who are trying to avoid getting blown up by religious freaks even more insane than the freaks in America) and the existence of a crappy SNL skit in America that makes god-humpers feel poopy inside (which leads to smearing shitty op-eds everywhere). Two unrelated situations. No double-standard at all. But lot’s of well-deserved references to feces.
Furthermore SNL chooses to air this skit to coincide with the dawn of the Lenten season, when millions of quiet, sincere, humble American Christians are seeking help from Jesus to be sorry for our shortcomings, and to try to be better people.
You can’t make fun of us, because we’re so GOOD! You’re also not allowed to make fun of the fact that we have this disgustingly self-righteous attitude about ourselves!
And galloping god-balls would I like to see more of these “quiet, sincere, humble American Christians.” I’m getting really sick of the whining, bigoted, thin-skinned, humorless, sanctimonious, complaining, asshole variety.
The core tragedy of the piece lies most fully in associating Jesus with violence and revenge.
Here’s what I’ve learned about Frank so far. He confuses prolixity with profundity. He thinks “Hurts believers’ delicate, precious feelings” is a legitimate objection. He really, really, really likes poop jokes. He really likes the word “core”. And it’s good to see that he’s finally realized the difference between “lies” and “lays”. But he’s fucking cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs if he thinks Jesus hasn’t been associated with violence and revenge for the past 2000 years.
Jesus refused that a single sword be drawn, even in his own defense when his life was in danger. As a violent mob descended on Jesus, he demanded a follower put up (re-sheath) his sword (Mt 26:52), and warned him about escalating cycles of violence.
That same godly motherfucker, according to your own bullshit gospels, also did this:

John 2:13-17

Jesus Clears the Temple Courts

13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

He whips people for promoting capitalism at church! Hell, Christian Christ-fetishists have already included Jesus’ violent behavior in their cunt-sniffing hagiographical films of the bastard:
Where’s the outrage over this violent depiction of Jesus’ behavior? And keep in mind, the SNL hacks were just making a bad joke. The makers of that even shittier film, on the other hand, claim Jesus actually did that shit.
SNL has Jesus as a gruesome figure of revenge, yet the final act in Jesus life was to pray for the Romans. As Jesus hung to die, Roman Centurions gambled over his clothes. Jesus begged God’s forgiveness of them. With barely breath in his lungs Jesus tried to speak in defense of these men, arguing that their misdeeds were because of their ignorance. They did not understand what they were doing. (Luke 23:34)
The gospels differ on what his last words were. But they’re all in agreement that those were not his last words. In fact, Christian tradition has him saying six more things after the whole “They known not what they do” blubbering. (Did it ever occur to you that they knew exactly what they were doing, Jesus? Maybe a god who sends people to eternal torment for refusing to believe without evidence shouldn’t be welcome on this planet.) Hell, those aren’t even his last words in the very gospel Frank is quoting. Luke 23:43 and 23:46 have him saying and doing other things later on. Read your god damn Bible, Frank!
SNL producers choose to portray a vengeful and violent Jesus on the eve of the most sacred and most reflective 40 days of the liturgical calendar. Hear still that barely audible prayer recorded in Luke.
Hear also the violent, vengeful Jesus portrayed throughout the book of Revelation. Hell, Revelation could easily be titled “Jesus Haploid Christ Ass-Fucks the Entire Human Species” without misrepresenting its message.
I’m sick and tired of the religious trying to have it both ways. They want even non-believers to treat their invisible friend with reverence and respect and gush about how peaceful and loving he was, and they want to say that said non-believers will all be killed and thrown into the pits of hell for eternal torment simply for the crime of being non-believers. Jesus, as conservative Christians view him, is a sick, disgusting, violent, bigoted god, and anyone who says differently hasn’t read Revelation. Pretty much the only thing that SNL got right was the fact that there are a frighteningly large number of Christians out there who have a gigantic god-boner just thinking about the day when Jesus will return and destroy all the atheists and Muslims and everyone else who doesn’t buy into their twisted, sadistic eschatology. Prince of Peace my ass.

Tragedy in White Suburbia

Am I reveling too much in the continued right wing meltdown following Obama’s win? Probably, but I’m gonna keep doing it anyways. Up next, the good ol’ American Thinker. Remember them? The ones repeatedly publishing op-eds predicting a Romney landslide win? Yeah, well, you can imagine they took the shattering of their illusions pretty hard.
And, oh, how they did. 🙂 Mary Durbin provides a particularly amusing reaction:

I am not ashamed to admit it: I cried the night of the election.

It’s probably time for you to start reevaluating what you are and are not ashamed of.

I cried even before the election was called, because I knew in my heart that it was over.

Well, your heart needs to have a conversation with your colleague William Gensert’s gut, which was telling him over and over that Romney was gonna win in a landslide. (Curiously, Gensert hasn’t posted a single op-ed after Nov 6.)

I cried for my country, I cried for my faith, and I cried for the loss of what I imagined would be a life free from constant worry over what the government was going to do next to reduce liberty and freedom.

1.) Your country will be fine.

2.) Your faith sucks.

3.) Really? So when a Republican is in office, you are free from constant worry about loss of liberty? Well, that explains how Bush was able to get away with so much bullshit.

This election cycle, I saw far fewer Obama bumper stickers, so during my morning-after commute it was not easy to spot the perpetrators of my despair.

But it’s pretty damn easy to spot the perpetrators of stilted language and maudlin self-pity.

I cried at work, telling coworkers it was my allergies.  This is something that is very believable in Florida.

Other things that are very believable in Florida:

  • The State Legislature collectively forgot to wear pants for two weeks before anyone noticed.
  • Jeb Bush was hospitalized after accepting a challenge that he couldn’t eat 5 gallons of expired mayonnaise.
  • A local Tea Party elected an alligator with a cross glued to it to the school board.
  • Said alligator prevented Advanced Creationism from being a required course in Florida public schools by eating the other school board members.
  • Said alligator was then shot. Not because he ate the school board, but because the shooter thought that having scales and walking on all fours were popular in African American fashion.
  • A landslide popular vote mandated that a fence be built on the border with the Gulf of Mexico.
  • None of these voters noticed when said fence was never built, but $10 million was somehow spent on it anyways.

Honestly, the best thing I can say about Florida is “It ain’t Texas.”

But then I started noticing something.  The other night, I picked up dinner at one of the many roadside barbeque stands that permeate the part of Tampa where I live.  The owner seemed positive and upbeat.  I thought, “Does he not know how hard it is going to be to expand his business?  Does he understand how difficult the government is going to make it for him to keep on smoking all those chickens and ribs and mullet?”  (Remember, this is Florida.)

I thought Florida was known for another kind of mullet, one which I would gladly ban.

But, I don’t really have a leg to stand on here. I’m from Oklahoma, where it is common to find–I shit you not–Barbecue Bologna. Compared to that, barbecue mullet doesn’t have shit on the WTF-o-meter.

I went to the supermarket, and my favorites cashier waved hello and said, “How are you doing, sweetheart?”  Again, I asked myself, “Doesn’t she know what is going to happen to her health care?”

So you at least noticed that the election of Obama hasn’t immediately transformed your dull, homogenous suburban lifestyle into a dystopian hellscape. I guess that’s progress.

I went to a meeting last weekend at a hotel near the airport.  When I walked in, I saw the lobby full of guests whom I easily identified, thanks to my near-obsession with TV bridal reality shows, as members of wedding parties.  As they were all dashing off to make last-minute preparations, I thought, “There are still weddings?  These people must have faith in the future if they still want to get married…right?”

We still have reality TV and marital frivolities! Obama can’t take that away! Unless the gays destroy marriage AND reality TV!

After my meeting, I went to a nearby mall.  When I walked in, I saw that the Christmas decorations were already up.  I am one of those people who find Christmas decorations in early November an abomination and disrespectful to the next holiday in line, Thanksgiving…but this time, I found it comforting to see Santa Claus (the real one — not the government-issued one) sitting in his overstuffed chair, waiting for the youngest among us to make their special requests.

No need to worry. Overthrowing Thanksgiving was a preemptive move in the War on Christmas. Christmas joining homosexuality in the Abomination Club was just an unfortunate bit of collateral damage. Luckily, the Real Santa Claus survived, just to insure that the suburbs are still tolerably monotonous and superficial for you shallow-minded soccer moms.

So to paraphrase Dr. Seuss and the Grinch, the election didn’t stop Christmas from coming.  It’s coming.

“Paraphrase” doesn’t mean “Say something that has nothing to do with and doesn’t even make sense.”

I went to the food court and saw a long line at Chick-fil-A.  I joined it.  As usual, I received great service.  The young man waiting on me was from the demographic that has been so constantly scrutinized of late.  I said to myself, “Please , please don’t grow up to be a Democrat.”  Hopefully he will learn, if he hasn’t already, that working hard and doing a good job are the true ways to success.

Yeah, that menial job at Chick-fil-A certainly has him going places. I’m sure he’s mighty happy to be serving self-centered bitches like you who support policies that will make it very difficult for him to do anything more with his life. That’s the American Dream, after all: Working your ass off for minimum wage so that privileged suburbanites who don’t give a fuck about you can rest easy knowing that their mass produced chicken sandwiches are preventing gays from experiencing the marital bliss they watch on reality TV.

While I ate my lunch, I noticed the family sitting at the table next to me.  There was a little girl who seemed utterly enthralled with the dollar bill she was holding.  I guessed that she hadn’t yet realized how little it buys today!  She was showing it off to her family and kept reading aloud the words “The United States of America.”

Ah, yes. It’s so quaintly beautiful to see those first, innocent buds of greed and jingoism before they’re old enough to understand inflation.

Of course, I started to cry again (I need to buy stock in Kimberly-Clark).

The image of a Republican soccer mom weeping silently over her fag-hating sandwich in a dull, lifeless suburban food court is the kind of thing that gives me hope in this world.

And then, finally, I remembered something.  I remembered that despite everything, we Americans are a strong people, and we will find ways to get on with our lives.  Life may not be the life many us wanted or voted for on November 6, 2012, but life will go on.

You put us through 8 years of Bush. You get no fucking sympathy from me.

“Life will go on.” Jesus titty-motor-boating Christ. Yes, Mary Durbin, you can still eat cheap sandwiches in a food court in suburban Tampa. You can still watch TV. You can still look at Christmas decorations at the mall. You can still live your dull, pointless, myopic existence without a hint of self-awareness. Despite all the scare-mongering and demagoguery that your sponge-like micro-brain absorbs on a regular basis, it remains true that middle class, straight, Christian, Southern suburbanites like you are the people least likely to have their daily lives altered by anything Obama does. I realize that processing cognitive dissonance is difficult for people like you, but think about this: You are at least partially aware of the fact that your daily life will go on mostly unchanged with Obama as President. But you oppose Obama because his policies might make life easier for people who are different from you–namely, poor people and gays. And helping poor people and gays might mean that millionaires (not you) have to pay slightly more taxes–not enough to make them no longer millionaires, but more than they want to. And WHO exactly is telling you that you should oppose Obama because he’s going to destroy your treasured Christmas decorations and chicken sandwiches? The ones he clearly has NOT destroyed?