This is not a column about Proposition 8. It’s about the towering stupidity of its proponents.
In the days after Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, I futilely scoured the internet, print, TV and radio to locate just one anti-gay-marriage argument that did not, at some point, display colossal ignorance of our laws and government.
I’m not just talking about those random, dumbass-on-the-street interviewees, but also government leaders, journalists and spokespersons of powerful, national organizations—such as Wendy Wright of concerned Women for America (CWA), who said Judge Walker has “declared his opinion to be supreme and ‘We the People’ are no longer free to govern ourselves”; such as Mascara Palin telling Sean Inanity of Fox News that it was “frustrating to see the third branch of government undoing the will of the people”; such as the dumbass-on-the-street CNN interviewee who claimed that, by ignoring California voters, Walker had turned America into a “dictatorship.”
Frustrating? I’ll tell you what’s frustrating. It’s frickin’ frustrating that so many people—including a frickin’ former vice presidential candidate and potential 2012 Republican nominee—doesn’t understand the most elementary principles of our system.
The third branch Palin mentioned is the judicial branch. The reason it “undid the will of the people” is because that’s its frickin’ job! When the will of the people is unconstitutional, it is the role of the judicial branch to frickin’ undo it. And I hate to break it to the concerned Witches of America, but the people have never been “free to govern ourselves.”
It’s called checks and balances, my little dumbasses-on-the-street; checks and balances is the opposite of dictatorship.
Another recurring fallacy in the responses to Walker’s ruling is that he can, and should, be removed from the bench. Take the Family Research Council (FRC), which—after hitting all the buzzwords about a “tyrannical” federal judge “single-handedly” overturning the “will of the people”—instructed its members to urge Congress to impeach him.
Now, one has to wonder why the Family Research Council folks don’t do any, you know, research. Had they performed one simple Google crawl, they would have learned that there’s no frickin’ way Walker can, or should, be impeached, that the Constitution protects federal judges from retaliation for making unpopular rulings, that we can impeach them only for “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors” (going commando under the robe, f ’rinstance), and that urging Congress to do so is a massive waste of Family Research Council members’ time.
Also on the list of oft-repeated simpletonianisms is the mantra that Walker defied the rule of law. Redstate.com said the judge “disregarded” it. David Limbaugh wrote that he “thwarted” it. And Robert Knight (of Coral Ridge Ministries) said Walker has “contempt” for it, which is such a neurologically crippled position that it makes you wonder if it wasn’t the same doctor who botched all their lobotomies. “Rule of law” means the government must obey its own laws. Rule of law protects citizens from abuses of power such as, hmm— let me think now; I wonder if I can come up with an example here, something relevant to the discussion, oh yeah—such as stripping a minority class of its equal frickin’ protections.
And Newt Gingrich, what a piece of work.
He’s been pounding the same twaddle about “judicial tyranny” and “overruling the will of the people” since gay marriage began picking up steam around 2000. Gingrich wrote that Walker’s ruling was “an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution.”
Oh, Newt, if hypocrisy is a donkey, you’re its asshole. It was you who wanted to amend the Constitution (or should I say, “mangle it with a pry bar”?) to deprive a minority class of its inalienable rights. Accusing Walker of offending the Constitution is almost as amusing as when you say homosexuality offends family values, given that you’ve had three wives, two divorces and a six-year extramarital affair, which you begged your wife to “tolerate” so it wouldn’t derail your crusade to impeach Bill Clinton for being one-tenth the scalawag you are.
Anyway, the list goes on and on. They just keep making the same erroneous allegations over and over, unable to formulate their own ideas—like they’re a giant, singular, lobotomized brain, swollen with inaccuracies and too concussed to look anything up.
“Never in the history of America,” said Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage “has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
Yeah, OK, Mr. Loboto, that’s probably true.
Of course, never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a constitutional right to eat bananas. Never in our history has a federal judge ruled we have a Constitutional right to breathe air, walk fast, sing show tunes or, for that matter, have heterosexual marriage. The Constitution is not a list of every specific thing we have a right to do. Rather, the Constitution grants the intentionally vague, all-encompassing right to “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness,” unless it can be proved that there is a valid, legal reason to restrict it.
But, ah, you frickin’ fricks—you always have your shit backward. You’re always thinking that individual rights must be earned, that the will of the majority is sacrosanct and that judges should be punished when they don’t rule to your liking. You eat, regurgitate and re-eat each other’s fallacies until they are unrecognizable as bullshit, then try to feed it to the rest of us, and all I’m saying is, do a little frickin’ research before you open your swine-holes next time.