Friday, August 6, 2010
As surprising as sunrise, conservatives are enraged. The judge was gay. The judge was gay. THE JUDGE WAS GAY.
Funny. Everyone knew it, including all the lawyers for both sides. Why do you suppose there were no objections? (When I asked the question in a comment thread, it was met with silence.)
Because even the lawyers defending Prop 8, who could find only two lousy witnesses for their sides (and by lousy, I mean idiotic and laughable) knew the obvious: if they objected to the judge because his sexual orientation made him prejudiced, the other side would (I'd have to hope) do so about a straight judge. What argument can be made for the one that can't be made for the other?
I'm sure those lawyers must have given it some thought. But some things are so obvious that even bigoted denialists have to recognize them. How it must have stuck in their collective craw: our arguments are fine for political campaigns when directed at the thoughtless and willingly misled. But if we make them under the brightest of lights, in courtrooms, where they'll be subjected to actual scrutiny by people who know how to think (enough, anyway, to be noticed), we'll have to try to make sense.
Tomorrow's newspaper column: Bullet points for Trumpists: · Trump said he’d protect Medicare and Medicaid. His budget cu...
My upcoming newspaper column: Wow. Is there any chance on God’s green earth or in the hot brimstone of Hell that a single Republica...
It's as if Democrats are determined to lose. We're (they're, more precisely) gonna resurrect the bitterness of the last e...
My next newspaper column . Vulnerable, Entitlement, Diversity, Transgender, Fetus. Evidence-based. Science-based. Attendees at a ...
My next newspaper column : “Thinking NFL players are protesting the flag is like thinking Rosa Parks was protesting public transportati...