Friday, August 6, 2010

Judge Meant

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.



  1. The Judge was Gay???
    Who cares??
    I know you don't operate anymore, but you left out one consequence of the Judges decision.

    "When you get called at 3am to repair a Sigmoid Colon perforated by an 18 inch studded Dildoe you'll have to talk to the Husbands Husband.

    C'mon, you Operated in San Francisco, I know you've done a few "ICD-45307's" in your career...

    Frank "How did THAT fit in THERE?" Drackman

  2. I don't read "Books"
    There SO.... 20th Century
    except for that "Twillight" series, there pretty good...
    Just like you haven't read HR3200 "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009"
    I mean REALLY read it, from cover to cover like I did with "Celine Dion: My Story, My Dream"
    Do you KNOW that there's NOT a requirement for Sterilizaton of the Untermenschen on page 1843???
    They cculdn't even get the year right...

    Frank "Reading's for People with Attention Spans" Drackman


Comments back, moderated. Preference given for those who stay on topic.

Popular posts