Indignant Desert Birds

So to recap:
52% of Californians voted to destroy thousands of California marriages. Many of the friends and family members of those married couples are angry enough to stop doing business with the people they know voted to destroy marriage.

The San Francisco Chronicle doesn’t understand why this boycott exists, calling it “intimidation”. Naturally.

Let me explain it in words small enough that even a newspaper columnist can understand:
If someone came into my home attacked my ability to be a good parent, and then burned my house down, I’d probably boycott them also.

Perhaps Proposition 8 supporters feel that the simultaneous destruction of thousands of marriages is less devastating than a wildfire would have been. Maybe if they lose enough business to feel some small percent of the pain they’ve caused, they’ll begin to understand.

But probably not.

Tags: Uncategorized by Punning Pundit
1 Comment »

Lenin would know exactly what it’s all about. I’m shocked that John “if it’s less than 500 years old, it has no value” Weidner would be making a Beatles reference. Also: why would he be making this Beatles reference?

It seems to undercut his point just a bit…

Since John doesn’t seem to understand the difference between Marriage with 2 adults, and:
1) Marriage with 1 adult and 1 infant
2) Marriage with 1 adult and 2 other adults.
3) Marriage with 1 adult human and 1 dog (of undetermined age)
and
4) Marriage with 1 adult human and 1 Robot (with great attractiveness)

Let me spell it out for him: Infants, dogs, and Robots can’t consent to marriage. Nor, indeed, anything else. As for polygamous relationships: most of the time, they’re relationships based on coercion and quite frankly involve children and adults. Show me 3 adults who all wish to marry one another and we’ll have a whole separate conversation..

So in my world, marriage must be based on two things: 1) love 2) the wiliness of people capable of giving consent to give consent. Against this, John Weidner presents a fear of “communism”, fear of “change”, and fear of “ickiness” (the last is inferred).

My principles tell me that lines should be drawn as broadly and as widely as possible, to let all people within the sweet embrace of society. What possible defense does John have for limiting the rights of individuals to participate in society?

Tags: Uncategorized by Punning Pundit
No Comments »

Let’s imagine a world in which the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church and 52% of Californians decided that Lawyers were icky, and therefore ought to be stripped of their rights to get married. Existing marriges, with the the cuts of a million pens across ballots would be erased. Families would be ripped apart, thousands would find themselves in legal limbo.

We should hardly be surprised when, after the vote came down, Lawyers were outraged. Boycotts and legal challenges might be the tamest possible response. Indeed, if there were riots, we should understand exactly what caused them. The fact that Michelle Malkin fails to understand the outraged demonstrations in the wake of the Prop 8 vote is a failure of both empathy and imagination.

I don’t read hateful bigot Michelle Malkin, but hateful bigot John Weidner decided to post one of her columns verbatim. What is, morally/legally, the difference between Lawyers and Gays? If we can deny rights for Gays, why can’t we deny rights for Lawyers?

And if, California decided to dissolve John Weidner’s marriage because he and his spouse “chose” the lawyer “lifestyle”, I would think of less of John were he not to demand justice. If John didn’t feel the smallest quiver of rage, he wouldn’t be a respectable human being..

Quite frankly, the fact that we’re seeing mostly peaceful demonstrations, rather than insane riots, is mystifying. We’re going to see some pretty epic legal battles going forward. And the Anti-8 coalition has the full throated support of this blog. And screw anyone who would dissolve a marriage because they found it distasteful.

Tags: Uncategorized by Punning Pundit
3 Comments »