Sorry about the meager posting, I’ve been busy. But here’s a piece from Megan McArdle that just popped up on the internet [where else?] and which provides us with a chance to jeer and hoot. You didn’t think we’d be left with only standard issue wingnut jabbery as regards the same-sex SCOTUS tilt? Did ya?

In some sense, it doesn’t really matter how the Supreme Court rules on the gay marriage case it’s hearing today. The culture war is over on this front, and gay marriage has won. Even if it loses at the Supreme Court this term, it will win in the legislatures . . . because it is already winning in popular opinion.

As usual Meg will prefer to cut to the chase because that’s smart, which is kewl. If only the gays with their tedious legal gripes could be so chill. South Carolina, who waited 150 years after the Civil War to outlaw slavery, would have no problems at all with dozin’ on the couch and playin’ video games and generally smokin’ a doob Dixie-wise instead of going el-seven Bill Lumbergh over the latest civil rights denial. M’yeah, I’m gonna have to ask you to legalize this before 2014, mmmkay, that’d be great. That’s not how they roll.

The ways the rest of the world will roll, you read and you marvel at:

At this point, it’s just a matter of time. In some sense, the sexual revolution is over . . . and the forces of bourgeois repression have won.

Any smarter and Megan cuts past the chase. Then we don’t even recognize her any more. ‘Honey? Gay people are the new Amish?’ ‘Ha. Pity the poor fool that wrote that.’

That’s right, I said it: this is a landmark victory for the forces of staid, bourgeois sexual morality. Once gays can marry, they’ll be expected to marry. And to buy sensible, boring cars that are good for car seats.

Gay people famously do whatever silly thing the straights want them to do. In the past it was sucking each other off, and enjoying it. Next up, after the nod from Scalia, the gays get delivered the twin delicacies of privilege: Velveeta and Viagra. We had to wait some time before Megan figured this out — the squares and hipsters have been locked in a game of master n’ slave. Wait until Pat Robertson hears, there won’t be enough twink porn (or Kleenex) in all of Christendom.

I know, it feels like we’re riding an exciting wave away from the moral dark ages and into the bright, judgement free future. But moral history is not a long road down which we’re all marching; it’s more like a track. Maybe you change lanes a bit, but you generally end up back where you started. Sometimes you’re on the licentious, “anything goes” portion near the bleachers, and sometimes you’re on the straight-and-narrow prudish bit in front of the press box. Most of the time you’re in between. But you’re still going in circles.

I see little good in that. Better to do homosexuals a cultural ‘solid’ by denying them their rights. Given how well they interpret Cole Porter, probably best that we go back to the days when it was alright to beat them in the alley. Just to be safe.

Pictured (l to r): past, present

Shorter Reverend Harry R. Jackson Jr., Townhall.com:

“You homos have some nerve. We were netted, sold, and branded before we won our civil rights. Currently, you’re not even legal.”

The Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling on Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriages in California, came down today. By a vote of two to one, they ruled it was unconstitutional.

National Review were outraged (gotta love this headline):

Ninth Circuit to 7 Million California Voters: You Are Irrational Bigots
By Maggie Gallagher | February 7, 2012 1:50 P.M

In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.

Boy, you couldn’t be more wrong there, Maggie. It was an illegal exercise in rational animus, otherwise known as legislated homophobia. Are all you misanthropy-flogging lessons in un-Christ-like behavior really so shocked? You must know an historically un-American law like this won’t pass judicial muster. Yet you shove it down our throats. Aren’t you wise? Too bad there’s no way to construct legal bigotry so that the Constitution won’t tear it pieces. To quote another famous document, the court said: “All Men Are Created Equal.”

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted. Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State or any other authorized party, an important right — the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less . .

. . Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996).

I’m no legal scholar, but as far as seeing through the pretense of the legislation, the majority hit center bullseye. The NR headline was spot on, as well.

June 7, 2010
Why I’m disappointed in Rush Limbaugh
By Matt C. Abbott

This column may open up a can of worms, but here it goes…

I guess we conservatives (and, for the record, I don’t consider “socially moderate” Republicans to be in the conservative camp) should be grateful that Rush Limbaugh, a prominent media critic of the left for a number of years, hasn’t been silenced by the powers that be.

However, as a pro-life, pro-family Catholic, I’m disappointed in Rush. He just got married for the fourth time and even paid Elton John, the anti-Christian queen of pop-rock, a reported $1 million to perform at his wedding . .

What?! Elton John got a million bucks to play Viet Cong Ass-Pimple’s 2010 divorce launch? Yeah:

Rush Limbaugh Weds for 4th Time, and Elton John Sings
By Stephen M. Silverman

Talk about an odd couple: conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh and outspoken gay-marriage advocate Elton John.

But, according to a News Corporation (which owns Fox News) wire report, the Rocket Man, 63, serenaded the 400 guests into the wee hours Saturday night to celebrate the marriage of Limbaugh, 59, to Kathryn Rogers, 33, in the Ponce de Leon ballroom of Florida’s fabled Breakers hotel in Palm Beach. Sir Elton’s fee: $1 million, the report notes.

Limbaugh, of course, will tell you the silly wife just likes Elton’s music. Elton, of course, will tell you to fuck off and then throw a fit.