Among the tsunami of wingnut outrage about the decision in California that will require all men to get gay-married and have teh buttsecks on their honeymoon with their new husbands, it’s not really a shocker that Don Bob “Squeal Like A Pig” Surber would win the statuette for the best performance by a sexually insecure male over the age of thirty attempting to demonstrate his macho creds. For extra hilarity points, Don’s take on the California decision demonstrates — yet again — that singular absence of intellectual acuity that consigns him to the job of being an opinion columnist for a newspaper in West Virginia, a state where newspapers are more often torn up into squares for use in an outhouse (after clipping out any coupons for Hot Pockets and Slim Jims) than are actually read. (“Too derned many big words!”)
The headline to Surber’s post on the California decision starts off the fun: “Judge: Voting Unconstitutional,” revealing that Don Bob not only hadn’t made it through the 138 page decision (“Too derned many big words!”) but also apparently learned everything he knows about the opinion from the chryon crawl during a Fox News Broadcast (“I wish they’d slow that derned thing down a little so it’d be easier for me to read!”). Understandably the subtle difference between the process of voting and the result of a particular vote is difficult for Don Bob to grasp, particularly inasmuch as Don Bob still can’t figure out the difference between antifreeze and crème de menthe, regularly pouring the former into his Southern Comfort stingers. (“Doc, this ringing in my ears won’t go away and I think I may be going blind.”) I looked back through Don’s scribblings to see if he expressed similar outrage when the Supreme Court has overturned democratically adopted gun prohibition laws. Sadly, no!
The voters of California decided that marriage is between a man and a woman.
A gay federal judge told them to go to help.
Wait a minute! Judge Walker is GAY? Are gay judges even allowed? Won’t they decide cases based on which side has the cutest attorneys and shout “fabulous objection” and stuff from the bench? And what children will ever again dream of going to law school once they realize that they might have to stand up in a courtroom and call a gay judge “your honor”?
The irony is that the same type of improvisational adjudication gave us the Plessey [sic] v. Ferguson ruling that denied blacks their 14th Amendment rights for 58 years.
Er, right, Don Bob. A case striking down a discriminatory law as unconstitutional is exactly the same thing as a case upholding a discriminatory law as constitutional. Because, I guess, if you let courts strike down discriminatory laws it means that courts cannot strike down other discriminatory laws and so gay marriage will mean that women can’t vote and blacks must ride in the back of the bus or something.
Don, it’s arguments like this that causes the Pulitzer Committee to call you each and every year and ask you, yet again, to stop nominating yourself. Not going to happen, Don Bob. Ever. As in I’ll gay marry Ryan Kwanten before Don Bob even gets a Pulitzer nomination and I’ll gay-have Ryan Kwanten’s gay children before Don Bob wins the prize itself.
Impeach the judge for hearing a case in which he had a pecuniary interest — a tax break if he marries his gay lover.
OMG, he might save a couple of hundred bucks on his California taxes. That’s nothing of course compared to the money that he’ll save by having a family membership at the gym and by being able to share a Costco membership. Assuming, of course, the gay judge Walker wants to gay marry his gay lover and live in a gay house on gay street and do gay things with other gay-married gay people. Did Don Bob mention that the judge was gay?
Actually, you have to wonder if there is any judge who could have been impartial in deciding the California case. If the opponents of gay marriage are correct, gay marriage will destroy the institution of “opposite” marriage, which will be bad for heterosexuals. And of course the gay judges will always vote for the gay. So who could possibly be impartial except perhaps for . . .