The Gift That Keeps On Giving

By now you have probably heard about the San Francisco Superior Court judge who declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

Well, fake journalist/rent-boy homunculus Jeff Gannon™ has heard about it too. And boy is he ever, uh, still on the side of those who hate him for who he is. Whaaaa?

Fear not, for the ever-intrepid Gannon™ is even-handedly on the case. Witness the seemingly reasonable comment from the lone "pro-homosexual" spokesman:

Seth Kilbourn, Vice President for the pro-homosexual Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) Marriage Project praised the decision, saying, “Hard-working, tax-paying Californians are now one step closer to equal rights under law, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender. We laud the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda, the ACLU and the plaintiffs in this case for bringing their stories forward and securing this important victory for equality.”

Yes, "Mister" Kilbourn, we've all heard your little happy talk about "equal" this and "rights" that. What about our rights not to see two guys holding hands, huh? How equal is it now? You know, God created Adam n' Eve, not Adam n' Steve! Haw haw haw!

Fortunately, Our Hero™ gives "equal" time (and then some) to the Defenders Of Marriage®.

Groups opposed to gay marriage were quick to respond to the ruling as well. Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America’s (CWA) Culture & Family Institute called San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer’s ruling “nonsensical.”

“Yet another irrational judge, like his counterparts in Massachusetts, can’t find a rational reason for defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman,” he said. “That’s because these judges are no longer acting rationally, and are imposing their own radical agenda, ignoring the law and the will of the people.”

Knight added, “Californians should remove Kramer from office because of this scandalous ruling. We also need to enact a constitutional amendment, at the state and federal levels, to protect marriage once and for all.”

Yeah, protect it, because if we give them the same rights as us, they'll....uh, they'll....dammit, they'll attack it and stuff! Don't you know that it's under attack? Oh, why won't someone please think of the children?

Eh, you get the idea. Here's another of these loons in the article:

Randy Thomasson, Executive Director of Campaign for California Families, which had full-party status defending marriage for a man and a woman in the Kramer’s court said, "This is a crazy ruling by an arrogant San Francisco judge who apparently hates marriage and the voters. Kramer has trashed the people's vote to keep marriage for a man and a woman and violated his oath to uphold the law instead of making new laws out of his own head. This is the worst type of judge. This case will be immediately appealed."

He continued, "It's hurtful and insulting to the voters when a judge attacks the voters and destroys the sacred institution of marriage for a man and a woman. This outrageous ruling will inspire average citizens to rise up and fight to protect marriage as it naturally is - for a man and a woman, a husband and wife."

Exactly what are they protecting, and exactly how could letting gays have the same rights as the rest of us undermine what's already in existence? Seems to me like they're just broadening it ever so slightly in definition. Not one of these halfwits has been able to explain exactly what the big deal is or the specifics of the "attack on marriage"; they just know they don't like it.

And there are several other opponents profiled in the article. Gannon™ ends up with the one pro, with one paragraph, and five con, each with either two or three paragraphs. This is "fair and balanced", I imagine. More likely, there's just more wingnut interest groups because there's more money in it, and that's really all these demagogues are after.

Here's the kicker -- this activist hippy judge they're all raving about? He's a Republican, appointed by Pete Wilson, and Roman Catholic to boot. This is anything but a stereotypical lefty judicial activist.

The native of Brookline, Mass., earned his law degree at the University of Southern California and practiced civil law in San Francisco before then- Gov. Pete Wilson named him to the bench. Over the years, the 57-year-old Roman Catholic and registered Republican has gained a reputation for being compassionate, respectful and unbiased.

Which is certainly more than you can say for Jeff™, who can now add "self-loathing" to his voluminous ledger of descriptives. Or maybe he was just "gay for pay" all along....