Showing posts with label Courts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Courts. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 07, 2024

Die Already

Reading only headlines, if that, is somewhat freeing. 

I can backstory just about anything - good or bad. Usually I go dark. It's my nature. It's certainly my nature for the last few years. 

These last eight years have been dark. They have put me in a funk - and not like Bootsy Collins. I see no respite from this, even if Pappy Joe wins. 

The turmoil that will come with another BLOTUS loss will be worse than 2020. They are gearing up for that. We should as well. 

That said, this headline yesterday momentarily made me joyful. 

When I say momentarily - I mean a nanosecond. 



I don't know what BLOTUS said or did - and it really doesn't matter - because I didn't read past the headline. 

What I will say is: anyone else held in contempt 10 times wouldn't be threatened with jail time. It would BE jail time. And B.T Wbs - anyone else isn't getting 10 chances. 

I saw last week some Rep or Senator has said they would put forth to Congress that Von ShitzinPants gets his Secret Service detail removed should he be found guilty of any of the number of federal crimes in which he is charged. 

I wholeheartedly agree. You can't have Secret Service in prison with this fat fucker protecting him. And I ain't paying for it. 

Just die already. 

Actually, can you imagine him dying in August? September?  No way for the GOP to truly get another candidate up and running for a November election. 

Yes. Just die already.  September 30th would be optimal. 



Song by: Prodigy

Sunday, May 05, 2024

Depends

I have to admit, there are days I almost regret avoiding most news.  I said "almost".  ....and a lot of social media things. 

Like - I have no idea about this man/bear thing is supposed to be about and I can't be bothered to figure it out. 

I know the Cleveland Cavaliers are still in the basketball playoffs, so in theory, I know they've won some games, but not how many or even where in the series we are. 

Oh - and I totally missed Michael Cohen tweeting (of X'ing?), calling BLOTUS "Von ShitzinPants". 


That tweet from a few weeks ago was funny enough.  I don't have X so, I certainly didn't see it there. But I hadn't encountered it elsewhere either. 

Know what's funnier even? 

Discussing gag orders in court, the judge mentioned that Cohen should stop poking the bear (or man?) or a gag order regarding BLOTUS would / could be reduced so BLOTUS could go after Cohen. 

But in these proceedings, BLOTUS' own lawyer read out the tweet. 



Know what's better than 'open court'?   "Von ShitzinPants" is now in the official court record. 

Von ShitzinPants (which now might replace "BLOTUS") must have been livid that it was said, repeated and repeated and repeated - and then on newscasts and now blogs!

I. Could. Not. Be. More. Pleased. 



Song by: Blink 182

Wednesday, November 08, 2023

Lies

As with most things BLOTUS, I am trying to stay away from headlines, news, details - well......anything. 

It is tougher than you'd think. But it's better for my sanity. 

<---------- This made me smile. 

I've seen articles floating around lately about gaffes and memory losses for BLOTUS, along with that campaign saying Pappy Joe is too old to be president. 

Meanwhile, this tub of goo is only slightly younger and with a much higher BMI. If I were a betting man (I accidentally typed 'better', and that I'm not) I'd say if anyone was going to keel over, it'd be the human cheeto. 

Of course, I'm hoping he has a coronary in a court room. 

710 has to keep reminding me his NY trial has already passed guilt and this is just the penalty portion. I suppose that's good because there wasn't a lot of compelling testimony on who was running what at the BLOTUS org.  Michael Cohen was the only one who said BLOTUS & Co. gave directives on the fraudulent behaviour.  

None of the kids said that - though I didn't think they would.  BLOTUS claims not to have said that - not that I thought he would. And the CFO denied it too. Cohen could easily be seen as vindictive ex-employee. I believe him, of course, but I saw no other evidence tying BLOTUS to anything definitively . 

Again, I didn't really read for detail. 

This might set him back $250MM, but it won't preclude him from running for office. Maybe Georgia of the DoJ will.  Or Colorado. If they can keep him off the ballot, I'd be thrilled. You'd have think with all the trouble he caused in Georgia, they'd be fighting to keep him off too. 

Both those states have a Lauren "I'll Jack You Off on our First Date" Bobert (or whatever her name is) and Marjorie Taylor Cunt. So, the voters in those states aren't sharp tools.  But they are tools. 

710 and I restarted our conversations on IF 2024 goes back to BLOTUS. I can't live like this for another four years - or more. I get very upset evening thinking about it, but honestly, I'd very much like to live my remaining years overseas or down in Ecuador. 




Song by: the Knickerbockers

Thursday, November 11, 2021

Cry Baby

Don't tell me anyone and everyone doesn't have an Oscar. 

Honestly, if Halle Berry can get one, so can Kyle Rittenshithead 

Here he is now, auditioning for his role in: the Brett Kavanaugh Story. 

.....of course, he might get the part after all, because it is doubtful he'll be convicted. He's a white supremacist in fucking Wisconsin - which I believe is 97.4% white.  For all any of us know, they could also be 78.1% white nationalists.  ....with cheese. 

Of course, I don't believe a thing this guy does. He bought a gun. Mom drove him across state lines. He killed and went back home to sleep. He's been out on bail, broke that mandate about not hanging out with other white supremacists and wasn't reprimanded for that.  ....and NOW tears?  

Gimmeafuckingbreak. 

Should be be convicted, maybe the part of Kavanaugh can go to someone who needs a break in the biz........like Gilbert Gottfried. 

Should he not be convicted, I'd like someone to show up in front of him with a semi-automatic weapon and get him to cry on command..........real tears. See how tough he is. 

Then they can shoot him, like he did to others. 


....and no, I'm not joking. 



Song by: Cage the Elephan

Friday, September 03, 2021

Poison

As if the courts aren't already deciding what a woman can (well, really what they can't) do with their body, now they are moving on to what hospitals and doctors should do. 

Texas, which I still cannot deal with at this point in time, isn't the only fuck up state in the union. Ohio is right there too. 

In West Chester, which unsurprisingly in the southern part of the state - a stone's throw away from Kentucky, y'all - a judge has ruled that a hospital ICU must (yes.......MUST!) give a Covid patient Ivermectin. 

Yes. A woman got a prescription from a doctor (allegedly not an animal one!) and now a judge is forcing the hospital to give it to the patient, who is on a ventilator. 

The order is to treat the patient with it for three weeks, because it is requested by his wife - - - who is not a medical or veterinary expert {shocking}.

Poison Centers across the country are spiking with calls regarding people who have taken it.  Like. I. Care.  This, people, is how Natural Selection works. And why it works.  Let. Them. Die.   Be it by not vaxxing or taking livestock medication. I really don't care.  Not. At. All. 

Yet this is a no win for the hospital and / or healthcare. Should he live (doubtful), it won't be due to Ivermectin - not that you'll be able to tell the Yokel Republic that. If he dies - dollars to doughnuts the family sues the hospital for administering a drug that the FDA has not approved.  Or because they didn't give the drug soon enough. 

At this point, I hope the drug makes it a horrible, painful death that the wife has to watch.

Of course, she might just be in it for the insurance pay-out. 


Still - the courts are making medical decisions - and not just end of life kind of things. This isn't "to pull the plug on a patient who has been brain dead for 8 years".  They are making medical / treatment decisions on something about which they know nothing. You can't even have expert witnesses in this - as this is not a drug for humans, let alone tested on them. There is zero data on this and zero "experts" for the pro side. 

I don't know the repercussions for the hospital if they refuse to comply. Personally, I would transfer that patient out of there quick as fuck. But of course, they'd be sued - live or die. 



Song by: Bell Biv DeVoe

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

Court and Spark

So, it turns out Covid isn't all bad. 

I mean, there is no 2020 Coldplay tour!  School shootings are WAY down.  There is always a chance #moscowmitch will catch the disease and die!

.....and no jury duty. 

I got a summons to the county court......three weeks ago. 

First off - I've only been 'summoned' once before - pushing 12 years ago. It was the kind you called at 16:30 the day before to see if they needed you.  They didn't.  Five days in row they didn't need me. It was just like my dating life 12 years before that. 

This time was to be the same thing.  

My first thought was: who gets jury duty right before Thanksgiving?  My second thought was: they're having actual juries in times of Covid? 

I knew at our supposed peak, they stopped them. But then they reinstated them - though I don't know if that was for city, county or federal. 

While being on a good case would be entirely a blog series, it's weird time of year, as I'm finishing my budget and really in the midst of heavy recruiting. And more importantly - I just didn't want to, civic duty or not. 

I had a plan, of course.  Two, in fact. 

1. Go. And wear my Black Lives Matter mask. There was a 100% chance they wouldn't let me on any jury. Ever. Of course, that in itself is using the minority population for white privilege.  So, I scratched that idea. 

2.  Call the number on the summons and ask for a 90 day postponement. 

That seemed more realistic, as it had the instructions right there. On the outside of the envelope.  It's like they were telling me to call.  So I did. 

I didn't even have to given an explanation. 

Not only that, they go:  you know there aren't jury trials at least until June. Do you really want to postpone as you are now ineligible. 

To be honest, I didn't even know what she meant by the past part, so I quickly answered not to put me in the postponement category. So now I'm "ineligible". 

I'm not sure justice will prevail without me. But maybe, just maybe, it will. 



Song by: Joni Mitchell

Wednesday, February 01, 2017

Trampled Rose

Any more these days, I come home to see what fresh hell awaits.

Oh, it's not 710, Sophie or Shep......well, sometimes Shep, but to see what CheetoFührer is up to now.

Well, now plagiarist DeVos got her cabinet seat approved. You had to see that coming. She never went to public school so she doesn't know it's not good to copy of your neighbor.

But Dump, can't get away from him television showmanship - if that is what one chooses to call it. I call it P.T. Barnum with a cathode ray tube.

First - a televised announcement (in prime time) for your pick for the Supreme Court?

Second - you're bringing your two top pics and selecting one?

Doesn't he have to go horseback riding on a beach with each of them, have a picnic lunch and make conversations with lots of sexual innuendo before giving the rose to just one of them?

I'm basing all my knowledge of the Bachelor from the Soup or the People's Couch.

I know I should care about both (or either) of these guys, but I don't. Oh my - a middle-aged white male. Shocking!

The thing is, unless they killed a baby on national tv, the vote will go down party lines. And even that baby killing thing is not a deal-breaker for the GOP faction. In fact, it might bolster their vote....but only if the baby was a refugee.....because you know: pro-life.

The public can protest all they want over a nominee, but does it ever do any good?  And don't say "Bork", because I'll counter with "Thomas".

So far the Dems have not stopped a single cabinet nominee. Sure the votes are off by one, but you only have to win by one. I expect Sessions, Price and that Secretary of State guy to make i through as well.

The best the Dems can do - and I encourage them to, regardless of the pic of how qualified they are - is to hold up the nomination for a year or two. Give the GOP a taste of their own medicine.

But they won't.

They need balls. I'd say bigger ones, but they should at least try out a starter-set before they go into 'man-up' mode.

I don't know about in your neck of the woods, but here in the land of Cleves, they are running political ads.  I shit you not.

"Don't let Sherrod Brown vote against Jeff Sessions.  Call his office NOW".

I hate Ohio.



Song by: Robert Plant & Alison Krauss

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

the Trial

I wish I felt better about how the arguments went with the Supreme Court yesterday.

From many accounts, it is very up in the air. In a way, that is not surprising. The court is voting 5-4 on just about everything. They could all witness the same murder and they'd vote 5-4 on guilt.

In this day of social media, it is hard not to get a skewed perspective on how things went depending on who made the post or what sites you visit.

I felt slightly better - but only slightly - after seeing Nina Totenbag Totenberg and Tom Goldstein discuss the day's events.

I feel slightly better- but only slightly - when Nina said that she's not sure the oral arguments would really sway any of the justices. If so, then it probably - as always - comes down to Justice Kennedy.  (see video below......assuming it embeds.)

Of course, the fucking frightening thing is that the Liberty Council is insisting that all GOP presidential candidates sign a pledge that they will defy SCOTUS should the marriage initiative go in "our" favour.

Naturally, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee (neither of them GOP candidates.........yet) signed immediately. I will be very interested to see which others do - if any of them.

But no one has taken an action or threat of defiance to the next level or asked the right question(s):  if one in "power" can disobey certain laws, how can they hold anyone accountable to any law........including the ones for which they lobby? In a way, it is political suicide if anyone asks them that last question. On the other hand, none of them are that smart.

This is a scary time.

As bad as I feel for Ohio not having same-sex marriage or recognition of it, I feel very bad for the states who have it not by voter consensus. The appeals and possible invalidation of certain state marriages could be devastating.

It's going to be a long two months until we hear the verdict.




What you need to know about today’s #SCOTUSmarriage arguments in less than four minutes. (BONUS: NPR’s Nina Totenberg & SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein … and word bubbles!)
Posted by NPR on Tuesday, April 28, 2015



Song by:  Pink Floyd

Friday, August 01, 2014

Runaround Sue

Lord. Here we go.

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives have voted to sue the President of the United States for claiming he abused his powers.

Let's try to forget that both sides of congress passed the Affordable Care Act  - they certainly have.  Let's try to forget that the House has unsuccessfully tried to repeal the ACA 50+ times since - they certainly have.

They bring new meaning to the phrase 'sore losers'.

Though this is the basis for their "lawsuit", using Executive Orders will be part of their case as well. Though they'll ignore that Obama has used fewer EOs than all presidents going back to GHWB.  Bush Sr. was a one term president. Ford, less than that. Even Kennedy used more than Obama and he didn't make a full term either.

If you take Bush and Ford out of the mix, you'd have to back to Grover Cleveland's second presidency to find a president who has used fewer than Obama.  (if you combine it with his first presidency, Cleveland used more.)

Where were the lawsuits on Reagan who has 381 ???!!! Or Shrub with 291 ???!!!!  Oh that's right, those were Republican presidents. It doesn't matter that each of those drove up the debt to phenomenally high rates....or exchanged weapons for people or started multiple wars killing hundreds of innocent soldiers and people.

By all means, sue the president for providing healthcare to more of the population. Or to save stranded immigrant children from death. Or anything involving women and their health. But good for the GOP to have moral, Christian values. {yes, sarcasm folks....sarcasm.}

Naturally, it is completely partisan, as this and the last two congresses have been. There is no reasoning. There is no compromise. There is no logic.

Coming this close to the mid-terms, I see what the GOP is trying to do. As many have accurately called it - it is a Political Stunt or Political Theater. The Supreme Court has severely restricted so-called “congressional standing,” creating a presumption against allowing members of Congress to sue the president merely because he fails to faithfully execute its laws.

Hillary might be in trouble if that pronoun is bound in the ruling.

What the Republican House (no Dems voted for this) don't see is that it is so close to backfiring in their face (sing it like Debbie Harry), is that it could sooooo easily work against them in November.

...especially on how they plan to pay for this lawsuit.

Which is how exactly?

I'm guessing with yours and my money. That's how. I have found nothing in the news to say how they are funding this charade.

Of course, this is 100% distraction from their lack of progress (and by 'progress', I mean even taking their thumbs out of their asses, let alone vote on anything) on Equal Pay, Job Creation and Immigration Reform. To be fair, they did vote to cut benefit for the VA, all the while complaining about how the VA actually operates. ....you know, after most of these assholes sent them off to two wars.

What absolutely floors me isn't even this act. It's the American public. Yes, polling numbers will tell you that Congress is at its lowest approval rating ever. But where is the fucking outrage?

Allegedly when the U.S. House members mention suing, they get boos back in their faces, but that won't stop them. And it seems there is no one to stop them, until mid-terms, where America's short-attention span will kick in and the majority of these asswipes will be right back in their chairs on the floor.

Of course, for the U.S. House of Representatives to actually go ahead and go forth with the suit, would mean they'd actually have to do something to completion. So don't hold your breath.



But as he often does, Aaron Sorkin kind of nails this partisanship in less than a minute's time.






Song by: Dion

Wednesday, July 02, 2014

Basket Case

Weeks ago, we had a chance to see the Case Against 8 in our art theater.

Thinking we'd have time and not knowing it was headed to HBO, we didn't sprint to get there. As it turns out, it had one showing in the actual movie house.

Two weeks later it was screening on cable.

Overall, I am impressed with the film and taking the viewer from beginning of the case to the Supreme Court's decision on this case, as well as DOMA.

The filmmakers do a very good job, but I'm not going as far to say they did a great job.

As a procedural piece, they cover most, but not all of, the bases. Clearly they vetted the two plaintiff couples and said it was a painstaking process, but they skip most of how they got to them. I'm not sure who they weeded out and why.

I get the human aspect of it by doing a lot with the couples, but I would have liked to see more of Ted Olson and David Boies.

There were times I wanted more exposition on what Olson and Boies were doing - and again, why they were doing it. Some of it was dumbed down. And perhaps it was editing, but the comment Boies makes about if the U.S. Solicitor General agrees to present at the Supreme Court, he'd step back and not present. They never said if that happened or not. I only remember hearing audio of Olson presenting.

Logistically, I'm not sure how they were coordinated. Case in point: the actual SCOTUS decision. I had to log on to the website for weeks to see if they'd be ruling that day. Yet, Olson, Boies and both couples were seemingly on-site when the verdict was handed down. That's great, but were they in D.C. for weeks on end - just waiting to be filmed?

Most cases don't have the plaintiffs standing around on the steps awaiting a decision.

As the human aspect goes, I got little emotion out of it. A little more on the second viewing, but for the first, I just felt the filmmakers left us flat.

Perhaps it's my jaded view of life (no, it's true!), or that the verdict was known a full year before the film. Or perhaps that wasn't the real story they were telling, though they tried, I just think without tons of success.

That's not to say I didn't like seeing reactions.

I did get a kind of creep factor with the HRC's Chad Griffin attempting to be in every fucking shot. Though that wasn't as creepy as fame-whore Dustin Lance Black showing up whenever and wherever he could.

There is a scene near the end where Griffin and Black are in a car together and they find out that California can start marriages that day. Watch Black look deflated when he is usurped by Griffin after asking "I wonder if the guy's know" and Griffin replies, "I've already texted them". I know I'm backstorying it, but it seems someone pulled the proverbial rug out from under Black for wanting to be the messenger.

The film is a nice piece of history. A little sanitized. Clearly one-sided. They don't seem to interview any of the opposition - or if they tried, it is not mentioned.  Still the Case Against 8 is worth a viewing, if you have HBO.

I look at it this way: it beats watching the World Cup.


Song by: Green Day

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

Control

The U.S. Supreme Court has, once again, obligated me to blog about one of their fucking rulings.

They are getting annoying.

Hobby Lobby - a fucking store dedicated to paper flowers and scrapbooking - has actually challenged and won a case against the Affordable Care Act saying it violated a federal law protecting religious freedoms.

Really.

Now I get that someone no doubt put the Hobby Lobby (of which I never heard of until they filed this suit - but then I'm not into spray painting decorative wreathes or doing decoupage. Nor am I a spinster at 31 years of age with 43 cats who will never ever ever ever need to worry about contraception). Maybe it was Michelle Bachman or Orange is the New Boehner who was behind this. Who knows.

And I get that SCOTUS ruled on this issue and this issue alone - which technically is the way it should be since this was the only thing brought to the court in the case.

...but there is where I have the issue.

Hobby Lobby is worried about having to pay for a woman's birth control, but ok with having a man's erectile dysfunction meds in their formulary. At least with 'the pill', it does more than prevent unwanted pregnancy. The list of its attributes are many whereas Viagra has one:  to get a guy's dick hard so he can fuck a woman whose health plan won't pay for contraception she might eventually need.

That seems reasonable.

Also not on the table in this case:  why stop at contraception?  why not attempt invalidate FMLA for new mothers who are not married. tsk. tsk. tsk.  Children out of wedlock????  Jesbus would be very very very mad!  Sorry you modern day Mary Magdeline: you can't have 12 weeks of maternity leave.

And for that matter - no prenatal care if you're not married either. We're not even paying for the OB-GYN services at all. WHORE!

Religious Freedom, folks. It's not pick and choose. Is it?

Well, of course it is. Some right-winger had a bone to pick with Obama and went at it and won.

But to say the Court is not political is insane. The 5-4 vote was extremely predictable right down to which members voted for and against. Once again, men have decided over a woman's reproductive system. Welcome (back) to the Middle Ages.

Of course, even semi-smart women and complying doctors can prescribe the meds for things other than straight-on contraception. I don't think the Snobby Lobby will have a foot to stand on in that regard, that is unless SCOTUS strikes down HIPAA - which I wouldn't be the least be surprised should we find that on their docket.

Now, some douche on a FB post yesterday was all for the SCOTUS ruling - and I swear to g-d, I'm not making this up - because the ACA does not pay for his condoms.

Again - dude, chances are, you don't want your swimmers making it to Susie's egg. YOU should not only be paying for your rubbers, but you should be fucking paying for her Ortho Novum. If it went on a man's health plan, Hobby Lobby wouldn't fucking think twice about paying for it.

Though I'm just guessing here, but I bet they pay for pre-IVF testing and vasectomies. Both would seem to be against g-d's will.

Of course, I laugh at the term "religious freedom".  If you are bound to and live by laws written by men 2000-6000 years ago.....exactly where is your 'freedom'?

I'm just askin'........

SCOTUS screwed the pooch here......and no doubt she's not eligible for Plan B.



Song by: Janet Jackson

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Court to Love

....and so it begins....

Well, the day is at hand. Well, the first of two consecutive days:  the Supreme Court will be hearing cases for Prop 8 and then on Wednesday, potentially repealing DOMA.

Clearly, I hope things go "our" way. We won't know for months - and even if they do, there are several outcomes that could play out - and some that won't be addressed.

I don't think DOMA will cover if you're married in a state that recognizes marriage and you move, do those rights still follow you. I think it will be uncharted territory and a few more trials, appeals and circuit court appeals before it makes it back to the Supreme Court.

The New York Times had a nice breakdown on the potential ruling of same-sex marriage.

John Roberts really surprised many with his decision on the Affordable Healthcare Act. Who knows who will vote which way on which matter.

What I don't get is the "protesters", on either side, who are coming by the bus-full.  For whatever I think about SCOTUS, them going out and tallying how many people on the pro or con side is not on their agenda. Their not taking popularity votes to see how they should vote.

About the only sure thing to happen is Clarence Thomas not opening his mouth or posing any questions. He's barely said "boo" in the last seven years. I'm not sure he's asked one question in that time.

Ironically, he is the one who should be - given that before the Court's decision on interracial marriage (or which he's a member), he definitely could not marry his wife in Virginia (where he resides). Off all the justices, I'm watching his vote more closely than the others.

Of course, we won't get a decision for months, so it will all be hurry up and wait thing.

We will see how badly the analysts might get this wrong. There wasn't one that I heard after the healthcare session who thought it went well in favour of Obama - and clearly they were wrong.  So I'll listen to the commentary, but I won't take too much stock in it.

Time will tell.



Song by: Clannad

Friday, October 22, 2010

Fool on the Hill


Seriously, how fucked up are the Thomases - both Ginni and Clarence?

First, that wench expecting a 19 year old apology. But Clarence (not enough bells will ever ring to get his wings!) implied Anita Hill should also apologize during some autobiography he allegedly wrote.

...which by the way, why would you write your autobiography before your term in the Supreme Court was about 2/3 through and not like 9/10 complete? The man is all ego.....and nothing to back it up.

Here is what I want out of a Supreme Court justice - even a conservative one - one that actually talks and asks questions in court.

I don't know about 2010, but in a NYT article reported that Thomas had not asked a question from the bench in over - get this - four years!!!!

So he's letting all the other justices do the heavy lifting while he sits his fat ass on the bench and then makes decisions that affect certain individuals, presidential elections and national law??

And then he has the nerve to demand an apology from a woman, who not only told the truth, but did it under subpoena? Hill didn't even want to testify, so it's not like she had some huge vendetta against the man. And it's not like it even cost him the job - he still got it!

Of course, part of me - just a smidge - thinks Ginni has had it up to here with Clarence and is just fucking with him with her righter than Tea Party fund raising and this passive-aggressive call to Hill (seriously? Over the weekend and to her office??). Maybe she's trying to humiliate the man for something he's done and she's just tired of it.

Either way, they are loons. Both of 'em.


Song by: the Beatles

Thursday, August 05, 2010

Love is Stronger than Justice


Old news by now - but it can't hurt just to be one of the 14,593,712 bloggers who have a post about Prop 8 - right?

The case was to decide on whether California's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay couples' rights to equal protection and due process, as protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The image is not of me. Apparently I'm one of the few gay bloggers who does not a picture with duct tape over my mouth and the NOH8 inscribed on my cheek. I know, right?

Apparently it's hard to get on the front part of the NOH8 website if you're not a celeb. Regular people don't rate for people for same sex marriage. Like I care what the fucking Kardashian sluts think of my ability to get (or not) married.

I picked the image on purpose. Most of the H8ers claim to have christian beliefs. But they more believe in the sinner, not the sin. It's an easy out, if you ask me. Not horribly truthful either - which isn't christ-like. They don't treat the sin separate from the sinner. That's why they're H8ers.

I don't live in California so the ruling means nothing to the legality of my impending nuptials. I suppose maybe down the road they might. Eventually, this case will most likely get to the U.S. Supreme Court - which, like their 1967 ruling (Loving v Virginia), struck down the law on interracial marriage.

Do not get me wrong - equality, in the eyes of the law is a great thing, but it's not everything. The H8ers can't take away my love no matter how they react to Perry v Schwarzenegger (gags me to even have to type Ah-nuld's name) - which as you can imagine, has not been good.

So, the ones touting what kind love is real and how it should be portrayed, now/still/will always lashes out at things they take for granted and for which no one hates them for. Even the gays do not try to minimize their love - not really. Sure we question why we don't have the same rights as the slutty Kardashian skanks, or that Rush and Newt can get married four times each but we devalue what marriage is about.

When/If Jebus ever returns - if we're not already in hell (which is possible) - he won't be returning home with as many folks as these "do-gooders" as they think he will. They might be the ones left behind.

Let the courts do as they will. I'm moving on with or without them.


Song by: Sting