the circus says human rights were over rated anyway. the government isn't called human servants, they're called civil servants, you whiny humans.

you may notice that my last post was inspired by the gay marriage ruling, but didn't speak on why i'm upset about the california ruling on same sex marriage, or why, specifically, i think it went down they way it did. i guess i'm just over it. as i've pointed out in an earlier post, there really was no way california could have redeemed itself to me. i'm embarrassed, on this front, to be a part of this place.

more importantly, i am embarrassed to be part of a country and, quite honestly, a civilization that has allowed civil rights, civil law, and human rights to get muddled up into one another until the latter finally got snuffed out by the two former.

and yes there is a difference between these things.

there is one fundamental human right, it's in the goddamn declaration of independence: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. or, to put it more simply, the right to live.

a law is something that is supposed to protect the basic human right to life. for example it is my right to get blasted on vodka if i want to, but if i were to try to drive my car while drunk, i could very well put a sudden and painful stop to someone else's right to live. so there are laws against that kind of behavior.

a civil right is something that needed to be created in post, because we as humans have created a system that infringes upon that one basic human right. a civil right is a woman's right to vote; a citizen's right to medical care; things that all fall under the human right to life. laws and amendments and such are put in place to protect these rights, because, apparently, otherwise we might forget.

it makes me wonder what the hebrews behaved like before moses came down from the mount with the ten commandments...

oh, thou shall not kill? well, it's a good thing you told me. i was about to finish this guy off then go fuck his wife.

amendments 13, 14, 15, and 19 to the US constitution, for example, are not necessary. not because they were not important decisions that needed to be made, but because the abuse (or absence) of the rights that they address is not specified earlier in the constitution. what i mean to say is, nowhere in the constitution does it say, "all men are created equal except black ones, and women shall get in the kitchen and make me a goddamn sandwhich, and shall give me no sass. it's not like we're giving them the right to vote or anything". it's amendments like the aforementioned that simply point out how quickly we would devolve into an abusive and immoral wasteland if someone wasn't always watching our asses at all times. but i guess we're too stupid to figure that out.

bunch of microcephalous idiots, we are.

suggested reading:

1. the constitution

           *please try to at least read this one. i think it's too important that we all finally take some time to sit down and have a good read of this document that we live under every moment of our lives.

2. the declaration of independance

3. don't know much about history kenneth c. davis or a people's history of the united states howard zinn

4. why we can't wait martin luther king jr

*no fun stuff this time, but hey, there was no homework last time, so it all evens out.

california calls "no homo", the circus calls california "pretty gay".

alright, california, tough love time.

you think you're so cool, don't you?

well i got news for you, buddy boy: you ain't.

but i'll give you a bit of a break. you're from a large, unorthodox family. i mean number 31 of 50 kids? after the first 13, let's face it, your folks were pretty much phoning it in. you can see it in the name, i mean at first it was like, new york you're named after mom, new hampshire you're named after mom. by the time they got to us it was like, uh, you're named after some amazon person or place...thing. p.s. puerto rico is now called superbowl island.

and lets talk about your folks. all dads, weren't they?

funny that. just sayin'.

i never heard about any founding mothers.

so here we are, a middle child from a large, motherless, religious family... acting out for attention.

if the US were a sitcom, it would be full house, and california would be stephanie. sure she's the hot one now, but stephanie? come on, we can do better than that. shit, in the popularity polls we're running neck and neck with kimmy gibbler, who, for all intents and purposes is, lets say, canada, our annoying neighbor to the north.

i can see them now, ruining our garden party by letting their pet ostrich loose in the yard. 

gibbler, you hoser! get this bird out of michigan and take your stoner boyfriend with you!

and if american history were a sitcom, california is the season where they go on a trip to disneyland. that crap season right between the midwest, where the audience starts to flag, and that last season, where they totally retool, bring in alaska, that weird cousin they never mentioned before, and they all go to hawaii and jump the shark.

everyone hates our season! the disneyland season sucks!

sure uncle jessie and aunt becky share a magical kiss in front of sleeping beauty's castle, while the fireworks go off. but eventually we all go to disneyland and realize, sleeping beauty's castle is like the size of my apartment, there's fireworks every night, and this churro cost me $12.50! this isn't magical at all.

the point is, california's mystique is sort of an illusion.

everyone talks about how great we are for american politics, but oddly enough, no one ever says, "hey asshole, thanks for the reagan administration!" or "you know, nixon really sucked!"

we were a huge part of the political careers of (arguably) two of the worst presidents of all time.

we also get a lot of credit for pioneering environmental standards. but, while we did champion CAFE in the nineties, we also basically threw it out as soon as the auto and petroleum industries puffed out their chests (then coughed up a lung all over LA).

the world thinks we, california, are some kind of gay mecca.

untrue.

perhaps the bay area, but more likely just san francisco, is a gay mecca. on this fact we seem to have a selective understanding of how the world works.

granted we are home to gay mecca. we also do have a large population of open minded, progressive liberals; democrat, republican, or other. but california is a massive place, and disparately diverse in comparison to every other state. we have more people, more cars, more money, and mo' problems than any state in the union. if the bay area was a separate state, do you have any doubt that same sex marriage would have been legalized years, if not decades ago? what about pot? if soCal and norCal were separate entities, norCal's economy would be far less than half what it is now. we also wouldn't have immigration issues with mexico, and soCal probably wouldn't have marijuana policy issues. if the central valley seceded, the rest of us would have to import most of our produce and livestock. if everything south of ventura county suddenly became the people's republic of los angeles, no one would be flocking to bakersfield for the women. i never heard anyone say, "long beach...it's the cheese" or "the hip hop scene in monterey is off the hook." the skiing in san jose is terrible, and you can't find decent network reception in south shore, let alone a booming tech industry.

we've got a lot of stuff going on out here on the left coast (not to be confused with left leaning). when we present ourselves to the world, we pick and choose the things we put on our resumé. let's put it this way: within california, if the dodgers won the world series, you can believe that giants fans wouldn't go around bragging that california has the best team in baseball. and outside of california there are plenty of people who want to be big hollywood movie stars, but odds are, it ain't gonna happen if you move to fresno, or yreka (it's a place). 

so it doesn't surprise me when something like prop8 happens. most of california is not exactly a poppin' lgbt dating scene, and even less of california is generally accepting of that lifestyle at all.

to put that in political terms, more districts came in for mccain in 2008 (24 of 53), than came in against prop8 (19). 

basically, we just tell the world whatever they want to hear about california, like if you move to california you can have a same sex wedding at your sprawling beach front estate, and brangelina and robert downy jr will be there, and everyone will be smoking pot and driving cars that run on unicorn farts, and emit rainbows.

but this isn't any more true than saying, if i just aim my car east eventually harvard will issue me an honorary degree in red sox studies, and i'll eat clam chowder every morning while i ride the subway through central park to my job at the white house.

so if the jig wasn't up on california before, it is now. its a hoax, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

come on over if you want, but we're not enjoying it as much as the rest of the country thinks, that's just our laugh track you're hearing, and most of those people are dead by now.

*no homework tonight.

the circus doesn't know which one opposite marriage is. how do i know if i'm for it or against it? either way, miss california is a moron.

the other day when vermont and iowa legalized gay marriage, a friend of mine noted that she was proud of those states and wanted her home state of california to follow suit, so that she could be proud of us as well.

cut to sunday, when yet another person representing california stuck their head up their ass and blurted out whatever asinine anti-gay opinion they found up there (an ironic place to find opinions on gay rights, to be sure).

at this point there is nothing california can do in the way of same sex marriage that could make me proud of how we are behaving on this issue.

in case you missed it, miss california publicly announced on sunday that she shares the same opinion on same sex marriage as the two politicians who most powerfully represent california either directly or indirectly (schwarzenegger, obama) essentially that they want 100% equal rights for the lgbt community, but don't believe that marriage counts as a right, since marriage only includes straight people. isn't it so cute how the queers want to play house like us straight people? thats all i hear when these people talk, anyway.

i can only hope that no one takes this woman seriously, as she grew up in the hooters of political districts (san diego) and is studying special ed at a creationist school. just what we need, someone teaching kids with learning disabilities that the answer to everything is, as long as there are no faggy follow up questions, jesus did it.

on the subject of giving retards a leg up, obnoxious hollywood talking dog, perez hilton (and you thought i was going to say george lopez), is still getting work? perez hilton. a man who thinks that changing your name to perez hilton, starring in a spoof movie called "another gay sequel: gays

gone wild", and judging the televised objectification of women is the most intelligent way to represent a civil rights issue. in that case call me linwood lohan and greenlight my time traveling senior citizen porn script already! i'll promote the hell out of gay rights. but here's a hard hitting question for perez hilton: where the fuck were you when the no on prop 8 movement needed some much needed LA county votes? probably talking about what britney's vagina looks like (smooth and kind of puffy). but, more important than notable world's best ape-in-a-human-costume contest winner perez hilton, was LA county itself. you don't agree with same sex marriage? i don't mean any disrespect by stereotyping here, but where would hollywood be without their hairdressers, fashion consultants, assistants, dog groomers, bloggers, ellen degeneri, and lindsay lohan*?

*lohan reference only valid when being gay was accepted by hollywood/she was pretending to be gay

i guess the old adage i made up not that oldy ago is true, you don't make friends and money at the same time.

meanwhile, back at headquarters, the supreme court says all same sex marriages that occurred during the "window of common sense" (my wording) are legal, but none post prop 8 will be accepted. how does this make sense to anyone?

first of all, just because you work in sacramento, does not mean you are in the business of religious sacraments, so why is the government even concerned with marriage? its a money issue, i get it, everything is a money issue. but if thats all it is, then not legalizing gay marriage is a bad business model, since marriage would bring much needed income to a state that issued i.o.u.s to its taxpaying public earlier this year. i guess i shouldn't be surprised that we can't see the forrest for the trees considering the GOVERNMENT ISSUED I.O.U.S to its taxpayers earlier this year. that plan never seems to work out when i owe the government money, but i guess thats why i'm not a politician, they have the expensive educations needed to work out the particulars of that kind of plan.

secondarily, if its a simple issue of writing legislation based on outdated modes of thought (bigotry) then either same sex marriages are legal, or they aren't. if the marriages issued before prop 8 are legal, then same sex marriage is legal. thats how logic works. my parents don't go driving around totally shitfaced just because they got their drivers licenses before the BAC limit was hard-lined at .08%. so which is it? same sex marriage is legal or it isn't?

one last plea: please tell me no one believes the JCLDS claim that if same sex marriage is legalized, our children will be forced to watch gay people gettin' bizzay on their teachers desks during mandatory gay bootcamp. thats the gist of their claim, anyway. they don't want to fuck on your couch, people, they just want to feel that their love is just as valid as anyone elses. if you truly know what it feels like to love someone, you understand. don't you?

so the verdict is in with this useless bag of internet opinion: due to blatant disregard for common sense, steadfast belief in antiquated notions (aka bigotry), self-entitled "celebrity", failure to stand up for what is right, waffling representation, the fact that we are now officially less progressive than fucking iowa for the love of l ron mahatmuhammed, and a government that apparently makes all the important decisions at church socials, on this issue i am embarrassed to be a californian.