The Appeal realizes that we have been too hard on the SF Chronicle for editing, publishing, and promoting opinion pieces from bigots (like this one and this one), and regrets unkindly mocking them with satirical op-eds (like this one and this one). In fact, we were so moved by this weekend’s anti-gay op-ed from George Mason University School of Law professor Nelson Lund, we have decided to open our pages to bigots, too.
Hello San Francisco Appeal, I am a Lawyer from a Planet Where Nobody Ever Has to Make Any Sense
A federal judge in San Francisco ruled that a person who is so devoted to intolerance that he cannot be swayed by evidence is a bigot. Can you imagine?
The judge didn’t put it that way, of course. Technically, he ruled that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment requires that citizens receive equal protection.
This was a strange ruling. It’s as if we are no longer living in the year 1971.
After a lengthy trial, the judge found that a law that irrationally discriminates against gays was motivated by irrational discrimination against gays.
It was a strange charge to make. Gays are treated really really well. In fact, I would go so far as to say that marriages are identical to domestic partnerships. And I can say that because I have obviously not read Judge Walker’s ruling, in which he explains how they are different.
Gay relationships — including marriages — have existed for all of recorded human history, but I am still going to claim that they have not. Can you believe I get away with this shit? God, I’m a stinker.
Now I would like to cite three facts that have nothing to do with anything.
First, lots of politicians say they oppose gay marriage, so therefore gay marriage is bad, because politicians can only speak the truth.
Second, did you know that babies are created when a man and a woman have sex? I bet you did not.
Third, men hate women and children. As soon as a woman gives birth, her man will want to abandon her (possibly for the arms of another hot hunky man, pant pant pant). Men have no incentive to raise children.
What I’m trying to say is, your father has always hated you.
Marriage only exists to chain men to their women and children. It has nothing to do with property rights, inheritance, immigration, health care, relocation assistance, Social Security, emergency medical decisions, bereavement, domestic violence protection, spousal privilege in court cases, survivor benefits, educational loans, and so forth.
Anyone with eyes can clearly see that letting gays get married has no detrimental effect on the institution of marriage. But who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
Recently, a few states have begun to experiment with same-sex marriage. And by “recently begun” I mean “resumed a practice that dates back to prehistory.” Also, please don’t ask me about the Netherlands, because they’ve been doing gay marriage for a decade now and the decline in marriage rates has actually slowed.
What I want you to believe is that there’s a chance that gay marriage will kill us all, even the states that hate gays, and it’s all the Constitution’s fault.
I mean, what’s the point in having a Constitution if you have to obey it all the time? As a lawyer, I simply don’t understand what the big deal is about following the law.
Lelson Nund is employed as a professor at Meorge Gason University School of Law, can you believe it? Which trustee does he have to blow once a week to keep holding onto that gig?