Just One of Those Things

Let's say that you, who ever you are, because of who you are, cannot, by law, sign a contract. Any kind of contract. You can't buy or sell a house, you can't get a loan, you can't rent a place to live or rent a place to someone else, you can't lease or buy a car, you can't get married, you can't even write a check, you can't do anything that involves your signature and some kind of contractual obligation. How much of your life would be impacted by that law?

Now let's say that you can sign something I will call a "loop-tee-loop". Turns out a loop-tee-loop is EXACTLY the same as a contract. So, you can sign a loop-tee-loop to buy a car or a house, or get married or write a check. It's called a loop-tee-loop, that's all. Same thing. Just don't call it a contract. It MUST be referred to as a loop-tee-loop.

What or how does that make you feel? Do you feel like you're being treated unfairly? Do you feel like this whole thing is ridiculous? Because if there is no difference between a contract and a loop-tee-loop, why not just call everything a contract (or loop-tee-loop, if you prefer). Just seems patently stupid, huh?

So why can't we heterosexuals share the word "marriage"? What is it about the word "marriage" that makes it such a special word that only heterosexual people may use it? Those people, those same-sex people have "civil union", why can't they be satisfied with that? I mean, it's exactly the same thing, right?

Hey, here's an idea. Since it seems that the word "marriage" has some special powers, and it's turning out that my god-given right to a contract called "marriage" will not be happening for me, I won't be needing my own personal right to the word "marriage". So I'd like to go ahead and give my right to the word to a nice same-sex couple who needs it, since they can't have it under any equal protection law. Of course, it would probably be a good thing to write up a loop-tee- loop for it, you know, for everyone's equal protection.

There She Goes...

In other news, Miss California keeps her “job”, thanks to The Donald, but one of his minions quits because she got whacked with the social responsibility stick and thinks that Miss California doesn’t fit the squeaky-clean role model, since photos of her, semi-nude, have surfaced. But wait, there were other issues: one was her answer to Perez Hilton about same sex marriage. (Turns out she prefers “opposite” marriage.) That was the initial bump to the national news stage. Then the photos began to trickle out. And apparently, the fact that there are risqué photos isn’t the issue, it’s that she didn’t disclose them before the pageant. Hmm. But then, she reportedly began to speak to anti-gay marriage people, like focus on the Family, and was not performing her non-political duties. That’s a pretty big deal, comparatively, I’d say; I’d say it’s the best reason to kick her off the stage. Not performing her duties, not remaining politically neutral. “Satan asked me that question, and God told me how to answer.” That’s really what she said. No, really. If that doesn’t point to the looseness of her screws, I don’t know what should.

But no. That wasn’t the issue. The issue was those photos. And the board abdicated their authority, and left the decision to The Donald. Oh wait. There was another little tidbit that came out: The pageant had purchased her boobs for her. And the photos, of course, were all about the boobs. Not sure if they were taken pre-boob job or post. But the fact that there was a boob job, paid for by the pageant, isn’t that a bit of a hypocritical move?

Anyway, The Donald came out and said: I paid for her boobs, I like the photos of her boobs, and I want her boobs to stay in front of the camera.

Remember that this whole thing started with a question about same sex marriage. Which I think she answered quite diplomatically, even if I didn’t agree with the answer. It was supposed to be her opinion, right? She said something like, it’s great that we live in a land where people can do what they want, but for me, I prefer “opposite” marriage. That’s what she said. I’d say that fits the bill: she was politically correct first, and then went ahead and proffered her preference. What the hell’s wrong with that? But Mr. Hilton pushed his way into the national spotlight to savage her. (And then, to call her a bitch, and then to take it back, then to take back the take-back. But he’s really another story.) And while it did get him some attention, it pushed her numbers way up, too; she got way more than her share of fame. Kind of the “opposite” of what a person pushing a certain agenda would want, don’tcha think? Wonder if he has any regrets. I guess it depends on if he gets the irony.

So back to the finale: The Donald rules, the chickie with the new boobs stays, and a woman on the board, one of those people who passed the decision onto The Donald so as to keep from making enemies, either way, has now decided that the Trump decision crosses her personal scruples standard. Shanna Moakler, a former Miss USA , said in a statement issued by her publicist Wednesday that she no longer “believes” in the organization.

Glad someone is responding to the social responsibility stick.