I have not commented on Ann Althouse's engagement, for much the same reason as I don't watch Rock of Love except through the medium of The Soup: this is not information I need, strictly speaking, except perhaps in short comic excerpts. (I'm pretty confident it falls in the same general entertainment class as that particular program, though.) But besides that, while I do like the curse words, I am, uh, otherwise an old-fashioned gentlemanly sort of fellow, burp. For entirely selfish reasons. Whenever someone as unstable and obsessive as Althouse starts discussing their personal life, well, omigod plz. plz. kill me before telling me more, you know?
That said: of course, if someone wants their blog to resemble a godawful reality show -- oh, excuse me, performance art -- they have very few bitching rights when people gawk at them in horrified amusement. Althouse getting all haughty-squawky-outraged at Jesse for saying "OMFG" is like Flava Flav throwing a tantrum upon someone remarking that he looks absurd in a Viking helmet.
So I didn't care, and don't care; and I didn't care and still don't care about the Althouse v. Andy Sullivan spat, because in that particular fracas, I possess a rather spectacular absence of canines.
And I still don't give two shits in a bucket, fuck it. Except that when I was rummaging through the ridculous-o-sphere, I came across this Red State post attacking Andrew Sullivan for attacking Ann Althouse, and, well, certain wormholes you just can't resist. This is when it gets good -- triple removed meta internecine wingnut squabbling. It's like flipping channels and stumbling upon a channel devoted to mixed martial arts Elvis impersonator octopus buggering contests. You can't go wrong!
Wisconsin University Law professor and blogger Ann Althouse is reportedly marrying a long-time commenter on her blog.
After four years of sparing [very sic] in the comments section, exchanging several emails, and a few weekend rendezvous, Althouse announced her whirlwind romance in typical Althouse fashion, an emblematic photo essay.
"Wisconsin University"...? Whatever.
Never mind that "marrying a longtime Althouse commenter" is about on the same level as "marrying a doorknob" or ""marrying a convict" or "marrying a convicted doorknob." No! Simply enjoy the four-year whirlwind. And mock not; Gary Ruppert may sweep you off your feet one day, don't say it can't happen! Feel the magic! Apart from that, "an emblematic Althouse photo essay" is about as appetizing a concept as a Zapruder film where everyone's naked.
Upon learning of the news of Althouse’s engagement, The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan ironically adopted the mantle of the marriage brigade, crassly writing, “Ten days of emailing … and she was ready.”
He ironically adopted a brigade's mantle! Crassly! Holy shit! I don't know what the fuck this means, but clearly, Sullivan is not merely mixing metaphors, he's making them fuck! And not like Jesus meant they should fuck, either! Gay metaphors! Gaytaphors! Holy shit!
Sullivan, a gay man with a committed partner of 5 years, is one of the most outspoken advocates for marriage equality, a proponent of the notion that all people, irrespective of sexual orientation, are inherently equal. This concept of equality, then, should confer the rights of marriage, proponents of gay rights argue.
Yes, even Andrew Sullivan sometimes says things that are halfway sensible, which is why the right blogosphere hates him even more than I do. Though they are more optimistic than I am; they hate him because his glass is half full. I hate him because it's three quarters empty.
Not so, says Sullivan, at least when this concept of marriage equality is applied to what he ostensibly views as frivolous heterosexual unions. Sullivan’s shrewd opposition to Althouse’s marriage is merely a disingenuous excuse for gay rights activists to flex waning political muscle in the wake of Prop 8’s passage.
Well, sure, that makes sense. No, wait. It doesn't. What? Blarg, cuttlefish Numenor bojangles, mobil bovril valvoline, eggo-waffle melenkurion citicorp! Shazam! Take that, gays!
Ironically, Sullivan is guilty of the same crime of his most socially conservative opponent: He now considers it his responsibility to validate, and likewise invalidate, the unions of others.
Is there a difficulty in the mind of anyone who has one as to the distinction between marriage as a legal function on the one hand, and opinions as to whether or not someone else's marriage will work out very well on the other? Is this a hard concept to grasp? If it is, have you been helped? Have you not witnessed marriages duly sanctioned by the state that were in fact horrible mistakes for everyone concerned? The point is, marriage is a legal arrangement that is now available to one class of citizens but not to another. And that's wrong. Period. How is this difficult?
Die.
Because the Red State folks were so darn close to endorsing gay marriage until Andrew Sullivan opened up his big 'ol yap. Right. Bah.
Bored now. Wanted to go other places with this but have realized have been drinking from the garden - hose nozzle of wingnuttery and am in need of a break. More later.