We should care less about what stigmatizers think
On Wednesday, the highest court in the nation decided the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. The same day, they sent California's Proposition 8 back to the lower court. The result? A minority of Americans will now enjoy basic rights with a partner of their choosing without being unjustly double-taxed.
Most Americans' lives will not change at all. It's just your proverbial "bachelor" uncle is going to be making some arrangements with his long-term "roommate" involving more flowers than usual and possibly a large cake. That is, if he lives in one of the 13 states where it's legal and he never chooses to move.
Edie Windsor, the 84-year-old widow at the center of the DOMA case said when she heard the ruling, "I cried, I cried!" Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor, current rightwing widget peddler, tweeted: "Jesus wept."
Tears of happiness. Tears of Mike Huckabee's imagination. It was an emotional day!
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (whose obviously straight husband accepts taxpayer dollars to cure gays of homosexuality) said, "The Supreme Court, though they may think so, have not yet arisen to the level of God."
Then as always a reporter had to ask the other side of the aisle what they think about what someone who's financially invested in the stigmatism of homosexuality said.
Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, instantly and away from the mike shot back, "Who cares?"
Possibly the best answer the Beltway has seen since Thomas Jefferson called John Adams a hermaphrodite.
Yes, who cares? This should be the answer to all questions about Bachmann comments. Why does anyone have to come up with an articulate counterpoint to someone who calls on the media to "probe" Congress for those who are anti-America? What do you think, non-Republican?
The same goes for other formulaic right-wing agitators: Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Erik Erikson (hat tip to my Twitter pals for the suggestions). If their livelihood is saying offensive things so lazy journalists can write about that instead of—I don't know—learning how to use Excel or cultivating sources—then we should stop caring. We really should. It's junk food. It gets us going and then we crash. Empty, fat and sad.
This is the basic premise of our political discourse. He flame, she flame. It's not balance. It's baloney. It's TMZ of aging flag pin pushers.
Crazy is captivating. Shameless is fascinating. And our politics is a tween Twitter war.
On The Daily Show, John Oliver, pinch-hitting for Jon Stewart over the summer, covered Sarah Palin's triumphant return to Fox News after a five-month recess. "I think I've just realized something," said the fill-in host. "This is exactly what she wants. Just because I walked into a turd supermarket doesn't mean I have to buy anything."
We can just ignore her, assured Oliver.
Yes, we can. What do you think of what Sarah Palin thinks of what the President is thinking?
To paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss what people who make money from saying crazy things say.
I stand with John. And I stand with Nancy.
Now, I'm aware "Pelosi" is a four-letter word in some parts of the country. Appalachian trail-nee South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford debated a life-size cutout of her when he was running for his old seat in Congress this past April. Instead of sparring with his opponent he enlarged a photo of the first female Speaker of the House and made a speech. He won the seat.
But Pelosi is right on this one.
What do people who marginalize gays think of these Supreme Court rulings?
Tina Dupuy is an award-winning writer and the editor-in-chief of TheContributor.com. Tina can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.