My two cents worth on the gay marriage amendment? Using the consitution to restrict a person's rights goes against the "original intent" of the framers. Hey Scalia, take that duck and stick it up your ass! To wit:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Note the use of the word "only." I could not find the use of this word in any one of the amendments to the constitution. Not in the bill of rights, nor in the amendments passed since. Constitutions written in a way that does not take the long view and allow for changes in social mores fail. Ours has lasted this long because it has not. Agree?

In fact, when I searched the entire constitution for the word, I "only" found it this one time, in Article III, section 3:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

And in this context, the word "only" is not used as an abridgement of a person's rights, but a restriction on the definition by which the government can prosecute someone for treason. These motherfuckers like to set precedents in this country, don't they? What is all this talk about complaining of "activist judges?" These pricks are the most activist of all.

The thing that bothers me about this the most is that Bush & Co. know they can't get it ratified, but they DO know that people are gonna ask Kerry about it. And what do you suppose Kerry will do? I hope he comes out strong on this one, because if he waffles, this is going to be a long campaign. I am so sick of this holy roller bullshit. And I'm not even Gay! AND I'm married!

I would like to say this feels like 1992 all over again, but it feels more like 1988. I don't think the Dems realize what they're getting into. They've been so focused lately on Dean's faults, that they have forgotten what Bush and Co. are going to do to Kerry once annointed. They will pick apart his record, call him a liberal, call him the senator from Taxachusetts, point out that he was Lt. Gov under Dukakis, and catch him in some dumb photo op reminiscent of Dukakis riding in that tank. Kerry seems to have a fetish for dumb photo-ops. The Harley thing on Letterman was cheesy. It's only a matter of time...so my advice to the Kerry campaign is to get him to stop fucking doing that shit before something embarrassing happens. Kerry's poll numbers may well be up vs. Bush now, but there's a lot of ball left. I do not like Kerry's chances vs. Bush in the longview.

It's a shame what has happened to Dean. He really reminded me of Truman in the beginning, a common sense pragmatist with liberal leanings who wasn't afraid to tell it like it is in an articulate, no nonsense way. It looks like I won't get a chance to vote for him now because I live in California, unless he can pull off some miracle in my home state and stay in the race. I guess all people in this country want is a feel-good person who will do precisely nothing. I felt that way in '88 when Dukakis was annointed. I felt that way in '92 when Clinton (remember "Pander Bear") was annointed. Same with Gore over Bradley in 2000. What is the matter with me? Am I just betting on all the losers?

My mind has been preoccupied with less heady material this week. First, the car: recovered. After a long bureaucratic process, the end was anti-climactic: the car was driveable, so I just hopped in and drove it straight to Kragen Auto parts, where I bought two clubs, one for the steering wheel and the other for the clutch. This will never happen again.

Second, the housing situation. As I alluded to in my worst case scenario, we knew something was coming but we weren't sure what. Well, after sending us a contract, which we signed two months ago which was basically a month-to-month agreement for the same rent, the new landlords decided to send us a new contract raising the rent by 56%. They cite some loophole in the law that allows for a larger than normal rent increase due to "debt burden." But they signed the estoppel agreement when they bought the house and they knew what they were getting into.

So the war is on...

My wife's car was located in the Tenderloin last night at 3am. A cop called, wanted to know what we should do with it. Should I come and pick it up? Eh...maybe there's a problem with the ignition and the wheel might lock up, y'know? And no garage or body shop is open that hour so...nope, go ahead and have City Tow pick it up. BAD MOVE. $171 + $28.25 in towing and storage fees. What is THAT? It's just a nightmare of bureaucracy all around. The SF Department of Parking and Traffic is a racket, pure and simple.

I am changing my mind again. Dio for President! Somone has a lot of time on his hands apparently...

One more thought about tittygate: Dean has it right. It is silly and a big waste of time. I've decided that I am going to cast my vote for Dean in California should he still be in the race. And it's not because of his stance on tittygate, it's because of his consistency about the war, about the fact that he's a fiscal conservative and a social liberal (I still don't know why the DLC has a problem with him), and about his ability to tell it like it is. Do I want someone who makes me feel good when he accomplishes exactly nothing? I do feel a sense of Deja Vu, having voted for Moonbeam in the '92 primary, but....fuck it!

I was busy grilling sausages out back during "Tittygate," barely paying attention to the Super Bowl at that point in any case due to being upset over my wife's car being stolen. I don't see what the fuss is about. Uh, yes I do. Americans get so bent out of shape about a little boobage. Big deal! With all of the hardcore porn a mouse click away, it's a bit tame. Drudge is certainly enjoying himself I'm sure with the closeup front and center.

I find it amusing to see all of the grown men (Michael Powell, Paul Tagliabue, execs at CBS) squirming over this. Next year the halftime show is going to be Christian Rock. Unless, of course, the GOP is booted out of office. Uh, I take that back.

Really, this debate boils down to what I think is the central tension of being human: one's animal instincts (innate) versus the socialized factors that make us embarrassed over those animal instincts in the name of being "civilized." Different cultures have varying degrees of this, of course. I doubt if this were on German or French TV that anyone would even bat an eye. Until we Americans realize that these taboos are silly, people will go on having latent fantasies and buttoned up conservative types will go on with their kinky fetishes on videotape and hide the tapes in boxes at the bottom of their junk piles in their basements, one day to be discovered by their horribly embarrassed nine year olds.

I also find it amusing that different rules apply for network TV when in reality any kid in America who is resourceful enough can pop onto Google, type in "cumslut" and find a whole lot of stuff way more graphic than Janet Jackson's sun-kissed nipple.