Michelle Wears the Pants

I saw this photo on the internet today, and I think it proves what I've always been saying about the Obamas. Michelle is no Hillary. There is absolutely no way that this man is going to to be ever caught with an intern. He might be a Fearless Leader, but there is one woman who keeps him in unholy terror.





"Okay...I can do this...eyes staight ahead...no sideways glances, there's cameras all over this place, fool! You can do it, just pretend you're reading the teleprompter..."

Lets call it Untraditional Marriage

I wrote the following for Big Hollywood. Unfortunately, concerns over some of the more controversial remarks, required editing that took most of the humor out of the piece. So I have reposted it here:

Sean Penn scolded opponents of something he called “Gay Marriage.” Apparently, he thinks gay marriage was made illegal in California. Certainly Sean, a lifelong resident of Hollywood, should recognize that gay marriage is perfectly legal and has roots all the way back to Cole Porter and Rock Hudson, both of whom are gay men who married (and wasn’t Penn married to Madonna?).


What is not legal, is Same-Sex Marriage. There is no State test for gayness. In the States where Same-Sex Marriage has been legalized, there is no assurance that the applicants are indeed homosexual. In fact there is a good chance that the ban on Same-Sex marriage was contrived to protect heterosexuals. Possibly it was meant to prevent straight men, in the midst of an "I Love You" drunk, from waking up in Vegas, with rings on their fingers. And how many readers would be comfortable with a pair of "married" heterosexual men adopting teenage Asian girls? But I digress.

Personally, I don't see how the state COULD test for homosexuality. Perhaps by asking questions on fashion designers and Broadway trivia, although such a test would be considered a homophobic stereotype (and a  terribly hack joke).  Should there be a Brazilian government position, like Comptroller of Homosexual Tendancies, who would evaluate couples for homosexuality, and scrutinize video rental records? But then such an office could not limit itself to Same-Sex Marriage without violating the equal protection clause. The same office would be responsible for determining whether gay men were trying to marry women. Those of us, who have brought home more than one Aline Brosh McKenna film, might be put under suspicion.  Certainly, a requirement for actual proof of homosexual intimacy would be a violation of privacy, that few courts would let stand (or care to watch). 

Currently, we recognize the ability for states to define the restrictions on people applying for marriage licenses.  Right now in America the standard state requirements for marriage are almost universally the following:

1. Two
2. Unmarried
3. Unrelated
4. Consenting
5. Adult
6. Humans
7. Of Different Genders

Please note that five of the seven requirements have not always been mandatory. At certain points in history the top five (maybe six) traditional marriage requirements were not in place. (I’m having a hard time verifying number six– my Google just won’t go there without leaving a history trail I don’t want on my permanent record.) I also suggest that very few proponents of same-sex marriage would allow the other six requirements to be waived as nonchalantly as number seven.

Also note that love is not among the requirements. The idea pitched around lately is that the State has no right to keep people who love each other apart. Well, yes they do. Cousin lovers have been denied the right to marry almost everywhere outside of royalty and separatist religious sects. And as many married couples (and divorced people paying alimony) will attest, the State also has the power to keep two people together long after the love has evaporated.

I think we may need a different term. “Same-Sex Marriage” does not roll smoothly off the tongue. I propose we call it something more in line with reality. Perhaps an “Untraditional Marriage,” something I don’t have a problem with. If a State agrees that the traditional restrictions placed on marriages do not fit into modern society (as it did in the past when it banned polygamy and incest), I believe it is within the Constitutional power of the State to change those restrictions.

I also believe that more traditional citizens have a right to relocate to another State, where the institution of marriage isn't treated lightly; for instance: as something to do after a drunken drive to Vegas, a mechanism to cloak the homosexuality of a movie star, or a means to the White House.

But that’s the big beef I have with proponents of Untraditional Marriage. In every state where it was put on to the ballot, it was soundly defeated. It was only legalized by judges willing to subvert election results.

The side of the aisle whose very name claims to cherish democracy turns against it in droves when the “will of the people” is directed against them.

Maybe that’s why Sean likes Hugo and Fidel so much: they’re all staunch proponents of Untraditional Democracy.

Update: Still No Late Night Obama Humor

In the short span between my last review and today, we’ve seen the President sign a stimulus package so full of pork that Obama’s father would have been forbidden to touch it, along with a bump on the head, a scripted and sputtering press conference, and a contradiction from someone who actually understands how business works. Obama also appeared onstage in the theatre where Lincoln was shot, alongside a Lincoln impersonator (ouch).

Certainly there’s some topics ripe for ridicule. So what are the Late Nights talking about?

(more)