Justice, California-style

I shouldn't be taking the time to do this, but I can't stop myself.

Oh NO! According to MSN.com, Kim Kardashian, TV personality and magazine bimbo, is outraged. Her life has been thrown into a black hole because the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, the recent referendum on gay marriage--with which the people of California said "NO" to gay marriage. "This really makes me sad..." she is quoted, also saying "Shame on you California! We must all continue to fight the h8!" (sic)

She is just so, so wrong on so many levels.

1. Why, why, why is this hate? Apparently resistance to any off-the-wall concept du jour is hateful. Conversely, if one publicly despises time-honored values which have borne us a civilized society and great freedom, that is considered a free and open exchange of ideas by my friends on the left.

2. California is a big state. A lot of people [I have no idea how many] had to have voted against the legalization of a gay marriage there. That being said, this is apparently the will of the people even if only one vote had made the difference at the time they voted on Prop 8.

3. The California Supreme Court is thought to be one of the two most liberal in the nation [equalled only perhaps by Massachusetts] by legal scholars who think about things like that. This decision was 8-1. Not even close, in a state literally percolating with lefties. This really has to frost the libs, who regard court systems everywhere as their home-owned government grocery store.

4. In three thousand years of human history where are references to a union between two [or what the hell, maybe more] people of the same sex? This is a fairly recent concept, a dandelion sitting atop the Mount Rushmore of time. And just about as significant. Gay people are free to live with each other, to do as they please [try that in the ultra-liberal socialist paradise over in North Korea] and are unable only to present themselves as man and, uh, man. Or as woman and woman. They will lack some legal benefits and protections open only to a traditional union, and they may each require their own health insurance. Why is there an assumption that every aspect of society must remake itself to be acceptable to whatever the alternative lifestyles are demanding at the moment?

5. Justice Kardashian is joined in her articulate dissent by such deep-thinking heavy hitters as Elton John, Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears, Heidi Montag [whoever she is] and, of course, that paragon of teenage philosophy, Miley Cyrus. They're probably supported by most of the pop-culture Hollywood icons that can be swept up on Rodeo Drive buying $700 jeans, loitering there hoping the Us photographer will see them out spending someone's money.

6. And lastly, as a matter of curiosity, why would any responsible news outlet pick up on anything Kim Kardashian has to say? Share with me her credentials to publicly critique the actions of the Supreme Court, or perhaps even traffic court. Her TV show makes one yearn for the pithier wit of the late Anna Nicole Smith. What has Kim modestly done, other than to serve as a benchmark for making Paris Hilton look intelligent? Has she guarded the Republic, fed the hungry, praised the Lord, brought in a payroll? Historically her largest concern--at least in my memory--was the size of her ass. Seems appropriate to me.

We hold nothing against gay people who go about their lives like everyone else, just trying to get by, and everything against those who want to remake this nation in their own narrow image. Until that happens, I am satisfied for Kim to be sad, and ashamed of the Golden State.