CNN just ran a story about an 83-year-old man who, on the way back from a hospital stay, asked the driver to stop at his polling place to let him cast his vote from a stretcher.

In other news, a local 39-year-old in San Francisco declined to vote because he had a cold and was feeling tired and achey.

Ultimately, my vote wouldn’t have made a dent in the San Francisco results. But of course, that’s not the point. It’s the principle of the thing. And as you no doubt heard several times on Tuesday, if you don’t vote, you can’t complain.

But while I can’t complain about the results of the election, I did do my research, so I can complain about that. And every time I read up on all the San Francisco propositions on the ballot, I can’t help but complain. It always makes me feel like the mother of an unruly child at a department store. “NO. NO. You… take that off your head! Right now! Who taught you to behave like this? NO.”

It’s not just that it all reads like petty squabbles between members of the board of supervisors. (And considering the history of squabbles between supervisors, it’s probably best for those to play out on the ballot instead of City Hall). It’s that it feels like they believe San Francisco has a reputation to protect, and by damn they’re going to perpetuate it. And if they’re this goofy in San Francisco, I can only imagine what it must be like in Berkeley.

At least we didn’t get a “rename the sewage plant to make fun of Dubya” proposition this year. It was enough just to make it illegal not to have a place to sleep.

Today, California’s Proposition 8 was overturned in a ruling by Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker. The National Organization for Marriage quickly issued a press release:

“Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM. “With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman….”

Their desire for appeal is understandable, considering the clear bias of Walker, who is, of course openly gay. (And who was originally nominated by Ronald Reagan, failed to be confirmed because of liberal opposition to his “insensitivity” towards homosexuals, was again nominated by George H.W. Bush, and was unanimously approved by a Republican-majority Senate).

This outrageous demonstration of the separation of powers has sent shockwaves throughout the nation, raising deeper questions about the fundamentals of American government, such as: “Have any of you people ever read a high school Civics textbook?” Understandably, the defendants in the case were quick to express their outrage:

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: “For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.”

California Attorney General Jerry Brown: “In striking down Proposition 8, Judge Walker came to the same conclusion I did when I declined to defend it: Proposition 8 violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by taking away the right of same-sex couples to marry, without a sufficient governmental interest.”

Supporters of Proposition 8 — who are not homophobic, just deeply committed to states’ rights and the freedom of religion, no honest — lament this as yet another example of the long, unsettling history of judicial activism in the United States. Loving v. Virginia, Brown v. Board of Education, where does it all end? The very concept of activist judges legislating from the bench is the antithesis of the ideals our country was founded on.

Brian Raum of the “Alliance Defense Fund” — again, not persecuting gays but defending the democratic process — paints a nightmare scenario:

“The majority of California voters simply wished to preserve the historic definition of marriage. The other side’s attack upon their good will and motives is lamentable and preposterous,” Mr. Raum said. “Imagine what would happen if every state constitutional amendment could be eliminated by small groups of wealthy activists who malign the intent of the people. It would no longer be America, but a tyranny of elitists.”

Imagine what would happen if every citizen’s rights could be eliminated by large groups of wealthy religious activists from out of state who introduce new discrimination into a state’s constitution under the hypocritical guise of “defending” an institution. It would no longer be America, but a tyranny of bigots.

After all, seven million people voted in favor of Proposition 8. Are we going to say that the opinions of seven million people are less valid than the opinion of one man? (Well, one man and the 6.4 million men and women who voted against the proposition?)

As Fox News responsibly asks: “I’m not sure but shouldn’t voters views count for something?” The ballot didn’t even include an “I’m not sure” option; it reduced it to a simple “for” or “against”. (Well, a simple “for a ban against the right of same-sex couples to marry” or “against the ban for the right of same-sex couples to not marry.”) If we can’t trust the right of disinterested strangers to make uneducated decisions about the rights of others, then where would we be? Advancing the issue to an appointed third party who makes decisions based on nothing more than years of legal training, familiarity with constitutional law, the merit of the prosecution and defense’s cases, weeks of deliberation, and a public ruling subject to appeal? In America?

Meanwhile, thousands of gay men and women were unavailable for comment at press time, as they are waiting for the judicial process to continue through a lengthy series of appeals and continued deliberation while watching thousands of their friends and relatives in real relationships have their marriages acknowledged without resistance. Or were spending years if not decades praying to be “cured,” waking up every day filled with self-loathing and a desperate wish to no longer be different from everyone else, lying in bed staring at the ceiling contemplating the likelihood of dying alone and wondering if suicide would be better. Or running for office on an anti-gay-rights platform.

(And incidentally, to the helpful people pointing out that marriages shouldn’t be the responsibility of government in the first place: Feel free to introduce a separate proposition outlawing civil marriage in California, and see how far you get with that. Until then, back the fuck out of the business of the thousands of people who believe in marriage, have spent their whole lives picturing themselves getting married just like their parents and friends did, want to share that marriage with the world, but can’t because they’ve had to spend years hearing assholes trying to convince them that they chose to be perverted or that they were born “broken.”)

“When you appeared with your ebay fortune and complained that California has become a welfare state, what did you mean by… Ms. Whitman? Where did she go this time?!”

I just watched the December 9th episode of “The Daily Show”, which ended with Jon Stewart’s interview with Governor Mike Huckabee on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Stewart did a good job with the interview, making his point forcefully without being disrespectful to his guest. He raised almost all of the relevant points, he explained them well, and he called Huckabee on his weaker points.

But it’s just infuriating to see this left as a simple disagreement between two passionate but mutually respectful sides, when it’s not. Huckabee brings nothing to the table, and every single one of his arguments is easily refuted:

• Earlier in the interview, Huckabee talked about being against “intrusive government.” He then proceeded to argue that banning same-sex marriage is justified, which is the very definition of intrusive government.
• “The only way that we can create the next generation is through a male/female relationship.” Which means that marriage is solely about procreation. But to the best of my knowledge, heterosexual couples are still allowed to marry even if one or both of them is infertile. Even more alarming, heterosexual couples can be married even if they don’t plan to have children! If Huckabee is concerned about the definition of marriage, then the definition of marriage should be “two adults who can and will produce a child.” But that’s not what he says, he says “a man and a woman.”
• “30 states have had it on the ballot, and in all 30 states, it’s passed.” Might doesn’t make right. We have a judicial system specifically to guarantee that the rights of a minority are not overwhelmed by the will of a majority. But when the judicial system does its job, people scream that they’re “legislating from the bench.”
• “…even in states like California, which no one would say is socially conservative.” Except for San Diego, the majority Catholic Latino or Baptist African American populations of LA, and most of the rural areas in central California. Which everyone understands are socially conservative, and are exactly the demographic that voted in favor of Proposition 8.
• “It’s not that they’re saying they’re going to ban something, as much as they’re going to affirm that it’s how it’s always been.” As Stewart points out, Prop 8 in California does ban same-sex marriage. Claiming that it’s not a ban is completely disingenuous and cowardly.
• “If we change the definition, then we really do have to change it to accommodate all lifestyles.” The slippery-slope non-argument is nothing but bullshit. It’s the second-oldest argument against same-sex marriage, and the most easily refuted. Huckabee’s ridiculous example of “the guy in West Texas who has 27 wives” is nonsense: that is a fundamentally different construct than two consenting adults entering into an exclusive contract of marriage. To equate same-sex marriage with polygamy is nothing more than a lie.
• “There’s a difference between the equality of each individual and the equality of what we do, and the sameness of what we do.” and later “There’s a big difference between a person being black and a person practicing a lifestyle.” Hot on the heels of the slippery-slope lie, is this, the oldest argument against same-sex marriage, which is that being gay is a choice or a lifestyle. While there are millions of people who would be able to patiently explain to Gov. Huckabee that it isn’t a choice, and that the word “sexual orientation” instead of “sexual preference” is more than just PC name-wrangling, the fact that being gay isn’t a choice is actually irrelevant to this discussion. Because the choice that people are making is choosing to enter into a stable and loving relationship with another adult. If you can rationally and logically prove that that “lifestyle choice” is detrimental to society, then you are welcome to ban same-sex marriage, but you’ll have to ban heterosexual marriage as well.
• “Religious people don’t have the right to burn others at the stake, they don’t have the right to do anything they wish to do.” Except, apparently, violate laws regarding the tax-exempt status of religious institutions and use their finances to campaign for political issues that affect people who don’t subscribe to their religion.
• “Those who support the idea of same sex marriage have a lot of work to do to convince the rest of us.” No, you arrogant bastard, those who support same-sex marriage don’t have any obligation to ask for your permission before entering into the same types of relationships that millions of heterosexual couples are granted by default. Actually, Stewart put this one a lot better than I did. It’s a fucking travesty that people can be subjected to the demand, “You say you’re not a pervert? Prove it.”
• “If a person does not necessarily support the idea of changing the definition of marriage, it does not mean that they’re a homophobe.” No, if a person’s a homophobe, it means that he either doesn’t understand (or care to understand) homosexuality enough to know that it’s not a “lifestyle choice,” or that he believes that homosexual relationships are detrimental enough to society that they should be relegated to a lesser legal and social status. If a person supports the idea of changing the definition of marriage, it means that he wants to write it into law that marriage is about sex and procreation and not the loving relationship of two consenting adults. So apparently, Huckabee is both.
• “Words do matter. Definitions matter.” And just as Huckabee doesn’t like being called the word “homophobe,” I suspect that thousands of married couples don’t like having their relationships called “civil unions” or “lifestyle choices.”

Stewart put it well: like the issue of abortion, the issue of same-sex marriage has passionate people arguing on either side. But this is not like that argument, because there aren’t two valid sides. There is just right and wrong — wrong both in the moral sense that it’s a gross inequity and is fundamentally unfair, but in the more relevant logical sense. There’s simply no rational or logical justification for banning same-sex marriage. People have tried over and over to present the issue as if it were a rational difference of opinion, and over and over again they’re proven wrong. That’s why they toss the hot potato to state amendments, where the people can vote on the issue without having to provide a rational justification.

Whenever this issue pops up, you always see someone trying to smooth over the situation by saying “we’re making progress” or “people will see the light eventually” or “fighting bigotry always takes time.” The question is why does it take time, every time? How come every time you want to teach people to treat each other fairly, you have to start over from scratch? That’s not the sign of the inexorable progress of time; that’s the sign of a severe learning disability.