Karma's a B@#@!, and I hear She's Nasty

California voted to support Prop 8. What the @#!@!  I have three things to say; Hollywood, Disneyland, and San Francisco.

How dare a state declare marriage as sacred only between a man and a woman and simultaneously condone the recurring cycle of dysfunctional 'marriage and divorce-a-thons' within its heterosexual celebrity inhabitants?

What's sacred about Tom Cruise and his three marriages? Or Britney and her marriage disaster to what-was-his-name-again?

Or the one-night "I do" she had in Vegas? But ease up and props to Britney, she was young and we all make mistakes. But how about Elizabeth Taylor and her
many marriages? Or Pam Anderson? Or Jennifer Lopez?

Now I don't know the nature of these relationships first hand, but are these examples of heterosexual CA residents who have set a fine example of marriage by treating it sacredly and taking it seriously? To me, marriage is sacred because you do it once. And if you're lucky, you only have to do it once.

"The Lady doth protest too much." Well in this case, the state doth protest too much. Homosexuality is nature's way of population control. That's it. It's got nothing to do with religion.

Mother Nature was planning ahead. Can you imagine if everyone was straight?! The world would have been over populated before velcro was invented. And Nature didn't create gender; society did. Gender and sex; two different things.

And what's better? Two people who choose to be together raising kids or two people who are forced to be together because of the kids.

California, what's your problem?! It's the 21st Century. Ellen has been on air for a long time now, and before that we had Rosie. Hell, I even think Shakespeare was gay. CA, get with the TiVo. Don't bite the hand that feeds you; 'cause karma's a B@#@! and I hear she's nasty.

Yours Truly -- Ann Hu

Comments

[Jennifer McGuire]

Ann - you are a genius! Why? Because you are saying what I've been saying! You are a much better blogger, though - keep it up, I love reading your "work"!

[susan]

Amen. Seriously ridiculous. I love it when people cite the "sanctity" of marriage when - as you mentioned above - heterosexuals have chipped away at that for a LONG time now.

A friend also sent me a NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/opinion/12boylan.html?emc=eta1) about gender issues with marriage laws - some states require you to marry by your genes: if you are an XY [a male], for example, you must only marry a woman which is XX. But there are some people who can have XXY... so where does that leave them? Also there is a naturally-occurring condition known as androgen insensitivity where genetically male children never develop male sex organs and therefore look like girls and are often raised as girls until it is discovered later on that they are actually - genetically speaking - male. In some states if they married a man they'd be homosexual and unable to marry, whereas in other states they'd be considered female (how the look) and unable to marry a woman. Where do these extremely biased and prejudicial "laws" leave them? Stupid, stupid, stupid...

Well, it is changing. Slowly but surely.