The Computer Wore Menace Shoes

"It was this big. Honest to God. And I was terrified."

Lately, supporting gay marriage has been easy and en vogue. There are Facebook groups. Advocates long ago boiled it down to a matter of civil rights, much like when persons of different race couldn’t marry. Supporting gay marriage is so popular that Theodore Olson – a conservative’s conservative – is trying to undo a voter-approved ban through the California Supreme Court, and not just for money.

Opponents of gay marriage have been giving the public their reasons (PDF) for years now. Examples: Think of the children! Civil unions are the same thing. How will it impact our children? It would increase the size of government and its involvement in our lives. OK, seriously. Think. Of. The. Children!

But perhaps, despite their staunch opposition, supporters of traditional marriage have been leaving out an important reason why gays should not have the same rights as everyone else. Maybe there is a reason so shocking, so abominable, so wicked and vile they are keeping it tucked away in case of emergency.

There is an ace in the hole, a figurative nuclear bomb to be dropped just in case some wacky socialist takes control of the country and gays are close to being made equal citizens. The nation may not be ready to know what it is, but making it known could put this nonsense behind us once and for all, and we can thank Republican Utah Sen. Chris Buttars (no relation, but similar in some aspects) for cluing us in.

Equalizing homosexual Americans’ rights with heterosexual Americans’ will lead to wide-spread sexual assaults ranging from forced oral copulation to indecent exposure by presumably flamboyant gay men. It sounds absurd, but that’s what Buttars says around 1:15 into this clip.

This reality is extremely difficult to fathom, but Buttars can be trusted. His impeccable, progressive record on all kinds of civil rights shows he knows what he’s talking about. It’s a real threat, and people have a right to know now rather than during a last-ditch effort to stave off gay marriage.

From left: racist, racist, racist (at least sometimes). Background: more racists (at least sometimes).

In case you missed the last couple days or were focusing your attention on football like most normal people, let me bring you up to speed on the latest Capitol Hill nonsense.

Saturday
Nevada Sen. Harry Reid apologizes for what he probably believed to be complimentary remarks about Barack Obama made during the 2008 campaign. An excerpt from the book “Game Change” quoted him attributing Barack Obama’s electability to being “light-skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Sunday
Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, who is black, hit the largely ignored Sunday political talk show circuit to condemn Reid and demand he step down as majority party leader.

“There is this standard where the Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouths of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it’s racism,” said Steele. “It’s either racist or it’s not. And it’s inappropriate, absolutely.”

Meanwhile, D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton said Reid will continue to have the support of black Americans.

“While Sen. Reid has been producing for African-Americans, many of his critics were opposing him on these same issues,” Norton said in a statement. “Majority Leader Reid has a record. They do not. Words matter, but what matters most are the actions of a man whose committed career on our issues speaks for itself.”

Monday
Obama and Rahm Emmanuel accept Reid’s apology. (See? They were watching football.) Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) joins Steele in demanding Reid resign. And Attorney General Eric Holder, who is black, and Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) agree with the White House that the apology was enough.

That brings us to now. Instead of making progress on the myriad important issues before them, the leaders in government are engaged in a pissing contest over who’s racist and who isn’t.

Guess what? You’re all racist. At least a little bit, sometimes. Perhaps Steele forgot what he said a couple weeks ago, but YouTube never does.

Steele hasn’t been called on to resign as a result. Sure, some people – including a congressman – were upset, but Steele hasn’t even had to apologize.

The point is, saying stupid things, even racist stupid things, isn’t a reason to demand the head of a public figure. Heck, Joe Biden was under fire two years ago for calling Obama “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” and he’s the vice president now.

This is not the point in time that the United States can afford somebody boiling every little thing down to a Republican-Democrat double standard. Reid said something regretful a year and a half ago, and it ended up in a book. It doesn’t reflect on his true feelings, he apologized and it was nowhere near as offensive as what Rod Blagojevich told Esquire magazine, so let it go and move on to something more important.

Besides, if there were a precedent for forcing people to resign after saying something stupid, don’t you think it would have happend at least once from 2001-2009?

Barely 24 hours after Sarah Palin gave her farewell speech, stepping down as governor of Alaska, William Shatner performed a spoken-word version of it on the “Tonight” show.

Clearly, we owe the Canadian actor of “Star Trek,” “T.J. Hooker” and Priceline commercial fame a debt that can never be repaid. In a couple of minutes on the air with Conan O’Brien, Shatner obliterated Palin’s chances of a run for the White House in … well, forever, actually. Think about it.

The GOP has to be somewhat hesitant to select her as its presidential candidate if her farewell speech began with a poem that was so well-suited to Shatner’s iconic-because-it’s-terrible delivery. There are speech writers, of course, but even the best of them will just have to stand by and suffer a self-administered brain injury as she peppers it with winks, “You betchas!” and “Don’t ya knows.”

For a real understanding of that no-win situation, picture her delivering any of the great presidential speeches: “Four score and seven years ago, you betcha our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” “Ask not what your country can do for you, don’t ya know. Ask what you can do for your country.” “Today is a day that will live in infamy. You betcha!” “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself, don’t ya know.”

And even if she is chosen for the GOP’s 2012 shot because people are still head-over-heels for the most popular Republican, that video will still be out there. No matter who the Democratic nominee is, all he or she will have to do is run it as political commercials. (I expect compensation as a Democratic campaign strategist should this happen.)

So thank you, William Shatner. Although your acting is insufferable, we must celebrate it for rescuing us from the possibility of Palin being in charge of the country. You betcha we owe you one. Tell you what. We’ll all book our next vacations at Priceline and call it even.

OK, Sen. Sessions isn't quite at this point. But soon. Real soon.

The NAACP, the American Bar Association and more than 100 legislators support the inclusion of a “permanent partners” clause as part of a new immigration bill. It would allow an American citizen 18 or older “in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual 18 or older in which both individuals intend a lifelong commitment” to sponsor his or her partner for residency, and the U.S. would be the 20th nation to recognize same-sex partners for immigration purposes.

It seems a little backwards. A nation that doesn’t allow its own gay citizens the same civil rights as heterosexual couples is moving toward awarding the immigration rights given to heterosexual married couples to homosexual couples.

For that reason, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., doubts such a proposal will pass.

“It seems we would be creating a special preference and benefit for a category of immigrants based on a relationship that’s not recognized by federal law and overwhelmingly by most states,” he said.

Excellent point, senator. We can’t be preferential toward foreign persons in relationships this country doesn’t recognize among its own citizens.

But we can eliminate the appearance of inequality with this legislation by allowing gay marriage in the United States. If gay Americans were allowed to marry, then nobody would think twice about a gay American sponsoring his or her foreign spouse for immigration. Heterosexual couples are given immigration rights, so if gay couples are equal, both groups get the same rights. It’s bulletproof!

And you thought Republicans would be the last ones to come up with a compelling argument in favor of gay marriage.

Just six months ago, President Barack Obama called for an end to partisanship in Congress. The confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor, the first Supreme Court justice picked by a Democrat in 15 years, prove that legislators haven’t heeded Obama’s request. And that was just day one.

If you can come up with a better reason than partisanship to explain why Republicans vehemently dislike his pick while Democrats vehemently defend it, I’d like to hear it. (Although, it’s going to be hard, considering Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., came out and said the confirmation “is mostly about liberal and conservative politics.” At least he’s honest.)

Sonia Sotomayor answers a question at her confirmation hearings.

The confirmation committee’s Democratic chair, Sen. Patrick Leahy, warned Republicans off attacking Sotomayor at the beginning of the proceedings. “Let no one demean this extraordinary woman,” he said.

Republicans complied, but they weren’t out to fast track her to the bench. Barring a “complete meltdown,” Graham said, Sotomayor would be confirmed, but out of power and out of popularity, the GOP has a chance to remind Americans it’s still relevant by debating Obama’s decision making.

And so it did, with most of the attacks directed at Obama’s desire for a justice with empathy. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, pointed out that Obama opposed Janice Rogers Brown, a black candidate, when he was a senator because he questioned whether she could set aside her personal views as a justice.

“But today,” said Hatch, “President Obama says that personal empathy is an essential ingredient in judicial decisions.”

Sen. John Kyl, R-Arizona, said Obama was “simply outside the mainstream in his statements about how judges should decide cases.” And Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said no one should vote for a nominee with any degree of prejudice.

“Call it empathy, call it prejudice or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it’s not law,” Sessions said.

The idea of judicial empathy was well known going into the confirmation process. Obama said he wanted his candidate to have it. Nobody thinks it’s a good idea for a jurist to be swayed by anything but the law. Yet here the two parties are, on opposite sides of the issue.

It could be that Democrats are out to even the score after feeling stung by President George W. Bush’s nominees, Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said the court “has not kept the promises of modesty or humility made” when the two were nominated.

The more likely explanation, however, is we’re just not ready to give up partisan politics. One-eighth of Obama’s term has passed, and it took just one day to show that no progress has been made in moving past partisanship. Obama has really been able to get anything done through Congress because his party is in firm control. (John McCain alienating some Republicans to the point of endorsing Obama didn’t hurt, either.)

Every president could make a big show of wanting to do away with partisan politics as usual, but that’s just what they are – usual. Pick an issue – abortion, gun control, health care – and chances are the parties hold opposing stances on it and can’t be moved in the name of progress.

That attitude has pervaded the electorate, too. There’s no debate among Americans about issues. You’re on my side, or you’re wrong. Perhaps it’s a good thing there’s only two major political parties. Imagine the headaches that would pop up with three opposing ideologies.

Despite resigning as governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin remains as popular as ever among Republicans. Rather than attribute her sparkling reputation to her superior leadership skills, I’m going to guess it’s for the same reason some people voted for John McCain in November: they think she’s hot.

But what about the rest of the GOP? Here are seven other top Republicans who are easy on the eyes.

No. 7: Bobby Jindal

The first Indian-American governor in U.S. history has been spicing up Louisiana since he took office last year. Jindal is the youngest current governor in America at 36, and his youthful good looks give it away. Dark and handsome, Jindal is sure to cause some heartburn, just like the curries of India.

No. 6: Mark Sanford

Oh, Mark. Your place in the GOP pecking order may be in danger, and it’s certainly going to be harder for the partyto find a good candidate for 2012, but you still deserve a place on this list. With that dazzling smile and sad eyes, it’s no wonder María Belén Chapur fell for him. (And his erotic love e-mails didn’t hurt, either.)

No. 5: Colin Powell

Maybe it’s not fair to the rest of the list to use a photo of a much younger Powell in uniform, but he was quite the dashing serviceman in his day. Besides, Powell is still tall and proud with a Hollywood smile, and now he can add distinguished to the list. He demonstrates why once you go black, you don’t go back.

No. 4: Jillian Manus-Salzman

She may be a bit older than Palin, but this big-eyed blonde still has it. That slightly crooked front tooth adds a little humanity to the elegance, and Manus-Salzman proved blondes are smarter than jokes give them credit for by not supporting John McCain in 2008.

No. 3: Charlie Crist

The not quite 53-year-old Florida governor bears a resemblance to John Slattery, and that’s definitely not a bad thing. Crist has taken good care of himself so far, shown in his bronzed yet wrinkle-free face. And with his ageless features, his white hair reminds me more of Anderson Cooper than Ann Cooper.

No. 2: Rick Perry

Leave it to Texas to have such a manly governor. Although he’s nearly 60, with his square jaw, dark eyes, touch-of-gray hair and bushy eyebrows, Perry is part George Clooney, part Sean Connery and completely handsome.

No. 1: Mitt Romney

The 62-year-old former governor of Massachusetts is older than everyone on this list except Powell, but Romney still takes the top spot. He’s got the touch-of-gray hair and square jaw like Perry, but Romney’s gentle smile and sensitive eyes make it clear how he got so far as a presidential candidate in 2008. Voters could imagine him as the outdoors type or a professional in a designer suit, and if you’re going to share your man with other women, it may as well be him.