Thursday, November 13, 2008

My Problem with the Anti Gay Blacklist

There is a website that purports to list the names of people who donated money to the campaign for California's Proposition 8 that banned gay marriage. It does strike me as a little bit creepy to list peoples' names in this way, primarily because I fear that someone might create such a website to uncover the names of donors to campaigns for state propositions to which I myself sent money, such as:

$7.34 to a proposition in New York that would have enshrined in law the idea that sex with a sexbot would not be considered cheating, if and when such a sexbot ever exists. (Based on the "vibrator principle," which states that a woman's use of a vibrator is not considered cheating- and what is an erotic, lifelike robot, if not a modern vibrator? At least in principle?)

Because the above proposition went down 50% to 49%, I sent an additional $2.89 to a fund to recount all the votes. Where is the missing 1%?

$4.53 to a proposition in Montana that would have legalized the hazing of children with freckles. That one's another close one, but we've just gotten word that several "misplaced" ballots were found in the northeast corner of the state, which is a hotbed of anti-freckle sentiment. Fingers crossed!

$4.21 to a proposition in Florida to ban humidity. I'm not sure how practical this one would have been- I think it was supposed to be more symbolic than anything else. Still, if we can get rid of humidity in Florida, I'm pretty sure we can take it out anywhere!

$5.68 to a proposition in Indiana that would have banned the use of the phrase "Hoosier Daddy?" in public places. Once we get that passed, we'll try to get it banned in private residences, too!

$2.46 to a proposition that would have banned the use of undercooked food in erotic acts in South Dakota. This one was intended to be a direct challenge to the Supreme Court decision in the famous State of Vermont V. Sashimi case, legalizing the practice. Seriously, people- it's unsanitary.

$6.54 to a proposition that would have required women to wear their hair up during an initial sexual encounter with a new partner in Arizona. I like a woman with long hair, but pin it back when we're going at it for the first time, you know? I like to get a clear view of what you're doing.

Anyway, I guess I hope no one reads any of this.

No comments: