So then, as it turns out, the California Supreme Court perpetrated a vicious hate crime against bisexuals. In a decision that reminded civilized observers everywhere of the smell of cooking cabbage, the seven robed judicialbots did what they did, and all the diversity advancement that progressives have been whining about interminably coughed quietly and died. Do I overstate the case?
Think about this for a minute. In a decision that found marriage to be a fundamental right for homosexuals, they refused — in quite a striking way, in clearly a deliberate way — to find the same right for bisexuals. Lesbo-gay, yes, homo-gay, fine, straights can already marry, even in California, and yet, did the justices find a right for bisexuals to marry in a way keeping with their sacred orientation? No, they did not. Not a bit of it. The California Supreme Court told bisexuals everywhere within the Golden State that if they — lepers all of them — want to be married, they have to pick a sex, and marry just one of those. Or they can alternate sexes, I suppose, so long as a divorce has intervened. But that would have to be understood as “coming out,” or “going back,” or coming out again after going back. The California Supreme Court has consigned bisexuals, consided as such, to a continual life of shame and self-loathing. No Californian, under this new regime, is allowed to express his or her bisexuality at a given moment in time through the sacred bonds of marriage. Marriage is out for them, people, and why would these California Supreme Court justices, presumably educated people, allow their commitment to diversity come unstuck like this? Given the premises, the thing is inexplicable.
Following the logic (and we must follow the logic), this was like striking down separate drinking fountains for black people, but allowing them for brown people. If sexual orientation is affronted whenever a right to marry in line with that orientation is denied, then this decision has said, in effect, that bisexuals cannot be oriented to members of the same sex and the opposite sex at the same time, or that, if they are, then they are perverts. Perverts can’t marry, for to do so would sanctify the perversion. Since the California Supreme Court decided this, then it is clear that we have California drawing the line somewhere. But when they trample on the rights of bisexuals like this, isn’t that a violation of some UN declaration?
This is not me saying this, but rather the seven members of the California Supreme Court, their eyes fixed on the bisexuals in their midst, those eyes like fourteen blobs of vitriol. Hatred, disgust, contempt . . . all of it right there, on the surface of this decision.
Let me spell it out. A male bi likes girls and he likes guys. He likes them at the same time. He wants to have sex with them both as part of his ongoing lifestyle. A shemale bi likes guys and she likes girls at the same time, same deal. This is a sexual expression, a sexual orientation, is it not? Have not the prophets of horniness spoken? Have we not come to recognize that libidinal promptings like this have the highest authority over our future behavior? Especially in California? And does this not bring with it a right to marry?
We can see the source of this bigotry, of course. We can identify where this hatred comes from — it is not hard to spot. These justices are stuck in an outmoded allegiance to the traditional number two. Just as in our benighted past, when we all thought that marriage involved a man and a woman, so we also have come to believe — like superstitious children! — that the number two was somehow important to marriage. These mossback conservatives of the California Supreme Court think they are progressives, they think they have advanced the cause of diversity. In reality, they have set diversity back in terrible ways. They have insulted it in ways sure to draw the attention of international tribunals of orgasmic justice. These justices puff themselves up because they are not stuck on John/Mary. Ha. That and five bucks will get you a Starbucks. They have opened the door to John/John or to Mary/Mary. Such bwave pogwessives. But look over that list! What do all those combos have in common? You got it. They are not stuck on John/Mary, but they are stuck on One/Two. If they agreed that bisexuals are humans too — which they decided not to do in a most offensive way — this would require marriage licences for John/Mary/Susan, or Bill/John/Mary. And what would that do? It would open us up to the anarchy of One/Two/Three. And it would not be long, especially in San Francisco, where some “maniac” would be pushing for Four.
And then what would we have? We would have bisexuals and their post-two arrangements. We would have Muhammad and his four alloted, not counting the concubines. We would have Ezekiel One-Tooth, down from his compound in the mountains, with his bevy of calico-clad cuties. Why can’t we get these justices to take the next logical step? Don’t they know what normal means?