You've Got Some Balls!

Out here on Long Island, whenever you want to express outrage over someone's hubris, one would likely say, "You've got some balls!" and then continue on explaining their point. There are certainly variations of this expression that will play much better in Peoria -- "you've got some nerve" immediately comes to mind -- but they don't quite deliver the same blast of indignity.

This is the expression that immediately came to my mind after reading about a confrontation that Karl Rove had with a high school student at a New England prep school over gay marriage .

The brief blurb from Huffpo can be seen here.

The high schooler asked a very pointed but simple question: What threat does gay marriage pose to others?" Try as he might, Rove attempted to sidestep the question by stating "that the issue 'should be resolved by a legislature or a referendum, not a court.'"

What a douchbag! Man, he's got some balls. So, it's okay to decide Presidential elections through the courts -- rather than conduct meaningful recounts in Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004) -- but not let the courts interpret existing statutes on what constitutes a lawful union? Giving me a fucking break.

This story gets better because the young Ms. Marla Spivack would not relent. ""You never actually answered," she said. "How does it threaten anyone?"

Here's the punchline folks. I hope you're sitting for this. The turd blossom responded by asking:

"What's the compelling reason to throw out 5,000 years of understanding the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman?"

My response to him would be "Where should I start, TB?"

Okay....let's respond to the esteemed asshole, Mr Rove.

• Granting the right to marriage to same sex couples in no way diminishes the rights of heterosexuals to do the same. It does not. In fact, legalizing gay unions affords two people the ability to enter into other essential legal agreements - health coverage for one - that would be a benefit to society as a whole. Surely, Mr. Rove, you would not be against something that benefits society, would you?
  
  
• So now it's a question of age, is it? Well, if we use that reasoning, why not throw out our understanding of the latest laws of chemistry, physics and biology while you're at it. Those laws from which we benefit are not quite 5,000 years old either. While we're at it, why not say that Copernicus was wrong and that the Earth really is flat and that it sits in the center of the known universe. Karl, just because an idea is old, doesn't make it revered and unchallengeable. It just makes it old.
  
  
• And since were on the subject of age and institutionalized belief, how do you figure that marriage is 5,000 years old? I'll concede that heterosexual monogamy is a very old concept but that's because it was an essential element for human survival, but what does that have to do with marriage? You don't need a ring or a marriage certificate to suck and fuck and make babies, just the right physical plumbing. The fact is that marriage as an institution is far younger than you've been led to believe and stems not from romantic love or species propagation, but pure political and business sense. Don't believe me? Read about it here.
  

The truth of the matter is Karl is that you really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you? Your real answer to Ms. Spivack's questions should be "Ah...I don't know. Let me get back to you on that." While you're at it, tell her how much of a fucking hypocrite you are for endorsing a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage while you get to be married twice.

You got some balls, Karl Rove. You really do.