(Guest-posted by the girl who drank too much coffee today.)

I don't like Bill Maher, frankly; I didn't like him very much before September 11 and I liked him less afterwards, and the final straw was when he was quite rude to an interviewer from my favorite animal charity (hint: it's not PETA?), despite being on record as a supporter of animal rights.

That said, my brother sent me a link to this piece, which pretty much nails my position on the whole gay marriage thing. My favorite bit:

Republicans are always saying we should privatize things, like schools, prison, Social Security -- OK, so how about we privatize privacy? If the government forbids gay men from tying the knot, what's their alternative? They can't all marry Liza Minnelli.

Which reminds me, I've been meaning to vent this for some time now . . . in a comment at S-Train's blog, in response to a post in which he gave his support for gay marriage, I wrote the following:

[From S-Train's post] And this shouldn't be a liberal or consevative issue. It should be a human issue.

Sure, make it sound all simple and logical like that! Huh! Where's the partisan hatemongering? Where's the team of legal experts debating constitutionality? Where are all the hand-wringers moaning about what this might mean for the future of Western civilization?

Oh, right: You don't do all that.

Which is why I love this blog.

This earned me a little chastisement from my very favoritest of all my favorite people, whom I won't link here simply because if I'm going to go toe-to-toe with him, it's going to be on my own blog, and not Jim's. But the enterprising researcher will be able to figure it out. The remark was:

Ilyka: Umph. Calling people "hatemongers" for disagreeing and/or having concerns is a bit counteproductive in my experience. Just makes them dig their heels in harder.

And that's about when I had my wakeup call: For my own sanity, I have to stop pretending that there's a single blessed thing I can do to make the people I honestly would describe as "hatemongers" dig their heels in any less; or, as the quote atop Zeyad's blog says, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

Those I consider hatemongers have had the gloves off for a long time. Why'm I still wearin' my pair?

So long, social conservatives, and thanks for all the fish.

I've read your arguments. I've listened to your concerns. And I've noticed something: When you need, I mean really really NEED, the socially liberal folks on your side--when elections are close and winning isn't everything, it's the only thing--you have "concerns" that you're just "airing" in the "interest" and "spirit" of "liberal debate."

But when you think you have us by the short hairs, you move to make your concerns amendments.

Don't fuck me like that, darlings. More importantly, quit fucking yourselves--because that's what you're about to do. You're about to hand the country to a Democrat president because you can't keep from sticking your noses into what is essentially other people's business.

Here's all Bush had to do to win in a landslide: nothing. That's right, nothing. No Constitutional amendments. No statements on the issue whatsoever. If someone asked, all he had to do was state that he trusts the courts to uphold the Constitution, as indeed justices are sworn to do, and that now is not the time to focus on divisive domestic issues because, you know, there's a war on.

Yes, National Review would have shed bitter tears of "disappointment" that their "concerns" were not being "seriously addressed" by the "leader of the free world." (Look, Ma, I got sneer quotes!) But the middle, amigos--the middle that you need, whether you have the courage to admit it or not--the middle would have been sewn up tight. How tight? This tight.

Of course, it has been suggested in some quarters that the middle is already in pocket. To that, I have only this response:

"Dewey Defeats Truman."

Think about it.

(With thanks to Michele of A Small Victory for reminding me that I do not have this whole thing out of my system yet. Not even close.)