US Gov’t Shuts Down In Wake Of “Breaking Bad” Finale


At 12:01am EDT, the Federal Government of the United States finished the series finale of AMC’s Breaking Bad, and, unsure of what to do with itself, decided to shut down indefinitely.  The central government of the world’s foremost superpower was forced to postpone its viewing of the highly-anticipated television event, as it had a “thing to go to” Sunday night.  But as soon as it had finished the no-holds-barred nail-biting final episode late Monday night, it announced that it would need some time to recover.  “I just don’t know what to do with my life now that it’s over,” decried the legislative branch.  “Without ‘B Bad’ to look forward to every week,” sniffed the judicial branch, “what’s the point?”  President Obama could not be reached for comment, but could be heard whimpering the lyrics to “Baby Blue” from the Oval Office.  When asked how long it would need to deal with the emotional stress of not seeing its favorite characters return to its TV set every week, the global standard for a functional democracy stated, “I don’t know.  Maybe when Walking Dead comes back I’ll think about getting out of bed.”  This is the first time the US Government has shut down since the finale of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air in 1996, and may have as much of an impact on the economy as the recession caused by the end of The Wire in 2008.

How to Redefine Marriage

hipster henry viii


I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about,” Chick-Fila-A’s Dan Cathy

Despite the countless examples of why marriage has never been ‘traditionally defined’ the way they think it is, fundamentalists still stick to the argument that allowing gays to marry would be ‘redefining’ marriage.  And because marriage is a religious institution, according to them, the government has no authority to do so.  You could waste your time trying to present a logical argument to these people, but if they were logical, they wouldn’t be fundamentalists.  Instead, I say fight fire with fire.  If marriage is a religious institution, you have every right to form a new religion that defines marriage anyway you’d like.  Then by supporting heterosexual marriage and not homosexual marriage, the government would be violating the first amendment by “respecting an establishment of religion” and “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Think this is an original approach?  Think again!  Turns out it was done 500 years ago, with Christianity!  In fact, the Protestant Reformation, which paved the way for nearly every denomination of Christianity besides Catholicism, was sparked in part by one man’s wish to redefine marriage.

Henry VIII was the King of England from 1509 to 1541.  At the time, England was a Catholic country, part of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.  But after Henry’s wife Catherine of Aragon did not bear him a male heir (and after he decided that he liked her cousins more), he needed a way to get out of his marriage.  Pope Clement VII denied his request for an annulment on the grounds that it violated church doctrine, so Henry, undeterred, decided to form his own church whose doctrine would allow his annulment.  Thus began the Church of England, one of the first official Protestant Churches in Europe.  It is to this redefinition of marriage that all major denominations of Protestantism in America owe their freedom to practice their religion, including Baptists, undoubtedly the most outspoken opponents to gay marriage.

Now the good news is that we live in a day and age where you don’t have to be a king to start a new religion, and you don’t have to go around destroying all the churches that disagree with you, as Henry did.  All you have to do is decide to start one and voila! it shall be done.  As a matter of fact….

I hereby proclaim a new religion that I shall call Equalitism.  Its doctrines are simple:

1. Love everybody.

2. Gays can get married.

Bam! Now any government that does not recognize the rights of gays to marry is violating my constitutional right to practice my religion.  Anyone care to be a disciple?

Why the government does NOT have a bigger concern than gay marriage.


So if you haven’t gotten on the internet at all the past couple days, you may be surprised today to find your news feed painted red. A little more digging might reveal to you that it all has to do with gay marriage. So what about gay marriage, you ask?  Well since you’re too lazy to do a quick google search, I’ll spell it out for you.  Due to a supreme court hearing about California’s Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriages Tuesday and a discussion about striking down the Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday, millions of gay rights advocates showed their support for the cause on social media websites (meaning facebook).  Now of course with any social media trend, there have been some dissenters.  And while most of them can be dismissed as hateful bigots, there are some attempting to be rational and reasonable in their refusal to support the cause.  The most frequent opposing response is that the government has ‘better things to do.’  It’s an amazing coincidence that the majority of these responses came from far-right conservatives, and so seemed like a safe way for them to cover up their real opinions about the issue by simply changing the subject, but for those who legitimately think that this is a sound argument, let me offer my two cents.

First of all, just to clear the air, there is absolutely NO REASON to oppose gay marriage or federal rights to same-sex couples that does not stem from hate, fear, or senseless adherence to tradition (or just general squeemishness). You may say, “But Logan, marriage is an institution of religion, so shouldn’t religious institutions make the final call?” Well let me begin my rebuttal with BULLSHIT!! Marriage and religion both developed before recorded history, and our earliest religious texts describe marriage and its rituals, so it can be argued that marriage actually predates religion.  Also this is just another semantic argument to avoid the issue, because marriage clearly has more influence on a person’s role in society and legal status than in their church.  But one might say, “But Logan, gay couples can get civil unions and domestic partnerships. Isn’t that enough?”  And my response would be an outright NO, YOU DUMBASS!!  Was 3/5 of a vote enough?  These are human fucking beings, just like you!  You’ve done absolutely nothing to earn the right to marriage, so you have no right to deny it to someone else.  This is ethics 101 people, the golden fucking rule!

But I’m not going to sit here and debunk all the inane reasons to oppose gay marriage.  This post was to debate the argument that the government ‘should have bigger concerns.’  While I agree that the government has some HUGE issues to deal with right now, not the least of which being economic reform, they have been making consistent progress on most of these issues for the past few years.  And while this may not be a big issue to you, it is a HUGE issue to the people it will affect, probably the biggest political issue to them by far!  So to say that because it’s not a big deal to you, that it shouldn’t be a big deal to the government, is selfish and narrow-minded.  Moreover, this is a human rights issue, one that should have been settled decades ago, so it should take some sort of precedence.  Furthermore (I am KILLIN’ IT with these transition words today), let’s not forget that there are literally hundreds of branches and committees and subcommittees that comprise the government, so just because the Supreme Court is ruling on this, and millions of people are showing their support for it, does not mean the rest of the government has stopped what it’s doing to pay attention.  The government, like a kid with ADD, has the wonderful ability to multitask, so whenever anyone says that the government is ‘focusing it’s attention’ on something, please feel free to call that person a dumbass.