Apparently USC will try to lose to the #33-ranked team early on, like tonight, so they can claim in December that an early loss to the unranked matters more than losing to a ranked team, late in the season, in a championship game USC won't have to play.

Hey, it worked last year.

The ACLU of Oklahoma has filed a state court challenge to State Question 711, the anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative that the idiot state Democratic legislative leadership allowed on the ballot for absolutely no good reason.

Unfortunately, neither the state nor national ACLU has any information on the lawsuit online, despite announcing Thursday that they'd hold a press conference on Friday to announce the suit. (The ACLU does have news about a similar challenge filed against the upcoming Arkansas anti-gay ballot measure, but that was on Wednesday. I'd like to know exactly why the ACLU says the measure violates the single-subject rule, or is unconstitutionally vague, but apparently us peons don't need to be troubled with those things.

So instead, let's look at the absolutely laughably ridiculous responses to this challenge from the knuckle-draggers who got it on the ballot in the first place. From the above-linked AP report:

Rep. Thad Balkman, R-Norman, said plaintiffs are trying to ignore the Legislature and the majority of Oklahomans who believe marriage is between one man and one woman.

In 1954, "the Legislature and the majority of Oklahomans" believed people with black skin were genetically inferior and had to be separated in all public accommodations. Since Balkman swore an oath to uphold the state constitution, and its guarantee for equality of all people, you'd think he'd be smart enough not to try to justify discrimination by saying that the "majority" of people prefer it.

You'd be wrong.

"By seeking to deny Oklahomans the right to vote, the plaintiffs are attempting to get in through the backdoor and allow for legal recognition of homosexual marriage in Oklahoma. This re-emphasizes the need for the constitutional amendment," Balkman said.

Oklahoma already has a law prohibiting both in-state gay marriage and recognition of such marriages from other states, and it's been upheld within the state constitution. If SQ 711 falls off the ballot, the status quo remains - no gay marriage in Oklahoma. If the US Supreme Court overturns such prohibitions, it will nullify any such law in Oklahoma, whether by statute or in the state constitution.

Balkman wants you to believe that if you don't get to vote against gay marriage in November, that you're actually voting for recognizing it. It's either a complete lie or total incompetence, but with this guy, you just can't rule out that it's both.

From The Oklahoman's story on the event, by Ryan McNeill:

State Sen. James Williamson, also a gay marriage critic, said he and Balkman may hire an attorney and intervene in the case.

Calling the group "far left," Williamson said the lawsuit "shows their true agenda."

"They want homosexual marriage to be legalized in Oklahoma and will try anything to thwart the will of the people," said Williamson, R-Tulsa.

That's pretty solid evidence that the sponsors are just flat-out lying. Gay marriage is not permitted in Oklahoma today. If the voters approve SQ 711, it won't be more illegal. If they do not approve SQ 711 or don't get to vote on it, gay marriage remains prohibited or unrecognized in Oklahoma.

Williamson and Balkman are essentially saying that if you're really opposed to murder, you'd support an invalid state question on the ballot to prohibit murder in the state constitution (instead of just by statute. If someone points out that the ballot measure is both flawed and unnecessary, then you're objectively pro-murder.

It is a ridiculous argument that the far right uses far too often to far too great an effect. Why didn't either of these stories point out that Oklahoma already prohibits gay marriage? The AP report points out that the text of the initiative would also wipe-out Oklahoma's common-law marriages, affecting about 55,000 heterosexual couples in the state. The Oklahoman managed not to mention that, somehow.

Anyone who's read MDJ or MWJ knows I have almost zero graphic design skill, though I can learn rules that make things easier to read and try to follow them. That's why I use pretty standard Manila themes for the blog - people with actual talent make them, and then I try to avoid rogering them.

The previous yellow-and-white theme was one I picked a few years ago because, for the most part, it's CSS-based, and CSS is better than not-CSS. It wasn't very handsome then, and it didn't improve with age.

When Bryan Bell released his latest theme a few weeks ago, I thought, "I could use that." Finally, today, I made the switch. The process cleaned out a lot of optional cruft from the sidebar, including a lot of badges and other links that I may restore someday (I have the old theme saved). And I might change the color if I get some time in Photoshop at some point, or move the stylesheet to an external file for faster serving. The theme also allows for a logo in the upper-right corner, but I don't have one, and for a top navigation bar that I've disabled because I don't know what to put there right now.

But it's still a far sight purtier than what was here before. Those of you reading through RSS won't notice anything, but I have to look at it in a browser and I'm happier.