Cannon here: I felt cheerful when composing the post below this one. I feel crummy now.
I'm sure you've heard of The Church of the Sub-Genius, the joke religion that Ivan Stang has kept going for the past few decades. A woman named Rachel Bevilacqua had her son taken away from her because she has been active in this "church." The Honorable (but un-hip) Jimmy Punch -- apparently, a Catholic nut-job of the Mel Gibson school -- saw a photo of Bevilacqua wearing a bondage dress and a paper-mache goat's head while attending a slightly-bawdy Sub-G event (at which her son was not present). He called her mentally ill and ruled that she may not contact her son by phone or in writing.
I wonder how he would have ruled in a case involving Milton Berle or members of the Monty Python troop, or anyone else who has ever worn a goofy costume for comedic purposes?
Fundamentalist fools love to believe that they are, or soon will be, persecuted. In fact, these intolerant dimwits are the persecutors.
2 comments:
Except in this case her ex-husband was constructing a case to get custody. I very much doubt this was the only evidence presented.
Sometimes ex-husbands are right. You'll have to follow this one up...
Ex-spouses are forever "making cases." Often, the lawyers press them into doing so even when the parties really want an amicable settlement.
I have no idea who is right or wrong in the custody dispute between this one woman and her former husband. But I do know that no judge in his right mind would allow photos from a silly Sub-Genius event to enter even SLIGHTLY into the decision-making process. That's akin to calling Carl Barks a pedophile because he drew Hewie, Dewey and Louie without pants.
Post a Comment