In which the pond indulges in some Memento, Benjamin Button plotting ...

(And more papal pleasures here).

The pond realised that the only way to add an air of unpredictability to the day was to adopt the sort of storyline used in films such as Memento - showing things happening in reverse order ...

Now the pond has absolutely no time for the Benjamin Button approach, and it's a measure of the pond's desperation, but please, humour the pond, and allow it to begin with a typically bigoted and homophobic quote in the comments section below the column that inspired the quote, from one "David L" ...

Thank you, XXXXXXX. You have done a valiant job but now is not ripe to simply give it.  I know that you have been one among the few who resisted the SSM campaign, pointing out on a number of occasions the threat to religious rights and parental rights. But I have to say that you weren't assisted by the performance of any of the politicians. The ACM took a reasonable approach only to be roundly abused by the SSM camp, a fact that had no effect on public perceptions of homosexuals as quiet, loving, tolerant people.  If the legislative campaign faces the same lettuce leaf strength, kiss Sunday worship goodbye unless you are a member of one of those parishes where the priest harbours his own version of Christian love. There is still time to ensure that the legislation protects the 40% of the population who showed some moral - as against immoral - strength.  I can't say that Christians, or even non-Christians have the most desirable approach to marriage and the vow they take about one person to the exclusion of all others seems to be the most commonly broken one there is. The old common law people knew how weak the flesh was. They had a tort of seduction - applicable to those who seduced another's wife away from her husband. It mean damages for the old husband. And divorce was a lot more difficult than it is. 
Given that the average number of partners a gay man has is in excess of 500 and in some case in the thousands, the vow about one to the exclusion of all others, is going to be a bit difficult to keep unless you are afraid of the threat of losing a large slice of your assets.  
I only mention this because someone said, I think it was Turnbull, that the more people married the happier they will be. And some fool from a public health authority seemed to think that once the gays were married, they would cease the trips to the bath houses, the habit of a life time. 
I don't accept that anyone is born homosexual. It's not like tea or coffee, or sugar and milk. It involves choices which implies free will and with it, responsibility for one's actions. Imagine if you will standing up in court charged with theft, or assault or even rape and when asked for an explanation you replied 'I was born that way.' Yet that was the back bone of the whole SSM argument but no one in authority stood up and argued for it. 

Of course the challenge is to guess the XXXXXXX the homophobic bigot addressed, a detective game about as silly as the bizarre spectacle of Kenneth Branagh's Poirot moustache ...

Let us begin the guessing game with the last few pars, wherein the columnist explains that exploiting this kind of bigotry and homophobia offers a new hope for politicians of the conservative kind:

...the big political story is that Labor’s heartland in western Sydney voted resoundingly No. Paul Keating’s old seat of Blaxland, held by Jason Clare, voted 73.9 per cent No. Watson, held by Tony Burke, voted 69.6 per cent No. McMahon, held by Chris Bowen, was 64.9, Werriwa 63.7, Fowler 63.7, Parramatta 61.6, Chifley 58.7 per cent, Barton, 56.4 per cent. All are Labor seats. 
This is a giant headache for Bill Shorten, and shows the lost opportunity for the Liberal Party of capitalising on the disenfranchised social conservative vote in Labor territory. 
Western Sydney is fertile ground ripe for Cory Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives. 
The bullying and intimidation of No voters during the campaign demonstrates how urgent it is for parliament to legislate adequate religious and free speech protections when the Marriage Act is changed. The Smith bill is woefully inadequate. 
No one should be compelled to participate in a same-sex wedding against their beliefs, and those who hold a traditional view of marriage should not be discriminated against by the state. 
Most importantly, parents must retain the right to teach their values to their children, which means being able to opt out of Safe Schools type sex education. 
As Lyle Shelton, the valiant leader of the No campaign, said today: “We congratulate the Yes campaign on their win. But now our attention will turn to ensuring that what the Yes Campaign said would occur in regard to freedoms being protected is actually realised. Senator Paterson’s Bill provides the best pathway.” 
He also paid tribute to the Yes volunteers and staff at the Coalition for Marriage, who “have been magnificent and I know they want to keep fighting for freedom in Australia.” 
A new social conservative force has risen in Australia, and it represents the four in ten who voted No.

Petulance, defiance, a Black Knight approach, a complete lack of grace and generosity of spirit, a celebration of the potential of bigotry and homophobia as a Roy Moore way forward?

Well it's not hard to guess is it, is it?

Another clue to the ungracious, ungenerous one ... the whining tone of indulgent self-pity ...

Getting closer to the end, which is to say the beginning, so why not a little defiance?

Okay, it was no surprise at all, which is why the pond isn't that keen on this kind of narrative structure. Of course it was the Devine in the Surry Hills bunker armed with a keyboard wot did it:

But it does set up a great joke ... the Devine accepting with good grace ...

Happily there was an unhappy Jan also reading, and she produced a couple of comments:

"The 'no' voters were never bigots and homophobes." 

Miranda, Miranda, Miranda.... 

Might I refer you back to your own articles only a few weeks ago where you referred to LGBTI Australians as 'confused' and 'delusional' and other similar terms which rob people of dignity and agency? 

Might I point you back to when you referred to the parents of LGBTI adolescents as 'child abusers' ? Where you referred to the bodies of transgender Australians as 'mutilated'? 

Might I refer you to your own articles where you described LGBTI Australians as a 'penicuious social fad' (penicuious meaning 'ruinious or a cause of total ruin')? 

Homophobia is defined as a 'moral condemnation, antipathy, or hatred for homosexual people.' 

If those words aren't an antipathic expression and moral condemnation of LGBTI Australians, then I don't know what is.

Indeed, indeed. Have another go not happy Jan:

"The 'no' voters were never bigots and homophobes." 

Unfortunately, Miranda, when you believe that certain members of Australian society deserve less rights, deserve unequal opportunities in life, love and under secular law... you have to accept the term 'bigot' applies to you. Antipathy and intolerance towards LGBTI people is bigotry. 

Senator Patterson's bill has five lines allowing any two people to marry, then 45 pages legalising new forms of discrimination that are currently unlawful. The remaining provisions do nothing and have no operation under the law. It's not a bill that legalises marriage equality so much as a bill that legalises new forms of discrimination. 

If the values you want to teach your children are to incite hatred, violence, inequality and discrimination against LGBTI children, then do you really deserve parental freedom? Are you really fit to be a parent? Do we really need to vary the laws to allow us to with-hold truth from children and allow vilification? 

I'm sure you will continue to write articles that oppose LGBTI people being treated with dignity and equality. I'm sure you will continue to write articles that cast people who are different to you as 'confused' and 'delusional' and other intolerant words that demean the humanity of people around you. It's what you do. It's what Mark Latham and Tim Blair and Chris Dore do for a living. It's what sells newspapers. That's sad. But I'm glad we can just give it a rest for one day and let LGBTI Australians feel like their love is equal in worth and value.

Doug tried to find some middle ground:  

"No voters were never bigots or homophobes, and should never have been slandered in such a hateful fashion." 

Not all "no" voters were homophobes. But you have to concede that some were. 

Anyone who promoted a "slippery slope" argument against SSM was ipso facto a homophobe. And I do not say that with rancour; as some kind of personal insult, it is just a statement of plain fact - people who prosecute such arguments fear the influence of homosexuals on society.

There were many other bigoted and homophobic comments below the column, but this is hardly surprising, given the way the homophobic, bigoted, fundamental Catholic Devine has been the relentless cheer leader and rabble rouser for the homophobic bigots. 

Even more bizarre, this cheerleader for Judeo-Christian civilisation now seeks common cause with the Islamic fundamentalists of Sydney's western suburbs?

And so to yesterday's credits ...

And now to today's production company credit, the front page of the rag that carried the Devine, doing its very best to deliver a graceless, ungracious attempt at humour ...

Oh fucketty fuck, could the Terror get any more tone deaf? Could there be any greater lack of generosity? A ball and chain, strife of life joke on the front page? Suddenly we've gone downhill from arthouse movies to a really bad and banal sitcom?

Why look at the way the lizards of Oz played it straight down the middle, with gravitas and solemnity ...

And look at the way the lizard Oz columnists joined in the celebrations and danced in the streets until dawn ...

Oh fucketty fuck, they wheeled out the Oreo on a Thursday, and let the bromancer off his Catholic chain? 

It's going to be a long day ...