Ah crap! This story in today's Australian had better not be true. My god, it's barely been days since they were rocking out their fucking greatness at their Melbourne gig. Is it possible that I witnessed the last great shake of The Vines? I mean, that would be cool and all, but like, I'd prefer it if they were just happy, great and rockin, like they were on Wednesday.

That iPod ad is just taunting me now. It's already been on about three times this morning. Man! I was all set for a Vines revival. Reversal of fortunes etc.

Nah. I'm sure everything's alright. I mean, what would The Australian know anyway? I mean, that story's about a web rumour, quoting fan forums. Um, helloo! What the hell does that mean? Nothin! And why would I trust The Australian at all? A-holes. Am currently feeling enraged after reading this stinking pile of dumbarse crap. The "Gay marriage not needed" title caught my eye. Grrrr. Spluttered over my coffee. So much of it was offensive to me. From the first sentence, "Homosexual Australians had a big practical win and a small symbolic defeat this week", to the last, "They may not be married under the law but surely how they, and the people in their lives, perceive their relationship is what matters most." Grrrrrrr!

See, the government has announced legislation to allow superannuation to pass to a same sex partner without penalty tax. Wow. News like that enriches the soul, don't it? But The Australian chides that this great leap forward, "was not enough to stop gay activist outrage at other government decisions, to forbid legally recognised gay marriages and to prevent Australian recognition of the adoption of children by same sex couples in other countries." Tsk tsk. Damn gay activists! Here we are, ushering in an enlightened new era of superannuation legislation and they're banging on about piddling little things like being able to get married and adopt children! Those gays! How ungrateful! You try to be nice to people! But they won't be happy until things actually change! This is strike three for The Australian. George Pell, Janet Albrechtsen, and now an anonymous staff hack making the same 'accepting' and 'not-hateful-or-discriminatory-at-all' case, which, nonetheless, lacks acceptance and pointedly celebrates discrimination. We might almost call that 'routine' prejudice, except that "The days when gays and lesbians were routinely subjected to blatant prejudice in the courts and community are over". Yep, sooo over. Was also annoyed/amused at the lame and shallow attempt at pre-emptively debunking the opposing argument, with the sentence "Gays who argue this is demeaning and unjust should get over it." Like, talk to the hand, yo! This annoyed me until I realised that, HA! That means I don't have to get over it at all! I'm free to say "this is demeaning and unjust" to my heart's content. Yay! THIS IS DEMEANING AND UNJUST. Just another perk of being straight. I can also get married, and even adopt children if I want to. And "social engineers on the bench" be damned! Hee hee. For any American readers, this is the Australian way of saying "activist judges".