John Cloud, Time magazine's in-house gay activist, attacked Obama supporter Donnie McClurkin over McClurkin's public testimony that he overcame homosexuality through prayer. In perhaps the only negative piece in the mainstream media on the California Supreme Court's decision legalizing "gay marriage," Cloud whines that it's not enough.

In his Viewpoint column, "What the California Gay Ruling Won't Do," Cloud complains that the nation has not yet caved in to accept "gay marriage" and that federal law still defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Cloud has covered such topics as "gay youth" for Time, and once wrote a piece for an alternative newspaper detailing his adventures in a gay bathhouse, where anonymous, promiscuous sex was rampant. Here's an excerpt from his May 16 Time posting on the marriage ruling, in which he goes after singer McClurkin:

"I am hoping for invitations to some lavish gay beach weddings in the next few months, but at the end of the year, the gays who stage those weddings will still be filing separate 1040s ... One of the most puzzling things to me about heat for Obama on the left is that the Senator has taken such retrograde positions on gays. ... Obama's campaign enlisted the support of a Christianist entertainer, Donnie McClurkin, who publicly advocates the idiocy that people can change their sexuality by praying to Jesus."

Cloud then cites three straw man arguments for traditional marriage and knocks them down, using quotes from the court's majority. By the way, the sheer length of the 121-page court opinion is a fine example of the "bad laws kill trees" theory advanced by attorney Jan LaRue, who says, "the more absurd the opinion, the more trees have to be killed to make the argument."

Cloud concludes his column by playing the B word ("bigoted") and saying the discussion is over:

"... suffice to say that this ruling effectively ends the academic debate over whether marriage inequality can be justified. By taking on virtually every objection to marriage rights for same-sex couples, even the most transparently bigoted, the court has produced a document that will be cited for generations."

Yes, perhaps as an example of judicial lawlessness and arrogance that led to a citizen revolt against their black-robed masters. And perhaps a revolt against the media that gave them so much one-sided cover.

For a full article on the TV networks' biased coverage of the marriage ruling, see "Media Follow Gay Script on Marriage Ruling" at http://www.cultureandmedia.com/