Vancemack…please re-read our posts. Marshall repeatedly voiced ‘opinions’. I countered with facts. He spoke of mainstream values. I spoke of constitutional decisions.

Demonstrate where, in fact, in the past, a change in marriage laws brought us down some inevitable, uncontrollable road? Changes occur, yes. Will the legalization of same-sex marriage usher forth polygamy? I doubt it. This issue doesn’t pivot on polygamy. 

In the past, in fact, we’ve changed marriage laws to prohibit polygamy, to prohibit incest, to allow interracial marriages, to establish minimum ages for marriage, to establish minimum ages of consent, to require marriage licensing, to require blood testing…not to mention the creation of laws governing separation, divorce, child custody, inheritance, etc. etc. And through all of this lawmaking marriage remains with us (though certainly its ‘sanctity’ has been badly bruised - long before the issue of same-sex marriage entered the stage). 

Accordingly, one could no more state that permitting same-sex marriage WON’T lead to polygamy than anyone out there could have stated that permitting blacks to marry whites WOULD have led to polygamy. Conversely, did the prohibition of polygamy result in the dissolution of marriage altogether? (Gee, if you can’t marry 5 women, next thing ya know, they won’t let me marry one!)

This is just how ridiculous the “slippery slope” analogy is.

He did state that polygamy would also be considered if gay marriage were allowed (not banned…it is already the law). It is a fact polygamists WERE keepnly following the case in California and readying legal challenges. But thats hardly our problem here…

I believe he simply asked for YOUR opinion…if you are willing to change the laws to allow for gay marriage are you also willing to change the law to allow for polygamy, coupling, first cousins…siblings…

It is a simple question…its an opinion. He asked for YOURs…and for some reason…you make that a slippery slope argument (as if more groups WOULDNT challenge for THEIR right to couple as they choose).

SO…legal challenge aside…if they allow gay marriage they SHOULD allow for polygamy…right?
Its a simple question…an opinion…yes or no? And why or why not?

Thank you anon.

Marshall’s opinions (same-sex marriage isn’t a constitutional issue but a values issue, legalizing same-sex marriage will open the door for polygamy, majority opinion dictates and legitimatizes local,state and federal laws) have all been exposed as just that: his opinions.

At the end of the day one cannot argue with opinions. He is entitled to his.

Ed,

You got it right.

“...the government has no business administering a religious sacrament, or giving legal rights based on a religious status. That violates the separation of religion and state.”

Unfortunately, the same right-wing proponents of banning same-sex marriage also believe we are a Christian nation and that our laws are founded on the 10 Commandments (despite the fact that only 4 of the 10 are actually laws). For them, seperation of church and state only applies if it is someone elses church.

Bru,

In response to me you said “Finally, out comes that inane analogy, ‘There is no longer an argument against polygamy once same-sex becomes legal.’ Of course there’s an argument.”

From this I take it that you don’t support legalizing polygamous marriage, but the reasons you gave were surmountable technicalities, thus not real arguments.

So I simply ask you: do you support legalizing polygamy or don’t you?

re: By JFoster2k, April 23 at 11:06 am #

JFoster writes:

“The right believes marriage is a sacred religious union between a man and a woman.”

Then, JFoster, our secular government needs to be stripped of its power to confer or recognize the “marriage” of anyone, with any legal contractual meaning whatsoever, because the government has no business administering a religious sacrament, or giving legal rights based on a religious status. That violates the separation of religion and state.

Now, if what the government calls “marriage” is legitimate, then it must necessarily be wholly secular. Therefore, your legal “marriage”, though you use the same word to refer to it, is not your religious marriage at all, and it cannot be denied to others for religious reasons. I repeat: this is true even though you use the same word to refer to your religious “marriage”.

So the right is simply wrong. The position of the right is not just “politically incorrect”. It’s not just a faux pas, a socially awkward but respectable conviction, an alternate lifestyle choice, a competing theory.

No; the position of the right is — how can we express it? — well, it’s incoherent, stupid, irrational, nonsensical, asinine —  you know, stuff like that. Oh — and theocratic, too.

It’s intellectual and ethical brain poop.

Marshall:

That you would come up with this statement: “The fact is that allowing same-sex opens the door to virtually any “marriage” arrangement you can come up with so I must assume that you support them all because anything else would be, well, disingenuous.” says enough.

You have not provided one shred of evidence to support “the fact is” for this, or any other position you’ve taken.

Have a nice day and try not to let facts get in the way of your opinions.

By William W. Wexler, April 23 at 12:46 pm #

“Marriage is a civil right that is protected by the US Constitution which is not subject to review by the states.  Therefore, the states that ban the civil right to choose your own mate in marriage are in violation of the Constitution.”

You just said two different things:

1) Marriage is a civil right that is protected by the US Constitution. (correct)
2) Marriage is a civil right to choose your own mate. (only partially correct)

Everyone already has the right to marry.  There is no US constitutional guarantee that you can marry someone of the same gender, species, or anything else, hence the state’s right to clarify that.

Furthermore, there is no civil rights group called “gay people” just as there are no civil rights groups called “heterosexual” or “bisexual” people.  These are self-described groups (like “polygamous people”), so discrimination laws don’t apply.  Nor does “sexual orientation” work as a discriminating factor because no one of any sexual orientation can marry the same gender.

Look, set aside the gay marriage issue for a moment.

Was asking such a politically and socially charged question even appropriate? Would it be proper to ask a contestant whether or not they believe the Bible is the inspired word of God?

My point is, asking a question to which any answer has a significant downside (and potential impact on the judges ruling) is patently wrong.

I dont know…society seems to be able to define things pretty well when it wants to. We ban many different types of marriage. Shall we allow ALL of them?

I have worked with 100 to 150 men that are in PAIN because of the judgement of society…people that only want what others have…the right to live and love as they are. Men who for the most part believe in God and believe that they are no more responsible for their passion and desire than for their skin color. Men who believe there lifestyle is not a choice but who and what they ARE…be it from God or whatever genetic coding that has gone in to their creation. They WANT to live…free…and in peace…and loving as they choose, accepted as normal as the rest of society. How do you tell someone like that they are wrong and dont have the right to live as they choose?

Didn’t read everyone’s posts, sorry, I’m busy today.  There are certainly good points being made.

If this wasn’t one of them, let me make it.  Marriage is a civil right that is protected by the US Constitution which is not subject to review by the states.  Therefore, the states that ban the civil right to choose your own mate in marriage are in violation of the Constitution.

Sorry, Perez, I know you were pissed off and rightly so, but it’s not a state’s rights issue.  Someday this will be generally acknowledged, until then, we are just suffering another injustice from our government.

-Wexler

Without preamble, Perez was totally in the wrong! Furthermore, he is a petty, childish, attention-whore.

That said, I fully support gay marriage. Homosexuals have the right to be every bit as miserable as heteros.

The real issue here is not whether Miss CA’s response was bigotted or politically incorrect. Nor, in fact, is that really relevant to the entire gay marriage argument.

A few simple points from the right:

* The right believes marriage is a sacred religious union between a man and a woman.

* To redefine marriage to include same sex unions goes against the will of God.

* It is wrong to expect anyone to chose political correctness over the will of God.

So, bash Miss CA if you wish, but not for being a bigot. Rather, focus on the real ignorance, belief in an invisible father-figure in the sky who demands this bigotry.

Purple Girl…you COULD look at her response as a sign of strength, not intellectual weakness. A reasonable person COULD look her and see that she recognized she was being set up with a very politically correct question, and that instead of providing a very pageant like answer promoting love and world peace, she had the courage on a world stage to not bow down to PC expectations and gave her actual OPINION. THAT in a beauty pageant is truly ADMIRABLE. Unless of course you have an axe to grind.

Shenonymous…what if I simply disagree with you? What if I am not uneducated, unenelightened, and STILL believe that while people should feel free to live their life how they choose that doesnt make it ‘right’? What if I can actually respect people and their choices and lifestyle and STILL disagree with them? What if I believe that according to the laws of God, science, and nature (I grant you that ‘laws’ of nature and science are theoretical) that homosexuality is ‘wrong’ but dont attempt to force you to believe my opinion and dont attempt to ram my beliefs down your throat and STILL dont believe marriage should be redefined?

The Woman claimed she was from a different COUNTRY!!!
Think she could have used a ‘map & such’?It’s an insult and a disgrace to women and our country to Crown a woman ‘Miss America’ who is intellectually challenged. If they want the contest to be merely about beauty then they need to change the name.

Teenagers from Middle School to High School are obsessed with homosexuality.  They either are horrified they will be come gay/lesbian or they are horrified they can’t live the life they would feel happiest in, the gay/lesbian life.

While the bigotry against gays/lesbians is on a different track than that against black Americans, one is against a life involvement, the other racist, the spirit of ugly prejudice is equally the same.  The history of persecution most certainly is heavier on the side of black Americans, but the history of persecution is longer for homosexuality.  Is the solution as Louise says, a matter of semantics?  I think there is that element.  She and I agree it is also an attitude.  How to change that attitude is the task?  How to convince the homophobes is a matter of both science and religion and politics where legislation must guarantee all people, regardless of their life choices and sexual identity without stigma. 

It is not the hard left who is championing the extremity of dangerous situation for mainly valuable, and loved not only by gays but their family and non-gay friends.  I agree with Louise that the two euphemisms we came up with are not suitable for the very reasons she gives.  But I liked what one commenter said, to call it Two Person Marriages.  Because of the prevalence of divorce this tag, TPM, works for all, both heterosexual and homosexual. 

Political correctness is essentially irrelevant, and free thought (which is a ridiculous issue since no one can control another’s thought), but more importantly free speech and other guaranteed liberties, which knows no political bounds is the only issue. Dissenting opinion is important, but should not drive the immorality of denying a segment of the population equal rights.  Equal rights goes to the higher morality of a free society.

By vancemack, April 23 at 2:10 am #

I think you’ve put your finger on a couple of fundamental characteristics of the left (not that the right doesn’t have its own of course):

1) The irony of the left being the inventor of political correctness and its greatest practitioner, while simultaneously pretending to be the home of free thought, self expression, and “truth to power”.

2) The left’s ability to dismiss out of hand or level vitriol at dissenting opinion, while claiming to be the home of tolerance.

We see these characteristics in full display on most all topics here, from same-sex marriage to religious freedom to foreign affairs.

Something very strange is going on at YouTube.

RE: Perez Hilton’s response to Miss California’s answer to the question about gay marriage.  This is the exact text response that I uploaded to the preceding YouTube URL:

“I have no problem with his question, but I think his response to her answer is a greater problem than her answer.

“Hilton could have asked the contestant if she believes in the separation of church and state, but then I suppose she would have to be careful not to offend the religious leaders - kinda like Obama not answering the legalization of marijuana question.”

BECAUSE that was removed, I subsequently replied:

“I could give the courts a password to an email account where I sent an immediate screen capture(SC) of an earlier post I made to this URL, which I see has been removed.  That way we can verify through meta data that I did not allow myself enough time to possibly alter SC, as you will find the SC unopened at the email address of which I speak. The irony here is fascinating.  Out of all the hate-filled comments splattered everywhere, why on earth did you remove my none-hate response?”

The threads were full of filthy hatred on both sides of the issue, but my comment was important enough to remove.

The point is even more simple…for the love of God…or Yahweh…or Muhammed…or JoJo the Freakin Rabbit…is it so incredible to believe people can actually have a differing opinion and that DOESN’T make someone an evil bigot or a sperm burping fagot?

The word TOLERANCE is the most misused word introduced into the English language. It is NEVER a two way street. TOLERANCE means accept EVERY deviant position I might hold while I hold NO obligation to respect YOU or YOUR opinion.

What PISSED Perez Hilton off is that the spotlight was on and Miss California was SUPPOSED to bow to the gods of political correctness…and…GASP…she DIDN’T! How DARE her! People are supposed to COWER at the boot of PC. Why…how else will using words like HOMOPHOBE and BIGOT have any power if people don’t FEAR them!!!

re: By easmachine, April 21 at 4:56 pm:

Wow. I’d missed this one. The unregistered come in later, you know.

Anyway, it’s amazing to me how hateful some black Americans get when any analogy is attempted between the political situation of gay people as a historically oppressed and despised minority and that of black people as a historically oppressed and despised minority in America.

Of course, no comparison is ever perfect; but the virulence of this anger about any attempt at comparison speaks volumes: “Don’t compare us to you — because you actually are inferior! Yecch!”

By BruSays, April 22 at 8:03 pm #

Bru - individual states are of course free to legalize same-sex, but the majority either have amended constitutions to prevent it or passed statutes banning it, with many supporting a federal constitutional amendment.  Over time, i suspect more states will allow it (or civil union) despite current public sentiment including mine.  It’s still, however, not a civil rights issue as there’s no civil rights group that’s getting discriminated against.

And thanks for clearing that up - by your definition i’m not a homophone since i don’t fear or have contempt for lesbians or gay men.  I just don’t support same-sex marriage (by heteros, gays, or bi’s).  But if it makes you feel superior to call me one then enjoy.

And you pretty much made my point by being able to cite only legal technicalities as the difference between same-sex and polygamy issues.  If same-sex is a discrimination issue, then polygamy is too, and by the civil rights argument this would trump any legal “framework” issues you throw up as red herrings.  The fact is that allowing same-sex opens the door to virtually any “marriage” arrangement you can come up with so I must assume that you support them all because anything else would be, well, disingenuous.

guntotinsquaw writes:

“MARRIAGE is a religious ceremony having no legal ties. The government by CONSTITUTION can make no laws regarding religion.”

Wrong. the problem is, we use the same word, “marriage” , to refer to two different things: a religious ceremony; and a legal civil union between a man and a woman, which must necessarily be a non-religious thing, since our government has no power to confer a religious sacrament or status on anybody.

The question is: is it just that “marriage,” in the second, non-religious sense, is only available to heterosexual couples?

Maybe the government should stop referring in any legal documents to “marriage” between heterosexuals, as a legal status? But think of all the rewording of documents that would entail.

Incidentally, great post Ed:
By Ed Harges, April 22 at 5:31 pm #

I think the question itself was incorrect, MARRIAGE is a religious ceremony having no legal ties. The government by CONSTITUTION can make no laws regarding religion. CIVIL union is a legal contract between two people regarding domestic partnership, again the government has no legal right to target a specific group to pass a law. Her beliefs are hers by right as his are his, but neither have the right to infringe on the others right. Two consenting adults have the right to their own privacy. Perhaps both sides of this debate should recheck their language, but KUDO’S to both of them for standing up for what they believe in. You guys should be careful, some of us protest a government that’s too large and doesn’t hear what we say. You cannot pick and choose what pieces of the constitution you want to apply. Do not mix religion and law. For those of you that want to throw the bible in this, be careful, the good book can bite you in your self rightous butt! Just the opinion of an astroturfed extreme rightwinger domestic terrorist. EQUAL RIGHTS TO ALL
ONE IF BY LAND

Marshall (sorry peeps out there…)

Once again, you are allowing your personal views get in the way of a clear and supportable discussion.

To wit: You said, “...same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue, there’s nothing illegal about forbidding it.” On which planet have you been living the last 10 years? Chew on this link for a while:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/03/national/main4916096.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4916096

It’s just a little story on CBS News entitled “Iowa Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional.”

What’s more, you said it yourself, “The judiciary doesn’t rule on values, it rules on constitutionality…” PRECISELY what Iowa did, Connecticut did, Massachusetts did, California did (and the overturning of the court’s decision by the “values-driven” 52% majority is still a HUGE constitutionality issue), and what New York is likely to do. One by one, state by state, this civil rights issue will be decided in the courts - not by elections.

Homophobe: Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. Behavior based on such a feeling.

Yep, that about covers it. Oh wait, the polygamy comparison. Can I give you ONE reason? How about FOUR. And none have anything to do with “values”; all have to do with the existing framework of laws:
Property rights.
Property Inheritance.
Parental Rights.
Marital Property

ALL the above, relative to marriage, are constructed on the assumption that only two people are involved in a marriage. To expand the definition of marriage from One Man, One Woman to Two People is not a huge, incredibly complex challenge to the courts. Our laws are already in place to work with this extension without undue upheaval in the legal infrastructure.

Shenonymous,

The term same sex marriage by it’s very statement recalls that which the narrow of mind can not accept or understand. That was the point I tried to make. Obviously “Offering equal rights to all those couples who fall in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together,” is too long. That was an effort to underline the absurdity of the whole lack of reasoning behind those who firmly stand against allowing equal rights to gays. However I cant see SSM as accomplishing a positive either. Sounds too much like something that would offend the prudish and like it or not they do vote.

I rather like your observation, “It is going to take a world-wide change of attitude.” How about we call gay marriage that, a “World-Wide Change of Attitude.” WWCA. Sounds as pleasant and harmless as YMCA. And even though you and I know gay marriage in no way threatens anyone, how to advertise to the prudish is half of selling the product, right? Speaking of which, Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. is really bad advertisement.

Too bad everyone cant be exposed to the positive advertising. Friends who are preparing to celebrate their 40th anniversary. A niece and her lifes partner who will be attending their daughters graduation in a few weeks. So many people have just gone ahead and made their vows absent the county clerk. And that their relationships are so strong and so successful only proves true love can overcome. The one thing missing is the certificate of marriage that allows certain rights now denied Gay and Lesbian couples. That’s what needs to be fixed.

Maybe we could call it, “Equal Rights for All.” ERA.

Oh, I guess that ones taken already.

Maybe we just need to re-right the Equal Rights Ammendment.

Truedigger’s callousness and trivializing language about issues concerning the human rights of gay people exemplifies the new breed of non-religious, blasé bigotry towards gay people. It’s so with-it, so South Park. Gays and their “issues” are not immoral, threatening, or even the slightest bit interesting: what they are is laughably unimportant to the rest of us who carry on the main narrative of life. Gay people are vaporously irrelevant and immaterial, so Truthdigger wonders why they can’t “lighten up”.

It’s why gay kids (or kids who seem gay to others) are still killing themselves:

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20090414_anti-gay_slurs_drove_11-year-old_to_suicide/

As I have written elsewhere, with my kids, I have seen that in some popular entertainment aimed at young people, there has been a kind of stealth retrenchment against gay people in our culture, mostly passed off as “edgy”, “politically incorrect” humor.

For example, South Park (whose writer/creators, as many people are unaware, are in fact political conservatives) has popularized the use of the word “gay” as an adjective for anything deemed inadequate or uncool. All of the characters, not just the less sympathetic ones like Cartman, constantly use the word in this manner.

Thus, even as our political culture is moving towards greater legal acceptance of gfay people, popular culture encourages a brutal contempt for gays — though stripped of old-fashioned, prudish horror. It’s not the old fifties fear of homosexuality as a quasi-satanic, exotic vice. Now gay people are accepted as a normal, but inferior, part of the social order. The South Park youth culture attitude is, “So you’re gay. Big deal. We’re not shocked, and we’re not offended; don’t flatter yourself to think that we’re so easily impressed. No, you’re not some exotic outlaw — but we do regard you as rather ridiculous and inferior.”

It seems to me that for young gay (or gay-seeming) kids, this kind of contemptuous “acceptance” is in practice probably as hard to bear as any of the earlier forms of intolerance and mistreatment directed at homosexuals.

Shenonymous wrote:
“It is obvious you truedigger3 have a frozen mind set when it comes to gays”
____________________________________________________

Shenonymous,

Did you speed read my post or what? Just becaue I
said a civil union with all the rights and obligations of marriage is enough, you accuse of hate and bigotry etc etc etc.
For your knowledge, I am an atheist and religion
has nothing to do with my opinions.
Please read the posts carefully before jump to conclusions and attack.

By BruSays, April 22 at 3:02 pm #

You’re correct that my values (on this topic) represent the mainstream - which makes them neither inherently right nor wrong; it simply makes them prevailing societal values.  The judiciary doesn’t rule on values, it rules on constitutionality and since same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue, there’s nothing illegal about forbidding it.  Gays are no more a civil rights group than straights and bi’s, hence the use of the term “same-sex” over “gay” marriage.  Thus is becomes entirely a values proposition.

I love the fact that you don’t know me yet you’ve dubbed me a homophone (and entirely because I don’t agree with you on this issue).  It’s always easier to dismiss dissent by labeling the dissenter isn’t it?  Ah.. the tool of tyrants and fascists - yet it works for anyone!

And there’s nothing inane about the polygamy comparison - can you give me a single reason polygamy should not be legal other than a values argument?  Go ahead - give it a shot…

Marshall - not to beat this horse to death but there is so much in your response that screams “MY VALUES ARE MAINSTREAM VALUES AND THEREFORE THEY ARE RIGHT.” 

This is NOT how our country operates. True, public opinion polls will always reflect mainstream values. Duh. But if our laws were to merely to mirror mainstream values there would be no need for a judiciary branch in our government. The legislature (elected representatives of the majority) would simply introduce bills and the president (also elected by the majority) would sign them.

But this is precisely why we have a judiciary. Their role is, with Constitution in hand, to weigh in on the “rule of the majority.” Simply put, the majority is often wrong. The majority was wrong on female voting rights, on African American rights, on prohibition…the list goes on and on. Many of what the majority has written into law has been declared unconstitutional and the law has been re-written. I believe this is what is taking place on the issue of Gay Marriage.

You state, “...if same-sex marriage were legal, this value would be taught implicitly and public opinion does not support this.” This is nonsense. And to me, your use of the word “value” points straight to homophobia (I call it as I see it). Aside from the “value” of two people loving one another and devoting their lives to one another, we have the issue of allowing “public opinion” on social issues to direct our teachers. It’s not a walk in the park, but teachers manage to handle evolution, plate tectonics, climate change, sex education, life on other planets, creationism, sexism, capital punishment….and somehow the world doesn’t come to an end.

Finally, out comes that inane analogy, “There is no longer an argument against polygamy once same-sex becomes legal.” Of course there’s an argument. Did lowering the voting age to 18 open us to the ‘argument’ of lowering it to 5-year-olds? Because a state allows 16-year-olds to drive a car are we now forced to extend that right to 14-year olds? 11-year olds? Did extending the vote to women paint us into a corner and make us extend the vote to guinea pigs? Unless you’re a Supreme Court Judge, you are not qualified or empowered to state that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, or 5 women marrying, or men marrying farm animals and other similarly inane analogies.

I think Perez Hilton is emblematic of a sort of reactionary, politically incoherent segment of the gay population, particularly the American gay male population.

There is a subculture of affluent gay men who have bought into a kind of plastic corporate consumerist notion of gay “liberation”. Being gay means being part of a coveted market niche, as both a target customer and a self-anointed adviser and promoter of “what’s hot”. You’re the hilarious best friend on a sitcom, lovably ridiculous, yet accorded special regard as a sort of guru magically gifted with infallible judgment on all matters of fashion and fabulousness. You’re better than human: you’re a hot commodity!

I mean, it’s such a pathetic substitute for plain old human equality, which is something the capitalist culture can’t abide. It’s the gay equivalent of the pseudo-liberated woman who thinks that being perched on a pedestal in a gilded cage provided by a man with a fat wallet is so wonderful that she can’t be bothered with something as boring as plain old equality. Why be a mere human, enjoying mere social and political equality, when you can be a magic fairy princess, warbling “My baby works from nine to five…” all day, with nothing at all to do but your nails.

Of course, this kind of person typically doesn’t have the brains or introspection to achieve any sort of political coherence, hence Mr. Hilton is shocked, SHOCKED, that a woman who has invested her entire being in embodying the plastic corporate notion of a beauty queen, turns out to have right-wing views on gay marriage.

His disgust with her bigotry is justified, but he should also be disgusted with himself, for being there, for making his living and building his life in this cesspool of anti-humanistic, consumerist crap.

why does anyone even care what a beauty pageant contestant said in answer to a question from a celebrity chasing whore?  I had to look up who this idiot was since I had never heard of him.  Really, there are more posts to this thread than almost any other story on here.

Whether or not you are a proponent or opponent of gay marriage, these two people are clearly not the standard bearers for any rational discussion of the issue.

You may have a valid point Louise about Hilton’s self-interest, and I tend to agree, he is a media hound, not only in this scenario but many many other times.  He has now catapulted himself into that higher strata you discribed as inhabited by the pathetic Coulter and Rove.  Now, thanks to the assistance of the moronic truly-self-serving media.  But you have left out the self-interest of Miss California.  She most certainly is a hound as well, I’d say just as much a dawg as Perez.  Knowing the media for what it is, vacuous headline hunters, she will keep her unanimated gelid head as still as possible while defending her pseudo-Christian opinion about same sex marriage. 

You may also be describing same sex marriage as the problem of calling a thing what it is as self-defeating, but plying a euphemism for it won’t help the problem either.  Particularly when legal issues arise.  Your “polite” term is way too long and would take up thousands of legal pages that otherwise would be unnecessary by calling it same sex marriage that could be abbeviated to the acronym SSM thereby saving even more trees or harddrive copied to cd space.  It is going to take a world-wide change of attitude.  People do not have to change their own mind about how they view SSM, but they can be taught to tolerate it just as they wish to be tolerated for their own bigoted views.  What is that called?  The Golden Rule?  I think Christians have something similar in their Book.

Why do some so vehemently appose same sex marriage?

Perhaps it’s in the wording of the cause. How about we call it - “Offering equal rights to all those couples who fall in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together.”

If someone makes a commitment to love their companion and is willing to take on all the obligations and responsibilities such a commitment requires, seems to me they should expect to have all the same legal protections the law offers any “opposite” couples who make the same commitment. Why is that so hard to understand? The only thing Hilton has managed to do is muddy the waters. Take an honest issue and turn it into a bad cartoon, with him at the center. That is after all what “Hilton” is all about ... him at the center.

Perhaps “Hilton” really is “committed” to fighting for a just outcome to this issue. But I doubt it. It looks an awfully lot like he’s simply taking the attention and running with it. There is no shortage of people in the “straight” world who will use any opportunity to turn any situation into personal gain. Why should we assume there aren’t those in the gay community who are just as selfish, just as opportunist and just as willing to turn any issue into a chance for self-gain? If there is any story here, it’s not about gay or straight marriage. It’s about a self-important man, using a woman he doesn’t care about for personal gain. It really is that simple. Look at the mileage “Hilton” has got out of this.

Could it be his passion for gossip and fault-finding is wearing thin on his audience? Or maybe they are sick and tired of his conceit. I tend to put him in the same category as Ann Coulter and Karl Rove. Willing to say and do anything to keep their faces and their pathetic egos front and center. Only Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr., aka “Perez Hilton” is not nearly as well known. Could that be what’s behind his behaviour? Anything to get attention.

In my view, the man is a complete phony. Most trouble makers and gossips are. And that has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation! He’s simply a bag of insecure conceit who does more damage than anything. Certainly the worst possible representative for folks who simply want equal rights for all!

It is obvious you truedigger3 have a frozen mind set when it comes to gays and lesbians.  The opinion that came out of Miss California’s mouth carried the entire history of using poisonous religious justification hatred and prejudice.  There are diametrically opposed views about homosexuality.  There are those who are homosexuals, those who think there is something wrong with being homosexual, and those who are not homosexual but do not see anything wrong with being homosexual. 

Coming to terms with sexual identity and behavior is not a clear cut conception as some imagine.  How and why people become attracted to one another is human behavior not completely understood today.  Those who take a religious stand on it one way or another, using their religion to justify their opinion do injustice to their religion and to the society in which they live.  It is a way of hiding extreme criticism of their own thoughts and fears.  Defining sexuality, hetero or homo, depends entirely on the individual in question, their sexual feelings, and how they see themselves. There is a vast spectrum of potential relationships.  The factors that determine sexual orientation are attraction, behavior and identity. People without question change over time, as evidenced by their growth from infancy to adulthood.  Sexual feelings also change.  Sexual orientation is both a physical and mental description of human gender identification.  There are clear cut sex identities, male and female, but here are also hermaphroditic individuals whose sex is ambiguous or crossed preferenced that are not precisely clear.  This is biological.  But psychological factors enter into sexual preference as well.  No one can tell exactly why one is attractive to another.  That is a murky area of how the psyche works.  Applying labels always is a mind numbing handicap.

Reputation of liberal attitudes notwithstanding, violent hate crimes on the rise against those with unconventional sexual orientation.  Nearly four in 10 gay men and about 1 in 8 lesbians and bisexuals in the United States have been the target of violence or a property crime because of their sexual orientation, according to a new study.

As reported in Bio-Medicine, an online watching organization of issues dealing with biology and medicine, gave results of an extensive study. Violent hate crimes are on the rise against those with unconventional sexual orientation.

“This is the most reliable estimate to date of the prevalence of anti-gay victimization in the United States,” said University of California, Davis, psychology professor Gregory Herek who conducted the study. “The data demonstrated that crimes against sexual minority adults, especially gay men, are disturbingly widespread.”

There is continuous and historic evidence about the crimes against a specific group.  Whether or not another group has their own mental problems with those who have “unconventional sexual orientation,” and that says volumes about their own non-Christian behaviors of persecuting others.  I say non-Christian because there is no Christian edict that says to persecute others.  The fact that someone finds another repugnant for a lifestyle is not reason enough to tolerate violence against those who are reviled for whatever reason. 

The issue of beauty however is an interesting evolvement in human society.  My concern with the attention spent on one’s looks is the self-absorption that goes along with it. It is called vanity and that is not a virtue.  One ought to spend their time beautifying their soul rather than extolling the virtues of the body (as if there could be any virtue in that!). And that is without equivocation a moral judgment on my part.  I used the term Abrahamic to get your attention and it obviously worked.  But I used it mainly because that is where hatreds arise in our culture, both the West’s and the Middle East’s.

Shenonymous wrote:
“These beauty-infected chicks fit the three ring Abrahamic circus of subservient, ignorant babes precisely, bowing to those who exploit fatuous women”
——————————————————————————

Shenonymous,

What is a “three ring Abrahamic circus”?. You lost me here.
Most people admire and are attracted to beautiful
women, and beauty contests are to introduce the most
beautiful women. It is not a contest to select the most intellectual women.
According to you, beauty is an infection instead of
a gift to be appreciated.  What a weird strange opinion??!!
And on what basis do you judge all the contestants as “subservient, ignorant babes”? One thing is clear,
Miss California is not subservient. She expressed
her opinion courageously, knowing vert well it might cost her the crown and it did cost her the crown.  That clown, publicity seeker, Perez Hilton, admitted that.
Yes, everyone should be accepted and treated equally under the law, however everyone should know his limitations. Not everyone who wants to enroll in Harvard university can.
The language and the accepted norm , since recorded history began, define marriage as between men and women. If two homsexuals want to unite then civil union, with the same rights and oligations as a marriage is enough. Insisting on calling it a marriage and turning all accepted norms upside down,
smack of arrogance and unnecessary stubborness that might invite and incite a backlash.
Today with the economy crashing and homelessness and
destitution are spreading and the threat of more wars
is immenint, that gay marriage issue is taking to
much time and energy that should be devouted to more
important issues.

These beauty-infected chicks fit the three ring Abrahamic circus of subservient, ignorant babes precisely, bowing to those who exploit fatuous women in the name of money, fame, and commodification.  Let’s hope he made her cry!  Except she would not be crying for being a bigot, but because she was called the spade that she is.  Big B has a poignant point and Robert is completely correct in his assessment.  As a completely heterosexual, non-religious woe-man, I add my voice loudly to his.  We have several gays among my family members and they are as loved and as equal in everyway to all the other members, and to the community in which they work as well, some of whom are married and some who are not.  I have witnessed this complete acceptance at many gatherings of family and co-workers. So I have a deep familial interest in a healthy future life of gay people.  He is absolutely right that gays and lesbians are born with the same rights as all Americans and actually in my mind that all other people in the world ought to have.  I do not make the distinction homosexuals are “different” from other people.  They are simply…people. If given any earnest thought, the vacuousness of the entire beauty pageant competition is insane anyway.  Why not have Gorgeous Gay Guy America Pageants and Ms Lovely Lesbian America Pageants?  The canons of beauty for those two groups could be promoted, and market potential is enormous.  I’m sure I heard some ears perk up at that thought!  And at the least the wheels of social assimilation would be oiled.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist’s narrow view of the 14th Amendment –  the equal-but-separate under the law section, set him to join the SC’s dissent, which argued “that the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this subject (protection and rights of homosexuals, so it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means.”  It is this attitude that must be changed before “seen as equal under all circumstances” is possessed.  Rehnquist and his conservative colleagues fixed the tone for the legal perception of gays and lesbians as having no nationally guaranteed rights.  Rehnquist remained skeptical about the Court’s Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence; his opinions that appeared most favorable to equality resulted from “statutory,” that is, already legislated rather than constitutional interpretation which firmly establishes his hostility to the rights of women, and by extension the rights of all non-white males, gay men and women included.  It is time to scour that attitude away as if it was the effects of a feculent, scummy mind.

Political Insurgent, with your complaint shouldn’t all these insipid beauty contests be tanked in lieu of facing a dreadful but real life?  Well that is something worth raising a shot or two of whiskey to! Here’s to Reality!  And to all those babes in berkas in the Middle East and their dreadful lives.

Yes, do thank some gawd since there is nothing else of any consequence to thank for remaining entrenched in a bigoted point of view and showing it proudly to the world.

Checking to see if there is anything in a fluffyhead who will be the recipient of wealth and fame, besides pathetically self-absorbed thought, seems to be a legitimate thing to do.

Cleary, Hilton is the reactionary, evidently also misogynist. Ignorantly, he imagines liberation is to be found in the widening of the legal institution called, “marriage.” He thinks, along with his identity-politics cohort, in terms of “empowerment” by way of inclusion, unaware that inclusion far more often than not also means collusion. He likely has less idea of liberation than does she, stuck as he is in his insistence on imitating power.

As though by imitating power freedom can be achieved.

Hilton is lackey, while Prejean is standard naïf, whether female or male, albeit also staunch believer in worn-out institution we might all—of whatever sexual orientation—do better to call for abolishing altogether, given that marriage by way of lawful vows is institutionalization of discrimination. Despite naiveté, she evidences far more brain than does MC of whom I had no unpleasant clue until now, and of and from whom I hope never again whiningly to hear. Is there currently a more dimwitted individual in media? Okay, lots; but he does stand out in his own lost way.

She might become radical he’ll never so much as contemplate becoming. She demonstrated a gut of which he has not the slightest idea either, as he continues only to demonstrate a proclivity for pandering (including today on Rick Sanchez’s program). Finally, in his profound selfishness, he thought to brand a woman by way of application of a term he’d have done better to apply with reference to himself—not at all in the old sense of “female,” but in the newer sense of “servile.”

Might the kid of whatever sexual orientation never again be employed or spotted in media, while I wish Ms. Prejean good health and good fortune, someday perhaps even adoption of a radical politics amounting to an interest in liberation, as opposed to aping of power.

“Please tell me how that’s not totally contradictory.”

I’ll chalk it up to her internal battle over whether to be PC or be honest; she started out PC, then her integrity took over and decided to have its say.  But then I haven’t followed her enough to know whether she’s really clueless or not.

“your “thorny” issues are YOUR thorny issues. They’re not mine.”

yet they’re issues nonetheless.  As, for example, is the issue of what marital arrangements would NOT be legal, if same-sex marriage gets the nod.  There is no longer an argument against polygamy once same-sex becomes legal.

“There’s no “instruction” on marriage in schools.”

I didn’t say “instruction” - i said how it’s “taught”, which is implicit (and sometimes explicit depending on the teacher).  Marriage as an institution and a value is fully part of what’s conveyed to children whether it’s formally part of the curriculum or not.  If same-sex marriage were legal, this value would be taught implicitly and public opinion does not support this.

“Civil Union is valid only in the state it’s issued in.”

...and every other state that acknowledges it.  If you want to change state laws then have at it - that’s not the issue and i won’t argue with you there.  It’s same-sex marriage I oppose, not clvil union.

““Myriad of issues?” Get real. They’re your issues based on fear, ignorance, homophobia and in my view, a twisted sense of “values”.”

Just gotta pull out the “homophobe” card don’t you.  Am i worse than hitler too?  These issues are real, and they’re based on what values mean to me and what values i want conveyed to our children.  They’re clearly not your values, but they do represent majority values at this point and - after all - that’s what defines society.

Marshall:

Point 1. The woman is clueless - not because I disagree with her. She is clueless because of this:

“I think it’s great Americans are able to choose one or the other,” she said. “We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.”

Then she adds:

“And you know what in my country, in my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be, between a man and a woman.”

Please tell me how that’s not totally contradictory.

I’m not calling her clueless because she disagrees with me. I AGREE with her that she may hold that belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I hold a different belief. In her own words, that’s what makes America “great.”

Point 3. Don’t like gay marriage…don’t marry a gay. It IS that simple. What’s difficult is that your “thorny” issues are YOUR thorny issues. They’re not mine. You’ve been drinking the VOTE YES ON 8 Kool-aid. There’s no “instruction” on marriage in schools. And if your resistance is because licensed professionals will be “forced to do work they oppose on principal” - well then, they may speak with those licensed professionals (counselors, doctors, teachers, nurses, librarians, lawyers, judges…) who disagree on abortion, capital punishment, reading Huckleberry Finn, evolution, stem-cell research, plate tectonics, black holes ad nauseum…for support. You’ll just have to find better answers.  Earth TO Marshall: Civil Union is valid only in the state it’s issued in. May gays in a civil unions in say, Connecticut, file one income tax with the IRS?

“Myriad of issues?” Get real. They’re your issues based on fear, ignorance, homophobia and in my view, a twisted sense of “values.

Point 4. Thank you.

re: By BruSays, April 21 at 4:26 pm:

Hear, hear!

By BruSays, April 21 at 3:20 pm #

1. The woman is clueless. And so what?

You mean those who don’t agree with you are “clueless”?  I’m an educated guy - by no means clueless - and I agree with her.

3. Don’t like Gay Marriage? Then don’t marry a Gay! It’s that simple.

No it’s not.  State sanctioning of same-sex marriage ushers in all sorts of other thorny issues, like how marriage is taught to children, and whether state licensed professionals will be forced to do work they oppose in principle.  Here’s what’s simple: You’re gay (or hetero or bi) and want to get married?  You already can.  And if the object of your desire is the same sex, then get a civil union.  It’s that simple.

“...If you find that the married gay couple down the street is threatening your straight marriage, then your marriage was doomed the day you said “I Do.””

It’s not “my marriage” i’m worried about.  It’s the myriad of issues as i mentioned above and what values I think my society should stand for.  As much as you’d like to portray my marriage as too insecure to weather the thought of same-sex spouses, that’s a convenient fiction in your mind.

4. His question, though totally valid in the political arena was off-base here, and probably self-serving.

We certainly agree on that.

He might as well have asked her “who did you vote for?”, and judged her on her answer.

Thank God Perez Hilton had the strength to state his
own opinion and stood by his beliefs. A rare thing in this sinful world.

Ridinginfaith…for most of man’s existence we practiced polygamy….for hundreds of thousands of years.

Want to read more about polygamy? Open your Bible. So much for what’s “natural” and what’s not “natural.”

Let’s look at this “Civil Marriage” or “Religious Marriage”,what about “Natural Law Marriage”!

Perez Hilton judging Miss USA I think He or She (I never was to politically correct) was in the wrong house.

Fortunately for ALL of us, We the People do not live in a society whose laws reflect “how we feel” but on that which is fair and protects the rights of all.

Most gays I know- myself included, don’t give a rats ass what we call it: marriage, civil union, domestic union, whatever - AS LONG AS the law behind the words provide identical benefits and responsibilities. Right now, on a federal level, they don’t. How about we just settle on “Civil Marriage” and be done with it. Those who want to further sanctify their union with a religious ceremony can call that step a “Religious Marriage.”

Political Insurgent,

You wrote exactly what I feel.
And I add that Perez Hilton did a great disservice
to his elk.

Political Insurgent…

Oh, I get it. Unless it affects a majority, it isn’t a “real issue.” Gee, and all along I thought it was about fairness. And to think all these years we’ve been wasting our time on civil rights and all those other nonsense issues that affect only the minorities. Stupid us.

I’m with Barbie.

This isn’t even a real issue since it doesn’t affect the majority of us. So the gays have their marriage rights, so what? Economies worldwide are tanking. People are losing their homes. bombs are streaking across the skies of foreign countries for no good reason, children are dying horribly, diseases are spreading like wildfire and the environment is all f**ked up.

But at least gay folks can get married. Congratulations.

Perez can take his candy-colored outrage and STFU. We’re busy back here in the real world.

Oh, this is a fun one on so many levels. My thoughts:
1. The woman is clueless. And so what? It’s a friggin’ beauty contest, not a MENSA seminar for chrissakes. We’ve been hearing the shallow questions and the “world peace” answers for years and in fact, those questions and answers are appropriate for this shallow contest. (I loved hearing Amusedly’s alternate question on the global recession. Spot on.)
2. Gays judging a womens’ beauty contest? Yep. Face it, the fashion industry (male and female), interior design, architectural styles, car design, product design, etc. have long been heavily influenced by - if not directed by - gay taste. Most straight men are clueless on ‘beauty contest beauty.’
3. Don’t like Gay Marriage? Then don’t marry a Gay! It’s that simple. If you find that the married gay couple down the street is threatening your straight marriage, then your marriage was doomed the day you said “I Do.”
4. Let’s keep it in perspective. Her answer was founded on ignorance, not hatred. His question, though totally valid in the political arena was off-base here, and probably self-serving. To me, a gay person, he no more represents me than she represents women. (And she’s way hotter than he is! Whoa, did I say that?)

Give him (Or does this person prefer her? I’m so PC retarded.) a ball gown too. The PC police will continue to clog our overburdened judicial system with nonsense on this level. And what does this daffy set of dental veneers think she’ll achieve by answering a “blogger” truthfully? Honestly, a friggin’ blogger? The only thing lower than a beauty queen is a blogging queen. This is beyond laughable. “F” them both!

re: By grumpynyker, April 21 at 12:20 pm:

Go to hell with your victimhood competition crap, grumpy.  You whine, “Stop comparing yourself to black Americans - because people are visibly black.”

This is so incredibly stupid. Should Jews who don’t “look Jewish” not demand equal rights for Jews, because if they’d just shut up about it, they could pass as gentiles? Your thinking is incredibly shallow.

http://www.kansascity.com/stargazing/story/1153833.html

Perez Hilton takes back apology to Miss California, gets even nastier
Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton, left, and first runner-up Miss California Carrie Prejean from San Diego react after Dalton is announced Miss USA, Sunday April 19, 2009 in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/Eric Jamison)
Eric Jamison
Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton, left, and first runner-up Miss California Carrie Prejean from San Diego react after Dalton is announced Miss USA, Sunday April 19, 2009 in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/Eric Jamison)

Queen vs. Queen: Who won?
Miss California for speaking her mind
Perez Hilton for asking a tough question
They both blew it
Your vote has been counted, thank you for voting.
More News

 
    Perez Hilton takes back apology to Miss California, gets even nastier

Day two of Queen vs. Queen.

He’s not sorry after all.

And she feels sorry for him.

The day after celebrity blogger Perez Hilton apologized for calling Miss California, Carrie Prejean, a nasty name for how she answered his question about same-sex marriage at the Miss USA pageant, he retracted the apology.

“Over the course of the last 24 hours, the more I thought about it, the more, you know what? No. I’m gonna stand by what I said just like she’s standing by what she said,” Hilton, a pageant judge, told MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell Monday.

Later, in a separate interview, Prejean said she felt sorry for Hilton, who stirred up a hornet’s nest of controversy by asking Prejean during the live pageant telecast whether same-sex marriage should be legalized.

Prejean said no, and now believes the answer cost her the crown. Prejean came in second.

“I can only say to him that I will be praying for him. I feel sorry for him, I really do,” Prejean said. “I think he’s angry, I think he’s hurt. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. He asked me specifically what my opinion was on that subject and I gave him an honest answer.”

Not only did Hilton retract his apology, he told O’Donnell that he didn’t really want to call Prejean a bee-otch in the first place. “I was thinking the c-word and I didn’t say it,” he said, laughing.

Not cool, so not cool.

******************

Be a gentleman, Mr. Hilton. Always be a gentleman. You’ve set back the marriage cause very badly with your tantrum. Sometimes I don’t think Mr.Hilton wants to win. I think he just wants to act like a martyr.

I am curious about these questions the contestants were asked. Were all the other contestants asked politically sensitive questions such as “Do you think the Israelis have an apartheid state in regard to the Palestinians?” You can make a beauty contest into a real mess with questions on religion and birth control, and it would be only fair for the other girls to get divisive questions as well. Do we want a beauty contest to become an inquisition into one’s personal beliefs where one can be rejected on the basis of political correctness? I support gay marriage, but I don’t like the style of the politics that will push for a political objective from a beauty contest. It seems tyrannical. The contestants are not known for brilliance, and I would venture to say that most of them are rather conventional- evangelical Christian and rather conservative. Should Perez Hilton be that surprised?

The MISS USA “special” is produced by the Miss Universe Organization, a Donald J. Trump and NBC Universal joint venture. Part of each MISS USA prize package is an employment contract with the Trump/NBC Organization. The winner becomes a representative of the company during her reign. She is awarded cash and prizes from the Official Sponsors, and works with Breast and Ovarian Cancer charities.

In the final competition, three areas - Interview, Swimsuit and Evening Gown are judged.

In other words, the MISS USA pageant is all about body, beauty and bling, and winning cash and prizes. With the sole purpose of promoting Trump and NBC. And thrown in for good measure charity work for Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

No-where does the Pageant promote talent or brains. If a contestant can memorize, smile, has a good body and walks well in an evening gown, she’s half way there. So I figure Perez Hilton’s outrage is a bit silly. If he wants smarts when he interviews the contestants, the Pageant Promoters need to make smart the first and most important competition. But they don’t, never have and probably never will. It’s all about body, beauty and bling.

Maybe Hilton should have come up with some questions relative to the level of knowledge of Miss California, like: What’s your favorite gem-stone, and how do you know it’s real? How much is too much to spend weekly on hair care? Do you think storage for “product” is adequately provided in your wardrobe? Where do you buy your evening gowns, and why there? What diet do you recommend for girls who want to have a fab body like yours? Then after the winner has adequately displayed her level of knowledge about the things that count, he could throw in an “intelligence” question like - what year is it?

So, what did mr. Hilton accomplish with his little tirade? (Other than getting attention for himself.) Probably hurt the girls feelings. Maybe even made her cry and that’s not nice. Run the makeup, swell the eyes, maybe even throw her off her diet and excercise program. Shame, shame on Hilton!

Miss California is exactly what Trump and NBC think every woman should be! The mystery is why they picked Hilton for a judge! Did he really think MISS USA was about brains?

Geez Hilton, inform yourself! Near as I can see the real “dumb bitch” in this non-story is you!

But then what else can we expect from someone who makes a living promoting gossip?

re: By truedigger3, April 20 at 10:10 pm:

Courts in Iowa and elsewhere have concluded that in practical terms, it is not possible to establish civil unions alongside marriage with truly equal civil rights attached.

Think about it. What if the government decreed that black people were not legally “human beings”, but were instead a separate category of creatures called “homunculoids”, who must be understood to have all the legal rights of “human beings”, while not actually being human.

Do you see that this could not possibly be a satisfactory solution to the “problem” of black people? Can you imagine that any black person would treat this idea with anything but red-hot scorn and hostility?

Doc Reality…

I agree with you that marriage equality doesn’t have much to do with a pageant.  But just because it’s insignificant to you, as an issue.. doesn’t mean it is insignificant to those fighting for it or against it. 

When you say, “Keep it to yourselves, don’t shove this demented crap down peoples throats.”  ...  My reply is that we have no intention of keeping it to ourselves.  Why should we?  Do heterosexuals keep their orientation to themselves?  Of course not. Without even meaning to they wear it loud and clear.  They just aren’t castigated for it.  That we are castigated makes it an issue and therefore what you stupidly consider ‘demented crap’ will continue to be shoved down your ignorant throat. 

My advise is to get used to it.  The issue is not going to go away.

Man this is important and relevant news! This kind of crap shows what a sick and debauched country the USSA really is.
Keep it to yourselves, don’t shove this demented crap down peoples throats. Entertainment has become a prop to promote anti societal behavior.
The woman was absolutely right. I’m sick of having peoples sexual orientation constantly shoved in my face. It is all smoke and mirrors to get the masses to argue over this totally insignificant tripe.What the hell does the issue of gay marriage have to do with a woman’s pageant? America has to be the stupidest side show in the carnival.

Ed Harges wrote:
“The woman is a nasty bigoted right-wing heterosexist bitch”
_____________________________________________________

Ed,

This is a very harsh judgement against that poor woman.
Equating what she said by someone calling for not
allowing the black people to vote is extreme exaggeration and is not true.
Many broad-minded and liberal thinking people think
that a civil union with the same rights and obligations of a marriage is sufficent.
They are not sure why the insistence on twisting the language and the accepted norms by insisting on calling it a marriage.

re: By truedigger3, April 20 at 6:09 pm:

Truedigger: What’s a gay man doing judging a female beauty contest anyway?

But given that he is there and he is a judge, of course he’s right to be angry about her bigotry and use his power to give her a low score. Actually, he should have spat on her. Her position cannot be taken lightly by any gay person or anyone who knows and loves a gay person.

The guy doesn’t need to “lighten up”. If a beauty contestant said she didn’t think black people should be allowed to vote, would you expect a black judge to take it lightly, and not vote her off the island? The woman is a nasty bigoted right-wing heterosexist bitch, which is no surprise, since a plastic corporate “beauty” pageant is an inherently reactionary/conservative enterprise.

Like I said, what the hell is a gay man (especially a politically aware gay man) even doing there working as a judge in the first place?  He should search his soul and consider why he has invested himself in this cultural garbage.

Ah, a wonderful piece of americana. A bimbo blurts out pseudo-homophobic remarks in a pagent Q and A, and a half in the bag fruitcake judge gets offended by said half-wits remarks.

Jebus! no wonder we our nation is going to HE double hockeysticks in a purse. Holy Shit!

So he combats homophobia by using misogynistic slurs?  Bigotry is wrong if it’s against him, but fine against women and girls.

I don’t care how common those anti-female slurs, epithets are: they’re still bigoted.

And Perez Hilton is a damn hypocrite.

CNN introduced its report on Meagan McCain’s support of gay marriage by showing a gay person shoving a marriage ring on his/her ring finger.
This is a glaring example of the false representation of same-sex marriage.
CNN should have shown a gay couple waiting in line at a county courthouse to apply for a marriage license.

Miss California is entitled to her opinion. At least
she was honest and didn’t give a canned or coached
answer. Some booed her and some applauded her
from the attendants and much more applauded than
booed. So, Perez Hilton should lighten up and get
another drink.