Gossip blogger/pageant judge calls contestant “dumb b*tch” over gay marriage question
Well, here’s your liberal tolerance for you.
Gossip blogger/barrel-scraper Perez Hilton was a judge at the Miss USA pageant last night. He asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, whether she supported legalizing gay marriage. Prejean answered respectfully that she disagreed with the legalization movement, but supported states’ rights to put the question up for a vote. She was booed:
Hilton responded by calling Prejean a “dumb b*tch:”
More:
A US beauty pageant hopeful was called “a dumb bitch” by a celebrity judge after candidly answering a question about same-sex marriage.
Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked by contest judge and celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton for her views on gay marriage during the Miss USA pageant at the Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, samesame.com reports.
Hilton asked this question: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalise same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”
“Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other,” 21-year-old Prejean said.
“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage,” she continued.
“You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offence to anybody out there.
“But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you.”
Hilton, the self proclaimed “Queen of all media” who has campaigned for gay equal rights, called the answer “the worst answer in pageant history”.
On a video blog on his website Hilton said, “She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage, she lost because she’s a dumb bitch!”
The Miss USA pageant should be ashamed for providing Perez Hilton a platform for his intolerant bigotry and abuse of Carrie Prejean. Instead, the pageant director for the Miss California contest is condemning Prejean — and Hilton is gloating.
Disgraceful. The Miss USA pageant owes this young woman a public apology.
***
The pageant is a lost cause. Beauty contests are out. P.C. panderfests are in.
***
Just a reminder of Barack Obama’s answer to the question:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- JammieWearingFool
- If You Disagree, You Are A Dumb Bitch « Vets On The Watch
- Brutally Honest
- Miss California Stands Up For Marriage! « Scott’s Slant on Politics
- Cassy Fiano » A shining example of how liberals debate: by calling their opponent a “dumb bitch”
- Whither “Tolerance” from the Pro-Gay Left? | Whatever Is Right
- More shameful intolerance from the tyrannical left and gay totalitarians. « The Western Experience
- Dear Mommy, I’ve become an RRE… « Get Clued
- Perez Hilton calls Miss California a dumb b*tch because SHE DOESN’T SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE! | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Michelle Malkin » Trash blogger retracts apology to Miss California USA; invokes the “c-word”
- Gotta luv that vitriolic, hidebound Lib jaundice.
- Perez Hilton’s Foul-Mouthed Diatribe Against Beauty Pageant Contestant, Gay Marriage Issue from GayPatriot Blogger’s Perspective « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Miss USA pageant a sad reminder of PC gone wild « Wellsy’s World
- Truth from a “trash blogger” — Down With Absolutes!
- Miss California Carrie Prejean Gay Marriage Comment Controversy … Perez Hilton Calls Contestant a “dumb b*tch What Every Happened to World Peace? | Scared Monkeys
- Twink Derails Beauty Pageant; Hissy Fit Name Calling…. « Zipline Conservative
- Well we can stop wondering now « DaTechguy’s Blog
- Perez Hilton on CBS, No Mention of Vulgar Insults of Miss California
- Perez Hilton on CBS, No Mention of Vulgar Insults of Miss California | Got Access News
- Perez Hilton on CBS, No Mention of Vulgar Insults of Miss California | Business Opportuinty Buzz And Web News
- Shanna Moakler & Keith Lewis are Pieces of S***! « Mark Epstein
- More left-wing intolerance « Right Minded Online
- "God was testing my faith" - Crazy America
- Tel-Chai Nation
- Jeremaih Films
- Miss California Carrie Prejean Marriage Remarks Controversy - Roundup of Updates « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- Crowder Spoofs Perez Hilton Over Miss USA Kerfuffle | The Great Illuminator
- Are same-sex marriage advocates tolerant of traditional-marriage advocates? « Wintery Knight Blog
- Hating, Harassing, Thought-Control Intimidation, and Speech Chilling « Designated Conservative
- Is the worm turning? « DaTechguy’s Blog
- Carrie Prejean, on Being Fired by Miss California Pageant, ‘I Was Speechless’ | Sean Hannity Exclusive Video Interview « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- But I’m a Liberal and I Voted for Obama….I Can’t be a Sexist or a Racist!! | hillbillypolitics.com
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Proposition 8
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Mudville Gazette
» Leakiest administration ever?Hot Air
» 3rd quarter GDP 2.8%, not 3.5%Sister Toldjah
» Obama plans to announce troop decision on Afghanistan next weekPundit & Pundette
» Various and sundryRiehl World View
» Lieberman: I Got Yer Ned Lamont Right Here, Suckers!Stop The ACLU
» Obama To Hold Another Prime Timer To Explain Our Afghanistan Strategy To Islamic Extremists
Isn’t there a faction of the political correct movement who regards the B-word that Perez Hilton used to be the equivalent of the N-word? If so, shouldn’t Mr. Hilton be required to undergo some sort of “re-education” in order to atone for his verbal “hate crime”?
talk about a when did you stop beating your spouse question. “world peace” is the only answer to this type of question. just drop the pageant, or hire rational non agenda peope as judges. this is like having the olympics and having chinese and russian judges. next time i expect to hear about rush limbaugh eing the judge and asking these people how they feel about socializing medicine in the u.s.
Oh no, now he’s got the tatted-up skank support, how will the conservative movement ever recover? /sarc
http://perezhilton.com/2009-04-20-more-against-miss-california
filmladd. I would guess that Perez is someone trying to obtain attention for himself by using the popularity associated with the name Paris Hilton. That could also be a cause of grievance as his actions can bring financial harm to Paris Hilton. Maybe there was no point in suing him earlier as he likely has no money, but now he just tied himself to a network and they have deep pockets. I am certain someone will take up this case.
There’s no way Hilton knew who he would get to ask the question to. That part was random.
Hilton also could have asked a question that would be less political.
Basically, what he’s saying here is that since Miley Cyrus made no real commitment, she’s cool with him.
But because Prejean – and others – take a definitive stand, they’re “dumb b!tches”…
Aloha #70. Thanks, I needed that laugh.
Sounds like back peddling to me. The very nature of his question was political, why would he expect a less political response? Besides, she responded with a personal view (and a caveat that she did not intend to offend anyone by that view).
I’m not knocking Miley Cyrus, but an answer of “Everyone deserves to be happy” might have been an evasion. Miss California answered it honestly without having to speak in PC-ese.
“Everyone deserves to be happy” is not quite the same thing as “everyone deserves to the right to pursue happiness”. Otherwise, it’s far to easy to demand appeasement simply because you are not happy with an outcome. I’ve seen toddlers throw tantrums over such reasoning.
Miley’s respone to Perez via Twitter:
undresiege
Talk about intolerant! Again with the name calling. If you don’t like what I have to say, then by all means, don’t respond.
The local troll clown says that someone can’t be sued for libel and demonstrating that as a judge he was not only biased but also vigilant about his bias. Heh, advice from clowns is only worth a laugh.
If you think I am wrong, by all means cite the relevant laws that says judges are not allowed to have biases. But first, you might want to look up the definition of “libel” and get back to me. And while you are at it, look up “slander”, specifically on whether or not stating an opinion about someone like “dumb b**ch” rises to that level.
Was she running for Senator? I thought they were supposed to ask these girls about baby seals – or something.
Good question. Anyone know what the other questions asked were?
Miss Prejean had her moment and spoke her values — good for her.
Miss Hilton, on the other hand, was looking for and found his YouTube moment. He also claimed that her answer was the worst answer in pageant history and “the crowed boo’d her.” I replayed the question/answer vid and call me crazy, but it sounded like applause to me, not booing.
How DARE she have her own opinion. She, for the first time in a long time, makes me just a little tiny teeny weeny bit proud to be a Californian.
I love how the secular definition of “love” trumps Christian teaching.
The ultimate goal of any Christian should be the attainment of Heaven and a relationship with Christ. Christ’s actual command was to, “Love one another as I have loved you.” Not “love everyone even if they persist in sin.”
There are lots of examples of where Christ chastised people for living sinfully, and spoke out against what were/are sins and/or evil behavior. He was the only one without sin – everyone else, even his apostles – sinned and Christ acknowledged that.
But Christ never said it was a sin to “judge” in the sense of speaking out against sin nor did he say that “love” meant never professing your beliefs in public.
OK troll, cite some proof specifically pointing out what someone can and cannot sue another over. Not just your opinion. Money lost over this “judge” is very suable. Public slander just and associated potential for “career” loss just brings up the dollar value exponentially.
Fifteen to twenty years ago, Hilton’s question would have been offensive to most people. One generation later, Miss California is the one who’s is supposed to be conscious of offending anyone. Miss Hilton just offended the majority of voters in California. I guess offending other people is now the accepted status quo. Why let liberals be the only ones who are allowed to do it? Sounds prejudiced to me. Free-for-all time! Howdy neighbor, you’re a freakin’ moron! Ah, that feels so much better.
I guess asking a contestant how she feels about abortion is also okay, and not politically-charged.
He said it for the publicity. That we’re talking about him instead of Miss USA the day after the contest is all he cares, not whether he’ll be asked to judge again.
I saw a couple responses that said that laws preventing interracial marriage were wrong because race is part of a person, but anti-homosexual marriage laws are okay because it’s about behavior. That’s nonsense. It’s not like people say, “I’m going to be gay because I just love this gay sex so much!” Either you’re gay or you’re not, and you really don’t have any choice in the matter. Outlawing gay marriage treats homosexuals as lesser citizens, and treats them in an unequal manner. That runs exactly opposite of the ideals of this country (which is also why it is not a matter of state’s rights and not something that should be left to the whims of the majority).
Also, Flyoverman asked me to explain homosexual conduct. They have sex for pleasure and love just like heterosexuals. I’m not sure what there is that you want explained. It’s not like homosexuals have some ulterior motive when they have sex that’s different from heterosexuals. I also think you should be free to dislike homosexuals as much as you like. But the problem comes when you, and Miss California here, want the state to impose those beliefs on everyone else. I mean, aren’t these Tea Parties about small government getting out of people’s lives? That’s what I’m advocating here.
englishqueen01 made a list to which I feel particularly compelled to respond:
I’m going to hit your list point by point…
I’m sure that if he were an atheist that refused them service because they were gay, he’d be getting the same lawsuit. It’s not because he’s Christian, it’s because he was discriminatory. (Now, whether you should be allowed to sue for discrimination, be it this case or for racial discrimination, that’s a different issue. Personally, I think that businesses should be able to reject clients for whatever reason they like, but that’s a different issue.)
Well, if the state sets the guidelines for adoptions, then it’s up to the agencies to comply with those guidelines. If the Church doesn’t agree with those rules, then, by all means, they shouldn’t sanction them by participating. This looks to me like rather than anyone forcing things upon the Catholic agency, it’s the Catholic agency withdrawing because they don’t like the rules, as is their right. (Now, again, it’s another issue if you think the state should be in the business of adopting children…)
Because they funded and lobbied to get that proposition passed. It’s not like they were being protested before, but once they entered the political sphere, they made themselves targets for protest. They don’t get some kind of special pass. They contributed people, money, and influence, and as such, make themselves open to protest just like any other organization. They put themselves into the debate.
Because she’s wrong, just like racists are wrong. When you make your opinion publicly known (as is your right), then it’s other people’s right to disagree. If I walk out into the streets and declare that all stupid polacks are morons and good for nothing, should I then be offended if some Polish people disagree with me?
Nope. It’s about equality under the law. That they should be able to get married like any other loving couple. Nobody is saying that you’re not allowed to hate gay people, just as you’re perfectly allowed to hate black people. But don’t put that hate into law, and if you express that hate, expect people to then express their differing opinion.
Like I mentioned above, homosexuality isn’t a behavior. It’s as much a part of a person as their hair, eye, or skin color.
That’s not the reason for marriage. Unless you’re advocating that heterosexual couples with no plans to procreate also be barred from marriage. If you don’t advocate that, then you’re being a hypocrite. People marry for many different reasons. Sure, some do it to have children, but most do it because they love the other person. How is marriage undermined by preventing two people who love each other from being married? It sounds to me like preventing gay marriage undermines marriage, not the other way around.
No, because there’s a perfectly valid secular reason not to discriminate based on race. Recall that there were also plenty of religious people that were perfectly in favor of racism, and used religion to support that belief.
I hate to pile on this guy, but just to be clear: you think a) you can sue a pageant judge for asking a politically charged question, and b) calling someone a nasty name is “slander”?
Please think about that and get back to me.
I wonder how cool she is with Jamie Foxx…. her daddy doesnt seem to be
I figure the question “Why?” has already been answered?
Since I didn’t watch that drivel on the boob tube, did the low-life call her a b!tch on the air?
ECS
Don’t be thick. There is no official list. If you want to know, go to law school and learn or read one of the many many books out there. Or as a short cut, if you have westlaw or lexis, search “su! /s pageant /s judge” and see what if anything comes up. Or you could just use an iota of common sense.
See now this appears to be your opinion, since you have no cite to common or statutory law to back it up. I guess the only difference between my opinion and yours is that I at the very least know the difference between libel and slander and know that one cannot sue for slander over statements of opinion.
Miss California gave a polite answer to a loaded question. For one of the judges to refer to her as a dumb b***h afterwards needs to be brought to the attention of her lawyers. The sad fact is that the far left wins this round anyway. The chilling affect on free speech by conservatives or Christians has been dished out. The message is for anyone interviewing for a scholarship, a job or whatever: be careful what you say! Water down your beliefs so you don’t offend the left. The incident is just one more straw on the camel’s back. Someday there will be one too many.
Miley Cyrus is 16.
Anything she says about complex, adult discussions is going to be framed from a child’s perspective.
So, whether she agrees with Perez or not is not an important issue in this discussion.
What if she had agreed with Miss California and Twittered that?
I would love to transport Ms. Hilton back to the original 13 colonies in 1787 and make any argument for inclusion of homosexual marriage to Mssrs. Washington, Madison, Franklin, Pinckney, Sherman, Wilson, et. al. in our new Constitution.
*I thought the young lady did fine with her answer, and the fact that she is not a member of the NAAPC is a bonus.
*Hilton is welcome to his biological disfunctionality, but please, quit trying to accelerate the end of the human race.
Or a woman’s right to vote.
Just making sure you realize this is PEREZ hilton not PARIS hilton
Typical and not surprising from those who insist on tolerance from everyone else.
Just had to check out this obnoxious buffoon on Wikipedia:
“Lavandeira’s angle on celebrity gossip includes an unapologetic desire to mingle with and be a part of celebrity culture.”
In other words, a wannabe.
Is Perez Hilton gay? Why would a womens’ beauty pagent have a gay guy as a judge? Seems like you’d want a heterosesexual guy who has some expertise to be judging women. Think about it….
Well, to be safe……..
*yawn*
I can’t possibly be the only one here that thinks the Miss America contest is stupid, can I?
Honestly. It’s a beauty contest for goodness sake. A bunch of people tune in to oogle young girls because soft porn is just too extreme.
Oh, yes, I know, it a “whole person” concept. They aren’t “just” eye candy! BS. At what point do they compare IQ and SAT scores? How much weight does that have? How about education level? Is it possible for an overeducated bridge troll to compete? Of course not.
Anyhow, sorry for that rant. Perez Hilton was over the top. I agree. Personally, I don’t care what this girl’s opinion is, it’s not worth any more then anyone else’s opinion simply because she is hot. She didn’t deserve the abuse though, that’s for sure.
They have always been that way. What’s the sterotypical beauty pagent reply?
Of course you do sweetheart, now lets see how you look in a bikini.
Mind numbingly stupid. Why am I not surprised that a mind-numbingly stupid contest has a mind-numbingly stupid person like Perez as a judge?
PS. When is Donald Trump going to marry one of the contestants?
Perez Hilton is a “celebrity”? By whose standards, precisely?
It’s screeching queens like him who give respectable gays a bad name.
Chap,
Women were given the right to vote via an amendment to the Constitution. Gays should follow their sterling example.
There have been but a few references to legal action by Miss California. The legal issues reside on a couple of key points and facts. First, were the Miss USA Pageant standards violate? This is important because every contestant must be judged in accordance with predefined standards. it is obvious that Perez Hilton add a new standard unknown to Miss California or, for that matter, any other contestant, and that standard appears to be a requirement to support Gay Marriage. Second, was the question presented to Miss California the result of a random draw in accordance with a Pageant standard or a special question to undercut her Christian background and beliefs? If the latter, then her chance at being selected Miss USA was damaged deliberately. This is actionable in law. Third, did Perez Hilton deliberately damage Miss California’s chance at being Miss USA because he was biased. This is on its face obvious and is, itself, actionable in law.
There is no question that Carrie Prejean was damaged by the question in a legal sense regardless of morality issues. She lost money, professional exposure, and opportunities for future education, employment and monetary rewards. Frankly, she should sue on behalf of herself but also future contestants, – and she should sue both the Pageant and Hilton for multi-million dollar damages. If I were the Pageant sponsors, I would join her in a suit against Hilton and I would pay her a rather sizable amount to preserve the integrity of the Miss USA Pageant. Also, if an investigation revealed bias within the Pageant, I would fire those involved because their retention would further damage the Pageant. Finally, an abject apology to the American people is required. The future of the Miss USA Pageant is now in question.
Perhaps. Unless of course you think it is a state’s rights issue. My point was that appealing to what you could and could not convince the signers of the Constitution of including at the time is a pretty poor rationale.
She didn’t say that.
Just as it is our right to believe that Perez Hilton acted like an ass. What is it precisely you’re debating here?
What slur did Miss California speak? Your analogy is a non-sequitor.
You seem to be offended on Perez’s behalf, which seems to be because you share a view that gay marriage should be legal and not at all about his actual behavior. Your own analogy demonstrates this. Perez called a contestant a “dumb bitch” because she had a different point of view than his own. Now you appear to be offended on his behalf because we disagree with his statement, regardless of our opinion on gay marriage.
Are you really sure that Perez Hilton is the kind of person that represents you?
Not, really, Chap.
Perez arguing to the Founding Fathers on behalf of gay marriage would have been met with raised eye brows and pursed lips.
Followed by tar and feathers.
Oh, good. A new sockpuppet.
I think it’s been mentioned, but why exactly is a gay man judging a beauty contest?
I can’t even begin to fathom the utter abyss of stupidity that is this contest.
Where is the all nude beauty pagent judged by 16-yr old, virgin teenaged boys? That would be something.
*sorry 16-yr old “teenaged” was redundant. Long day. ttyl
There’s the crux of it: the sponsors can’t be happy that people now question the legitimacy of the pageant’s outcome – a pageant now associated w/ their products.
The Miss USA people are gonna have to do some pretty fancy dancing to make sponsors happy enough to invest in this dinosaur of a show ever again; looks like NOW finally succeeded in ending beauty pageants.
I don’t believe homosexual marriage to be a state’s rights issue. My wife and I are were married in Hawaii, and our marriage is recognized in all 50 states.
States that did not recognize homosexual marriage would be free to add adultery to the charges of lewd and lascivious behavior.
Is it just me or did the order of the comments get a bit jumbled.
I also lost one comment that I suspect might be accidentally duplicated in the near future.
publiuswarmac9999,
Can you name one time a figure skater or gymnast has ever successfully sued because of how a judge interpreted subjective standards?
I should also add that it isn’t as though she gave a very eloquent answer. I mean, really, “opposite marriage?” I know the Q&A part is just a sham facade so these pageants can pretend to be well-rounded, but still, I can easily see why, politics aside, she would get docked for that answer. You guys saying that she answered well must be listening to a different person.
Did the judges openly ridicule the gymnast and thus show a bias against the athlete?
And, by judging the athlete with an unfair low mark, wouldn’t that judge be harming the athlete’s chances to endorsements, etc?
If so, I would imagine that judge could also be sued.
Gynophobia
Christophobia
Fairness-phobia?
infallibophobia
There was nothing fair about the question.
Disgusting. Just because she does not share your view dies not make her a “dumb b*ith”.
All that response makes you look you you are a spoiled brat with the respect of a a 2 year old.
Pteronophobia
CSPANophobia. Fear of clowns.
Never would ahve guess by his video blog response. He sounded like a reasonable adult.
/sarc
infalliable:
So, ultimately, your position is the First Amendment right guaranteed to all Americans stops the second they either get involved with a business or the public sphere, right?
MSNBCophobia: Fear of Assclowns.
On April 20th, 2009 at 3:59 pm, chapoutier said:
There’s a way to handle adding or changing the constitution because you don’t like what the constitution says. It’s called a constitutional amendment.
Not lawsuit.
FilmLadd,
Read Hangfire’s original comment and maybe you will get my point. Or maybe not. Would not be surprised.
There was plenty wrong with the question, it was loaded and asked by a person with an obvious agenda. To do that to someone on an international stage was cruel. I can’t read minds but is smells like a set up.
A better answer might have gone something like this: gays are human beings and as such are entitled to all the legal/civil rights of other human beings. Civil unions should cover this topic, but to ask society to change a cultural tradition thousands of years old and contrary to many religions, will create much controversy.
And infallible, when you can point to the gay gene that is similar to eye color, race, etc, you should drop that silly argument, nobody buys that here.
Now Shanna Moakler is apologizing to the show’s sponsors.
Who cares?
The social agenda is not set by the likes of Perez Hilton, Miss YourStateNameHere, Miss USA, Miss America, or Miss Universe.
The fact that this fruitcake was a judge tells you how insignificant the whole pageant is. What a disgusting little “man”.
Yes, perhaps he suffers from Medomalacuphobia.
You think I’m being tough on this guy?
Wellll…he’s the one who called a bright, attractive talented lady that worked hard preparing for that pageant a “dumb bitch”. I ask you, who’s the DB in this situation?
I don’t think it’s that simple. So often people like Englishqueen and Flyoverman seem to focus on the conduct. A straight person can engage in a homosexual act and vice-versa. A gay person can also be a virgin.
A state that enacts legislation preserving the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman isn’t “outlawing” anything. There’s a distinction with a difference between refusing to extend state recognition to something that it hasn’t recognized before and making it criminal.
Show me any homosexuals in this country who went to jail, or paid a fine for mocking the institution of marriage as it has been commonly understood.
Human civilization owes much to a single word: “No.” It’s what society won’t allow that determines how “civilized” it is, much more than by what it will allow. There’s a word for a society that doesn’t say “No” and won’t enforce any rules:
Anarchy.
Proponents of homosexual “marriage” share the liberal penchant for denying human nature. And the institution of male-female marriage is inextricably intertwined with human nature.
Heterosexual marriage arose from the practical question that had to be addressed probably at the same time that humans climbed down out of the trees: namely, how to equitably distribute females in society.
– If we tried the pack-of-Baboons or pack-of-Chimps model, in which the dominant male gets all of the females, then the other males have zero motivation to support the social order and the cooperative basis for human civilization to take hold and flourish is destroyed.
– Furthermore, if women are producing children outside of any recognized pairing with a man, then there’s no incentive or obligation for males to take any responsibility for those children. All you have to do is take a look at blacks in America today to see what a disaster that leads to.
– If we tried the anarchy model (i.e., “No” is a four-letter word), then consider what happened on Pitcairn Island: the adult males largely killed each other off fighting over the women, ultimately leaving the women and children alone to fend for themselves. Complete social failure.
Male-female marriage promotes social order, which is why it has become a human institution. Homosexual marriage provides no such function. The former is a necessity that’s been recognized by virtually every human society on the planet for all of recorded history and probably for most of pre-history.
The latter is an indulgence.
Say what? It’s the homosexuals who are seeking to impose their beliefs on society, not the other way around.
Another shortcoming that liberals in general, and in the case of marriage homosexuals in particular just can’t wrap their heads around is this simple axiom:
The majority have rights, too.
Homosexuals who don’t get a new right created for them aren’t being “victimized” or “criminalized.” Heterosexual married couples who don’t want to see a human tradition as old as the species itself become a joke aren’t oppressing anyone.
When a minority decides that the majority’s rights should be diluted into meaninglessness — and when it comes to marriage, right behind the homosexuals come the bigamists/polygamists, NAMBLA, and fathers who want to “marry” their daughters or owners who want to “marry” their pets — it’s the minority that’s trying to impose upon the majority and not the other way around.
Homosexuals are not “victims” just because they don’t get to reduce the rights of heteros into a mockery. They’re wannabe victimizers. You can rationalize and employ all the forms of sophistry you want to deny that truth, but that changes nothing.
Its a real shame that the press has not slapped Hilton for his intollerance of other’s opinions. The left cannot stand varrying points of view and thier indignation when you disagree with them is disgusting. This poor girl deserves an apology from the pageant and from Hilton. You ask an opinion question, do not be shocked when you get an actual opinion, not a cloned kool-aid drinking response.
What the hell is someone who is a radical gay activist doing judging a female beauty contest in the first place? I’m sorry, but that is like having a Klansman judge the Miss Black America contest.
And just how, exactly, did this former high school locker resident become someone whose oppinion ANYONE cares about? Seriously, some prancing little queen starts a blog that uses hateful, juvenile antics to disgrace and pick on people who are so much more his betters, and suddenly people in this country think that he is a legitimate judge of what people can think, be and do?
This guy is and has been the epitome of what NOT to be and how to act. The contest should have stopped the contestant from answering the question, being as how it was a loaded question to begin with that had absolutely no right or wrong answer, that was merely meant to destroy this person’s chances.
And again, I bring it back to why this little Internet nobody was even asked to be a judge at all?
Now I do not personally watch these things, and frankly just had a discussion with one of my daughters over what kind of parent would allow their daughters to become involved in something that teaches a girl that they are only worth whatever people tell her she is worth based on her looks, but this is something that just ticks me off.
This little weasel needs to be seriously reprimanded and be made to apologize for his comments. This was an issue in this state that was decided OVERWHELMINGLY by the voters, so for him to make his claim shows that it is, indeed, he who is the stupid b***h…but that would be doing a serious injustices to every other b***h in the world.
What a tool.
Made to apologize by who, exactly? He’s self-employed.
I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion. People are free to believe and say what they like, but they shouldn’t get offended when the opposition exercises that same right. The problem is when one side wants to use government to force everyone to believe as they do. My position is pro-freedom and pro-limited-government, two things that I thought conservatism was all about.
What I’m seeing here is that a lot of folks here seem to think that by having government sanction homosexual marriages that it’s somehow forcing everyone to love gay people. That’s not true at all. Even if gay marriage were recognized, people would still be free to dislike homosexuals however much they want. However, by pushing these “one-man/one-woman” laws, it is forcing the beliefs of some onto others.
I guess I just don’t understand how allowing two adults who love each other to be married somehow hurts marriage as a whole. If you believe such a thing for religious reasons, then that’s your prerogative, but that’s not enough justification when it comes to making objective, secular law.
I don’t care what people do for kicks in the bedroom. They can make love to an iPhone for all I care. But I warn against granting official marriage status, as we have done in Canada. Civil unions with the concomitant rights are fine by me, but once you start changing the definition of marriage, as we have so foolishly done in Canada, you’ll open up a can of worms.
What can of worms, you ask? Well, in Canada now we’ve begun seriously discussing the option of decriminalizing polygamy, and according to one of our newspapers today, some are now, apparently, pushing for incest to be taken off the criminal code as well.
Fauuugggg!! The post was such an interesting read until you took the lazy route of equating homosexuality with pedophilia, incest, and beastiality. Why oh why do so many people take this route, when the differences between consenting adults and the other options are so obvious. The State’s interest in preventing the others as opposed gay marriage are so painfully obvious.
Why, oh why?!?!?!?!?
This is utter nonsense. You are, objectively, a liar. It’s true that a religious cult is going to court, using the gay marriage legalisation as a support, but there is nothing to suggest the court is taking this seriously at all.
I know that gay marriage opponents have to rely on lies, because there is no logical, reasonable argument against it.
I don’t think that everyone who opposes same sex marriage is a bigot. Obama and Biden, Clinton and even Republicans like Collins and Snowe for example, do not support same sex marriage but are NOT homophobic. They show this by supporting civil unions and non-discrimination laws for gays. And they are respectful and understand, by and large. The reason people like Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin, Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly ARE homophobes is because they are disrespectful, unfair and even just downright mean about the issue. That’s the distinction, and it’s an important one.
Also, it is abjectly ironic that Michelle Malkin rants and raves about how the state should stay out of the lives of Americans, except – of course – for when it involves preventing consenting adults to gain access to an important institution (something that is entirely harmless). Funny, right?
I’m holding out for when you can marry objects, like trees and buildings. I plan to marry planet Earth. Then, everything’s mine.
Okay, I’ll bite….WHY??
I read on smoking gun, this guy is getting sued because he posted someone’s real e-mail address because he did not like what some woman had said. It ended up getting her fired, even though his site stated that it would not publish e-mail addresses. This guy is garbage and more and more people like him are leading the way of the left. It is so sad that in so many venues, professionalism in this country has completely died. The chic now is to be a complete emotional tool full of vindictiveness and spite. I see sine lefty trolls here are chic as well. disgusting.
Because your arguments are…”Yeah, but…”
Yeah, but a business shouldn’t be able to discriminate or yeah, but the Catholic Church should get out of the adoption business if they won’t adopt to gays… etc., etc.
Either the First Amendment applies in all things, or it applies in nothing. The language is such that it does not even remotely imply that free expression is limited to the privacy of one’s home or that religious expression limited to the inside of one’s house of worship.
And, since the First Amendment deals explicitly with freedom of religion – and all the cases I cite show a violation of that Amendment – it makes perfect sense to me that the purpose of this debate is not about equality. It’s about stomping down traditional religious views.
I don’t see how the government redefining marriage – especially when ballots in several states have defended the traditional defintion of marriage pass by significant percentages – is “limited government.”
Um…let’s look at the basic argument here. The argument is it’s wrong to create a narrow defintion of marriage on the basis of the sexual orientation of the persons involved.
Ergo, if it’s wrong to discriminate against men and women who are attracted to the same sex – how can we logically say that there is any basis for limiting marriage to two consenting adults? Wouldn’t that be “discriminatory” to the alternative sexualities of any other imaginable group?
Fair enough. “Outlaw” is the wrong term. But that’s really semantics and misses the main point of contention. Legislation that states that defines marriage as “one man/one woman” is specifically designed to alienate homosexual couples. It’s essentially saying that their feelings for each other are, under the law, less than those of heterosexual couples. There’s no justification for the state to do that.
Interesting. So allowing a loving couple to be legally recognized will lead to anarchy. Not sure that I see that happening.
I hate to break it to you, but we do things that are against “human nature” all the time. In applying our reason and rationality, we defy our natural urges every day. It’s what sets us apart from animals. Heck, typing on an Internet message board isn’t “natural,” but you’re doing that. Of course, this assumes that homosexuality isn’t “natural,” which is a point with which I disagree. There’s plenty of homosexuality in nature, and homosexuals themselves will tell you that their actions are what come naturally to them. They don’t think, “Hmm, what fun it’ll be to be gay! I’ll do that.” They are attracted to the same sex because it’s how they were made by nature (or God, if you prefer).
“Distribute females?” And here I thought that females could think and choose for themselves! Good thing us men are here to make order and distribute those ladies. Yes, I’m being pretty melodramatic, but my main point is valid. People have the volition and reason to choose how they spend their lives. I’m not even going to contradict what you say in that male/female pairings developed out of a need for a social order. But that also in no way invalidates homosexual marriage. If anything, the social order that led to heterosexual pairings is the same social order that causes homosexuals to form pairs. No, you don’t get the procreation aspect, but it’s the same reasoning that heterosexuals would form pairs even though they don’t want or have children.
Most marriage today is an indulgence. How are two men choosing to be a married couple different from a man and a woman? Both are a social pairing. Both are about a loving commitment to each other. Both are about finding a partner with whom to share life. You’re providing what you think is a history of pairings, but it in no way contradicts why gay couples should be married.
No, that’s not it at all. It’s about equality under the law. How is a homosexual coupling is some way inferior to a heterosexual coupling? Are homosexuals less valuable people or less deserving? I’m open to being told why that’s wrong.
This isn’t a new right (there can be no such thing; human rights have always existed). It’s recognizing a right that’s been there all along, but never respected. By excluding that right, they are being victimized. (And as for criminalized, many states still consider homosexuality and homosexual acts to be a crime.) Respecting that right in no way hurts heterosexual marriage and certainly doesn’t make it a joke. If anything, it strengthens the concept of marriage.
Frankly, I didn’t expect this absurd argument to surface. I had more respect for the people here. Homosexual marriage will in no way lead to the things you listed here, and it’s insulting to the rest of us that you’d think that we’d buy it. Don’t try to use the fallacy that the union of two consenting adults will somehow make it okay for non-consensual unions to be acceptable.
You don’t like homosexuality and homosexuals. That’s your right. But it’s not your right to say that they should be treated as less than their fellow citizens.
There is not other subject that provokes as much as gay marriage. I’m getting tired of it. The truth is, it is not a civil rights issue. That is a lie, sorry, I know the proponents are going to pick this apart, and I welcome it.
When the courts in California okayed same sex marriage, it did not take a week before a photographer was sued by a lesbian couple. As soon as I saw that, I knew I was going to vote in favor of an amendment. This couple could have exposed the photographer to the gay community and asked for a boycott or something, then found someone else. No, they sued. Gay marriage is nothing but a forced method of collecting money for a civil cause.
The Board of Education swore that gay issues would not be taught in school. All the opponents had to do was have a commercial with the board’s website and told people to look it up. It was not true, Education here was willing and waiting to teach homosexual issues to children, elementary school as well. Litigation was waiting with baited breath over that one.
I’m okay with civil unions, that is fine. I do not want another avenue for the ACLU to soak up my tax money. Looks like most people don’t want that either.
Ah, ah, ah. Don’t do a straw man on me. I think businesses should be able to discriminate for whatever reason they like; it’s not the state’s business who they choose to do business with. However, the state has made it its business, right or wrong. So in the case of your photographer, he violated the law regardless of his religion. Your claim was that homosexual advocates were trying to force their views on religion. But religion wasn’t the issue in this case. Discrimination laws were. Personally, I think that anti-discrimination laws violate both the first amendment and property rights, but in no way is this about trying to force religion to accept homosexuality. And with the Catholic adoption agency, it wasn’t about them accepting homosexuality, it was about them accepting the law. If government is in charge of adoptions, and government says that you must adopt to homosexual couples, then adoption agencies have to abide by the law. If the Catholic agency doesn’t like the law, then it’s their choice to walk away. They aren’t being forced to accept homosexuality. They aren’t being told, “You have to adopt to homosexuals.” They are allowed to close up shop and walk away since they don’t agree. Now, again, should the state be in charge of adoptions? That’s another issue. My point is that the cases you cited are not instances of religion being forced to accept homosexuality, as you claimed.
As I showed, if they were a violation of the first amendment, it wasn’t for the reasons you believe. This is about equality and treating every person the same under the law. However, passing legislation that says that homosexuals cannot marry each other is precisely about inequality and denying marriage to people. That’s flat wrong.
We don’t live in a pure democracy, and thank goodness for that. We live in a country that, supposedly, believes in individual rights which cannot be voted away by the whims of mob rule. If that were the case, then there could be no foundation for abolishing slavery or allowing women to vote. This isn’t about government redefining marriage, it’s about government recognizing the rights of its citizens to marry.
Well, I can tell you you’re wrong right now. It’s not a lie, because it is a civil rights issue. I can’t speak for the internal motivations of others, but I can speak for myself. When I argue for gay marriage, it’s about treating people with equality, dignity, and justice. So it’s wrong for you to say that I’m lying about it being a civil rights issue, and I strongly suspect that others are arguing from the same place that I am.
Go ahead and argue all you want. The majority of Californians (mostly democrats mind you) said they do not want to deal with the headaches. I do not blame them, it is a headache. It is an issue that will prompt tons of lawsuits. I believe that if the gay community stopped “in your face” style of getting their message across, promoted tolerance among themselves and stopped lawsuit after lawsuit to get what they want, and took a stance of a real civil rights issue, the people will vote in their favor. The people are not buying this charade. Neither am I. Civil Unions, when they grow up, then people will consider marriage.
Looks like Omu needs to educate himself more on the current events regarding these issues in Canada, because I am not telling lies — these things are actually happening now and are being discussed by lawyers and judges!!!!
Absolutely. This is an issue of equal protection and eventually(within the next 25 years) I’m sure that Congress will pass law to allow gays to marry. I have no doubt.
EQ: You’re above this.
Polyamy- Don’t want to disrupt the laws of inheritance, divorce, child custody ect…..It hardly offends me but the state has an interest in preventing this.
Incest- Don’t want to promote a relationship that can lead to handicapped children that will become burdens on our health system. If even same-sex or no kids involved, state has an interest in not complicating probate laws or even giving the appearance of promoting something that can lead to handicapped children.
HERE’S WHERE YOU PEOPLE DISGUST ME:
pedophilia- Are you willing to make an equivalency between consenting adults, and Adult v. Child. Are you seriously willing to make this argument? Tell me EQ, why is are their laws in every state against sex with a child, where as the adult same-sex laws are either abolished or largely uninforced? Why is child abuse charged more severely than simple adult on adult battery? Do ya think maybe protecting the physical or emotional well-being of children has anything to do with this.? Do you seriously not see how the state has an interest in preventing pedophilia over and beyond an interest in keeping Portia from marrying Ellen? Unflippinbelievable.
Beasitality- Can you figure this one out on your own EQ. Let’s start with an animals inability to enter a contract. Let’s move on to public health concerns.
I can’t believe you went there. This is why your side will lose in the end. You throw rationale out the window, and just get insulting because homosexuality disgusts you. I can’t believe that somebody played the pedophilia, incest, beatiality card.
uh the state has an interest in preventing gay marriage…what it does to the traditional family, what it does to children…more broken homes, more crime, drug use, etc. but thats one of the goals of the gay movement…its easier to get recruits.
tell the straight equivalent of NAMBLA??? you cannot.
you gays are a bunch of brown-shirted fascist thugs trying to ram your hate-filled agenda down our throats. you want to end freedom of religion cause you can’t take anyone criticizing your hellish lifestyle. bunch of nazis.
and you disgust me you piece of trash.
oh and we’ve been WINNING EVERY VOTE…
loser.
New Perez Hilton promotional poster:
http://thelcabroadside.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/perez-hilton-dumb-btch-misogny/
He can dish it out but can he take it?
no you’re arguing for special rights for the gays, and the end of freedom for christians, whom people like you hate with a passion.