INTERVIEW: Former Miss California Carrie Prejean
by Lynn VincentApart from the fact that she’s a smoking hot California babe and I’m a 47-year-old mother of two teenage sons, Carrie Prejean and I do have some things in common. We’re both from San Diego. We both attend The Rock, an urban mega-church pastored by former San Diego Chargers defensive back, Miles McPherson. And we’ve both been slammed as raging “homophobes” by the New Media left.
So when Andrew Breitbart asked me if I’d interview Carrie about her new book, Still Standing, out November 9 from Regnery, I chuckled and thought: The liberal faithful will think this is perfect: One “fanatical homophobe” interviewing another.
Except that they would be wrong.
In case you’ve been living under a rock this year, Carrie Prejean is the former Miss California who became an accidental lightning rod in the spring. At a glitzy pageant held April 19 at the Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, Carrie appeared poised to be crowned Miss USA. But during the final segment of the contest, a Q&A with pageant judges, Carrie drew as her questioner the gay gossip aficionado, Perez Hilton.
Ignoring the longstanding pageant tradition of steering clear of politically charged questions, Hilton launched this salvo: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”
Keeping her mega-watt smile picture-perfect, Carrie revealed no outward hint of concern. But inside, she writes in Still Standing, “it was as though I could feel time slowing down; as if silence was screaming in my ears…I had to break that silence with my answer – and I had to do it now…”
“Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other…” Carrie answered. “And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman…”
And with that, a 22-year-old lifelong athlete who works with developmentally disabled children became the global poster-child for virulent “homophobia.” Within 24 hours, a histrionic Hilton had called her a “dumb bitch,” then corrected himself, saying he wished he’d called her a “c**t.” Immediately, pundits and bloggers who use typically their media platforms to decry “hate” napalmed Carrie with every hateful invective from “bigot” to “Nazi.” One British politician even issued a televised death threat.
I know a little about what that’s like. In late September, HarperCollins announced that it had bumped up the publication date for Sarah Palin’s memoir, Going Rogue: An American Life, to November 17. As Sarah’s collaborative writer, I suddenly became a target (the left having running out of original ways to insult the former Alaska governor herself.)
Andrew Sullivan, who blogs at The Atlantic’s website, read my arguments in favor of traditional marriage, and summarily crowned me a “fanatical homophobe.” Others, to use Perez Hilton’s term, followed suit.
Had Sullivan bothered to reach out for a reasoned dialogue, I might’ve shared with him that my sister Lori, an articulate, politically active lesbian on the progressive left, has had with me some pretty productive discussions on gay marriage. That for me, it’s about more than “the Bible tells me so”; it’s about the collision of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
I might’ve shared with Sullivan that the maid of honor at my wedding was my best friend, CM, and her longtime lesbian partner. Sure CM looked a little athletic schlepping down the aisle in her 1980’s tea-length, peach satin dress with dyed-to-match pumps. But then neither one of us walks like Carrie Prejean.
…Who, incidentally, learned her sexy pageant walk from a gay man.
Let’s face it ladies, nobody can work a pair of pumps like the right gay man. And it was an openly gay man named Jim (whom Carrie describes in Stilling Standing as “wonderful”) who transformed her from lanky athlete to slinky siren, and taught her not to lope across the pageant stage like a giraffe. And it was also a gay man, Keith Lewis, who courted Carrie to compete for Miss California, then Miss USA – a man Carrie thought at the time had her best interests at heart.
See, the irony is that people like Carrie and I can be confidantes and even best friends with the gays and lesbians in our lives. We can be in mentoring relationships, like Carrie and Jim. We can collaborate on ideas, as I did with “Anlir,” a gay commenter whose ideas I often adopted when I managed World Magazine’s evangelical-focused blog. We can even be accepting of our family members’ sexuality.
But if we dare to differ on the issue of gay marriage, then the truth about our actual relationships with gays and lesbians is ignored, liberals’ clairvoyant “insight” into our hearts and minds is substituted as fact, and our protestations are filed mockingly under the “some of my best friends” defense.
If, on the institution of marriage, we say publicly that we believe the same thing as voters in 31 states – in every state, in fact, where gay marriage has been put on the ballot – then we become targets who must be defamed and destroyed.
Sadly, snap judgment and name-calling would once have been uncharacteristic for Andrew Sullivan. My good friend Anita Palmer, former managing editor of Eternity, an evangelical monthly, told me she was a huge fan of Sullivan’s laser-like reasoning back when he wrote for The New Republic.
“He was acerbic, but brilliantly logical, almost irrefutable in that succinct, British way that was just a joy to read,” Anita told me at Starbucks the other day. Her tone was wistful; she missed that Andrew Sullivan, she said.
Carrie and I both long for the Sullivan of old – and for more people like my sister Lori – who would be willing to chuck name-calling and personal destruction in favor of reasoned, civil debate.
*****

Lynn Vincent: Okay, let’s just get the “sex tape” elephant out of the room. When I read about this I thought, “You know what, this isn’t really a ‘sex tape’ as we’ve come to think of sex tapes when they break in the media.” What are your thoughts on that?
Carrie Prejean: Well, there is a video that is out there, and I’m not proud of it and I was very immature at the time. People can call it whatever they want to call it. But it’s definitely not a sex tape. But it’s still the worst mistake I’ve ever made.
LV: So I was thinking about this and I thought, “Okay, she was probably with her boyfriend and they were, you know, together and he was filming her…”
CP: Well, let’s just get that thing taken care of. There was no one else in the room with me. I was by myself. It was for a boyfriend at the time, who I trusted and we were dating at the time. So, I think that definitely needs to get cleared up.
LV: So you made the tape and you shared it with this boyfriend.
CP: Well at the time, I guess I thought I was being a good girlfriend.
LV: I think in the flap copy of your book and in other places, it talks about you being a role model for young Christian women, so there will be people who say that you’re a hypocrite. What’s your response to that?
CP: Well, it’s definitely not something that I’m proud of, like I said. And, you know I still think that I am a role model. I think that we’re all sinners – we all make mistakes. The only perfect person is God, and I know that He forgives me….I’m forgiven for the things that I’ve done and how many of us want to share the most horrible mistake that you’ve ever made with complete strangers? Even talking about this right now with you is extremely uncomfortable. And, you know, we all make mistakes, we all do things we’re not proud of. But what matters most is who we are now and who I am now is someone that is a strong, strong person and I’m still standing. The bottom line is who I am today, and that’s a strong woman who defended traditional marriage, and that’s the only reason why we’re really even discussing this right now.
LV: Right. And so, in terms of a role model, I think you could say that some of the lessons we teach as role models arise from mistakes we’ve made. That’s how we get our experience.
CP: Right. And I think that now I can definitely teach younger girls, don’t ever do something [sexually inappropriate], even when you’re in love and you think that he’s Mr. Right and you “know” nothing will come out, because everything that you do – all the choices that you make – will affect you in the long run. Did I think when I was seventeen that…when I was twenty-two years old and in the spotlight, that the choices that I made then would come out now? No. But, that’s why young women need to learn from this. They need to really think about what they’re doing and make the right decisions and don’t ever do something that you wouldn’t want your pastor, your mother, your father, or your friends to see. Nothing is private anymore in this world, unfortunately.
LV: How did you feel about your opponents in this lawsuit presenting you with material that you recorded when you were a minor, in order to secure a favorable outcome for themselves in this lawsuit?
CP: Well, I’m not really going to be discussing anything that happened in mediation because I signed a legal agreement. It seems as if I’m the only one sticking to that agreement, and I will continue to obey that agreement. So anything that was discussed I’m not able to talk about right now.
LV: Well, let’s move onto your book. I was sitting in Starbucks in Del Mar enjoying it the other morning and, at the beginning, you take us right into that moment Perez Hilton asked you the question about gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant in Las Vegas. Take us to that moment. What were you thinking then? What were you feeling?
CP: Well, I just remember being so excited, and that I felt so proud and honored to be representing the state of California. I’d worked hard for this job and I was ready to become Miss USA. I was very confident with public speaking and being able to handle questions under pressure, and I just remember after hearing the question that I couldn’t believe that it was even being asked in a pageant. But I knew that I had to deal with it…but when I began to answer the question I felt as though so much of the hard work and dedication…that I had put into this pageant was just – it was gone…There was no way I was going to win Miss USA if I gave the answer that I gave. And it was worth it to me. It was worth it to be honest and tell the truth rather than to back down to just win Miss USA for the year…I think that was a test. It was a test and we’re all tested at some point in our lives and, you know, I think that I did pass the test.
LV: And, you know it was interesting last Tuesday the state of Maine became the 31st state to vote “No” on gay marriage. This time the vote was a bit different in that the state actually repealed a law allowing gay marriage. And this was in a state where voters are widely considered to be moderates and independents. So if you support traditional marriage, and people in Maine support traditional marriage, and people in the thirty other states where this issue has been put on the ballot support gay marriage, why do you think you were so viciously attacked?
CP: Well, for one, I think it’s because I was in a pageant…the type of setting where there’s media and there’s the entertainment industry. And I’m a pageant girl – I’m not supposed to have an opinion and I’m not supposed to be intelligent and I’m not supposed to stand up for what I believe. I’m supposed to back down to win this tiara. And when I didn’t do that, I think people were shocked. And when I continued to defend the stand I took, people became frustrated. They knew that they were not able to take me down. They knew I was going to stand by what I said and I wasn’t going to take back what I said – that it was just an honest answer. There was nothing controversial about it. And it is mind-boggling to me that we’re still even talking about this seven months later. It’s not even a controversial issue. The President of the United States agrees with me. Sarah Palin agrees with me. The majority of people in the United States and my state agree with me — that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
LV: One of the things that has been personally dismaying to me is that I have had and do have great relationships with gays and lesbians. But instead of being able to sit down and have a civil discussion about the issues, about gay marriage, about domestic partnerships, about civil unions, with people who feel differently than you and I do, that it always goes into attack mode. It always goes into name-calling. So my question is, if you had a chance to sit down to coffee with some of your critics personally and it was you and them at Starbucks just talking about this issue, what would you say?
CP: Well, I want everybody to know that this is not a personal attack. It’s not me hating anyone. I don’t hate anyone. It was just that I was asked a question at a pageant and I had to give an honest answer. I had to be true to myself and I had to be true to the way I was raised. So I would just let them know that this is not a hateful thing against anyone. It’s just a personal opinion, and we are all entitled to our personal opinions. And we should have the right to express our personal opinions. Since when are we not able to give our own opinion when we’re asked?
LV: So you’re saying, you should be able to give an answer other than “world peace?”
CP: Exactly. You should be able to give an honest answer and not be attacked, not be called every name in the book, not be fired, and not have every single one of your boyfriends being called from your past to see if they’ll give up some dirt.
LV: Over the past seven months, is there anything that you would do differently if you had a chance to do it again?
CP: No, I really don’t have any regrets. I think that I’ve had a great support team. I’ve had people that I’ve surrounded myself with who are positive, people who give me great advice, who stand with me. You know, I’m not alone in this. My detractors would love to hear me say that I feel alone and I feel sad and I feel miserable. But you know what? I don’t. This was such a learning experience for me and I’m glad I learned these lessons at such a young age. But I’m happy now to just move on with my life. I hope that mothers and daughters and conservatives read my book and feel empowered to express their own personal beliefs and opinions… I hope that I was able to be used in a positive way to give other people encouragement.
LV: In your book you write about an old sports trick where you – as a basketball player, for example – you visualize sinking the shot. You said that when you were competing in the Miss USA pageant, you visualized the things you would do to win the competition.
CP: Yes.
LV: What are you visualizing going forward in your life?
CP: Well, I always have told myself, ‘you draw the line then you live above it.’ Hopefully other young women can learn from [my experience], not only with the stance that I took in standing up for what you believe, but also that if you do have an opinion, don’t be afraid. Don’t be afraid to say it and stand by it. And if people try and attack you, then so be it. Let them, let them attack you. Let them dig up things from your past. And if you’re faced with a controversy like this [tape], then admit to it. The truth will set you free.
LV: Now in Stilling Standing, you dish quite a bit on Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler [both of the Miss California organization.]…You’re pretty tough on them. What will be your response to people who say you used your book to settle scores?
CP: The purpose of writing my book was for me to tell my side. I think that was really important. I think the media definitely got a twisted version of what really happened. So it was important for me to set the record straight. As far as Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler, I wish them well. This was just my chance to tell my side of the story and to clear some things up.
LV: I want to touch on the issue of your faith since it’s obviously the defining thread that runs through your life. I was interested to read in your book that at the state level, at the Miss California pageant, the judges actually praised you for talking about your faith. And then you move on to Miss USA and you have your handlers, like Moakler, telling you, “Don’t talk about God! Don’t talk about God!” What was that like for you?
CP: That was difficult. It was very difficult. I was dealing with people who didn’t think the same way that I did. So from the very beginning it was a challenge, but I learned to deal with it.
LV: One of the things that really struck me in your book was when you describe Keith Lewis really putting his hands on you and sort of sizing you up and touching your body all over to see if he thought that you were in good enough visual shape to compete. It sort of reminded me of – I don’t know – someone sizing up livestock that they were going to buy. Was that humiliating for you?
CP: Yes. And I think that was when I really realized the business that I was in and the industry that I was in. And it was shocking to me but, you know, I had to deal with it because I had won the [Miss California] pageant and so I just thought, “Okay, this is just what they do.” Looking back, I think this was their way of telling me, “Okay, you’re ours now and we’re going to mold you and shape you to be who we want you to be. And you will listen to us.”
LV: I would imagine that it was a moment where you began kind of thinking, “Oh my goodness, what have I gotten myself into?”
CP: Right. Exactly. And that’s what I did think.
LV: One of the things that I noticed early in the book was where you talked about one of your early mentors counseling you to just be yourself in these pageants, Carrie. Just be yourself. And certainly you did that when Perez Hilton asked you that question. And yet on some other things, earlier in your pageant career, you sort of allowed yourself to be carried away from that early advice. You know, as though the pageant machine was sort of driving you forward. Can you talk a little bit about how you get caught up in that kind of thing and carried along?
CP: In my book you’ll see that I was tested twice. The first time was when they had asked me not to talk about God anymore and [I didn’t]. It made me feel really uncomfortable… I felt this guilt inside of me knowing that I had not stood up when I could have. I could have said, “No, that’s not right,” or “I don’t agree with you.” But instead I just kind of played it off and ignored the situation. So, I definitely learned from that.
LV: So in, I think in a very human way, in those particular situations you were…kind of going along to get along.
CP: Right. My main focus was winning Miss USA. I mean, that was my main goal. I’ve always been very competitive and I was just kind of going along with this and saying to myself, “I guess this is just what you’re supposed to be doing.” But there comes a point when you have to draw the line and you have to really be who you are and not let anyone else change you.
LV: Young girls are going to continue to look up to you as a role model. What’s your best advice for young girls who want to follow in your footsteps and become a strong woman who stands up for what she believes in?
CP: That wherever you get your courage from – mine comes from my faith, my family, my supporters – always have the courage not to be intimidated. Don’t ever feel like you have to be silent for standing up for what you believe in. And that’s what’s so great about this book, Still Standing, is that people will see that I am still standing after what anybody can throw at me. They can throw whatever they want at me. They can call up my old boyfriends and ask them if they have dirt on me. They can come up with pictures of me and attack me, attack my family. That’s fine, they can do all of that, but I am still standing. And I think it infuriates some people that I am. But my advice to young women would be to just be you. Just be who you are and stand up for what you believe.





Subscribe via RSS
347 Comments
I wish she would've said, why is marriage a function of the State? Why not leave it to the church's, mosques, synagogues, where ever Hindu's go, etc to determine marriage? That should solve the entire problem. All the government has to do is enforce those contracts. (it's proper role in our lives)
Gay rights groups would argue over the tax benefits of being married. Fine, lets go to the Flat Tax or Fair Tax.
Stand up to the gay mafia and their collaborators the mainstream media will attack like sharks with blood in the water. I hope she continues to stand up for what she believes in. That’s the kind of roll model America needs.
Carrie seems like a level headed Christian and somebody who loves her country… she will continue to be a target of the left for being so real.
this is what happens when you cross the Gay mafia…
And you are hot to boot. Much of the loathing shown to her is reminiscent of yet another very sexy lady-
Yes, you know who we're talking about. Lady Sarah of Wasilla. The secular left cannot abide by having their 'dominion' -sex- being inhabited by conservative or (gasp) Christian women.
Makes em' crazy. As you all have seen. And with insanity comes relentlessness. Ergo the parod Palin book being released the same DAY 'Going Rogue' comes out.
Can you spell 'obsessive behavior'? We know you can…
And what about the fact that gay people are not considered the next of kin – and often times are not allowed to visit their loved ones in the hospital – nor are they allowed to make decisions about their care?
14:56 14:57 14:58 14:59………….
The loathing of Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean is not because they are good looking or conservative – it's because they are both complete idiots.
Palin said I wasn't a real American, because of where I live. Whatever her politics, you don't insult me that way without becoming my enemy. She could agree with me on every issue in the world and I still wouldn't vote for her.
In many parts of the world "civil partnerships" are legal. It is "marriage" in all but name and gives the partners legal protection in every facet of a relationship with no exceprtions.
Even Sarah Palin was clear about everyone having those rights, regardless of sexual orientation.
This is for you Lynn –
It's all nice and good that your sister is a lesbian and that you have a lesbian friend. It sure does make you sound quite progressive to all of your conservative cronies out there.
But the fact remains that you obviously have no concern for your sister and your friend. You don't care about their happiness or what they want from life.
Why do you have the right to marry the person you love, but they don't? Why are you more entitled to happiness than they are?
Why should a gay person have to fight for the right to visit his/her partner in the hospital?
Why should a gay person in a 50-year committed relationship have to fight to make decisions about his/her partner's medical care?
What makes you so much better?
Why are you people so afraid? And what are you afraid of?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mike Smith and Stephen Roberts, Alberto Rodriguez. Alberto Rodriguez said: INTERVIEW: Former Miss California Carrie Prejean http://bit.ly/3ZlmnV [...]
Remember Lynn – it wasn't that long ago that women weren't allowed to vote. Even more recently, black people were not allowed to vote. I know that some readers of this website and of your Sarah Palin book would prefer for that to still be the case, but unfortunately, you can't stop progress. As much as you want to, it's going to happen.
Wow….some people will bend over backwards to be "offended". I admire your willingness to show, in a public forum, your complete lack of decision-making logic.
So why the semantics with the word "marriage"?
What are you afraid of?
So why the semantics with the word "marriage"?
What are you afraid of?
Wait until you see the trolls this subject will bring out on BH.
Hey! You didn't read! Way to go to the bottom of the barrel there, sport.
*MissQuinn
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by BigTweeting: BigHollywood: INTERVIEW: Former Miss California Carrie Prejean: Apart from the fact that.. http://bit.ly/23BOM8 #BigTweet…
Hi Oily, haven't seen you around lately. Did you finally get rid of that annoying sex-offender bracelet you've been required to wear?
Do you know her sister and her friend? Who are you to say what is best for them? The gay community is NOT a monolith all clamoring for martial rights. Even Sir Elton John admitted to this, and it seems no one wants to talk about it. Go to a bisexual or transgendered forum. These groups are ALSO under the LBGT umbrella and not all of them want marital rights either.
She cited her reasons in the article if you read it. They weren't based on fear or perceiving herself as better, if you were paying attention (and it is apparent you weren't). She cited "a collision of the first and fourteenth amendments", If I can recall.
If she can be open minded enough to have these people in her lives as she continues to be active in theirs. . .I wonder, what are YOU so afraid of?
*MissQuinn*
Don't you dare compare being black or a woman to being gay. As an American woman who happens to be a minority who IS bisexual, this tired chestnut is always grating to hear it. Skin color does not dictate much beyond how much suntan lotion to use on the beach. Being gay goes to the core of who you are, if the theory about gay being genetic is to be believed. Just because they are all minorities, does not mean they require the same social redress.
And WTG on the assumptions there, buddy
*MissQuinn*
Remember, the further left started this one. I had all but forgotten Ms. Prejean if the tape hadn't surfaced, and I don't think anyone on the right let that cat out of the bag.
*MissQuinn*
you bet. And we expected, completely this kind of 'outrage'…
We'll take Sarah and all of her benign 'ignorance' over Obama, Clinton, the whole lot of these east coast establishment CFR/Bilderberg one world government types.
Any day of the week and twice on Sundays…
erosion of the nuclear family. By allowing 'gay' marriage one debases the union between man and woman, and allows the slide to polygamy and other habits that address the lower, more base aspects of humanity.
It is something to be wary of…
You do realize the logic you just used there could be used in reverse on your point?
Hey, realdeal44, why the semantics with the word "marriage" since a civil union has everything you want in it? What are you afraid of?
When the logic you use to defend a point can be equally used as well against you, then it is weak.
You do realize the logic you just used there could be used in reverse on your point?
Hey, realdeal44, why the semantics with the word "marriage" since a civil union has everything you want in it? What are you afraid of?
When the logic you use can be used equally as well against you then it is weak.
Can we have a national bitch slap a liberal day? I mean, liberals are like little kids who want their way all the time with this holier than thou BS. The whole gay rights thing is a sham just like health care and everything else. Too many of us see that the left is simply trying to destroy America, OK you liberals? We know what's going on, so stop pretending you care about gays, the poor, minorities, the environment and all that other crap-you just want power. Your solution to everything is shutting everyone else up, changing everything from American to liberal and government forcing your unpopular ways on the rest of us. I mean, it's getting so predictable…and monotonous.
What are you afraid of by leaving the definition of marriage what it has always been, which is a union between a mand and a woman. And then giving any couple equal rights via a civil union?
We're arguing over the definition of a word, not rights because civil unions make it equal, you want to change it, I don't. The burden of proof is really on the person who wants to change the definition of a word. So I ask you, what are you so afraid of by the current definition?
Pwnt.
You both should have said, "I am not gay, therefore I prefer not to pronounce on other peoples' lives." Simple as that. You may have all the lesbian bridesmaids that you want, it still doesn't give you a stake in the strangers' lives that you exercise despotism upon when you vote against them.
And the best part is… you are afraid of us, or you wouldn't be here to object.
You are a liberal obviously, so why would you be on a conservitive blog? Other than to object to us in the comments…. and the only reason for doing that would be fear.
So, you are afraid, of the people who as you claim are afraid of everything. Liberals lack of logic and hypocrisy are amusing.
[...] Prejean Sextape Free on the Web? Watch Out!Snark FoodEDGE Boston -Us Magazine -Big Hollywood (blog)all 837 news [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Rosemary Breen and Billions, Big Tweeting. Big Tweeting said: BigHollywood: INTERVIEW: Former Miss California Carrie Prejean: Apart from the fact that.. http://bit.ly/23BOM8 #BigTweet [...]
Lovely, American women learn how to walk from gay men now? There's part of me that isn't surprised by this. Is that why so many my age can't walk in heels? AHEM.
However, in order to spare the trolls I'll decide to refrain from further negative comments on American "culture" right now. (I imagine I've already said too much as it is.) Like Ms. Prejean found out, free speech is a thing of the past.
rawdeal, if you weren't so smarmy, maybe someone would take you seriously. You can't always get what you want…but most of it could be done legislatively without destroying marriage.
Normally intelligent people would take Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean (with all their weaknesses) any day over any encephalogically-challenged liberal (excuse my redundancy) foil the left could try to field. I guess some people are just not normal. *shrugs*
Yawn.
As if Carrie Prejean is news. C'mon – what she says is predictable, similar to Palin. This article's last sentence refers to "…reasoned, civil debate". That's not coming from Prejean. As anemic an interviewer as Larry King got her sufficiently miffed to just about walk off his show. It seems the standards change situationally – if she's feeling uncomfortable, then she gets to bolt. But if she says something that makes others uncomfortable, then they have to stay put, listen and not comment (God forbid).
Speaking of God… Please don't dredge up your religion and throw it in my face and expect me to respect that behavior. If you want to practice a religion, please do so outside of my house, or bedroom. In the United States, there are many interpretations of Christianity and Christian teachings, but not a lot of true Christians. It's fine to disagree (it adds to the "reasoned, civil debate"), but it isn't proper to foist it on someone. I think Perez Hilton is a fool and not really credible of representing anything or anyone but himself. Placing importance on what he says only makes it more important than what it is.
Similarly: If you don't like the "New Media Left" (who came up with that term, and how does it differ from the Old Media Left", or the "New Media Right"?) because of it's acerbic, hateful tone, should one expect you to not like the reports that (1) Obama isn't a citizen or (2) he's a Nazi or (2) he's a Socialist or (3) he's a Communist or (4) he's a racist? I think so; integrity is defined as consistency in thought and action, and I would venture to bet that you wouldn't have a byline on an article that slammed Glen Beck for all the crap that flows from his lips.
Kelsie's comment above really says it well: "You may have all the lesbian bridesmaids that you want, it still doesn't give you a stake in the strangers' lives that you exercise despotism upon when you vote against them."
Stating that you have lesbian friends is like saying that "Some of my best friends are black."
Marriage is debased by getting the government involved. Just as government intervention hasn't helped education in this country, it also hasn't helped marriage. The divorce rate is above 50% the last time I checked.
There is nothing 'limited government' about getting the government involved in marriage, and Republicans will never be taken seriously as a limited government party of they can't grasp that simple fact.
So, why is the word "marriage" so important to YOU? Can you not have some respect for other peoples' religious beliefs, and cultural history, and let them keep that word?
RE: So why the semantics with the word "marriage"? What are you afraid of?
Why don't we just redefine a MAN as a WOMAN (or vice-versa)? Then there's no issue! Just define one of them as the opposite sex!
it sure is easier than redefining marriage to mean "any type of arrangement that two or more entities want to use to get government benefits."
Because I live in the United States of America and I feel that all people should be equal – that's why.
I have the utmost respect for all religions – trust me. But your religion may not be mine – and again, in this country, we don't have a national religion. We have freedom of religion – which gives everyone the RIGHT to choose who or what they believe in.
Don't push your religion on me and I won't push mine on you.
Why the semantics with the word 'gay?' Why can't gay mean bad? Why can't i say, 'that movie was gay?'
If civil unions were the same as "state-sanctioned marriage," gay folks wouldn't be wrangling over getting married. There are legal differences, and that's the whole reason for the fuss.
Why the semantics with the word 'gay?' Why can't gay mean bad? Why can't i say, 'that movie was gay?'
Government benefits – basic human rights – I guess they're the same thing, right?
Exactly.
The fact that numerous important words have changed meaning during the history of this country shows how poor this argument is.
I think it is fairly clear that if the argument were going the other way, all the conservatives would be clamoring how the liberals can't get over simply changing a word, while the liberals would all be clamoring that the conservatives are trying to change the meaning of language to suit their nefarious goals.
This is clearly not just about the meaning of the word "marriage", and the fact that this is the only argument left standing against gay marriage (children of gay parents have been shown to be completely normal in numerous studies) shows that it is more a matter of it being the only argument that can't be refuted with evidence and logic. Previously everyone was saying that gay marriage would ruin families and make all the kids gay and make those kids get bullied in school, etc, etc, and that all turned out not to be true. So now all you can say is "We don't want to change the definition".
While I respect your sentiment, marriage is not a religious institution alone, it is also a matter of law. And in law all people must be treated equally. Therefore marriage must apply to both homo and hetero-sexual marriages. If a religious institution or place of worship does not want to marry gay people, fine, but religious institutions that DO want to marry gay people should absolutely be allowed to.
If we all stuck to the "traditional" definition of social words, women would still only be in the home without a job and deferring to the man for all financial decisions. Gay would still mean happy.
There once was a time not too long ago when segregation was legally considered "equal", as in "separate, but equal", yet now we all find the concept abhorrent.
Words change meaning all the time, and marriage has no reason to be excluded from changing times. I would accept "marriage" being defined only as a religious union, but then gay religious unions should still be called a "marriage".
There are numerous other words of social importance that have changed over the years, do you really want to be remembered as the people who got hung up on just this one?
Within a few decades (maybe only two) when gay marriage is legal across the country, a lot of you will be looking back and regretting your assertions about the importance of a word, because life will go on, gay and straight people will be getting happily married, and no one will notice a difference except for the people who finally feel like they are truly being considered equal, not "separate, but equal".
Because gay doesn't mean bad.
Here are a few definitions of marriage:
1. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
2. any close or intimate association or union
3. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
4. a blending or matching of different elements or components
5. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction
Oh, yeah, that's easy for you to say seven months after the fact and you're not the one on stage, on TV, and under that pressure. I bet you REALLY would say that, wouldn't you? Well, you wouldn't….you'd be standing there, not expecting that question (one that Perez wasn't supposed to ask), and your brain would turn to mush as you sputtered about. You're not as clear minded as you think you are.
Why the semantics with the word 'marriage?' I don't know. Why the semantics with the word 'gay?'
Why is it a sin to say, 'that movie was gay?'
It is also wrong for the government to force religious organizations to bestow religious rites. I cannot sue a synagogue and force them to give me a bar mitzvah, claiming equal rights.
George, what you're saying is predictable. You gotta come up with something better that makes sense. Why do you want to change the definition of marriage? It's bad enough people changed the definition of a perfectly good word like "gay".
Wow. The anger flies away and off target. George, you obviously do not know a thing about what you are saying. I could pick apart much of what you say, but I will through this one back to you: What in the world makes a gay person think they can change the definition as understood by the majority of people in this country? Why should they have to put up with you? You don't want someone messing up your "rights" but somehow you expect others to deal with you mishandling theirs. Odd. Not very open minded.
As a female bisexual minority, you should appreciate the fact that we should be all treated EQUALLY.
Not some rules for those people and other rules for these people.
EQUAL.
[...] it the truth. To balance your reading, Big Hollywood has an interview of Prejean by Lynn Vincent, a.k.a. Sarah Palin’s collaborator on “Going Rogue.” I recommend it, but more for [...]
OK….. So we should vote in favor of anyone we disagree with just to get along. How about you get along with everyone else? Another close minded person.
Ok… that line is sooooooo yesterday. I thought the "committee" had come up with a new sob story to 'share.?!?
The nineties finished a long time ago. Try to stay current.
Gay folks aren't looking to take away rights from straight people; they want the same legal rights as straight people. Folks who argue against gay marriage, on the other hand, want to deny equal rights to another class of Americans.
But again, the government shouldn't even have a role to play in "marriage." The government's role should be to enforce marriage contracts, legal mechanisms to which every American should have equal access. If people want to enter into a contract with one another with regard to inheritance, child custody, power of attorney, etc., they should be allowed to do so–and the government should enforce the language of that contract.
That should be the extent of the government's involvement in marriage. The government should not bestow certain privileges to one group and not to another. In no way can that be considered a principle of limited government.
I am finding it harder and harder to stand in her corner. I don't know a lot of Christian women who have to explain a sex tape. She knew it was out there and lied about it continuously until confronted by reality. Time to move on an find a real life with real reality.
SADs have the exact same right to marry that I have. They want extra special rights.
At some point you have deal with the reality that SADs are not interested in marriage – they want people to say they are doing right. They are not. Their lives are lives of perversion. Even Darwin could understand that one.
It must be difficult going through life always singled out as the most beautiful woman in the room. I feel for her.
Not to mention that topless photo session which she quite willingly took part in. Family values, my foot!
Carrie has been put in the peculiar position of being attacked…for believing that the thousands-of-years old practice of 1 woman + 1 man committed to each other for life is the way it should be. How hateful! Next she is ridiculed for being a hypocrite, because of a "sex tape". Rational people will understand that she is anything but, because all people, and that includes all Christians, are by nature imperfect. I hope that she just ignores the ignorant, the jealous, the insulters, and the angry haters.
The right couldn't afford to. They've invested too much in these vapid, symbolic "leaders" like Beck, Limbaugh, and this useless windbag. If they were smart, they'd dump these huckster ideologues and start reading their George Will, Bill Buckley, and Pat Buchanan. Then again, they only have to be smarter than the Democrats to retake congress, and right now the Democrats have completely forgotten then meaning of the word that is their party name. Their voting records make Nixon look like a liberal!
So straight people cannot have an opinion when it comes to a subject clutched by homosexuals?
Does that hold true for homosexuals making pronouncements on bisexuals? What about women making pronouncements about men on the floor of the legislature?
Should we prevent blacks from making pronoucements against whites? Should black public servants be restrained from making laws that might affect whites?
Perhaps "despotism" is just a *tad* melodramatic. Laws against gay marriage do not prevent someone from loving someone else… so folks ought to stop acting like that's what is at stake. Contract law solves this issue quite nicely.
I don't believe I mentioned anything about the definition of marriage. But since you asked… . It's a trivial exercise. Any gay person who gets married has no impact either on your ability to do so or, if you are married, the status of your marriage.
As for how words change over time – anyone who has studied linguistics, or better, historical linguistics, will tell you words change over time.
As for predictable – you don't know me, so you can't state what I say is predictable.
Both parties blow. Join us on the libertarian dark side.
Please do so – I welcome the challenge, though I doubt it will be a very fair fight. I don't know how I am mishandling anyone's "rights"; what you say is an assertion, not either a statement of fact or a hypothesis, or even a debatable point.
You're kind of like "farbar" in that you assert I said something I didn't. Don't read too much into what I wrote; your assumptions might be wrong.
I wish some conservatives (maybe you are, maybe you aren't – I don't care) were more libertarian in their world view. We'd have saner taxation policies and better government if they were.
"Bad" didn't mean "awesome," either, but Michael Jackson thought it did. Gay is just a word, and humans are always inventing new meanings for pre-existing words.
Except that Prejean is trying to capitalize on the controversy. Look, I think Perez Hilton is a tool and was disgusted by the virtiol and hatred directed at the Prop 8 proponents.
But, have you read the transcripts of the e-mails between Prejean and the pageant officials? Did you see any of the Larry King interview? While Larry kept fishing about the tape and didn't come across well, Prejean did herself no favors by acting the way she did. And any objective reading of the e-mail transcripts reveals she was being less than cooperative.
If you want to say she was wrongly denied the Miss California crown due to her views on gay marriage, fine. However, the constant praising of this woman by many on our side is not helping. She's not a great spokesperson. She's pretty and seems like a nice lady. But, she also lied about how old she was when the tape was made, going so far as to ask her ex-boyfriend to lie and say she was 17 rather than 20. Ask yourself, is this the conduct of a person with honesty and integrity?
Your point stands on it's own and I won't attack that.
I am continuously surprised though how much harder it is to espouse values that you may not have lived up to at one time or another (say when you were a teenager) than it is to attack traditional values.
If you are an adult would you consider your personal values and your standard of personal conduct the same now as when you were a teenager? If they have changed at all (and if they haven't for you then your a very rare exception) does that negate the values that you hold now?
I appreciate Darski's honest comment above though most of the people with the vapors over the "sex tape" and the photo shoot are only offended because of the values Prejean espouses now. They would not find one iota wrong with her conduct if she represented a different viewpoint. Andrea, I thought that you were too smart to get in that conga line.
YES YES YES I KNOW… It's 'you're' not your. Sorry for typing too fast.
You can't really believe that. Anytime the subject comes up the truth comes out. If you have read more than one forum discussion on this subject you would admit that legal equivalence is not the reason for the fuss.
It's about the imprimatur that the word conveys and nothing less.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by andrewbreitbart, Dan Collins and Wethepeople5, OCPatriots. OCPatriots said: RT @andrewbreitbart Great Carrie Prejean interview at BigHollywood. Explains all. http://tinyurl.com/ye4r4oa Get over it, H8ers. [...]
Frankly, I think I'm most guilty of perpetuating the very thing I'm condemning by even posting on this subject. Beyond that, I think that the inherent contradiction between espousing "traditional values" and participating in the whole sordid beauty pageant world speaks for itself. She just happened to pick a hot-button topic at the right time and place to send an otherwise totally forgettable person into the publicity stratosphere. And most people forget that our president espouses the same view that she does regarding marriage. Some liberal HE turned out to be.
Oh, and for the record, my personal values are much more lenient than they were when I was a teenager. I know that's upside-down, but it took me a number of years to finally loosen up from my strict Scotch-Presbyterian upbringing.
I'll keep voting for Nader, thanks. But I agree heartily with your first sentence. =)
I am not a fan of the "slippery slope" defense, but I will say that marriage is a religious ceremony, and no religion has ever looked favorably on gay marriage. If it were to pass, and a gay couple wanted to get married in a church or their religious equivalent, and the priest or etc didn't want to do it, the State would step in and mandate it. That is not freedom of religion. I am worried about governmental reprocussions, as they would be inevitable. Civil partnerships could be given the exact same rights as marriage and be conducted by a state or county official and be legal without religious coflict becoming an issue. Problem solved.
This is not a 'social word': "women would still only be in the home without a job and deferring to the man for all financial decisions" so it's not possible that it could have changed.
You are talking about the change in social institutions (and using a loaded, half-baked example to make the point that these changes are only for the good).
Words have power and meaning. Part of changing the meaning of a work is to borrow that power.
The Pink Hand can be very cruel to you if you stand in their way of normalizing what 50 years ago was aberrant behavior. I have no quarrel with gay folks, but when they want the government to mandate all people accept their lifestyle choice when legally they have no right is what makes me want to push back against the tide. Its all about freedom. You are free to do whatever you feel is right in your life behind closed doors, but you do not have the right to push that POV on everyone.
The President also holds the exact same view on Gay marriage that Carrie holds. Please try to be somewhat intellectually honest, and consistent.
Thats it, keep throwing that vote away. Nader is a moron who rarely has a POV that ANYONE can relate to.
Thanks for playing along George. You wrote: 'Stating that you have lesbian friends is like saying that "Some of my best friends are black."'
The author wrote that this is the exact tact her detractors would take. Now that doesn't completely immunize her from this line of thought but you think you could devise a better attack that the one she said you would use, eh?
We are concerned about the effect of Socialism on a country that was founded on RELIGIOUS principles and believe that it should stay that way. The lack of morality on the political/entertainment scene is ridiculous. We are concerned of the abuse of our Fonding Fathers and the documents they felt were important to write "to form a more perfect union." Besides, wasn't it a liberal who said "I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" ?
"Children of gay parents have been shown to be completely normal in numerous studies." Who did these studies? Gay advocacy groups? Let's keep it real. Would you want gay parents? Can you imagine having Rosie O' Donnell as your father? Comedian Eddie Griffin says "No kids want gay parents, and no parents want gay kids." Spin it how ever you want, but I think he's right. Taking into account that African Americans are not especially down with the gay community.
I'm gay, never made a sex tape, let alone had much sex in my life. Yet, it's okay to judge me if I were ever to enter a monogamous gay relationship and raise children more severely than her, purely because she follows your selective biblical teachings. You accept her imperfections more than mine. Sorry, but that's ridiculous in my book.
You didn't answer the question.You claim to respect religion, and then promptly trash it. Most Christians and Jews don't object to Civil Unions with all the legal rights and obligations of marriage, but we object to YOUR jamming YOUR demands to commandeer a word that is of great religious significance to us. Since it isn't of religious significance to you, the word shouldn't matter. Thus it is YOU who are doing the jamming, forcing, and demanding. We have conceded all ground on substance, and you none at all.
My, my, how you do get upset when it is YOUR word that is being stolen, and misused.
She can't handle Larry King. Watch her run to the arms of Fox News and other conservative outlets. "Opposite Marriage" told me all I needed to know about her intellect. It's embarrassing to be a Conservative and have to watch this nightmare go on camera. You know I'm right.
See, I knew you were too smart. You're first sentence makes the point perfectly. And regarding your change in values over time, whether they went north or south is irrelevant, they are your values now and can't be voided only because they are different now than then. For the record, I'm not a liberal nor a conservative. Those are political terms and they don't fit me. Still, you might want to watch that loosening up. Things get too loose they fall apart.
By the way, I'm not hitching my wagon to this woman anyway. Her choices show a pattern of narcissism from my point of view and your point about the 'sordid beauty pageant world' make a lot of sense to me. That said, I still think her convictions are valid and her own and she has at least the 'courage' of the truth-to-power-speakers and the edge-pushers that are often credited with courage for their antics.
Rhymes with "limbo."
She looked like a fool on Larry King. Bad enough to threaten to storm off on Grandpa Softball Suspenders, but then to not actually do it? Whoever's handling her now isn't doing their job.
I don't have much of an opinion on gay marriage. I voted against it out here in Calif. but it's one of those things that I tend to question (like capitol punishment). I don't think Gay people are on a mission to take over the world, and I don't believe in a God that requires me to dislike and persecute them (irony).
What I do have is an opinion on Perez Hilton. He should not have asked such a politically charged question in such an incongruous setting, and for crying out loud, why are people making this man into a spokesperson for gay rights? I can't imagine a worse image for gay rights than him. No class, or composure. She's a "bitch" for honestly stating her beliefs? YOU ASKED THE QUESTION, PEREZ. Don't ask the question if you can't handle the answer!
But, he makes his living off destroying the reputations of people in the limelight. Mission accomplished. Only thing is, Prejean is more famous than ever before because of his whining. So she stands to be better off in the long run.
I also heard that we have all sinned, none are perfect and homosexuals believe they should have absolute authority to change society to accommodate their behavior and like to hurt women who don't agree with them.
I thought the same thing about "opposite marriage", but then I thought about the position she was in and the pressure she was under (whether we find it important or not it was for Miss USA, which is kind of a big deal to somebody, right?). She is kind of stepping into the ring now I guess. Maybe a cage match with Natalie Portman? That would be fun!
Now I'm not specifically sticking up for Prejean, but I think intellect (or the trappings of intelligence) is overpraised sometimes. I know plenty of wise people with common sense and firm conviction who aren't always the most articulate and might be easy prey for the type of pretzel logicians we find on these boards. She is no worse than some of the more erudite Hollywood morons regularly lampooned on this site (which I guess means that she deserves to be lampooned too. Hmmm.)
My Rosanne Rosanna-Dana moment. Carry on.
I know how it feels. But I have spent a significant part of my life being pointed out as the coolest bald guy in the room. The pressure of being a bald guy role model really gets to me.
Also, that shallow, anorexic, fako should not be a role model for anyone. Let's make a collective decision to ignore her and she will slime her way back into dim-witted obscurity where she belongs.
Ms Prejean is a bad apple. was she 17 or 20 when she made the "sex tape?". when did she "get religion"? promiscuous sexually active 17 (or 20) year old. she's "only 22" now? (hard to call this "past" behavior). "wind" was to blame for the topless photos? really? it's sad the way she was treated, giving an honest answer that the vast majority of Americans agree with (including BHO). political correctness is so wrong and dangerous (Fort Hood). but Carrie…she is a bad apple and it's a shame she brought religion into this. it's a shame she appears to be a liar and frankly trying to cash in on her 15 minutes of fame. i was a supporter, but now i believe i (we) have been taken for a ride. it's time to throw her under the bus. she has disgraced herself and is disgracing all who continue to rally behind her. she has become the religious Rights Roman Polanski.
There actually aren't many problems the right wing can't solve. Limited government, more freedom for everyone to make personal choices.
Out of full disclosure, I attend The Rock Church San Diego. I'm as conservative as they come, yet I would like to see the government get out of the marriage business. Sure, I can see the side of the argument where society and population levels are believed to be protected by government approving that marriage is between a man and woman only, but I believe these arguments are questionable and fall secondarily to the rights of the individual.
Government should offer equal protection under the law. In areas of public controversy, government should stand clear and at least appeal to the decision of the state. However, concerning gay marriage, NO government should take sides.
Marriage as an 'institution'? Where's the address? It's located in the heart of the individual.
As a Christian, I am a sojourner and according to the Word, my citizenship is in Heaven. The 'world' is going to do what the world will do. Enacting 'Christian' legislation in order to coerce the world to behave as it should is not a pursuit that the Body of Christ should take up. We are to be salt and light, but, in this case, using the 'gun' of government is certainly not Christian.
In the end, we know that human government will fail. Let's not help it along. Get the government OUT of the marriage biz.
Despotism? I love how Liberals sound like hysterical 9 year-old girls when they don't get their way. Try living in Venezuela or Cuba for a few years, then come back and tell us how "despotic" America is.
Moron….
You wish it was about religion. It is about the proper role of government.
Jimbo! Yeah!
Not according to last week's episode of South Park.
"Stating that you have lesbian friends is like saying that "Some of my best friends are black." "
Wow, stupid is contagious around here today. No, saying "some of my best friends are black" is like saying "some of my best friends are black." When you disagree with a Liberal, the first thing that ALWAYS happens is you are called a racist or a bigot. The author was attempting to point out that people were saying she was homophobic (literally meaning she's frightened of gay people to the point of being unable to function), without bothering to find out if she was actually afraid of gay people. The fact that her sister is gay (and they somehow manage to coexist) and her bridesmaids were gay shows that she by definition can't be homophobic.
Liberals just love to smear people. If they couldn't throw baseless insults at people they disagree with, I'm not sure if they could actually communicate on a level above grunting.
This link to her interview with Larry Lizard King should despell any myth about her being a lightweight. I am happy to see her standing up. I hope this will encourage others too.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/12/video-the-o...
"Speaking of God… Please don't dredge up your religion and throw it in my face and expect me to respect that behavior.."
By your own rationale, then you would be wrong to come in here and tell others how to practice their faith. Your arguments work both ways.
And by the way at the pageant, Prejean's answer did not even mention religion. Her answer otherwise was word for word pretty like Obama's answer. The differnce is that Obama did bring up his Christian faith when asked. How come none of the leftists, who trash Prejean and dig up dirt on her, when she has no real power, don't do the same to one who has real power?
"If you want to practice a religion, please do so outside of my house, or bedroom."
Then guess what? Not just gays can make that demand. But also those who are polygamists, pedophiles, etc. They can also claim that we are forcing our morality on them by saying they cannot marry more than one spouse, they cannot marry animals, they cannot marry those who are still children, etc., even when consent is involved in both parties.
And I heard that argument about if one is religious, one should not force it on others. Oh yeah, slaveowners used that argument against the abolitionists in England and America, since what drove abolitionism was in fact evangelical Christianity.
"In the United States, there are many interpretations of Christianity and Christian teachings, but not a lot of true Christians."
Your own words reveal you are not in good solid ground to state you know what true Christians are.
True Christians do not hide their beliefs. True Christians follow what their Saviour taught them, and their Saviour, Jesus Christ, our God, Himself said marriage is between man and woman in the synoptic gospels.
" It's fine to disagree (it adds to the "reasoned, civil debate"), but it isn't proper to foist it on someone."
How far do you want to go with that?
Marital laws have always been discriminatory and moralistic. The question is whether or not the discrimation is on moral grounds (obviously, most of us see laws against different peoples of colors marrying are immoral). There is indeed discrimation against those from marrying each other when they are siblings, close relatives, humans and animals, parents and adult children, a person and differentt martial partners. These discrimination, most of us, even those who are for gay marriage, see as proper.
So, the argument that gay marriage proponents make that martial law should be for allowing all who consenting adults to marry is bogus, given many of them don't believe that when it involves other forms of marriage, that they themselves object to. And if they want to lob out the term bigot at those who don't agree with their view, then that term should be thrown at them when other folks demand the rights to marry that the rest of us see as immoral and that they see as immoral.
Gay marriage proponents, unless they extend the right to marry for those involved in incest, polygamy, bestiality, even pedophilia, don't have any grounds to claim they are really arguing for right to everyone who wants to to marry.
There are indeed limitations, particularly moral limitations to who can marry.
Gay marriage proponents resort to this argument, most don't themselves believe in actuality, because they see the futility it seems of arguing for morality when it comes to marriage. After all, they cannot on the one hand trash people for believing in morality of sex then turn around and argue their case based on sexual morality.
It is conduct of a person who is ashamed of her past actions and of a person who is put into a controversy she was not prepared for, at such a young age, by those who trash her with such malice and hate, violating every aspects of her privacy. Can you say you be strong enough as you demand of her if all the skeletons in your closet be revealed for the whole world to see against your will by those trying to destroy your image?
Roman Polanski raped a young girl. Prejean did nowhere near that.
If you want to trash her for her sins of her past, especially in her teenager years, then what does that say about your faith? Does not the Christian faith teach that we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God? Why should we expect her not to have skeletons in her closet that she never wanted to be out? Would you handle it better than her if all your secrets and skeletons that you don;t want out are revealed to the whole world against your will?
If she is such a bad apple, what does that make King David? He committed adultery with a wife of one of his soldiers, then had that soldier murdered to cover up his sin of adultery. And this is the man God said sought after God's own heart.
Even in the best of saints, there comes some sins we all frown upon.
It is past behaviour if she did it at age 17, when she is 22 now. That's five years. We don't know if she was more liberal then. Heck, we don't know if she was Christian then either.
Or do you believe that folks don't change from their teenage years to age 22? Or you think God cannot change a person in a year's time?
Well, God did it in instance with Paul (knocking him off his horse, literally and figuratively).
No, it is precisely because Prejean has a view on gay marriage, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise. She would not have her prviacy violated so often if she had said she was a Christian and favored gay marriage.
What is funny is the hypocrisy of those leftists who do this to her. What not the same outrage for Obama who said the same thing but even MORE overtly religious in tone than Prejean was at the pageant? Or for the Clintons, given the male side of them signed the defense of marriage act?
Oh, but they want to pick on a young college girl who is still growing and maturing and coming of age, then pick on folks with real power and can make policies. Cowards and hypocrites.
So if you want to argue the rules for marriage should be the same for everyone based on sexual preferences, don't just be hypocriocal and stop at gay marriage. You also have folks who want to marry as siblings. Or folks who want marriage between parents and their adult children. Or humans and animals. Or polygamists.
It is you who said it: not some for rules for some poeple and other rules for these people.
Marital laws have NEVER been equality about sexual preferences, but about man and woman being together as lifelong partners.
If she was a liberal women who came out with a sex tape (Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton) she would have been hailed an instant celebrity who could have been famous for being absolutely NOTHING.
Free speech is only free when it agrees with the left.
No, it isn't. You're placing that assumption onto her conduct. I'm free to disagree. That she asked her ex-boyfriend to lie about how old she was does not jibe with your assertion or her conduct.
I find it hard to believe, in this age of internet narcissism, that Prejean didn't consider the risks of pictures and tapes getting out, especially since she knew of their existence when she started writing her book. Yes, she made an error of judgement at 20, and a stupid one. But, trying to cover it up and ask people to lie on her behalf says something about her character now.
Also, I'm not the one going on national TV to promote a book. My opinion of Prejean is based upon her actions since Perez made an ass of himself attacking her.
Exactly, and if you don't hold the same opinion as "the party" you are rewarded with nasty ad hominem attacks.
Meantime the fringe homosexuals are terrified of Carrie Prejean. Or would you say it was envy? You're not a Republican. Stop trying to act like one.
Remember the good old days, when you actually had to HATE gays to be a "homophobe"? Now simply failing to support the political agenda of gay activists will earn you that label. You can have gay relatives, and all the gay friends in the world, but you're still a hatemongering bigot unless you march obediently to the drumbeat of gay extremists.
I wasn't smearing anyone, and I never called anyone a bigot.
No, they were pretty much roundly mocked. And it's not as though they were thought to be classy dames before the tape.
I agree with you there. Everyone knows Larry King is a liberal douchebag, if you'll pardon the redundant expression. Did she actually EXPECT him to treat her with respect? It's CNN, for crying out loud! If she wants to be afforded any common courtesy, she'll have to go to Fox News or some other conservative outlet where they don't hate women.
While I was as appalled as anyone when Perez Hilton ambushed her during the pageant, I am now officially over Carrie Prejean. She is not an especially impressive young woman, either in her use of the English language, nor in her behavior, past or present. She has had her 15 minutes and then some. There are young women out there far more worthy of media attention than she.
No one cares that you're gay. What you do in the privacy of your own home is your own business. What Carrie did was in the privacy of her own home. It's only become our business because you guys wanted to stick it to her for not supporting your radical agenda.
Predicting a response doesn't make it invalid.
This is nonsense.! Ms. Prejean is profiting off idenifying herself as some kind of representative of conservatism. Not me, thank you very much. I am embarrassed! Enough is enough. Now she is making a living off stating her personal opinion.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Every time you vote, on any issue whatsoever, you are pronouncing a stake in strangers' lives. She mentioned her lesbian bridesmaids as evidence that she doesn't hate gays, which is the first thing you accuse people of when they don't support your political agenda. I wish I could just accuse you of being a bigot because you don't vote the way I want you to on issues, but unfortunately I'm a white male heterosexual and have to rely on logic and reason to make my case for causes I believe in.
Am I the only one who found it ironic that the man who's sexually assaulted more women than Polanski (and found a whole new use for cigars and young girls with no self esteem) was calling Tea Party protesters that vile name? I mean really, does Bill Clinton really want to have that discussion?
"So, the argument that gay marriage proponents make that martial law should be for allowing all who consenting adults to marry is bogus, given many of them don't believe that when it involves other forms of marriage, that they themselves object to"?
Is that supposed to be intelligible?
As for the fractured sentence stating I don't know what a good Christian is – how do you get that? Because you disagree with me? I grew up in the Church – I think I know quite a bit about Christianity. As a moral code it has lots to offer. As a belief system, I have questions… . I realize that those who have faith, or believe in the literal validity of the Bible will take issue. And I don't expect them to agree with my point of view.
As for the rant about pedophilia, intrafamily marriage, polygamists – I am not sure how criminal activities enter into a discussion about gay marriage, but go for it. Nothing I proposed and believe in. You really hit it out of the park with the "humans and animals" one. Where do you get this stuff? Have you lost your aluminum foil helmet? ROTFLMFAO!
Thuyen – make a credible argument, or just label it with lots of smileys, if you would.
That's such a load of crap. You never hear gay activists calling for equivalent rights, you hear them accusing anyone who opposes gay marriage of being bigots for not considering gays equal. Even in California (which has the most progressive civil union legislation in America), the chant is not "We want civil unions!" it's "Mormons are bigots!"
The last thing they want are equal rights because the minute it happens, they lose the chance to push through a gay marriage agenda.
The essence of marriage is an oath of lifelong sexual fidelity — in thought and deed — towards a spouse. The oath is before God. Hence the government is irrelevant and incapable of preventing a single soul — gay or straight — from making the oath or even fulfilling it. That is why the "gay rights" movement is a joke. If they were honest concerning their actual goal — government benefits — I would support these folks. Instead they feed us this "love" and "marriage" nonsense and expect us to play along. Marriage is substantially more than birdseed and receptions. If only the fanatical fringe of the gay community would show a little honesty in the matter. And the Perez Hiltons all ought to be ostracized if the movement wants to be taken seriously in the future. Democrats take note.
Vince, as a "conservative" and a Christian, Ms. Prejean does not speak for me. There is a way to have different views without condemnation. The whole thing IS ridiculous!
"… I think intellect … is overpraised sometimes. I know plenty of wise people with common sense and firm conviction who aren't always the most articulate and might be easy prey for the type of pretzel logicians we find on these boards. "
Good point. When you enter into the realm of public opinion, you should have your gloves on. There are plenty of inarticulate people who have been successful. But it is a mistake to confuse "intelligence" with "education", and either with the ability to be articulate. None of these are necessary or sufficient conditions for the other.
Ah, the tired old "gays can't visit their partners in the hospital" canard. I'd like to see actual statistics on that, because I'll wager the numbers are extremely low. I'm a straight male, and I've visited non-relatives in the hospital countless times. They don't even ask your name at most places these days. So you'll have to come up with a new phony reason for special rights.
Exactly. It's so funny to hear Liberals immediately become enthusiastic bashers of women (especially of women with sexual indiscretions) the second their politics go in a different direction.
Vince, I'm not aware of a single person here who judged you (although I'm sure there are some), but every Liberal I've seen comment on Prejean in the last year has happily judged her. Perhaps you should save your righteous indignation for them, since they are obviously the hateful people.
Word. I bet you would say "Libertarianism Rocks"! Really, I wish more so-called Conservatives were like you and not just situational conservatives.
Great post.
From an interview with Carrie and Christianity Today:
Q: You wrote that you don't regret getting breast implants. Have you ever wondered whether it might be incompatible with your Christian faith?
A: No, I don't think there's anything wrong with getting breast implants as a Christian. I think it's a personal decision. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says you shouldn't get breast implants.
Yeah, it's right there in the book of Hooteronomy.
Actually, he doesn't have the same views as Carrie Prejean and everyone knows it. The real difference between them is that Carrie has the courage to stand up for what she believes in, and Obama's a flat-out coward.
Guess you'll be taking your seat belts out of your car then, eh? If anything, Nader is too smart to be a politician. Magna Cum Laude from Princeton ain't bad. Anyway, a throwaway vote would have been to vote for someone who doesn't espouse my values and my political beliefs, like Gore, Kerry, or Obama. My "team" might have lost, but my political conscience is clean. And I hope you aren't suggesting that third parties are worthless. If that's the case, then we have a pretty lengthy history lesson coming up.
Kinda like disagreeing with Obama makes you a racist.
I actually called someone on this once, the "homophobe" insult and said "what is that, a person that thinks gay people will attack you on the streets?" And they said yes, that's exactly what it was.
Homophobes are afraid of gay people attacking them on the streets.
Thuyen, by your reasoning, we need to overturn 1967 Loving Vs. Virginia, because it clearly altered what for centuries was the biblically and socially accepted rule against interracial marriage. It was seen as immoral, an affront to god, the ruination of the purity of the races, etc. etc. But guess what? The courts ruled against the tyranny of the majority, as they will do with Gay marriage. Like it or not, you are going to lose this battle for the same reason that racists lost in 1967. You can either stand on you bully pulpit and hurl antiquated fire and brimstone, or you can…. in the simplest of terms….. grow up.
Regarding your advice in the first paragraph….. I always carry duct tape.
civil unions do not afford the same rights. Check out the law that was just passed in Washington State. It gives gays some, but not all the rights of traditional marriage.
sexually assaulted?
Insisting that historic precedent of traditional marriage is proof enough that things must remain they way they are IS pushing a POV on everyone.
awesome.
the truth is, liberals would be invading these sites MORE often if the shoe was on the other foot.
the president is being political. give it a rest already.
[...] INTERVIEW: Former Miss California Carrie Prejean [...]
Hmmn … so even though Washington state gay couples can now enter civil union contracts, they don't have all the rights of married's. So, how is it about the imprimatur that the word conveys again?
limited.
Well, he was accused of sexual harassment by Paula Jones, rape by Juanita Broderick, and unwanted sexual advances by several others. That's not taking into account how many women were afraid to speak up against a rising star of Leftist politics (because you saw what happened to any women who did).
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvm...
There was actually a national bitch slap a liberal couple months running up to the U.S. invading Iraq in March 2003. As I remember, they were slapped, their mouths taped shut and they had to sit there and take it in the ass. Judging by your words, seems you've forgotten.
Not a basher of women … basher of hypocrites: men, women, gay, straight, black, white. And I'm not ashamed to be one. And, as far as the judgers, it's not "some," it's "a lot."
She speaks for *most* conservatives on this sight, as most of the people who criticize her lean left.
haha, irony.
"Rational people will understand that she is anything but, because all people, and that includes all Christians, are by nature imperfect."
Except that not ALL of us "imperfect" people declare ourselves moral arbiters. I have no problem whatsoever with Prejean videotaping herself jilling-off – in fact, thinking back to the swimsuit competition, I can safely say I support and celebrate her decision
But if your gonna do that and then delcare yourself spokeswoman of all that is good and pure… sorry, doesn't wash. It's not a difficult calculus – practice what you preach, or don't preach.
I resolved a long time ago to avoid doing things I'd be ashamed of. Trouble is, I soon found that this spoiled an AWFUL lot of fun. The solution was ultimately quite simple: To be ashamed of as few things as possible in the first place
She's a freaking beauty pageant contestant… she was ALREADY famous for nothing.
Was she under 18 when that tape was made? Because if she was we sure as heck haven't heard the end of this.
So, is it better to have a liberal judge force the people of a state to accept something they don't agree with, instead of the people voting their choice?
I spent most of my childhood (and teens, to be frank) getting the crap pounded out of me for being "different." No, I'm not gay, though the insults typically invoked such. The other half was spent getting the crap "figuratively" pounded out of me by a littany of educators and psychiatric professionals who also had a problem with "difference." The educators, you may be unsurprised to learn, were employees of the Catholic Church. Wicked shocka', huh?, as we say in Boston.
This particular life experience taught me many important life lessons – but chiefly, it taught me that "normality" and "tradition" were two of the most destructive concepts in the world. They jointly breed complacency, stagnation, de-evolution and hatred of "the other." Thusly, the only thing I really need to know about gay marriage is that the so-called guardians of what is "normal" and "traditional" are against it – a calculation that hold true about 98% of the time.
So, you know Ms. Prejean and Mrs. Palin, and therefore you can pronounce judgment that what they say is predictable?
Her privacy violated? She's a public figure who made controversial remarks and got criticized for them. No different from Hollywood actors making controversial statements and getting blasted by people around here. And she's very actively seeking as much publicity as possible in order to sell her book.
Oh and people around here gleefully plummet plenty of Hollywood actors the same age as Ms. Prejean. Why not consideration for their growing and maturing and coming of age? Hmmmmm……
Human rights are the things you are born with. No government can bestow them upon you.
Why do gays/libs care what Carrie Prejean thinks?I don't care what libs thinks although if they call me a teabagger on the wrong day I might pop them in the nose.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/251889
Not to interrupt the gay marriage debate, but honestly Des, are you so far down the partisan well you think only Liberals are capable of smearing others? Do you really have that little objectivity?
Well if you consider the statement "That's the kind of roll model America needs", can you blame them?
I'm not down any well. I am a former Liberal, a lifelong Democrat, and have been driven to the Center-Right by the complete abdication of my former party's values by their leaders. Do I believe that only Liberals smear? No. However, if you'd care to one-by-one compare the comments here or Big Government to the Daily Kos or Huff Po, be my guest. If you can find one hate filled diatribe from the Right for every ten there is on the Left, you'll be lucky.
I used to spend most of my time on a Left-leaning blog, and finally had to leave because the people were so dishonest and hateful as a rule. They would tolerate any racist or misogynistic comment made about a Conservative, but call any Conservative a racist if they dared disagree over virtually any issue (I was once called a misogynist for assuming Barack Obama's Grandfather was the main source of income for the family).
I never said you were. I said the author made her comment because she knew Liberals smear. And for the record, your insinuation is that anyone making such a comment about lesbians or black people is in fact a closet bigot and seeking to give themselves undeserved credit. I'm fairly certain you understand that, so let's not play silly games.
The lefties are out in fine full force. Here ya go:
The Miss California pageant people and their legal team basically engaged in a form of legal blackmail to get her to drop the case. The reason is they knew their case was doomed without engaging in gutter tactics.
Miss Prejean was underage in that tape – if they dare show it or leak it ..charges could be filed.
.What is next ? They are doing a bang up job of crucifying her. The girl answered a question at a beauty pageant…..Truthfully.
As civil discourse dies, so does our society.
"As for the fractured sentence stating I don't know what a good Christian is – how do you get that? Because you disagree with me? I grew up in the Church – I think I know quite a bit about Christianity."
Welcome to the back-end of trying to deflect allegations – something Conservatives know a LOT about. You covered the usual territory pretty well, but you forgot one sentence in the above context which would make your thought complete: "Some of my best friends are Christians."
Total strawman argument. There has been no history of courts saying that black people cannot marry. There is also nothing biblical about interracial marriages. The courts rightly determined that since whites could legally marry and blacks could legally marry, there was no basis for laws against them marrying each other. There has not, however, ever been any civilization in history that condoned gay marriage. Therefore it's not an established right, it's something that has to be decided on by the people.
I'm not against gay marriage (although I'd prefer civil unions, which could get done right away and stop the ridiculous fighting), but you have to make a stronger argument than, "It's not fair" or "You're just a meanie."
You can't always get what you want….but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need. You don't need the word marriage, you need civil union. If the state could get out of the business of "marriage" and just stick to civil unions, and if the churches stuck to "marriages", there would be no issue. Unfortunately, there's too much emotional baggage with the word "marriage". It isn't necessary to get what you want, just what you need to be able to participate in a relationship in which you would be able to enjoy the legal benefits that you are looking for. If you can also find a church that is willing to declare you "married" then so much the better – for you and your partner.
You certainly inferred it, particularly after reading the original article saying that it was the response she expected.
Sorry Grace, but it is not "legal blackmail" – it is very common in settlement negotiations in lawsuits for one party to disclose to the other party what evidence they have. Carrie signed a statement in the pageant in which she stated that she had never posed nude or semi-nude – so she clearly lied to them; the fact that she lied to them is very relevant to her credibility as a witness on the stand in a lawsuit. Trust me, if Bill Clinton is ever called to be a witness in any lawsuit, his perjury in the Monica Lewinsky scandal will be brought up to impeach his credibility.
Perhaps you're right that child pornography charges would be brought against pageant officials for showing or leaking this tape (if indeed Carrie was 17 when it was made – as she has claimed). However, you must be also be cognizant of the fact that she manufactured the tape and she distributed to the boyfriend (i.e., SHE IS GUILTY MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY). If she wants to "teach younger girls" as she has stated in this interview (i.e., be a role model to young women), perhaps she should turn herself into the police as a child pornographer and accept the consequences.
Just because some people agree with her position on gay marriage doesn't mean that they should be fooled. She is nothing but a "Christian" charlatan of the likes of Jim Bakker or Peter Popoff — her main interest is in making money and gaining attention for herself by hawking this book and making appearances at conservative events. Her behavior (especially her lies and her inability to take any responsibility for her actions) shows that she is hardly a good Christian.
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's". What would be so difficult to say that marriage is God's and civil unions are Caesar's?
Yes please, stand up and act like preschoolers with mercury poisoning and tourettes.
Say, you know this hasn't been featured too much on the Hot Air blog too much lately. Everyone's been wondering when the donkey shows up.
"if they call me a teabagger on the wrong day I might pop them in the nose. "
I'll take "Give Thee No Self Awareness or No Dignity" for $200.00, Alex..
LOL.
Another Trojan horse "Christian" speaks. Well done you on your "tolerance." Well done too on speaking out of both sides of your mouth – classic heretic protestant subjective "Christianity". Hey, do you think if I wear a nice suit and tell you what you want to hear every Sunday you'll tithe into my bank account? You know, the Holy Spirit inspires me…I say so.
Carrie Prejean has been “Palin-ized”…
In this interview (via Town Hall and Hot Air), the former Miss California who was demonized for not supporting gay marriage earlier this year says that she’s been targeted in a way similar to Sarah Palin…
No, "legs akimbo"!
Hilarious! What a dimbulb. Really, the Bible has no decree regarding silicone breast implants?
Personally, I think implants are grotesque and any man who is impressed by them is cretinous.
none of this has to do with her alleged religious beliefs nor hypocrisy therein. she made her typically dim-witted pageant queen answer to a current events question ("americans have the right to choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage" ?? uhh..no carrie.. that's the whole issue). some people liked her response..others didn't..so what? it's ridiculous how her little non-story has become a cause celebre for the alleged persecution of so-called christians. far from having been silenced, she has turned this manufactured kerfuffle into a mini-career. what she and her new 'christian' friends can't stand is that others have free speech rights as well and that the rest of us are allowed to criticize. the girl was willingly exploited by a group for whom their life's work has been to deny equality under the law for gay citizens. (who is persecuting whom??) and was convinced by them that her new 'victim' status was reason to sue the pageant for her dismissal.
the pageant officials had every right to defend themselves against her ill-advised suit by pointing out that her various, lied-about, indiscretions violated the morals clause of her contract. besides the masturbation tape, there are the "wind blew my shirt open" professionally-shot topless photos of which she was certainly aware before swearing that no such things existed in her (recent) past. that she continues to make excuses for her behavior is laughable since, when confronted with her past, she dropped the suit like a hot rock. now she's back to whining on her book tour about how she's the most persecuted person on the planet. puh-leeze. enough already.
Tape or no tape, I still want to marry her.
Can't you squeeze a capital letter or two out of your keyboard?
Maybe socially accepted. NEVER Biblical. As Peter said to the Gentile convert Cornelius, "I perceive for a certainty that God is not partial". Blame it on the so-called religious leaders if you want, but NOT on the Bible.
As an imperfect, non-moral arbiter what is your take on that Ft. Hood guy or the 911 dude about to go on trial.
They should walk, right? Why push your morality onto them?
Gay marriage affects no one but the people directly involved in consenting to the relationship. Killing people is something entirely different.
Or is that concept too difficult for you to understand?
Liberty is living your life the way you want so long as you don't harm someone or infringe on someone's rights. Personal morality–morality that affects no one but the individual–is not to be dictated by the government.
You know, for people who supposedly believe in limited government, you folks sure like the government to be abel to tell us what we can and can't do in our personal lives.
So no government can bestow them upon you, but government can take them away?
She was 20, but she's been lying and telling everyone she was 17 to make her seem like more of a victim.
What did Larry King say that was so disrespectful? He asked her a question that she knew was coming.
If anyone was disrespectful, it was Prejean removing her mic and sitting there like an idiot before storming off the set.
It became our business when she "wrote" a book and invaded our airspace – hawking it to everyone who will have her.
The divorce rate in this country is 50% – don't you think heterosexuals are doing a fine enough job of destroying marriage on their own?
Gays already have the same legal rights as straight people. There's nothing in the Bill of Rights that says "…except for gays". You even have the right to marry. You just can't marry a member of the same gender. Neither can straight people. Your position that a state requirement that individuals applying for a marriage license be of opposite gender is somehow discriminatory just doesn't float…as the law applies to everyone, not just gays.
Furthermnore, the government has a larger role in marriage than just enforcing legal contracts. You aren't allowed to marry a first cousin in many states – not because the government hates cousins and wants to deny them their rights. The state doesn't sanction polygamous marriages, either – but not because it hates Mormons. My state doesn't allow "postumous marriages", although it was not an unusual practice during the war years. Children also can't marry, yet you would remove the government's power to prohibit such unions as well. Society has granted the state power to deny marriage licenses to unions that it feels are detrimental to society. Maybe in a few generations, we will have "progressed" enough to where sexual deviancy isn't considered detrimental. But right now, people still have hang-ups about it.
Why is Larry King picking on a 22 yo girl? Tons of girls her age have sexy pics and vids out there. She is just trying to make a buck. She certainly hasn't lied anymore that Obama with much less consequences. Give the kid a break.
So your big problem in life stemed from going to church too much?
"Often times are not allowed to visit their loved ones in the hospital"–that sounds like an urban myth to me. Source please? Tell me one hospital that asks a person's sexual orientation before allowing them to enter their doors to visit a patient.
Are you really this slow or do you purposely act that way to get a response?
No, hospitals do not ask about sexual orientation.
But most have rules concerning visitors and decision making. If a gay person is admitted to the hospital and a decision needs to be made about his/her care, a lifelong same sex partner typically has no rights to make that decision. It doesn't matter if the couple has been together for 1 year or 50 years. Many hospitals do not allow for same sex partners to be considered the next of kin, even though they clearly are.
So even thought you will say otherwise to suit your own agenda, the fight for gay marriage is more about these practical, human rights than you think.
From my own personal experience as a married heterosexual – when my son was born, the maternity ward had clear instructions that only spouses and siblings were allowed during non-visiting hours. So call it an urban myth to ignore the issue, but you're absolutely wrong.
Were you watching the same interview as everyone else? Larry King was picking on her no more than any of the Fox blabbers. He was asking the exact same questions.
I have no idea what you meant by your response…..I think what I said was self explanatory.
"There has not, however, ever been any civilization in history that condoned gay marriage."
To wit: Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden.
And, for the record, my liberal leaders ARE all for it. Sadly, very few of them are in office.
Deuteronomy 7: 3-4 actually WAS historically used quite often during the debate about interracial marriage. It was a total misinterpretation, of course, but nonetheless, I stand my ground that the bible was used to promote racism.
This aint rocket science… I have no problem with the fact that Carrie Prejean doesn't like that gays can marry, or be partners, or whatever. I have no problem that Carrie Prejean masturbates on film for her boyfriend. What I do have a problem with is when this person hypocritically dances around all the mainstream media claiming she's "holier than thou." Christ didn't like those people. Neither do I.
Now I personally don't find Carrie Prejean attractive. Her chest and butt are too small. If she were a nice person, I might try and like her for that. But I think she sucks
Yay, Misdirection, YAY![/rolleyes]
Beck, who managed to get a czar dismissed? Yup, that's vapid alright. Limbaugh, who changed the face of AM Radio? Oh, he's only a symbol. And its the LEFT who are putting these guys up as leaders, because they can't visualize a group without some leader because . . .heck, that's how THEY do things and many can't visualize a group made up of independent thinkers, ranging from the borderline-libertarian to rock ribbed conservative that just simply want a smaller freaking government.
We remember our Will, Buckley, and Buchanan IS an Ideologue if you actually were paying attention. . . The Dems ARE living up to their party platform, I guess you didn't like the actual content, just the pretty wrapper.
<snort> some Liberals.
*MissQuinn*
Another Sarah Palin lie exposed – http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/13/m...
No it's not! You want us to say "Oh, this is normal behavior". No, its not. Marriage is for the benefit of children. Gay couples are NOT going to procreate children in any normal matter. You can adopt – and that's still up for grabs. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony – and God knows how bitter you feel about that! Just get your civil unions and be done with it.
And the upside down flag tells all we want to know about you.
Oh yes, massa, Ise should always bes grateful t'yall! Didn't even read my post, did you. I didn't say anything against the idea of marital equality…did I ?No, I didn't. I'm just sick of the comparisons. Gay people can make their case on their own damn merits w/o riding coattails. To me, it's someone ignorant of history that perpetuates this.
So that means there are ALOT of ignorant thus and such's wandering around. Maybe you included.
*MissQuinn*
wrong…
Actually… Numbers 12 condones interracial marriage (Alot of people overlooked it) and the story of Cornelius in Acts as well as another passage backs that up. Just saying. :p
*MissQuinn*
You didn't have to come here and read the article. As far as I know, not a lot of other places are mentioning her. Or are you petty enough that you have to hound this woman into exhaustion?
*MissQuinn*
considering you are not a fan of the 'slippery slope' defense you just made an eloquent case for it…
hear, hear… well said.
it is a thought that has occurred to many- but well put anyway…
That's not a hard concept that more Christians embrace than they think. If the more strident gay activists just STFU'd and listened, they'd know that.
But that just makes too much sense.
*MissQuinn*
wrong on the divorce rates, pal…
and government acceptance is society's impramatur- in common English that's approval. Laws of unintended consequences are many- and profound.
[...] an interview with former Miss California Carrie Prejean published Friday, Vincent defended her stance against gay marriage by saying she has many gay friends: See, the [...]
No that is wanting to keep the status quo that 39 states have proven is the majority's belief.
[...] an interview with former Miss California Carrie Prejean published Friday, Vincent defended her stance against gay marriage by saying she has many gay friends: See, the [...]
I'm sorry, but did anyone see her on Larry King? This woman needs to step out of the spotlight, and stop giving christian conservatives a bad name. She is a trainwreck.
Carrie Prejean's privacy was not violated. Once she decided to participate in those stupid beauty pageants, she opened herself up to public criticism.
But instead of shutting her mouth and going to school to make something of herself, she "wrote" a book and got herself booked on every talk show known to man.
How then has her privacy been violated?
Funny, I get the crap figuratively pounded out of me most of the time by hateful Liberals who will take any excuse to smear people who disagree with them. They are on average, intolerant bigots who spend most of their time demeaning people who aren't as cool and intellectual as they are.
So I guess using your line of thinking, I should be against gay marriage because they are for it, huh?
The vast majority of violence and suppression in the last century has come not from religion, but from groups who espoused against traditional religious organizations. If you want to talk about destructive concepts, let's talk Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hirohito, and Pol Pot. For that matter, let's talk about the Green movement, which has been responsible for millions of deaths and untold suffering in Africa due to their insane policies.
And another Liberal who doesn't even understand their own examples speaks. "Trojan horse?" Did you actually read history, or have you made it that far in grade school yet?
And it's hysterical the way Liberals have worked themselves into a never-ending frenzy over the unimportant comments of a beauty pageant runner-up. What's driving her 15 minutes of fame isn't the Right, it's the whack-jobs on the Left who just can't let it go.
Maybe they should spend their time trying to figure out why none of the Democratic Presidential contenders will stand up for gay marriage instead. It could be a more positive use of their time.
Actually, she dropped the suit for a purported $100,000. If that's nothing to you, then it would explain why Liberals are so happy to spend everyone else's money.
slavery was the status quo once about a time, as well as the majority's belief.
If I already know you're a moron, why would I click on your silly link and risk giving your site (or your favorite site) more traffic? Seriously, why not just offer dates with hot young models. You'd have exactly the same amount of credibility.
Since the majority of people out here despise the idea that gay people should be able to get married, here is yet another example of a heterosexual using religion to destroy the sanctity of marriage.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33909534/ns/us_news-c...
She was 20, although she has been lying to everyone and saying she was 17 to garner more sympathy.
Frankly. I didn't even get to the interview as the lead up to it was making me sick to my stomach–getting a little sick of hearing the author talk about Carrie's being "smokin hot', and the way she was coached on her pageant walk by a gay guy –a walk that was a very sexual 'sashay'– it made me uncomfortable to watch as a believer–but evidently the authore and Prejean think that's okay for A Christian.
I am a Christian first, and a conservative voter SECOND . I am NOT for gay marriage–I'm glad Prejean states she isn't either-she has that right–HOWEVER–she is presenting a really hypocritical image of a Christan who happens to be a conservative voter. She is young and immature and obviously ignorant about the faith she has decided to be a spokeswoman, for in part which is not good. But let me say this to the author, who talks about her membership at the Rock church (same a Prejean) yet goes on and on about Prejean's looks, and "hotness" etc. I GUESS youre a Republican first, right? Cause I'm a little sick of professing born again Christians just looking the other way about this woman's problem with needing to be as sexy –Prejean defends her choices of career (modeling , Pageants) both of which require her to present herself part of the time in a sexual way. CHRISTIANS are supposed to look different, present themselves differently than everyone else (modesty is the key word–its commanded of us in the New Testament for all believers). She IS a hypocrite but I do believe it is in part due to her youth and ignorance re: the Bible–but she needs to remedy that post haste..Evidently no one at her church is teaching her differently about these matters–certainly no the author. But You , author, are a 47 year old that ought to know better so you get no pass. You seem to celebrate this aspect of Prejean's behavior. What goes on at the Rock church anyway.?? You know you cannot have it both ways–you either have to reject secular values and the sexual immorality and lust that many of them are based on, or you hold onto them and try to pretend a Christian can have their cake and eat it too. –doing the same things a non-Christian can. I hope Ms Prejean finds someone who understands God's word to teach her the Bible on these matters and stops makning herself a target for unbelievers to RIGHTLY label a hypocrite.. But since so many Christians LIKE THE AUTHOR are currently guilty of the same and applauding her "hotness" she may very well remain stuck in her ignorance, being a bad influence in this way– egged on by the likes of you and thinking her choices in these matters are sanctioned by the word of GOD. A beauty pageant where she walks around in a bikini swinging her hips for all they're worth is NOT GOD SANCTIONED. It seems Republicans who are Christians are so happy to have an BEAUTIFUL Christian conservative in the spotlight they are falling all over themselves to embrace what ought not be embraced. I understand that not all Rep.'s are Christians, but those who are and take it even slightly seriously ought to be upset about this matter. Shame on the author -you clearly identifies herself as a Christian–you ought to be helping her understand what is right, instead of acting like a COUGAR.
"Is that supposed to be intelligible? "
Nice dodge of what my point is.
"As for the fractured sentence stating I don't know what a good Christian is – how do you get that? Because you disagree with me? I grew up in the Church – I think I know quite a bit about Christianity."
Well, you presume to tell Christians how they should act when comes to public. If that was the case in the 1800s, there woiuld be no abolitionist movement.
The fact you state it is wrong for Christians to be active in our country's moral and political climate and lawmaking showed you don't know what you are talking there (on top of your comments of presuming to tell folks they are not good Christians, so you can't complained when done to you).
"
As for the rant about pedophilia, intrafamily marriage, polygamists – I am not sure how criminal activities enter into a discussion about gay marriage, but go for it."
In other words, you did not actually interact or read what I wrote. Let me remind you that sodomy for much of this country's history is also criminal activity, too. Jefferson wrote some harsh laws against that himself as well as against adultery and polygamy.
The point stands. You talk two sides of your mouth. You claim you are for everyone to have rights to get married, but when put to the test, you deny those rights you claim should be for all to those you believe would be criminals for getting married or those you feel would have no moral grounds to marry on that basis. You prove my point.
"Nothing I proposed and believe in."
Like I said, you proved my point there. I didn't say you proposed those things or believe those things. That prove you did not read or try to interact. I in fact stated you don't believe or propose those things for others that are morally wrong in your eyes or would be criminals if they marry in that fashion to prove that you are using the argument marriage should be allowed for all equally as cheap rhetoric.
Hiding behind the fact those other things are criminal activities does not take away the fact that gay marriage itself is criminal activity in nearly all the states. So you saying you don't support criminal activities don't wash when gay marriage itself is illegal and thus criminal if done.
"You really hit it out of the park with the "humans and animals" one. Where do you get this stuff? Have you lost your aluminum foil helmet? ROTFLMFAO! "
No, I used it to prove a point- you don't really believe your own rhetoric that every human being should have equal rights to get married regardless of sexual preference. You use it as cheap rhetoric to trash those who are for traditional marriage, but discard when convenient.
"Thuyen, by your reasoning, we need to overturn 1967 Loving Vs. Virginia, because it clearly altered what for centuries was the biblically and socially accepted rule against interracial marriage. It was seen as immoral, an affront to god, the ruination of the purity of the races, etc. etc.'
In some countries, and that was for a few centuries of history's existence. Marriage has been around since we exist, and it stayed the same. There is no comparison.
"But guess what? The courts ruled against the tyranny of the majority, as they will do with Gay marriage. Like it or not, you are going to lose this battle for the same reason that racists lost in 1967."
And you wonder why most minorities, including in liberal Cali, are offended when gay rights activists compare their demands for marriage with race issue?
"You can either stand on you bully pulpit and hurl antiquated fire and brimstone, or you can…. in the simplest of terms….. grow up."
I did offer it in the most simplest of terms. Your side talk on two sides of its mouth, chanting everyone regardless of sexual preference should have right to marry, but when it comes down to it, you would deny those rights to those of sexual preference you and I and others would see as immoral. Throwing a fit while telling me to grow up is pretty hypocritical of you.
Marrriage by its own definition is restrictive. Or otherwise, polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, incestual, etc., marriages would be decriminalized and allowed. These things are not allowed and criminilzed precisely because they are immoral, and those on your side agree. So by your own logic, your side when it comes to other forms of marriage you would not tolerate would be in engaging in brimstone, too.
All recent innovations. We are talking about the history of man. Not just recent times.
In actuality, your side is doing the deflecting. He missed my point completely or danced around it.
"No, it isn't. You're placing that assumption onto her conduct. I'm free to disagree. That she asked her ex-boyfriend to lie about how old she was does not jibe with your assertion or her conduct. "
And you are presuming her boyfriend is honest. What kind of ex or what kind of date do that to his gal or ex-gal? A total scumbag to release these stuff or tell folks she did that, when it was private and should have stayed private between them .
"Yes, she made an error of judgement at 20, and a stupid one. But, trying to cover it up and ask people to lie on her behalf says something about her character now."
Faux outrage. We don't know if her boyfriend is telling the truth. Even if he is, can you with a straight face say you never try to save face or you do not have skeletons in your own closet you would feel uncomfortable admitting to?
The fact that all this comes out to defame her speaks alot more about the characters of those doing the digging than Prejean.
"Except that not ALL of us "imperfect" people declare ourselves moral arbiters."
And when did she do that? Agreeing with a traditional view of marriage, hardly makes one declaring oneself a moral arbiter. Nor is saying one is a Christian.
"But if your gonna do that and then delcare yourself spokeswoman of all that is good and pure… sorry, doesn't wash. It's not a difficult calculus – practice what you preach, or don't preach. '
So if you do something wrong in the past and realize now it is wrong, you are not allowed to say it is wrong because of your past actions?
And how is she not practicing what she preached?
She simply is against gay marriage. So did she marry a woman?
And even if she was also preaching against the things she is condemned for now, guess what? Like I said, her past actions do not mean she is presently the same way as the past. Your fallacy.
Apply your logic to yourself, and you would if you are honest condemn yourself the same way.
Most of us don't celebrate her behaviour where it is wrong to us. But we also realize none of us are perfect and we all have skeletons in our closet we would not want the world to know and we would not as strong as she is even to deal with that when they come out. The bottom line is none of this would happen if she had answer she is for gay marriage, even if she is saying she raised that way as a moral Christian. We rally around her because what happened to her could have happened to any one of us had it been us in that position.
Her past does not make her a hypocrite now in the present. If she sinned in the past, that does not make her a hypocrite to stand for moral values now, if she repented of what was done in the past. Or otherwise, none of us can ever stand for something.
"What I do have a problem with is when this person hypocritically dances around all the mainstream media claiming she's "holier than thou." Christ didn't like those people. Neither do I. "
Except Prejean never claimed she was holier than others because she is a Christian or she has Christian beliefs. She many times admitted she was sinner saved by the grace of God. In fact, she said that from the get-go,
It is a lie repeated many times to defame her. Christ don't like liars, and liberals who trash her are full of them.
Actually, it is some. If you look at columns here by Charles Winecoff (openly gay Conservative), the vast majority of the comments are positive. Conservatives don't hate gays and they're not afraid of them (other than a small percentage who just can't stop their religious beliefs from clouding their common sense judgments). They hate the way that gay activists (both gay and heterosexual) treat everyone who doesn't fall in line with their beliefs.
Last night on Hannity was a perfect example. A Liberal professor was on, who was fairly honest and objective until the subject of Prejean came up. She immediately became angry and threw out comments about how "hateful" Carrie was. When it was pointed out to her that Prejean's opinions are EXACTLY the same as Obama's, she said that he was different because he really cared deep down, but was doing the politically necessary thing. What a load of crap! If he really believes gays should marry, but says the exact opposite, then he is the worst kind of ignorant coward.
The truth is, Prejean is attacked by people who refuse to even acknowledge that her belief is shared by the majority of Americans, and the vast majority of politicians. Someday gay activists are going to stop with the strawman arguments about beauty pageant contestants and Mormons, and honestly approach the issues. For now, they are far bigger hypocrites (and you are for not calling them out instead) than she is.
That's just stupid. She doesn't speak for anyone but herself. What the hell is wrong with you? What was she elected to? Who nominated her to be a speaker for anyone? People like her for whatever reasons they like her…that does not make her someone who speaks for them.
Seriously dude, that is just moronic. Does that mean Perez Hilton speaks for all gays? Grow up.
I'm just curious when is the last time King badgered a Leftist about anything? He asked her about her court case, she said she couldn't comment on it, then he asked her again. After the fourth time, she freaked out. I think she handled it badly (which is the same reason she lost the title), but give me a break. Have you actually seen Obama speak without his teleprompter? It's like watching Robert Deniro try to improv. {sigh}
"The vast majority of violence and suppression in the last century has come not from religion, but from groups who espoused against traditional religious organizations."
Setting aside my usual contention that Communism/Nazism constitute something close to religions themselves in practice and execution… on a more practical note, that was THEN this is NOW. Right now, a great deal if not a functional majority of the genuine hate and suppression in the world originates from organized religion: Principally (by sheer scale, anyway) Fundamentalist Islam, followed in-spirit by Fundamentalist Christianity.
No, I'm not. That's precisely why I wrote that I find it hard to believe Prejean didn't consider the risks, even if she was "only" 20.
The girl has cast HERSELF in every step of the publicity-machine way since the pageant as the pinup queen of traditional values. Therefore, ANYTHING incongruous with that is fair game. If she were serious about her self-created position in all this, we'd already have known about this as part of some "my pre-good-girl past" life-lesson thing. Say one thing for – just for example – Obama, he didn't wait for someone ELSE to report on his collegiate drug use.
Didn't say a thing about "pushing morality," just practicing what one preaches. I'm not a murderer, dont have any inclination to become one, so I feel just fine saying that Maj. Hassan ought to hang
You're projecting. I'm not outraged. I just think she's handled this pretty badly, and that our side should be a bit more careful about setting her up on a pedestal.
How many posts were written about her on Big Hollywood? It's one thing to correctly point out the vile attacks by some loser like Perez Hilton and others . It's quite another to make Prejean out to be something she clearly isn't.
Did you read this Q&A interview? Lynn Vincent asked Prejean about the tape and Prejean gave what seems like reasonable answers.
But, when Larry King tried to ask the same thing, Prejean came across as a spoiled child. Has she never seen Larry King's show before? Does she not know that's what the interviews are like?
And, again, this isn't about me. I'm not the one doing a book tour. But, you can be damn sure that even when I was 17, let alone 20, I knew not to do something as stupid as videotape private intimate acts and assume they'd always stay private.
All that said, yes, I agree that it's sleazy how people are digging for dirt on her.
Des, Winecoff is an anachronism on this site.
When the Prejean/Perez brouhaha hit the fan, those who voiced their opinion on this site were largely in favor of Prejean and anti-Perez. I was of the camp that they're both morons. A few others criticized Prejean who were pro-gay marriage.. And the rest stood silent. So, yes, Prejean represented the views of the majority of people who post on this site.
Just because I call someone out and not her opposition does not make me a hypocrite. I've spoken against Perez and people of his ilk in the past. I don't need to do it every single time.
I've spent my life being part of minority who doesn't do anything wrong, but my mere desire to live my existence and be true to myself stands in direct opposition to a bunch of mostly morally-confused bigots. I've had to fight to just be respected and be taking seriously because I don't fit into the molds of many other's preconceived notions of "the correct" way to be and live. If anything is going to contribute to the downfall of Western Civilization, it's not gay-marriage, it's ignorance.
A little empathy (how dare I use that word) goes a long f#&%ing way. And I've been INCREDIBLY empathetic to those whose faith stands in direct contradiction to my being. And, frankly, sometimes I just get plain fed up.
Frankly, both the right and the left has their share of undesirables. But, as far as I'm concerned, Prejean needs to take her head of her tookuss and go out and see the world outside of her plastic bubble. If you want a spokesperson for opposite marriage, I suggest you find someone more genuine.
Like I said, *most* people on this site defend her, if they say anything. And, yes, she does speak for people on here when they champion her as their mouthpiece. Just like, Perez doesn't speak for just about anyone on this site.
Because, if Prejean had a teleprompter, she would be so much more eloquent? King only pressed the issue because of ratings. Politicizing King? Please. Just because a celebrity leans left (which I don't know, but it's probably safe to say), they're being political by pushing a conservative guest's buttons? Prejean got caught with her pants down, literally. King was only doing what his audience wanted.
Come on!
I cant tell where you are coming from exactly. But coming from a Christian perspective–the one that she also claims to be coming from (AS WELL AS THE AUTHOR HERE) she has IN THE PRESENT defended modeling which will always require you to dress improperly in in little at all, she defends being in pageants which will always have you shaking your hips in a bikini, and she defends vanity breast jobs. = IN THE PRESENT. Here past is her past and yes mistakes God forgives and we all make them HOWEVER — keeps lying about them IN THE PRESENT however. So she lies, supports sexually improper behavior for Christian women and wants to be a role model when she is really rather clueless about her own religions requirements for her. She got gayh marriage right–now she needs to retire and get her Christian life in order.She badly needs spiritual mentoring, and the author of this article–who attends her same church is surely NOT the one to offer it to her, with her breathless comments about how hot Carrie is. She is not doing a good job of living Christian life IN THE PRESENT and needs to attend to that. And the author is nothing more than a compromising Christan woman who is giving her support to the things this young women is doing wrong -IN THE PRESENT.
"Just because I call someone out and not her opposition does not make me a hypocrite. "
Actually, it kind of does. Especially when you write a post moralistically about how you "call out hypocrites," but then ignore the vast majority of them because you're sympathetic to your cause. I'm still waiting for you to point out what Prejean said that people were supposed to disagree with. She spoke against gay marriage…a position that is held by the majority of Americans as well as virtually all of Democratic politicians. The fact that you give them a pass, but attack a 22 year-old girl who was asked about her opinion is the problem here.
I don't need a spokesman for or against gay marriage. I'm perfectly fine with it. I'd be even happier if they'd settle for equal rights, but under a different name, so as to give people a chance to deal with something being changed that has been the same for the history of the world. You have my sympathy for having to deal with with people who judged you for nothing other than how you were born, but then again, claiming marriage is some kind of God given right is frankly stupid.
I'm 43 and have never been married. I don't have the "right" to get married. I have to find someone to fall in love with, then get her to agree to marry me. Since your attraction is to someone of your own sex (which at the moment is not legally sanctioned for marriage), you don't have the "right" to marry him. The rules are in place and you need to get them changed if you want it differently. If the homosexual community would work with people, I believe compromises could happen. Most people want everyone to have a shot at happiness. As long as a large percentage of the people on your side of the argument are just going to call everyone who disagrees a hateful bigot or homophobe (no matter if it's true or not), you're going to struggle to convince a majority that it's the right thing to do.
I wish you luck with your life and finding your place in society. However, if you think you have it hard because your gay and people won't "let" you get married, you cannot be more mistaken. There are plenty of people who suffer every day, and deal with it in more constructive ways than blaming it on people they don't like.
Yes, and it was defeated by people standing together and fighting against it, not by a court ruling that everyone had to obey.
"If anything, Nader is too smart to be a politician. Magna Cum Laude from Princeton ain't bad."
Bobby Fisher has a genius IQ, and has been reduced to a germaphobic Anti-Semmite. One of the highest recorded IQs belongs to some bouncer gifted with a brilliant mind (and he also is a complete bigot and kind of a tool). The supposed highest IQ belongs to a North Korean scientist who helped a dictatorship achieve nuclear weapons. NASAs brightest scientists in the 1950s came from Nazi defectors.
If you're going to claim that a good education is an indicator of someone having a clue, you have an uphill fight.
Hi Pcd…
I can understand that you see a double standard, but these events are fluid and are happening as we speak. Though a good grasp of the time line may clear up some of this, I do see your point.
1. I attend the Rock Church too. It's huge and filled with ppl from just about every stripe. It's largely a seeker church and emphasis is placed upon knowing Jesus initially, not overly managing behavior. Believe me. The Word is definitely taught there.
2. I can't speak about the author (have heard her speak once), but I think the problem began when Carrie chose to hide her past to the Miss USA organization. It's obvious that she needs more maturing and less fawning Conservative masses and church folk encouraging her toward an agenda. Hiding her past began the rolling snowball and it only picked up speed from there, pulling into it those around that saw a Conservative/Christian opportunity to forward a sincere belief. Then everything blows up, simply because Carrie hid her past when first asked.
The gay marriage issue only confuses the real issue. Should she have answered as she did? Certainly. Was Hilton out of bounds for asking a politically charged question? Most likely. Events might have unfolded very differently if Carrie had not hid her past. She may have never been in that pageant and would have been well on her way in her Christian walk – but as an anonymous citizen.
We could play "what if" indefinitely, but the events have happened as they have. I guess it's time for us to ask the good old question, "What would Jesus do NOW?" I know we would all want a 'do-over'. Isn't that what Carrie needs right now? All of us?
Carrie has canceled the rest of her interviews. I'm guessing that the spiritual gravity of current events has brought her to an 'end', of sorts, and now it's a time of rebuilding.
Will Carrie return to the public eye? I would not encourage that at this time. There's plenty of time to tell the story – it all hasn't happened yet.
Right now, Carrie needs to face her own issues and be surrounded by the love of the Body of Christ. Jesus is waiting for each of us to reach our 'end' and then we will see a new 'do-over' before us. Can we allow that for Carrie?
Wow….over react much? Gay marriage is in no way considered a criminal activity. That's just stupid. It's not even a misdemeanor. If you get married as a gay person, the government doesn't recognize it.
Like I said, why do Liberals act like hysterical 9 year-old girls. {sigh}
P.S – I don't know the author, but I do know her best friend (mentioned in the article) and that friend is a woman of integrity. I don't see her as hanging with someone who's not also. – 2 cents…
So was every other religion, not to mention every non-religion. People use and twist any argument to suit their purpose. That has nothing to do with the argument, other than you using it to smear Christianity.
Well, if they're not in office, then they're not your leaders….are they? As I said, why don't you try convincing the spineless in chief to stand up for gay rights instead of spending your time attacking a 22 year-old girl. To me, it kind of says more about you than it does about her.
Exactly when did she preach that girls shouldn't have sex with their boyfriends. Even if she did (and I'm not aware of any such instance), she might be talking from the voice of experience, since it turned out so badly for her. Plenty of former alcoholics and drug attics go around trying to convince people that those activities are dangerous and self-destructive. Are you going to call them hypocrites too? What about a criminal (like a drunk driver) who gives speeches about what a bad choice that can be?
Why do people continue to make these stupid arguments. The only way Prejean is a hypocrite is if she is secretly married to her gay lover while she's preaching against it. Anything else is you trying to twist the argument with irrelevant tangents.
Name me once she referred to herself as the pinup queen of traditional values. If you can't, then you're a liar. I'm guessing you're a liar (not to mention a moron).
Obama has been a hypocrite every step of the way. He preached nothing but transparency, fiscal responsibility and working with Republicans. He's done nothing but the opposite in every instance. My favorite moment was when he said Democrats have to "Punch back twice as hard" against Tea Party protesters, and that night there were two vicious assaults carried out by SEIU thugs who work for Andy Stern (who is the most frequent visitor to the White House and Obama's biggest contributor. Gotta love that hope & change, right???
Then again, if I was a Liberal, maybe I'd spend all my time attacking college girls because there was no defense for my ideology or the scumbags representing it in Washington. Gotta go with the easier way, right Bob?
I love to hear that the very same Liberals who said, "It's just about sex" with Bill Clinton are now trying to make the argument that a 22 year-old girl who hasn't been elected to anything is morally reprehensible because she didn't want people to know about her sexual indiscretions.
It's all part of the "We love to hate women" party. {sigh}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Ed...
Okay, I agree.
Who has championed her as their mouthpiece? Many people agree with her assertion that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but that's her agreeing with the popular sentiment, not the other way around. People are defending her because she's being attacked unfairly. Nobody is saying she represents anything (certainly not most of the people on this site).
You suggesting otherwise is not being honest.
I didn't say anything about Prejean and a teleprompter. I said Obama is abysmal without his crutch. Instead of addressing that, you turn it back to Prejean. After hearing nothing but Palin bashing during the election (because Democrats couldn't actually defend Obama or his lack of experience), now you're comparing him to the runner-up in a beauty pageant? I guess you don't think much of our dear leader.
"Name me once she referred to herself as the pinup queen of traditional values. If you can't, then you're a liar. I'm guessing you're a liar (not to mention a moron)."
Y'know what? You're right, that's an entirely fair criticism.
Allow me to withdraw and rephrase. I ought've more-accurately said: "the girl has basically been cast as the pinup queen of traditional values since the pageant, and has made little to no effort to refuse said identification – rather, as it happens, she's made a career out of it."
You brought up Obama and the teleprompter. I only responded to it.
Okay.
Runner-up in a beauty pageant? Who are we talking about? Prejean or Palin? (I know who you were talking about, I'm only being facetious.) I'm sorry, but I'd like to believe there are beautiful conservative women out there, who are actually intelligent and articulate. Unfortunately, they're being overshadowed by these nitwits.
Oh, yeah … I forgot a few things …
beautiful, conservative women who are intelligent, articulate and have integrity.
OK, there is some truth to that. Some of it is her fault for basking in the adulation instead of keeping her head down (knowing that there were some pretty interesting skeletons in her closet). Some of it is the Right's fault for falling all over themselves at the prospect of having a beautiful young woman stand up for Conservative principles (for the record, I don't put much stock in any man or woman, because we all have major failings). Some of it is from the Left, who tried to turn her into a microcosm of the anti-gay marriage movement (can it be a movement when it's been in the same place for all of time?).
The truth is none of the above (and yet, all of the above). But to blame any one group solely is just being disingenuous. I get so tired of people on both sides of the aisle making ridiculous overstatements (or creating strawmen arguments) to try to look good. The truth is, I bet if everyone decided to work together and compromise, we'd have civil unions (with full equal rights) available in all 50 states by 2010 or 2012 at the latest. It would be good for Republicans (who could stop being painted as the party of bigots), it would be good for Democrats (who could stand up for what they claim to believe in), and it would be good for gay & straight people who want to see the right thing done.
That's exactly why it won't happen. Republican operatives need the specter of gay marriage to excite that portion of their base. Democrats need it to paint the other side as bigots. Gay activists need it so they can continue to be in charge of a movement. In the end, people will continue to get short changed until they wake up to the fact that ALL the groups profit from the fight, not the solution.
BTW, when I said stupid, I wasn't referring to you. I can't stand the over statements from both sides of the aisle. They are politically calculating and cynical. If people would calm the overwrought rhetoric, we could actually make things better for everyone.
For the moment there is just too much profit in keeping people aggravated (on every side of the issue). Nothing is going to be solved because keeping us fighting is what keeps them in charge.
Brown v. didn't end slavery. It didn't even end segregation (although it was a nail in the coffin). Courts can't change people's hearts, and many people who lived through that time said the court interference made it worse (I didn't, so have no idea). I know that forced mandatory busing here made a bad situation worse, and hurt the education of a number of black students, who found themselves dumped into an unfamiliar, hostile environment.
Maybe it was for the best, and maybe if they'd left it alone it would have gotten better on it's own and those kids would have continued to excel where they were happy with their friends. No one really knows.
Thing is, even if you DID get 50-state Civil Unions, it'd only be delaying the innevitable: MAYBE it'd be "peaceful" for a decade at most, but eventually "seperate but equal" would come up again and there'd be an (in my view wholly reasonable) push to A.) legalize gay marriage (much easier now that the world has failed to end after a decade of unions) and B.) grandfather all the civilly-united couples into it. I don't mean to sound too glib or snarky about it but, well… my "side" is going to "win" this. It's a when, not an if, at this point. Which of us is "right" is almost beside the point: This is where history is heading. My Gen-X fellows are overwhelmingly for it, Gen-Y even MORESO.
(continued)
(continued)
My honest asessment, speaking strictly as a student of history and absent any personal bias of my own, is that a majority of American states will have gay marriage OR civil unions within my lifetime – and that also within my lifetime a cultural propensity among gays and their friends/supporters in "unions-only" states to call unions "marriages" ANYWAY, coupled with more substantive legal challenges, will turn the unions into legal marriages.
I also calculate that, gay marriage OR no gay marriage, marriage AS a sacrosanct institution – as opposed to an arrangement of legal/social convenience – will have all but vanished from the western world. The fact is, the "traditional nuclear family" ideal – regardless of how one 'feels' about it – was invented for a world that increasingly ceases to exist in the modern West….
(continued)
God gave males their stuff and God gave females their stuff. Now can a male and a male create what God intended them to create? NO! Can a female and a female create what God intended them to create? NO! Without creation there is EXTINCTION. Gods miracles are his blessings, which are only naturally given to a man and a woman, not a rebellious male and male or female and female. So conservatives are not afraid and they will never turn away from Gods dominion as gay people have. If gay men and lesbian women would really search their souls, they may just realize that somewhere in all their pain and confusion that they are wrong and repent. So you see the answer to your question is simple, all mankind should be created equal under the dominion of God. If you feel that others think they are better than you well that may be because somewhere in yourself you feel that they are because you know that you are wrong to be going against God himself.
(continued)
…even ignoring the continuing cultural irrelevance of the organized religion(s) that lionized it in the first place, this particular ideal was designed for a society where putting down roots, staying in singular local careers for most of one's life and raising large mutually-beneficial families (particular in rural areas) were necessary for individual and community survival.
That's no longer our world. Most adults will make multiple career changes in their lives, jobs are increasingly mobile affairs requiring frequent changes of address and economic/social realities benefit those who have fewer children later in life.
(continued)
(continued, last one promise)
Combine all this with more incidental "recreational" realities like the lessening stigma of promiscuity and rapidly-increasing "normality" of bisexuality – particularly in women – and your looking at a near-future where two folks settling down in one place for lifelong monogamy and raising a brood of children is as quaint as churning one's own butter.
MAYBE a semblance of traditional marriage will hang around for symbolism's sake – I can see "sex is not monogamous, but LOVE is" being a plausible motto for such a thing – but the bottom line is kind of ironic: Because they'll regard it as a hard-won prize, gays may eventually come to be (proportionately) more fond of marriage than straights are
I think you're falling into the "We're so much smarter than our ancestors" Liberal mindset here. Marriage has been around for thousands of years, yet you believe in your lifetime it's going to evaporate? The statistics show the opposite, with more people longing for monogamous relationships than during the 60's & 70's. You might be right, but it's just a guess on your part, so there's a much better chance you're wrong.
The thing that your argument misses (although only by a bit) is that every study known to man shows that kids do better in a family with one mom and one dad. This is never going to change because it's in our nature (whether you believe in God or Darwin). The entire point of marriage (besides encouraging people to settle down as you said) is to raise kids in a stable environment so they will advance society and care for their elders. I think it's going to take more than a few generations before there's no longer a need to do either.
This is what infuriates me. On one hand, you claim to care about gays and their rights. On the other hand, you seem perfectly willing to make them live without these rights for 10, 20, or even 30 years until you get what YOU think is appropriate. Who cares if we eventually end up with everyone being able to get married? We're not going to get it tomorrow, so what happens to those people who need protections?
Get passed what needs to be passed immediately, then take your time to get your Nirvana. It's stupid to say you are going to let people suffer until you get your way.
What does it mean to "differ" on gay marriage? Which of you civil rights would you deny to your gay BFF? You love your "best friend", but if her partner of thirty years dies suddenly, their children shouldn't be entitled to social security benefits? The dead partner's family can come in an take all of the property that they acquired jointly? Exclude her from her partner's deathbed?
"Differ" is simply a euphemism for taking away from others what I enjoy myself. This whole column is an exercise in "Some of my best friends are n***ers."
Are you kidding? Lynn Vincent has a long history of anti-gay writing. Check out the archives at World magazine. She thinks being gay is immoral, aberrant, deviant, etc. Fine. I grew up in the Pentecostal church, so I know the deal. Whatever. Just don't impose your moralistic religiosity on me or anyone else. We don't live in a theocracy. And as for those Founding Fathers you religious fundamentalists insist were Christians in the same vein as you allege to be: check your history. Most of them were Deists or Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists. And not only that: try living your lives by the words of Jesus. As for Prejean, there's not much to say. She's desperately trying to milk her 15 minutes of fame (Perez Hilton was the best thing that happened to her), and with those fake boobs, it should be easy to do. She's a lying, nasty idiot who has nothing to say. Bye-bye.
Conservatives love women who are "hott" on the outside and ugly on the inside.
It wasn't a coincidence that Miss California, from the state which voted for Prop 8, was asked about gay marriage by a gay judge at a national pageant run by gay men. Carrie was to be used as gay marriage's public spokesperson. She was groomed for the job by Lewis and Moakler, imo. But she "blew it". And because she had the guts to stand against these powerful gay men, they set about destroying her, as evidenced by the dirt TMZ keeps digging up on her in collaboration with many of California's pageant officials. If Carrie were to today, make a public announcement that she was wrong and now thinks gays should be able to marry, the persecution would cease and she would be hailed as a courageous, wonderful human being by all the media outlets.
[...] before the Palin book tour circus starts, I want to take a quick look at the article Lynn Vincent did for Andrew Briebart with Carrie Prejean. There is no way this was done prior to [...]
As a Christian role model, Carrie's sex tapes are also smoking hot. The gay mafia should be forced to view them and I'm sure some of those bad boys would go the other way. She is doing Jesus' work.
Lynn, how many masturbation tapes did Carrie make? I think she's a little out of touch with her sin.
Ms Prejean's opinion on gay marriage is not upsetting to me — she answered the question truthfully, albeit in awkward fashion ("opposite marriage"). What is troubling is Ms Prejean's claim of losing the pageant based on her interview question. The winner of the pageant, Miss North Carolina, won both the swimsuit and the evening gown competition, securing a first place finish.
The hypocrisy of Liberals is laughable. The party that has enshrined transgender as a special class of people think it is wonderful to humiliate a person for some rather innocent behavior. I mean, she did not behead anyone. She did not do things Dems would defend for anyone else but a pretty girl that doesn't seem to hate conservatives. I would imagine most libs mocking her have quite a few secrets they would not want aired on Larry King. She is basically a kid and she set herself up for this but spare me the phony indignation. Do you think a few of your dem heroes don't have some interesting sound or video recordings somewhere. The libs should attack her aguments for her beliefs and defend her right to a private life. I guess she better pick conservative boyfriends from now on because this Liberal Dem boyfriend she had could hardly be called a man. Hey Lib girts , would you like a boyfriend who spashes your intimate moments all over the media? Do you think he is the kind of guy you would like to depend on? Stop destroying people and defend your positions with facts and attack these personal assaults and the turd of human she once called a boyfriend.
"I think you're falling into the "We're so much smarter than our ancestors" Liberal mindset here."
Not smarter, just different.
"Marriage" HAS been around for thousands of years, and will probably be with us in one form or another for thousands more, but it's changed massively from time to time and culture to culture. "Traditional marriage" as we know it right now made sense for the time and culture that thought it up, but it's increasingly an ill-fit for the culture of our time. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad, but one way or another that's the trajectory of things.
"On the other hand, you seem perfectly willing to make them live without these rights for 10, 20, or even 30 years until you get what YOU think is appropriate."
Not so. I'm not looking to say "marriage or nothing," that's ridiculous. I think pro gay marriage activists ought to vote FOR Civil Unions if that's all their state is willing to allow for the time… I merely think that they shouldn't stop fighting for marriage at that point. It's basic strategy: Take the ground you can, while you can, but NEVER stop going for the primary target.
NewsBusters: My Interview with Carrie Prejean
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lynn-vincent/2009/11...
The Carrie Prejean Train of Gay Victimization is running on fumes of identity politics.
The real issue here is that Carrie sued the pageant people for religious discrimination; was called on it when the opposition showed the evidence that she had knowingly violated her contract which then lead to the final settlement.
Carrie is a victim of her own doing, the "gay mafia" actually wasn't involved.
For this to be spun as Carrie being victimized for speaking her mind on gay-marriage is to reinforce the myth that gay-marriage is an attack on traditional marriage.
[...] recently, her co-author, Lynn Vincent, interviewed the blogosphere’s dream girl Carrie [...]
"For this to be spun as Carrie being victimized for speaking her mind on gay-marriage is to reinforce the myth that gay-marriage is an attack on traditional marriage. "
You're spinning. If she had said she is a Christian in favor of gay marriage, her privacy would not be violated so often. She would not have had her confidential info about breast implants violated. Those folks would not be digging up her past- be it photos that they say are nude (when in actuality, they would not say the same for more risque photos on SI and Victoria's Secret). They would not be digging up what she does in private with her former BF. So the statements the "gay mafia" did nothing to her is BS. Their behaviour in trying to defame was thuggery in the worst. Try having all the things you did, think, and say, that you are ashamed of exposed for the whole world to see, and see how you would react.
And let's get real here- the pageant blatantly violated its own end. Attacking her publically right after the pageant for weeks on end? Throwing out to the public her breast implants? Is that part of the contract, too?
And in regards to religious discrimnation, it was Lewis who said right after the pageant, along with Perez, that she had no right to bring her religion and politics into the pageant. Except, that at the pageant, she said nothing about her religion. They attacked her over that because they knew what her religion is. They asked a question that does involve her views which are religious-based. So, in fact they did indeed discriminate against her over religion.
Not to mention Lewis did threaten to take her crown because she is part of the church that is against gay marriage. That happened early on before any of these things got revealed.
The idea the pageant did not discriminate, and that the "gay mafia" did not victimize her is your own myth.
She did not originate that claim. The judges did. Perez right after the pageant said she lost because is a b- for her answer. Shanna Moaker tried to have it both ways, saying she did not lose because of her answer, but because her answer lacked sensitivity she wanted (read: Moakler wanted her to say gays should have the same rights to marriage as others to marry whoever they want, regardless of gender). You have folks at the pageant making these statements. If those statements are false, the pageant should have made those folks apologize publically to Prejean for false statements and to the pageant for embarrassing it. Not standing by those folks. The fact Trump and the pageant stood by Perez Hilton the whole time takes away any credibility it cares about honoring contracts with those who are competing.
And liberals love those who are ugly both on the outside and on the inside. The ugliness is coming from liberals attacking Prejean.
Funny thing, those same liberals appealed to folks like Brittney Spears for examples of Bible believing Christians, on the issue of gay marriage, yet Spears is far more risque than Prejean ever was. So all this liberal bashing of Prejean for being a hypocrite in their eyes because she says she is a Christian yet has a less than stellar moral past (no Christian denies he or she is a sinner especially in the past and in the present) is HYPOCRISY AND UGLY ITSELF.
"And as for those Founding Fathers you religious fundamentalists insist were Christians in the same vein as you allege to be: check your history. Most of them were Deists or Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists. And not only that: try living your lives by the words of Jesus."
No, you check your history. If most of the founding fathers were Deists, Unitarians, etc., why the hell did they write in their own state constitutions that in order to vote and/or run for office, one must be a Christian, believe in the Old and New Testament, and at times even be of the Protestant faith. The only states that did not have that were Virginia and New York, and even they stated it is expected of citizens to live by Christian morality.
No, we don't live in a theocracy. But how the founders state things, you would be excusing them of precisely that.
And oh, the one person you can claim as unitarian (not deist as folks in error claim), Thomas Jefferson, himself wrote harsh draconian laws against polygamy, adultery, and homosexuality.
The founders also wrote in the NW Ordinance that religion and morality is necessarily to good government and shall be promoted forever, a statement Washington repeated in his Farewell Address.
"She's desperately trying to milk her 15 minutes of fame (Perez Hilton was the best thing that happened to her), and with those fake boobs, it should be easy to do. She's a lying, nasty idiot who has nothing to say. Bye-bye."
If she is an idiot, for her view on this, what does that make Obama and the Clintons for having the same views she does on this?
I still don't see where she lies. The libs keep saying she lies over and over because of the past photos. I laugh at them over that since given their past, none of them ever state those types are nudes or even semi-nudes. If she had been another model, without a view, it would be just like SI or Victoria's Secret, and I don't know of any liberal who ever complain that those are nude or semi-nude photos. I agree that Prejean falls into the cultural view that those photos are not nudes. I don't think she lied. And if there are private moments or photos she made that she regretted and don't want to be part of the public, they should have been destroyed, not exploited.
It does no good to state she is a poor Christian role model because she lied about her past. Most of us would not be as strong as you suggest to be in same boat she is in.
It is hard to retire when the whole liberal world keeps attacking her from day one. I don't blame her for feeling the need to keep defending herself. They were continually digging dirt on her NO MATTER WHAT SHE DOES, whether she stays in public eye or disappear from it.
She is a young Christian, growing. I don't expect her to be just suddenly change everything about her.
None of us are sinless even as Christians. We all have a lifetime to grow.
MB: Allow me to withdraw and rephrase. I ought've more-accurately said: "the girl has basically been cast as the pinup queen of traditional values since the pageant, and has made little to no effort to refuse said identification – rather, as it happens, she's made a career out of it."
Me: In actuality, conservatives did not do it first. Liberals like Perez Hilton, Shanna Moakler, and Lewis did that when they at the pageant and after for days and weeks on end call her a bigot and say she have no right to bring her religion, morality, and politics into the pageant. They casted her as such and then ridicule her and have the liberal media constantly ridicule her for that. Conservatives merely react to how she was treated. Period.
For all we know, outside of gay marriage, she could be a liberal Christian, with views of other issues along the same line of Obama and all that (I don't know, and I do wonder what her book will say on that, if any). But the attacks on her are scary, since any one of us could have our privacy violated for having a view asked of us in public like that.
I define criminal activity as against the law. If it is against the law, then to do it is criminal. Even if it gets you no jail time or no fine.
And you forget many states for most of our history have anti-sodomy laws. Originally, that would have meant in fact real punishment, even above and beyond misdemeanors. You should read Jefferson's idea of punishment for that was- and yes he wrote it into law, too. I dispproveof those past anti-sodomy laws by the way.
Obama's answer to the issue of gay marriage was same as Prejean's answer at the pageant, except in his answer, unlike her at the pageant, he did bring his Christian religion into it!
Just saying to back up your point.
Let's forget Moses' siblings objected to Moses' interracial marriage, and God punished His siblings for that.
It does not take away from the fact everywhere homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, it is unequivocally condemned.
I don't like Obama, but in this issue, he is not spineless. Him not doing anything to promote gay marriage is him actually standing behind his own views!!!!!
Does not matter. He stated that publically, if done by conservatives, would make them bigots in your eyes.
Funny thing, the Clintons did, too. Or was Bill signing the defense of marriage act political, too?
If it was agreed on before for King not to ask those questions, and she is not allowed legally to do so, then she is not being spoiled. King is for pestering her.
When she did those things, she had no idea she would be famous. Cut her a break. Many college kids do crazy things, including those who are conservative Christians.
She is not on my pedestal. I defend her becasue she does represent those the left would do to if it could. If they will do it to her, they will do it to the rest of us. I see her for what she is- just another believer struggling with sins but get them magnified by the left in ways liberal believers don't get.
She handled badly perhaps, but as best she could given her age and the circumstances. I would have been less than graceful than that and I am more than ten years older than her. And I bet most people if they were honest with themselves would admit to that as well.
" When it was pointed out to her that Prejean's opinions are EXACTLY the same as Obama's, she said that he was different because he really cared deep down, but was doing the politically necessary thing."
Agree with you there. By leftist logic, Prejean was doing the political thing for agreeing with most Americans. They cannot have it both ways.
"Except that not ALL of us "imperfect" people declare ourselves moral arbiters."
Except that with your posts, you are doing just that.
"If it was agreed on before for King not to ask those questions, and she is not allowed legally to do so, then she is not being spoiled. King is for pestering her."
If that was truly the case, then why did Prejean have no problems answering questions from Lynn Vincent in the very article we're commenting on?
I know she didn't realize she'd be famous when she made the tape. But, again, my opinions aren't about that, but about how's she's acted since she became famous and these things were revealed. One would think that Prejean would've at least considered what would happen if stuff like this tape got out, particularly since it didn't take long for the first pictures to come out after people started gunning for her (pictures which, admittedly, aren't any big deal).
What annoys me is that so many on our side seem willing to cut Prejean way too much slack, and also seem unwilling to entertain the idea that she's not doing herself or our side any favors in the manner that she's handling this. Look, it's clear I'm not going to change your mind, and that's fine. I just don't think Prejean has been very graceful through all of this, even given the double standard applied to conservatives/Republicans.
I thought this was a site for libertarians not republicans
role model in this case r.. o.. l.. e
too bad the other 7 videos weren't out at the time of this writing…OOOOPS…….miss christian vejayjay slipped up…..or just slipped….
"Principally (by sheer scale, anyway) Fundamentalist Islam, followed in-spirit by Fundamentalist Christianity."
It is laughable to paint the two together.Fundie Islam worldwide preaches hate and racism and jihad. Fundamental Christianity is against all these things.
Don't for one second imply that slavery is gay marriage's equal. Slavery was the forced subjugation of an entire race of people. Not a group of protestors pushing an agenda. You can't force tolerance. That causes a backlash. Eventually it will happen as the values of the day change, but for right now, angry protestors yelling the Mormons are evil is not helping your case AT ALL. I have a gay friend who says you folks make the gay community look bad.
I only ended up on this website by accident, but you are flat wrong on "no religion has ever locked favorably on gay marriage." In early Christian history, gay marriage was accepted (from 100AD-800AD), however, it was very minor and not common, which should not really be a surprise since we are talking about 1-5% of the population. In addition, some of the Native American tribes accepted homosexuals and regarded them as special because they were uncommon. Budhists, Daoists, several island cultures, and both the United Church of Christ, and the Unitarian Universalists are actively in favor same-sex marriage.
[...] to prove that Lynn is a hatefully homophobic racist, however, they exposed the awful truth: She has gay friends and relatives, and attends a megachurch with a black [...]
Do you really tihnk someone like Andy Sullivan wants to be married and be stricly tied to the same rules of marriage that males and females are?
Does he really want to be monogamous? Moral and just?
Bull. The gay lifestyle is largely about sex, in fact, they define themselves primarily by their sexual differences, it is a bigger part of their group identity than it is for Joe and Mary Homemaker.
The hetero swingers of the 70s were not mongamous, and probably largely NOT MARRIED. The gay swingers of current days don't want those rules of marriage, they want to be gay, they want anonymous sex, in fact, the gay groups get mad at the police for patrolling rest stops here in Michigan.
Facts, facts, facts and less BS.
[...] perfect storm: Carrie Prejean interviewed by the co-author of Sarah Palin’s new [...]
Divorce is responsible for the erosion of the family, not my partner and I calling our sacred vows, before God and State, "marraige".
You will fail to win this argument. Stop wasting our time with all your discriminatory efforts.
Because in my Christian faith, we would be married.
Why don't you respect my religious beliefs?
Here's one really large, public case from the last month. Stop pretending this discrimination doesn't exist. We see it, we feel it, our families experience it. Stop messing with our families.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/20...
No, she will continue to be the target of those who want freedom and equality to reign in America. The longer you hold up these bigots as role models, the easier our case is to win with rational Americans. I personally have changed the minds of dozens on this issue when I tell my story.
I always claim that those who oppose SSM don't know gay families and have never had the discussion, in a rational manner, with a gay family.
You defined marriage in 1996 with the Defense of Marriage Act. We merely want to repeal a 13-year-old law.
I don't understand your logic.
But we're here and we're not going away.
And we've already won this argument. YOu need to choose another target for your discrimination in America.
Or perhaps you could just learn from history and know that every source of discrimination ultimately fails.
You will fail.
Bill Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act (which, BTW, is the "definition" of marriage we will overturn) was a completely political act, and he (and the Act's author former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA)) have both come out in favor of repeal.
Please be honest.
Also – we all know where Pres. Obama stands on the issue. He supports gay marriage and had to dodge/lie about the issue in the campaign.
You lose.
Honey, Perez Hilton had nothing to do with Carrie Prejean's brain turning to mush.
Laws against gay marriage, however, destabilize my family in a way that you don't understand. We can talk about it if you'd care a civil discourse.
Conservatives always look like fools when they fight for generations to oppress other people under the laws of our country
then lose the legal battle in the end.
You will look foolish in a generation for being a homophobic bigot.
Your right to free speech stops at the point when you infringe upon my gay family's equal rights.
That's how the law works in America.
You can say all you want. You can't restrict my equal rights. That's all we're saying.
Please be honest.
"gay families". yeah. let's see how our population evolves with so many 'gay families'…two daddies, two mommies.. three parent families. as if we didn't have enough of a challenge with having strong family units before.
"…Bobby, do you have two mommies at home? two daddies? or are you stuck in the age of cavemen and have one of each?"
gay families. that's something to aspire to, huh? our country will be so f*d up.
here's hoping that California tumbles into the sea. that would be a great day for America.
came in a little late, didn't you? Disagree 100% with your assertions. Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman for the propagation of the species. Nothing you can say can change that which is unalterable. Therefore since your premise is fatally flawed you cannot 'win' anything.
Best to you and your partner, anyway…
[...] brings me to this Big Hollywood post by Sarah Palin’s co-author, Lynn Vincent. In attempting to defend her hilarious new [...]
"….t the thousands-of-years old practice of 1 woman + 1 man committed to each other for life …"
Except all the times and places when it has been 1 man and several women (including the Bible), and there are some places where it's been 1 woman and several men.
So it's ok to have gays around when they are teaching you how to walk a runway or you are "adopting" their ideas (ie, plagiarizing them) or when they write stuff you agree with. But, you don't want them to have the same rights you have and so many people take for granted? Then yes Lynn, you, and Carrie are huge homophobes. And, in a million years I don't think I would have ever said this, but Perez Hilton was right.
Your arguement is weak on the face of it. Your sister must have gotten the reasoning gene.
Basically, you are saying the equivalent of "I love black people. Everyone should own one." Or, "I have plenty of black friends. I just don't want them working at my kid's school."
You are disgusting person. I hope you and Carrie are very happy together.
Lefty, it won't take a generation.This will be sorted out in our favor in 10 years or less.
Obama has to lie to get votes from his Democrat constituents, including many gay supporters. You want me to believe that? You lose.
You must be logged in to post a comment.