Miss California: Carrie Prejean

[YouTube]

[Spurminator]

At least someone really spoke their mind. That's become less common over time. Yes, the venue was trifling, but it's good to see someone, anyone, dare to do something other than the routine banal regurgitation of what they are expected to say. Sure, her motives may have been less than idealistic. We've become a society ever ready to ferret out cultural heresy and condemn it. Or draw a penis and ejaculate outline on it.

I don't know. In many circles, what she said WAS a routine banal regurgitation of what she's expected to say. I know that if I was in front of a national audience and I DIDN'T say I believed marriage was between a man and a woman, I'd have some pretty uncomfortable family reunions and church lunches...

If it wasn't a publicity-obsessed bag with an agenda asking the question and docking her points, we never would have heard about this. If she makes the same response to the same question, but instead of Perez Hilton it's some other WGAF "celebrity," she probably wins the pageant. And so we'd have a Miss USA who took a "courageous" stand on her beliefs in the face of a rabidly PC culturewhere supposedly people can't express such beliefs, and aside from a few blog posts on gay advocacy websites nobody would care.

[JoeChalupa]

How long before she joins "Joe the Plumber" on the talking circuit? and her book comes out?

[Marcus Bryant]

I don't know. In many circles, what she said WAS a routine banal regurgitation of what she's expected to say. I know that if I was in front of a national audience and I DIDN'T say I believed marriage was between a man and a woman, I'd have some pretty uncomfortable family reunions and church lunches...

Sure. She didn't say what was expected in that venue. I don't know, I guess I'm more offended when someone tells me what they think I want to hear.

[Spurminator]

If in that venue you mean in response to Perez Hilton, I agree, but I think she toed the typical beauty pageant "God and Country" line pretty loyally.

[Marcus Bryant]

Anyone have the responses of the other contestants to that query?

[PixelPusher]

Anyone have the responses of the other contestants to that query?

Don't have the youtube link anymore, but each contestants had a different question. They were equally brilliant in their responses.

[Summers]

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

Just like I do not object to there being gyms which are for women only or the fact that I as a female cannot get a haircut at Sports Clips, which is a salon for men only, I feel that marriage as an ins ution ought to be reserved only for one man and one woman.

I don't feel that the same sexes should marry. I also do not feel that men should have mulitiple wives.

As far as legal rights for homesexuals go, I am more liberal than you might expect.

I believe as a citizen, sexuals have the right to chose to live together, to purchase property together, to share a phone plan, visit each other in the hospital as a family member, and even to adopt kids, although I do not support the latter practice. ( I believe kids ought to be raised by a male father and a female mother.)

The bottom line is I view marriage as a privilege and one ought to be extended to adult heterosexuals only.

Angel, you and I disagree on a lot, but because we're friends, I hope you know that this is meant as intellectual prodding and not an attack.

A lot of people say they have no problem with gays having the right to have civil unions and the same rights as the rest of us, when it comes to making medical decisions, making end of life decisions, inheriting property, sharing bank accounts, etc. Doesn't that just make this argument one of semantics? Is it the word "marriage" that gays can't have? As for adoption, I have a cousin who's a social worker for CPS and he says within the foster care system, gay fostering/adoption has become a nonissue. I suppose I share his opinion that any loving adult who wants to make a commitment to a child should be allowed to do so.

I guess I also disagree that marriage is a privilege, rather than a right. Violent criminals are allowed to marry. Minors are allowed to marry. We heterosexuals are allowed to marry strangers, get married as many times as we want, have as many children as we want (in or out of marriage). I know some people mock those of us who believe this is a civil rights issue, but 60 years ago, in some states, marriage was a privilege for people marrying within their own race, and those who wanted to marry interracially were warned that their children would grow up confused and outcast.

[Jacob1983]

In order to make everyone happy, a person should be allowed to marry whomever they want. Gays and straight people shouldn't be the only ones that are allowed to get married. If we are going to talk about equal rights and making everyone happy, then there should be no limitations to marriage.

[ChumpDumper]

We're not talking about making everyone happy.

[Jacob1983]

So people that have incestuous relationships and nonmonogamous relationships are basically out of luck if they want to get married.

[ChumpDumper]

Yep.

The civil union option seems workable, but honestly I haven't given it a lot of thought.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I'm curious as to who, exactly, has been intolerant of her comments in this thread. I disagree with them, quite vehemently, but recognize her freedom to express her opinion.

In fact, thinking back on my own comments here, all I've said about Miss California at all is that she's dumb and that her comments weren't particularly courageous. The rest of the comments here from "the left" have been quite clear in expressing that she's en led to her own opinions.

Didn't really bother to read the whole thing. This was more about people like Perez who called her a because of what she said, Garafolo or whatever her name is saying anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist, etc.

We used to have some great discussions on this board but it's turned into a microcosm of our country over the last 6-10 months - you're pretty much way on the left or way on the right and there's little in between.

I'm sure some knucklehead will call me a hypocrite for saying that, and fine - I'm guilty of it too, but what can I say - people like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have pushed me way more to the right than I'd like to admit.

But back to this thread, again, I just think it's lame as crap when people like Perez preach tolerance, acceptance, etc. but your opinion only matters if you agree with them. If you disagree, you're a bigot/ /racist/whatever.

Gimme a break.

[Dim Tuncan]

Good for her. Nice to see a well adjusted, Conservative, normal and heterosexual (the latter two are redundant, I know) woman stand up to the choicers and their liberal enablers.

[Jacob1983]

So should incestuous and nonmonogamous relationships be allowed to have civil unions?

[ChumpDumper]

Nah. I'm fine with drawing the line at monogamous gays.

[Marcus Bryant]

Incestuous? No. The potential health problems of offspring warrants the restriction, not to mention that one generation of imbeciles is enough.

Polygamy? I don't see why not. The notion of human relationships as being between two adults is nearsighted and discriminatory. Polygamy has been practiced throughout human history and is accepted in other countries this very day. We need to broaden our horizons as a society.

[JoeChalupa]

I have no issues with what she said and Perez Hilton is the one who handled it badly. She is now the GOP's babe and Palin better step it up and get her Defense Fund moving asap.

[ploto]

I really do think that for many people it is the use of the word marriage.The fact that the word gay has to be placed in front of it to communicate what is meant, in a sense, supports the claim that it is not the proper terminology.

[coyotes_geek]

I really do think that for many people it is the use of the word marriage.The fact that the word gay has to be placed in front of it to communicate what is meant, in a sense, supports the claim that it is not the proper terminology.

I agree. I always thought the "civil union" concept was a fair compromise. I personally don't care what it's called, but I do recognize that the word "marriage" has strong religious implications to a lot of people. I know people who believe that any ceremony outside of a church is a civil union and not a marriage.

IIRC the gay marriage ban Texas passed, which included verbage about not allowing civil unions or any other terminology, made it by something like a 75-25 vote. It would be interesting to know what the results would have been if the vote was to prohibit the use of "marriage" but allow civil unions. This being Texas I'm sure it still would have passed, but by what margin?

[Winehole23]

I agree. I always thought the "civil union" concept was a fair compromise. I personally don't care what it's called, but I do recognize that the word "marriage" has strong religious implications to a lot of people. I know people who believe that any ceremony outside of a church is a civil union and not a marriage.

If I recall my Wm. Maitland, it did not originally. In fact it was so hard to get people to church to do it, that Roman Catholic dogma was eager to sanctify words exchanged in private or mere promises as valid marriages. But this is a quibble. Within the more immediate historical frame, you are surely correct.

IIRC the gay marriage ban Texas passed, which included verbage about not allowing civil unions or any other terminology, made it by something like a 75-25 vote. It would be interesting to know what the results would have been if the vote was to prohibit the use of "marriage" but allow civil unions. This being Texas I'm sure it still would have passed, but by what margin?

I do not share your certainty that it would, but it could be sold as legislation to ban gay marriage even though in effect it installs a back door.

I foresee religio-populist outrage over the back door privileges, but perhaps this outrage is no longer dispositive in Texas.

[Winehole23]

Sound off, Spurstalk.

Yea or nay: a bill banning gay marriage, but establishing civil unions?

Qua citizen, WH23 objects on the grounds of religious freedom and for the record inclines to Marcus Bryant's view that there is no longer any compelling state interest in marriage, and that the ins ution in the future might well fall under liberty of contract.

Qua believer, WH23 rues the desacralization of marriage and fears the exotic forms a more libertarian conception may take.

But WH23 votes as a citizen.

Nay to banning gay marriage. (Yea to releasing marriage from state control. I confused myself on this one)

[Bender]

Bigotry Forum.

someone should move yours to the Dumb Ass Posts Forum

[angel_luv]

Angel, you and I disagree on a lot, but because we're friends, I hope you know that this is meant as intellectual prodding and not an attack.

A lot of people say they have no problem with gays having the right to have civil unions and the same rights as the rest of us, when it comes to making medical decisions, making end of life decisions, inheriting property, sharing bank accounts, etc. Doesn't that just make this argument one of semantics? Is it the word "marriage" that gays can't have? As for adoption, I have a cousin who's a social worker for CPS and he says within the foster care system, gay fostering/adoption has become a nonissue. I suppose I share his opinion that any loving adult who wants to make a commitment to a child should be allowed to do so.

I guess I also disagree that marriage is a privilege, rather than a right. Violent criminals are allowed to marry. Minors are allowed to marry. We heterosexuals are allowed to marry strangers, get married as many times as we want, have as many children as we want (in or out of marriage). I know some people mock those of us who believe this is a civil rights issue, but 60 years ago, in some states, marriage was a privilege for people marrying within their own race, and those who wanted to marry interracially were warned that their children would grow up confused and outcast.

We are friends and I greatly like and respect you. True though that we do disagree on a few things.

For me marriage is a sacred thing- something I will one day enter into solemnly with my spouse before God.

I believe that God ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman and I want to protect that sanc y.

Marriage to me is not just an agreement with the state, it is also a covenant with God.

Like Carrie Prejean said, it is my goal to be Biblically accurate, not politically correct.
I have to stand up for what the Bible defines as God's model for marriage and family- that a man will marry one woman and that children should follow marriage not preceed it.

I cannot in good conscience support sexuals marrying each other or adopting kids because I feel that is contrary to what God desires.

However, I have no interest in fighting over the more practical issues such as property ownership, insurance etc.
People who are common law are afforded certain benefits. And I think it would be hypocritical of me to deny sexual people the rights of a common law couple.
And I am not trying to deny them those.

My point is that, for me and those who share my faith, marriage is a sacred thing.
I don't think it is fair that I be considered a bigot because I cherish marriage as something special between one man and one woman and want to see it sustained as such.


Furthermore, I feel that by insisting on redefining marriage, it is the sexual community, who is being unreasonable.
What rights of the sexual is not accomplished through a civil union?

[ChumpDumper]

If they have separate drinking fountains, they still have drinking fountains.