Did Miss California, Carrie Prejean, lose the Miss USA pageant because of her answer to a question posed to her by an openly homosexual beauty pageant judge?
When one of the judges, the before mentioned gay Perez Hilton--put aside, for a moment, the question why he was a judge of the Miss USA contest--asked Miss California her opinion on gay marriage. Ms. Prejean answered the question straightforwardly: "I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman." This answer has been called "controversial" in almost every media outlet. Huh? Isn't this the opinion that the majority of Americans have as evidenced every time it has been asked at the polls?
Watch it for yourself and decide. Please pay attention to the look that the homosexual gives after the answer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMvviFbkf0
Many observers have speculated that Miss California's "controversial" answer on gay marriage cost her the title. Ms. Prejean herself endorsed that theory, and added: "I stated an opinion that was true to myself and that's all I can do." The afore mentioned homosexual judge, Perez Hilton, who posed the question, called her a "bitch," for which he later apologized. That was after having voted, of course. Perez has now retracted his apology, explaining that he really meant to call Miss California a c***. Which doesn't explain, of course, why an openly gay male was chosen to judge the Miss USA contest. I am sure you will all agree with me that the gay judge is a real class act.
Can someone please tell me why a homosexual male should be included on a panel that is judging a female beauty contest? Don't you find it a little ironic that a question from a gay man would decide a female beauty pageant? I am not making this stuff up. If she had lied in answering the question and answered using the left wing mantra instead she would have won. It looks like the liberal fringe has even taken control of female beauty pageants now. The moral decline and fall of the America I grew up in continues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
That was your idea of a straightforward reply!?
I can't believe she is being punished for strongly supporting "opposite marriage!"
She would have fit right in at the Tea Parties, in fact, she would have been one of the more articulate malcontents.
With respect to gay fashion show judges. Good grief, that is par for the course. What men work in high fashion? Not exactly Marlboro Men...
I think he was a jerk and am astounded that it is being portrayed otherwise.
If he did not want to hear her answer, why did he ask the question?
Having said that, it begs the issue M. McCain is talking about, which is perceived Conservative bias alienating many young people who have a different opinion about such things. I truly do not think most young people or many voters for that matter, understand what an open and accepting belief system true Conservativism involves.
Now, even liking and admiring Mark as I do, there is an undercurrent of hostility about Gay's in your post. (about time we argued, I am sure you are tired of Rich), which I am sure you will address. The point is that there is also a perceived undercurrent of hostility of Conservatives towards many social issues (I have commented on this before).
So let me, as a Conservative, take this a step further. I personally agree with Miss. CA's. opinion, however we must reach out to all Americans in both perception and reality and in this instance would support the domestic partnership needs for insurance and other legal issues.
I also acknowledge that this is in part unsatisfying ("why can't I marry someone I love").
Societies are made of tough choices.
Anyone know any G/L bloggers?
Socially liberal conservatives are called Libertarians. The GOP isn't Libertarian - they are essentially the "Christian Party" and they condemn those who stay home on Sundays, literally and figuratively.
I feel sorry for the Log Cabin Republicans. They will always be outcasts within the larger group.
I agree that Perez Hilton is a jerk. He is one of many celebrities that doesn't seem to warrant a moment of airtime.
Meghan McCain is adorable, but she should not be a spokesperson. She is not particularly bright or well spoken. There are many others that could better articulate her views. Most of them are Democrats.
If you perceived a hostitity towards all gays you are mistaken. Those that know me know that I have friends that are gay. My hostility is directed towards gay activists like Perez Hilton who act like everyone who disagrees with his views deserves to be put to death basically. Whatever happened to freedom of expression? Whatever happended to freedom of expressing one's religious beliefs? I thought these were tenants of the framework for this country? I do not find anywhere in the constitution or in the language of the framers that talks about gays having the right to be legally "married" as that term is defined. I am sick and tired of the so called liberal intelligentsia dictating to America what our views on issues sould be. I agree wholeheartedly with her statement. "Marriage" and all that the word implys should be between a man and a woman. This does not mean I am against domestic partnerships. But will never be enough for the gay community and Perez Hilton as he demonstrated in his vile video blogs after the pageant.
Rich, it was not a fashion show for designers, it was a female beauty contest.
I will be the first to say that I believe it is all right for every individual to perform whatever sexual acts they want to perform in the comfort of their own home, under their own roof with whomever or whatever they want. I believe this part of freedom.
The issue here is that the gay rights activists will never be satisfied until it is legal in every state in the US for gay couples to be married and have every right besides the biological ones that heterosexual couples have. In my opinion they see this as a way of washing away the self guilt stigma that they appear to have.
I thought that in this country it was a principle that when the people have spoken through the ballot box than that is the law. The gay marriage issue is one of many issues identified with the Democratic party that gets beaten at the ballot box by the majority on a consistent basis. But lo and behold the "ultra poor losers" and always have been "ultra poor losers" on the left sue in the courts instead of seeing that the people have spoken. They often find other liberal activist judges who then overturn the views of the majority of the voters. This is anti-American plain and simple.
Know addressing Jim's assertons further. The truth of the matter as demonstrated by the polling numbers is that the majority of conservatives and republicans are in favor of domestic partnerships. Even the majority of the so called religious right polled that way. I am sure that this is a big surprise to Rich since the left wing dinosaur media refuses to publicize this. However when you stretch the proposition to same sex marriage you get the opposite result.
However I will say with ultimate certainty that the Republican party is a lot closer to the Libertarian ideals than today's democratic Party. The Republican Party that was headed by the last Bush to be President was far from Libertarian but still a lot closer than the Democratic Party that is represented by our current President.
Mark ~
I have essentially surrendered to the gay movement. I mean, why not? As you say, they will never be satisfied with less than 100% enfranchisement, so why keep fighting it? Like you, I have nothing against them personally. I think they get a disproportionate share of media attention and it seems that half the writers in Hollywood are gay. They are much more passionate on the topic than all but the most right wing heterosexuals. I like to pick my battles and this one isn't worth fighting year in, year out. I'd like to move on.
What is the downside, really?
Rush Limbaugh (gasp) talks to lots of liberals, and most of it is gibberish. Things really happen when he debates with a good Conservative.
So, Mark, game on...a little.
Yes, while everything you said has validity, one cannot escape the perception that we (Conservatives) "just say no" to G/L issues. To be specific, we never follow up, marraige is between a man and woman with but we need to meet the needs in other ways of those who we as a society deny marraige.
Yes you talked about it, but no, it was not part of the original discussion.
This is no small thing, you add up the G/L population, those who have had an abortion, use marijuana and we have alienated a large segment of voters. Yes the media distorts our view point but we also give them a lot of ammunition.
Rich, is, well, as usual silly, no Conservatives are not a monolithic bunch of evangelicals (for example...me). But we have not been good at being inclusive yet traditional.
M. McCain...say what you want Richie, but you are not in the paper and we are not discussing your opinion of the future of a major political party (OK, we are be but most are not).
Jimmy -
Your instincts are Libertarian, however, you are very competitive and a team player. For now, the GOP is your team and you will dovetail your views as needed to support your team. Consequently, you often end up espousing incongruent and preposterous views. Toss in a heaping helping of obduracy and you have Planet Ganem.
I expect one day you will shuck the GOP and it's bible-thumping, anti-science base for the Rawles wing of the Libertarian Party. When that happens, it won't be so easy to pick apart your silly, discrepant arguments.
Taxes are your main concern without a close second and I do not expect that to change.
I put this one up a a sort of joke and it certainly found a life of its own. With all of the much larger issues affecting our country now I am not going to spend more time arguing about side issues that do or do not benefit certain minority segments of our society. I do understand that those that are personally affected by these issues are very passionate about them but in the end they pale in comparison to the economy and national security.
Post a Comment