As you watch the Carrie Prejean brouhaha unfold, you might be saying to yourself, “Hold on a second, Self. Doesn’t this young lady have the same opinion about gay marriage as President Obama? Why is a beauty pageant contestant getting raked over the coals for this, being called every name in the book and having her private life strewn all over the media landscape, but they’re giving the leader of the free world a pass? Doesn’t he have a little more power and influence over the issue than she does?”
If that is indeed that you’re thinking, you’re not alone. ABC’s Jake Tapper asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about it the other day:
TAPPER: Does the president or the White House have a reaction to the governor of Maine signing a same-sex marriage bill?
GIBBS: No, I think the president’s position on same-sex marriage is — has been talked about and discussed.
TAPPER: He opposes same-sex marriage?
GIBBS: He supports civil unions.
TAPPER: Does that mean that he’s going to say or do anything against what the citizens of Maine did — did today?
GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of. I think the president believes this is an issue that’s best addressed by the states.
If this is substantively different than what Prejean said, somebody please explain it to me. “We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite[-sex] marriage,” she noted, before revealing that she disagreed with the same-sex variety. For which she is an evil, gay-hating demon. Whereas Obama thinks the states should be able to choose as they see fit, but personally he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. For which he is a friend to gays everywhere, and indeed to all of humanity.
Why isn’t Obama getting called out? U.S. News & World Report’s Robert Schlesinger thinks he knows:
The answer lies in tone and nuance.
It is true that Obama’s position is that marriage is “between a man and a woman” and that he is “not in favor of gay marriage.” That said, he articulately advocates for the rights of gay couples on things like hospital visitation. See here, for example, starting at about 1:06: “When I sit down and read scripture and I think how would Jesus feel about somebody not being able to visit someone they love when they’re sick, I conclude that that is something that’s important.”
Has Carrie Prejean stated any opposition to hospital visitation rights for gay couples? Is she against civil unions? Or are we just assuming so, since she’s all right-wingy and stuff? Well, the important thing to remember is that Prejean is bad for giving her honest, direct opinion when asked for it, whereas Obama is good because he’s “nuanced” (AKA vague and diversionary). Makes sense. Why would gay folks want straight answers?
Although acccording to the New York Times, some gay-rights activists are getting impatient with him:
Social issues like same-sex marriage bring together deeply held principles and flashpoint politics, and many gay activists, aware that Mr. Obama is also dealing with enormous challenges at home and overseas, have counseled patience.
But some are unsettled by what they see as the president’s cautious approach. Many are still seething over his choice of the Rev. Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor who opposes same-sex marriage, to deliver the invocation at his inaugural, and remain suspicious of Mr. Obama’s commitment to their cause.
In the words of David Mixner, a writer, gay activists are beginning to wonder, “How much longer do we give him the benefit of the doubt?”
At least they’re not calling him a “dumb bitch” yet.
But hey, you don’t really care about any of that, right? You’re looking for some of those topless shots of America’s most prominent opponent of gay marriage. And you’re in luck. Wooooo! Nothin’ gay about that, people.
Related posts:
- Carrie Prejean: WWII Was Fought To Protect My Opinions Grandmaster Trump has decided that Carrie Prejean will keep her...
- Forget Those Nudie Photos: Carrie Prejean Has a Sex Tape Former Miss California and “opposite marriage” morality advocate Carrie Prejean...
- Carrie Prejean: Naked on the Internet, Of Course There’s been such a firestorm of commenting on Carrie Prejean’s...
- Carrie Prejean Admits to Hannity That Her Sex Tape Exists In the course of promoting her new tell-all memoir, ex-Miss...
- Gay Rights Groups Cheer President Obama’s Public Support for Same-Sex Marriage Whoops, did I say President Obama? I meant former Vice...
No, no…Barack Obama gets a pass on everything because…well…just because! He’s The One, after all!
I think Simon…is a RACIST! Racist, whitebread cross-burning square-dancing flat-assed cracker hatemonger! I bet you watched “Hee Haw” AND “Lawrence Welk” when you were a kid! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!
As for Obama and the press: Hypocritical sacks of crap, to a man. Or woman.
I find this rather funny and always have when Obama has stated his opinion on this matter. One of his biggest supporters and stalker is Mario “Perez” himself. Yet, he barely gets on The One’s case about this very matter. Just the fact that any one who opposes gay marriage should be stoned to death. I agree, the press is the most hypocritical about this because they refuse to report the facts or anything bad about Obama.
The modern LEFTISTS are demonstrating just why their brief periods of power remain…brief. And yes, I am talking to you allegedly “intellectual” or “reasonable” LEFTISTS here on Deceiver that like to talk about how cosmopolitan and engaging you are and interested in dialog with the right you profess to enjoy while masses upon masses upon masses of you remain embarrassingly silent when your own viciously engaged in “moralphobic” and “christophobic” hate speech against Prejean.
Trust me LEFISTS, your own are cooking up a good pot of poison with the political extremes of Obama all the way to the media and social extremes like this that the collective conscience of America is going to vomit come 2012.
Next Please!
The press and ugly people like Hilton are villifing Prejean because they can. She is an easy target, and lets face it…it is sacreligious to point out the obvious “sins” of the chosen one.
G.A.T. – quite a well written rant.
Thank you, I take pride in my rants, heh heh.
Shucks, I’ll let you in on a little secret.
Gays know that Obama is lying about his opposition to Gay Marriage just so he can run for re-election. They’re willing to let him lie … because they know he’s going to do everything he can (without saying so) to aid them in their cause.
Politicians are liers. OMFG! You’re kidding me!
Now that sounds like a thing that is definitely going to happen.
“articulately advocates”…. what the f*ck?!? Obama isn’t articulate with anything he says. His whole manner of speaking is design to confuse and confound so those that don’t pay attention hear what they want to hear and those that do pay attention have no f*cking clue what he actually believes. A dangerous fraud of a man.
Obama is the c*nt here, not this poor woman.
And I don’t buy for a second that he sits and reads scripture.
If you have something to hide like Prejean did, it’s always better to avoid negative attention, no matter what it is. I’m not blasting her for stating her opinion, but the fallout isn’t exactly a surprise. And Hurricane, I totally agree with your asessment of Obama.
I think we can legitimately believe that everything Obama says or does between now and December 2012 is calculated to get him re-elected. After all, isn’t that a politician’s job?
But won’t gay marriage inflame the Arab street, making terrorists out of peaceful folks, and offend traditionalists around the world?
Hurricane, Spot on! “Cinco de Quatro” to name a few….
Sadly, you’re right. It’s now standard operating procedure for dealing with thoughtcrime.
Simon-
You really don’t see a difference between a woman that is actively campaigning against gay marraige by joining NOM and someone who supports states rights to allow marriage equality? Those are the same things to you?
You really don’t see the difference between excoriating a beauty pagaent contestant and turning a blind eye to the most powerful man in the free world who shares the same opinion? Between the two of them, which one has more power to actually change anything?
And do you think she’d have joined NOM if she wasn’t being attacked? Or that anyone would care if she did?
It really doesn’t matter what side of any issue a person is on. Once that opinion is out of someone who is moderately famous, it gets used against them. If she’d been crowned winner, though, and had never been asked the infamous question, I think those pictures would have still come out. Those things always have a way of surfacing sooner or later, whether someone is really digging or not. Given the internet culture of today, few secrets of that type are safe.
But the most powerful man in the free world supports gay marriage in the states and hasn’t excoriated family values while getting breast implants and doing nudes? It seems like you are more interested in advancing your agenda than actually exposing hypocrisy.
I think its terrible that Barack doesn’t support gay marriage federally. But his behavior is nowhere similar to Carrie’s.
BTW Perez Hilton is a worthless sack of shit. But that doesn’t excuse her hypocrisy. If you are going to espouse family values and force your family values on others you better have a clean house.
Amory – Who has more power this woman or the President? Who’s opinion do you really care about? Who’s really matters?
It is funny you state that the Presidents position is that he “supports states rights to allow marriage equality…” Because you can also say he supports states rights to condemn marriage “equality” (what the hell does that mean anyway?).
“But the most powerful man in the free world supports gay marriage in the states …”
Did you totally miss the California elections?
Lets give you a little quote from the bygone era of the elections…
Here is a little quote from your gay marriage supporter….
“I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.”
http://www.queerty.com/obama-prop-8-unnecessary-but-doesnt-believe-in-gay-marriage-20081103/
Go to a lefty site. You will see how they get around that. Obama lied to get elected. Don’t ask, don’t tell is the law, as the President he can’t just sign something to make it go away. It isnt his fault. He really wants to change things, but the evil Republicans wont let him.
If anybody wants to try to decipher this sentence, be my guest.
It seems like you are more interested in impugning the motives of those you disagree with than actually talking about the facts. Good day.
What wasn’t to understand?
Barack Obama supports gay marriage when approved by states, like Maine. He opposed Proposition 8.
Carrie has attacked gay marriage in the name of “family values” while getting pictured in in the nude, with her new breast implants.
It seems to me the hypocrites here are miss “family values” Carrie and people like Perez Hilton who attack her but don’t bring up the fact that President Obama hasn’t supported full marriage rights either.
But unfortunately you aren’t interested in Carrie’s hypocrisy because you have an agenda.
amory:
Where, exactly, has she excoriated family values? She’s a Christian, and a model. Just because she has participated in photography that glorifies the human form doesn’t make her a bad person. Just because her pageant paid for her to receive implants doesn’t make her a bad person. Do you KNOW how many women get implants under the urging of their boyfriends/husbands???? I personally know quite a few – as well as women who felt inadequate with the package God gave them, so augmented it.
Look at art through the ages. Some of the loveliest and most famous (Venus de Milo anyone) are much more explicit than Ms. Prejean’s photos. The photos are just being used against her by the moralizing Left to try to incite rage against her by the moralizing Right, and in the process destroy her. The fact that she is sticking by her guns and even getting stronger and more popular is just infuriating them.
BTW, I, too, am a Christian. I’m also an artist. I believe that the human form, created by God, is one of the most beautiful things in Creation and have both painted and drawn nudes. The type of pictures Ms. Prejean participated in can be seen in almost any lingerie catalog. If you’re looking for slutty, try Penthouse or Hustler.
That was a mistype. I meant, excoriated gay marriage in the name of family values.
For What it’s worth, most people can’t name last year’s Miss America. Or even this year’s winnah. While Carrie Prejean is getting wonderful publicity. And, support. And, people now know her name!
Where she stands to lose? Depends. But I’ll bet the dying magazine industry wouldn’t stoop so low as to block her modeling opportunities. But ya gotta weigh this one. How much is last year’s Miss America winnah raking in? I thought so.
Carrie Prejean is way ahead of the curve! And, Donald Trump has figured out that the Miss America contest, now judged by homosexuals, while the audience has always been middle-Americans; has hit its own speed bumps. If Carrie Prejean can hold onto her own publicity wave this year? By next year Trump will envy what NOT getting the crown means.
While saying he’s against gay marriage. It’s preferable to try to have it both ways than to pick an opinion and stick with it?
Explaining what one has to do with the other would be a good start. Unless she got naked and put in new boobs to try to make people gay, I’m not seeing the hypocrisy.
Okay, this should be good. Please tell us more. What’s my agenda? Let’s hope your definition of the word is more accurate than what you think “excoriate” means.
Once you decide to enter the political arena you are subject to the same rules (or lack thereof) as everyone else.
She didn’t decide to enter the political arena. She was pushed. On live TV.
“Shucks, I’ll let you in on a little secret.
Gays know that Obama is lying about his opposition to Gay Marriage just so he can run for re-election. They’re willing to let him lie … because they know he’s going to do everything he can (without saying so) to aid them in their cause.
Politicians are liers. OMFG! You’re kidding me!”
So what you’re saying is that the left views the LGBT community as nothing more than political cannon fodder. If we at all nice and sweet while he trashes us, he’ll eventually come around. Nice to know.
I’m still trying to figure out why I should care about some beauty queen, and stick my fingers in my ears and scream “la-la-la-la” when it comes to Obama.
Oh, yeah. My March Madness package came in yesterday. Thanks guys!
Again, I say, I don’t care about her views on gay marriage. She’s entitled to her own opinion and to be honest about it. What I DO care about is her being a lying skank. :/ That’s separate from her religious views. I’d be just as annoyed at her if she was openly atheist.
She was asked a question on live TV. She became NOM’s spokesperson of her own volition.
When they came for Joe the Plumber I didn’t say anything because I wasn’t a plumber.
By the time they came for me there was no one left to say anything.
I think it’s funny in strange way how the argument has turned from changing the meaning (definition) of marriage from a man and woman joining together to become husband and wife, to defending gay marriage as if it once existed in the United States and it was taken away.
It is my understanding that dictinaries are now including man, man unions and female, female unions as “marriage” so in fact the argument will soon become exactly that. What already exists is much harder to stop or overturn than something that is not. It is really a brilliant stradegy and with the help of the judicial system has become a reality. Kind of through the “back door” (pun intended).
What I want to know is where the rest of the picture’s at
Hiding such beauty from the eyes of a reader with no life is just…wrong. *saves the picture in Holly’s post* Ahhh…
Prejan Defends: Some Photos Photoshopped … Her Head … Not Her Body. While Donald Trump says, “Not Extremely Bad … Shows Only One Thing … She is Beautiful.”
Watch, http://tinyurl.com/q9jozx
I am heartily sick and tired of seeing liberals destroy people for speaking their mind or for the most momentary of political advantages – or just for the sake of making a chicken$#!t political point of argument! – and then sneering “If you have something to hide, you shouldn’t speak out.” Or attack families and friends of people they don’t like for the same excuse.
And we’re seeing it again from a few of the commenters in this thread.
I’ve had it with the “fair game” excuse. I suspect a great many other people in this country feel the same way, and are fed up with the double standards and the Left’s constant use of the politics of personal destruction. That’s all liberals stand for anymore, hatred, the ruthless pursuit of political power and the desire to crush anyone who disagrees with them by any means necessary.
One of these days, to their and the country’s great misfortune, liberals are going to learn the hard way that “fair game” works both ways.
If I recall correctly, she didn’t just volunteer this opinion on a whim.
She was ASKED A QUESTION by a judge, and she answered it.
She made the mistake of treating his question as if he truly wanted her honest opinion (as opposed to merely endorsing his positions and fawning all over them).
These people have an attitude of “If we ask you a question in a public forum, you damned well better respond the way we want you to; or else, we’ll destroy you”.
-
Just because people disagree with Ms. Prejean does not mean they turn a blind eye to Obama’s faults. And while Ms. Prejean did not say she is against civil unions, she didn’t say she was for them either. At least he did do that. I can see why he’d get a little more slack. I’m sick of being told what a monster I am because I genuinely think this person is a hypocrite and voice my disagreement with her “beliefs”. Everyone says “SHE HAD A RIGHT TO SAY IT! Aren’t we Americans?” Yes, we have free speech, and luckily, MY speech is covered by that too. Seems YOU’RE the hypocrites for saying “FREE SPEECH” and then slandering anyone who continues to voice their disagreement with this woman.
I mean, really, its as if everyone on the anti-”anti carrie” bandwagon thinks we’re all just crucifying her because we don’t agree with her. I’m sorry, are we not allowed to speak anymore?
And right wingers, will you once and for all decide if you’re the beleagured minority or the strong vast majority in this country? I’ve heard both arguments in this issue all the damn day long. You can’t have it both ways and say “OOOooh I’m being persecuted for my beliefs which are OBVIOUSLY the majority of the country’s beliefs!” How does that work, again?
PS Where or where DID that contrived Wikipedia page you solicited run off to…?
Just as much as its her right to spew out the pathetic tripe that she did, its within MY rights to rip her to shreds verbally for it. I don’t like her opinion, and I don’t have to stay silent and stifle my own opinion because “OMG let’s all feel sorry for the homophobic skank that broke the rules.” If HER free speech is protected then SO IS MINE.
If any of you really believed that no one should be persecuted for their opinions…then you wouldn’t be whining about the slander directed towards Carrie Prejean.
I still don’t really understand who the hypocrite is here? Your agenda is a defense of Carrie because you agree with her views. She has chosen to become a spokesperson advocating for the denial of equal marriage rights on the basis of morality. Why isn’t her morality relevant? You would think someone who exposes hypocrites for a living (or at least as an avocation) would get that.
That’ll be quite a gotcha when I start digging into your past, and even your parents’ pasts if I can find something, to get back at you for expressing your opinion.
You say things that have no relation to what’s really going on, but at least you’re self-righteous about it.
Which she wouldn’t have done if she hadn’t been asked the question and been attacked for her answer. You do see the connection there, right?
Incorrect. I disagree with her views; I also disagree with the methods being used to punish her for expressing those views, and the double standard at work in turning a blind eye to “gay-friendly” Obama when he says the same thing as she did.
I guess my tuner just isn’t sensitive enough to pick up the hypocrisy of getting breast implants even though you don’t think gay marriage is such a good idea. Do you walk to work or bring your lunch?
So you’re saying that Perez Hilton forced her to take up with NOM and their crazy agenda. Despite not knowing how she feels about civil unions or gay adoption.
http://www.queerty.com/carrie-prejean-doesnt-have-answers-about-civil-unions-gay-adoption-20090501/
I just wish we would stop making such a big deal about this, and not because of Prejean. I am just sick of the people like that horrible judge who asked the questions, raked her over the coals for it and then went on a tv show to call Prejean all kinds un-necessary names.
If he doesn’t like what his fellow citizens of California voted for…move to a different location.
And you’re saying he has nothing to do with it.
Okay, so she hasn’t spoken out against them. There’s even less sunlight between her opinion and Obama’s than I thought.
explainer
“Gays know that Obama is lying about his opposition to Gay Marriage just so he can run for re-election. They’re willing to let him lie … because they know he’s going to do everything he can (without saying so) to aid them in their cause.”
I’m going to let you in on something.
He throws a lot of people, who are liabilities, under the bus. If pushing gay marriage won’t help Obama (or worse, is going to hurt him), all this ‘without saying so doing everything he can’… won’t happen. Sucka.
Ugh, while it is your right to disagree with her, and no one is asking you or any one to stifle their opinion, I don’t see where it is right to try to bring that person down merely because you don’t agree with them. Ripping their opinion to shreds is a lot different than searching the internet to find pictures or any other skeletons in their closet.
It seems here that it is not only ok to disagree but it is ok to look into their past to find anything that will hurt them. I don’t recall that being part of a debate.
As far as Obama, states rights and civil unions go, until the feds recognize gay marriage it will never be the same as traditional or “straight” marriage. Just because a state says you are married, you still won’t get the federal tax equivilant of a traditional marriage. Personally I think all couplings should be civil unions and those who choose to be “married” can have a religious ceremony with no greater rights than a civil union.
I’m saying at best she’s uninformed. As such, she shouldn’t be fronting for an activist group that wants to ban not just gay marriage but also civil unions and gays’ rights to fertility treatments.
As for Obama, there are plenty of liberals who aren’t too impressed by his stance. I voted for him anyway in part because at least there seems to be the possibility of him changing his mind (see also: his support of No on Prop 8), which couldn’t be said for the McCain/Palin ticket. So the argument that all of us LEFTISTS are busy condemning Prejean while salivating over Obama’s godly perfection is a bit of a stretch.
amory
“But the most powerful man in the free world supports gay marriage in the states”
I’ve read a couple of your posts and I think you’re making a logic error and or a unjustified leap in it.
Supporting the rights of states to… have the right… to decide the issue… is not the same as “supporting gay marriage in the states”. He said (if we believe him) that he does not support gay marriage (period). Which to me means, whether at the state or federal level. He just would conceed the states have a right to decide the issue. But back to considering his view on it, that would mean he would hope they decided against it.
Could be. And I’m saying that she wouldn’t be, or if she did nobody would care, unless she was being targeted and having her whole life upended and sorted through for expressing the same opinion as Obama. Not to mention the voters of the state she’s representing.
What is this opinion of McCain/Palin’s gay marriage stance based on? As I recall, they disagreed on it.
I don’t recall saying you’re a leftist, or that leftists are doing anything. Are you really saying you don’t see a double standard here?
No, you’re right, you didn’t. That was a jab at the manifesting hysteria over how the LEFTISTS are ruining the country.
And I can’t argue that no one would have any idea what her opinion was on gay marriage had she not been asked that question. But she was, and yes, Perez made a big stupid stink about it that did more harm than good. I’ll even agree that she was backed into a corner. But what she did next was ill advised — taking up with NOM just threw fuel on the fire. I’d wager most people see them as fear-mongering alarmists.
If Obama were suddenly to start stumping for NOM or a similar group, you better believe I’d be out there screaming bloody murder.
“And right wingers, will you once and for all decide if you’re the beleagured minority or the strong vast majority in this country? I’ve heard both arguments in this issue all the damn day long. You can’t have it both ways and say “OOOooh I’m being persecuted for my beliefs which are OBVIOUSLY the majority of the country’s beliefs!” How does that work, again?”
Funny; I’ve been waiting for liberals to decide that very issue for many, many years. “Right-wingers” are either deluded, nutcase minorities (when liberals have–or THINK they have–the upper hand) or a monolithic, flag-wavingly oppressive majority (when liberals feel cornered). The only people I know who switch-hit that fluidly are Andy Dick and Lily Tomlin.
“For which she is an evil, gay-hating demon.”
Thank you once again, Mr. Scowl, for giving me my lol for today.
Interesting. Gay marriage best left to the states. Abortion? That’s a Constitutional issue about privacy rights that can’t be left to the states.
darek May 8th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
The reason she is being raked across the coals is that her answer was the result of her “Christian upbringnig” (that’s fine, everyone has a right to be wrong) but then was found to have posed semi-nude – something people with Christian upbringings are not supposed to do. And that’s not opinion, it’s simply following scripture (clearly posing for nude magazines isn’t written as a no-no in the Bible but being modest and covered up, if you’re a woman, is).
_________________________________________________
So according to the *LEFTIST Super-Genius Dumb@ss Handbook, if someone has failed to follow their personal belief system in a flawless manner, it invalidates any and all other beliefs or practices to which he or she holds or the expression and/or articulation of such. Which of course according to the LEFTIST Super-Genius Dumb@ss Handbook invalidates the belief systems of all citizens making all humans unqualified to speak on any moral, ethical or consequential matter. Way to go you **LEFTIST Super-Genius Dumb@ss.
* Coined by Guy Arthur Thomas
** Coined by Guy Arthur Thomas
Next Please!
Good point, Rocko.
And I, along with Simon, am very confused why Carrie suddenly doesn’t have the “right” to talk about family values. Apparently I cannot take sexy pictures for my husband anymore, because in case they somehow are gotten a hold of by the public, I lose my right to advocate decency? What?
WHEW. Good thing hate, bitterness and self-righteousness are the province of right-wing Christians.
If “right-wingers” are such a minority, how did Prop 8 fail in one of the most liberal states in the US?? Voters have yet to approve gay marriage. It’s all through the courts, stacked with liberals by Clinton. Also, since no one in the mainstream media will point it out, the Democrat party is also shrinking… because Republicans are running there, they’re running to be independents, which is about to become the largest “party.” Gee.
And, Simon, I see the hypocrisy you pointed out even if some people want to ignore it.
It is so comforting, isn’t it, Beige?! Ya know, it’s only us right-wing Christians telling other people how to live and believe… no one would ever, ever telling me that I’m doing my faith wrong. Nah.
Just because some Christians view sexuality and nudity as wrong, doesn’t mean all of them do. You know, acting like every single person in a group as vast as Christianity has the exact same mindset about EVERYTHING is kinda… bigoted, no? I mean, isn’t that the reason why there are so many denominations, including I might add denominations who allow gays to be married in their churches, or even serve as clergy members.
Some Christians, including myself, have no problem with nudity. As has been pointed out, it’s not even unknown in religious art. I mean come on, ever seen the Sistine Chapel? Or Michelangelo’s David? Those depictions of male genitalia are just peachy, but a topless woman is taboo? My logic just doesn’t skip that many steps to get where it needs to go.
And it’s also nice to know how easily swayed the gay lobby is. Apparently all you have to do is bat your eyes and mumble something about ’states rights’ to slip right under their radar.
*bats eyes* state’s right *bat, bat*
Actually, while I am personally opposed to a lot of issues, I think it’s peachy to let a state vote on it. If the voters of Ohio want to allow abortion, gay marriage, crack, only red underwear on Tuesday’s and free marguritas, that’s our right… but don’t bitch when we say no to all of those things.
Bravo, Simon! Talk about hitting the nail on the head…over and over and over! Not that it is worth anything, but this is coming from a (24 year old) gay man who would never get married, even if I were allowed. Not that I wouldn’t like the choice but as far as on a so-called “sacred” church institution with intentions to spite them, no thanks! (I understand all gays that truly want to marry don’t carry that intention so don’t misinterpret.) To me, that is the wrong way to look at the picture as I have no use for religion. I don’t agree with it so why would I want to solidify a bond with a tradition that shows such a proven rate of success? Live and let live but the recent movement of fighting intolarance with intolarance…count me out! The same rights as heteros when it comes to my partner of two years without question would be great but like I’ve said before, there are ways around everything. We’ll climb over the wall when we get there instead of banging our heads on it like idiots.
To all those gay witch hunters who think I MUST side with them on this one for the sake of “the cause”…keep on fighting the ways you are fighting…it really seems to be working. Take away somebody elses right to the 1st Amendment and you foolishly take away your own. Sorry to say that the 1st Amendment doesn’t include the right to NOT be offended. I, myself, value the 1st Amendment more than some bunk tradition such as marriage.
darek,
“You might want to consider a piece chastising him for his support of gay marriage in the past and how that has switched to his support of civil unions (bonus hypocrisy points seeing as Civil Unions are a “seperate but equal” civil right, same thing provided to African-Americans during the years of segregation – odd for an African-American to support seperate-but-equal leglisation).”
Actually, marriage is only a civil right in America due to tradition in keeping the same name as the unions in other countries who were only civil there due to the great overlap between church and state; something Americans are allegedly opposed to, but I guess that doesn’t stop them from demanding the same terms even when the entire civil aspect is already granted. Really, the problem isn’t so much that gay couples can’t be considered married, but rather that any couple joined by the state can be, as has been pointed out in the comments of others. That is to say marriage should remain a religious issue and even “straight” couples should need civil unions if they expect any government benefits while the only benefits of marriage should be the already great intangible benefits that are associated with it. So ultimately the only separation in question here in your alleged “separate but equal” association is the separation of church and state (unless you’d like to get rid of that, of course) and the equality is correct as well so long as the civil unions grant all the same privileges as what we today know of as marriages. So, yes; your “separate but equal” statement is reasonable. Keep up the good fight and tear down that blasted separation of church and state.
Oh yeah. Also, it was not and is not nearly as uncommon as you might think for African Americans to have supported separate but equal legislation. To many, it kept white influence away from African American culture and many believed that ending such legislation was actually a strategic move by the whites to integrate blacks into white culture. Many who liked the removal of such legislation saw it as that as well, but the difference was this: African Americans who enjoyed separate but equal laws looked at themselves as being a minority culture in America (which they were) and knew what happens when you mix a drop black paint in a gallon of white paint. You don’t get an even gray so much as a gallon and a drop of white paint not even perceptibly different from what it used to be. Sort of like how not all native Americans want to move off of reservations, although in their case the get a few more benefits. Overall, the primary reason why even those African Americans who enjoyed separate but equal legislation still wanted it removed wasn’t because they were separate so much as because things weren’t as equal as they sounded, particularly in matters of public funding.
Oh. I also have a general question. Perhaps I’m wrong, but can’t homosexuals (or indeed anybody who wants to) get married by whatever religion will perform the ceremony anyway even if that ceremony won’t be recognized by the state? As such, couldn’t anybody get a civil union and still get married so they can have all the benefits and still call themselves married because, you know, they are? Or am I wrong and the government is perhaps putting a general ban on religions from performing such ceremonies which would be a blatant violation of separation of church and state (what’s more, it would be a violation at least slightly more in line with the original purpose of the phrase than generally used today). I’m not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I’m really wondering if there’s something like that or perhaps some other thing going on with the issue.
*Sigh*
Whatever happened to the good ol’ days when people on both sides of the aisle would drink lots of martinis and debate things at dinner parties and, you know, still be friends? Still respect each other? Not dig through someone else’s trash because you don’t like their opinion on one issue? It makes me sad how polarized things have gotten, that people will disown longtime friends because of how they voted. I guess that’s the self-selecting world of the internet, that you seek out and only talk to people who agree with you and everyone else is OMG teh ENEMIEZZ!!!1
Eve, seriously, were there EVER days like that?
Beige May 8th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Eve, seriously, were there EVER days like that?
_______________________________________________________
Yes, but the ones largely responsible for the social lubricant that laid aside political differences and allowed such societal edification WERE NOT LEFTISTS. They were the ones who took their protests, objections, rants and political antagonisms with them in every social venue. So what you have today are people on the right that for so long provided the oil to smooth things out who are dishing out to LEFTISTS what they shoved in people’s faces for the last 30 years. If there is anarchy in friendships among politically differing people you can point to 30 years of LEFTISTS who couldn’t stop with the damn pie throwing when it was time for tea!
Next Please!
I liked Timm’s comments.
On another website I saw a discussion about this that contrasted tolerance and acceptance and I think it is a key distinction in this debate. In general, American people are very tolerant, particularly when it comes to things that are done in the privacy of one’s home. Furthermore, in some sense, tolerance can be legislated. I think the gay and lesbian movement has achieved a large degree of tolerance of its life choices as things currently stand in 2009.
What it has not achieved with significant numbers of people is acceptance that a homosexual relationship is equal in all respects to a heterosexual relationship except for the sexual acts themselves. And the more militant members of the homosexual community act in very negative ways when it doesn’t receive the acceptance it wants or believes it deserves. However, history has shown that acceptance comes through peaceful dialogue that respects the views of the other party. So, though I am probably stating the obvious, it seems that if the homosexual community wants to truly win acceptance it needs to tone down the attacks on people who have an honest different point of view.
I probably mis-stated one line in my last post. I know that saying life choices can be a loaded term. I didn’t mean it as such. I just get tired of hearing and using lifestyle and tried to come up with different phrasing. Sorry about that.
“Oh. I also have a general question. Perhaps I’m wrong, but can’t homosexuals (or indeed anybody who wants to) get married by whatever religion will perform the ceremony anyway even if that ceremony won’t be recognized by the state? As such, couldn’t anybody get a civil union and still get married so they can have all the benefits and still call themselves married because, you know, they are? Or am I wrong and the government is perhaps putting a general ban on religions from performing such ceremonies which would be a blatant violation of separation of church and state (what’s more, it would be a violation at least slightly more in line with the original purpose of the phrase than generally used today). I’m not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I’m really wondering if there’s something like that or perhaps some other thing going on with the issue.”
Yes, anybody can get married by a church that’ll do the ceremony, even if the state won’t recognize it. Gay people can’t get civil unions in most states at the present time. I know that when it comes to things like polygamy and marrying underage girls, the government can and has gotten involved even if the ceremonies were strictly religious and not looking for legal affirmation. I know there are a lot of Unitarian churches that perform gay weddings in states where gay marriage isn’t legal, but I think the government pretty much stays out of any action on those.
Obama is a great example of Harvey Milk’s observation of why gay people don’t get much accomplished if they sit around waiting for “straight allies” to help them. I tend not to care much when politicians who are running for office saying they’re going to do so much to help gay people. It didn’t happen with Clinton, and while Obama has other things on his mind, he couldn’t have spent a little time on gay rights by now instead of, say, searching for the right dog?
I don’t particularly blame Carrie Prejean for joining up with NOM. She went to the Miss USA pageant probably expecting a question like “what would you do to help the homeless? – did ANYONE else get a question on such a controversial topic? – and when she got asked about gay marriage she was honest about her opinion while clearly trying to be as polite as possible about it. Then everyone jumped all over her, and once people feel victimized, a lot of the time they start wanting to fight back. If the public’s reaction had been, “Whatever, that’s what a lot of people think,” she’d probably be at home painting her toenails right now.
Personally, I think there should be gay marriage, but I can completely understand why some people don’t, and a lot of gay marriage activists have done a crappy job of stating their reasoning beyond “everyone who doesn’t support gay marriage is a bigot and a Nazi.”
ohh please Wes S liberal are into personal attacks? how about the swift boats, obama is a muslim,Hillary is a lesbian attacks from the right
I’ve said it before on here and I’ll say it again. There is no right to gay marriage. It’s made up. John Adams (right wing extremist)said the Constitution is designed for a moral people. There was an inherent self restraint assumed upon the populace and is why it worked. Once moral decay got rampant, “rights” can be anything… No matter what the Supreme Court says, politicians, society, whathavya, the notion of homosexuals having a “right” to marriage will always be morally wrong in any day and age.
I don’t hate homosexuals. I want you peeps partying up there (hopefully I’ll get there) in Heaven with us. Play in our reindeer games. But you need to show self restraint in your behavior and be humble before God. Yes, the idea of not being able to act upon your feelings stinks, but in the long run it will benefit your greatly. God will reward you in the long run for your suffering in this life, but you must be humble before Him.
Prejean can do worse then show a bare back. It’s doesn’t make the message wrong. Christians have faults like anyone else. We fail and we try to do better;however, the Word is still the same.
Homosexuality is not immoral, Christopher.
*waves at Guy* hey there, Guy…what’s shaking?
Beige…go ask the Sunni’s and the Shites about that “Majority/Minority” Issue.
Just because you have larger numbers, if your representation in government doesn’t reflect that, you can have a majority and still be represented in the minority.
Take a look at Iraq during Saddam’s rule, that should answer your question. If you want to be a smart ass about it.
Absolutely amazing! A Woman and a Man are meant to be married together, this world is getting so out of wack it’s unbelievable. Ms. Prejean has every right to express her opinion. All you gays that feel the need to wack her are way out of line!! If you want to defy what’s written in the Bible, do so! My money is on her come Judgement day!
Jrod, I’m not sure what you’re incensed about, but here goes: I was not commenting on whether or not conservatives are or aren’t the all-powerful majority; I was remarking that the depiction changes pretty rapidly, depending on the issue at hand and who’s mad about it. Your point is valid, but I think we’re talking about two different things.
So, if Obama doesn’t support gay marriage…..but supports “civil unions” what does that mean for the gay community? And also, last time i checked there was a little amendement in the bill of rights (i’m thinking the very first one? hm…). Perez Hilton (Mario) is trying to hard to try to go from fat coffee shop blogger to a Civil Rights leader. He is really trying to trash Carrie and my stance on gay marriage is murky myself. I can’t decide on whether i’m for it nor against it but i voted against. I figured that if you allow that type of union….let polygamy become legal too. It’s so taboo like gay marriage and has caused a lot of ruckus NOT to mention a certain religion to be forever plagued by this because of ignorant people.
Let’s just stay tuned for what happens…….either way Mario is going to be on CNN ranting and raving..and the gay people won’t be too happy if she still gets to keep it. Take it up with Trump not anyone else.
GO Carrie!
Beige: I thought your comment was utterly spot on. Conservatives are either one or the other, depending on the fortunes of the libs-du-jour.
Simon:
Marry me?
How can I say no?
“If Obama were suddenly to start stumping for NOM or a similar group, you better believe I’d be out there screaming bloody murder.”
Call him the same things you called Miss CA, and maybe he will.
“Just as much as its her right to spew out the pathetic tripe that she did…”
Did Obama spew out “pathetic tripe” when he said to the Chicago Tribune, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman?”
Of course not, because he AGREES with you…
“…its within MY rights to rip her to shreds verbally for it.”
How ‘tolerant’ of you.
“Just because people disagree with Ms. Prejean does not mean they turn a blind eye to Obama’s faults. And while Ms. Prejean did not say she is against civil unions, she didn’t say she was for them either. At least he did do that.”
Perez Hilton didn’t ask her about civil unions.
You know, your arguments would be a bit more credible if you had initially held your fire, but you gay marriage supporters began viciously attacking this girl immediately after her “1 man, 1 woman” answer which, I repeat, is no different from Obama’s answer during the campaign (and you gave him a free pass).
“I can see why he’d get a little more slack. I’m sick of being told what a monster I am because I genuinely think this person is a hypocrite…”
No one is saying you’re a monster; we’re saying _you_ are the hypocrite for giving Obama a free pass. And if anyone is calling you a monster, guess what? I will denounce them because I am not a hypocrite.
“I mean, really, its as if everyone on the anti-”anti carrie” bandwagon thinks we’re all just crucifying her because we don’t agree with her. I’m sorry, are we not allowed to speak anymore?”
She’s been called “stupid bitch”, “dumb whore”, “asshole”, “transvestite”, etc. This is how you gay marriage supporters choose to use your 1st Amendment right?
To her credit, Miss CA–even in the face of these ugly personal attacks–has refrained from calling gay people “stupid fa****”, “dumb dy***”, etc. in retaliation. While you may say (assuming you’re consistent) that she has the right to make such statements, she won’t because she has something that gay marriage supporters don’t–CLASS.
Lets agree on one thing from the outset: Carrie Prejean, the beautiful and sweet
all American white female barbie lookalike has always been respectful, deferential and polite, never made disparaging remarks against any one. She does however not
enjoy protected minority status. As such it became open season on her, initiated by
the “tolerant, vulnerable, innocent” lynch mob, who has now grown teeyh and fangs, that has crafted a hate culture against her for declining to endorse or promote homosexuality. The author, Perez Hilton and two executioners, Donald Trump and Keith Lewis clearly constitute an axle of evil. This mob conspired to administer their brand of street “justice” and bullied her with gross slander and smear campaigns, denying her to earn a living. Come on America, are we going to tolerate
this? We are not Burma, China or Iran. Lets organize a national movement to help
restore Carrie to her rightful place as Miss California. May God bless America and
its people and may god bless and protect Carie Prejean.