Here’s the well-known hard-right conservative Michael Kinsley in the fascist Republican Washington Post, sticking up for gross cooties-carrier Carrie Prejean and her gay-hating ways:
Here in the state of Washington, we expect our beauty-contest winners to be able to split a log and appreciate good coffee. But Miss California’s views on gay marriage have nothing to do with her qualifications for the job and shouldn’t disqualify her for it.
This is really Liberalism 101, and it’s amazing that so many liberals don’t get it. Yes, yes, the Bill of Rights protects individuals against oppression by the government, not by other private individuals or organizations. But the values and logic behind our constitutional rights don’t disappear when the oppressor is in the private sector. They may not have the force of law in that situation, but they ought to have the force of understanding and of habit. The logic behind freedom of speech is that “bad” speech does not need to be suppressed as long as “good” speech is free to counter it. Or at least that letting the good and bad do battle is more likely to allow the good speech to triumph than giving anyone the power to choose between them…
In Hollywood, especially, they ought to know better than to try to destroy the career of a professional beauty contestant because she spoke out — ever so politely and tentatively, and only when asked — against gay marriage. During the blacklist period, people’s careers were destroyed because, as members of the Communist Party, they had admired Stalin’s Soviet Union and wished — or, occasionally, worked — to see some of its finer features established here.
How can he say that? Carrie Prejean lost the ability to speak her mind without her parents’ divorce records being probed when she said something a lot of other Americans have said, including the President of the United States. It doesn’t matter how politely she phrased it, or how reluctant she seemed to be drawn into the debate on live TV. She cannot be allowed to express an opinion that destroys human rights that have never existed in the history of the planet.
Nice try, wingnut!
(Are you guys really going to make me use SARCASM tags?)
Related posts:
- DECEIVER MADNESS Round 1: Media Queen vs. Drama Queen I know I used these exact same words to describe...
- Dove’s Parent Company Sells Skin Bleach. So Much for ‘Real Beauty’ We’ve shown you that Dove hires professionals to photoshop the...
- Iman Says Michelle Obama Is ‘Not A Great Beauty’ Iman was one of the first black supermodels when she...
I sensed the scarcasm through your typing. I agree. She was asked the question, she answered and even stated that she did not want to offend anyone, but that she answered it truthfully. This story needs to go away. I agree with her, as does the President so they need to question him from now on about this subject. Yeah, that means you Mario.
“Admired Stalin’s Soviet Union.”…”To see some of its finer features established here.”
I think he’s wrong. Some of its finer features seem to be working just fine.
I’m all for people believing and having the right to say what they believe. I must state to “angry army wife” that it is foolish for her to think (if she even thinks it) that just because she agrees with the “majority” that she must be “right” in her opinions…one only has to look at the gruesome history of the civil rights movement in all of its various stages to paint that picture.
Although I have no desire to marry my partner, it still frustrates me to think of all the people who don’t know me or see how stable and functional (yet hardly traditional…i.e. boring) my relationship is with my partner. Even more, they deem it their duty to decide what is best for my relationship. I am not a child.
It reminds me of a time I eavesdropped on a group of black ladies who got on the bus and made a beeline for the back. I heard one of them note how that it was a bit ironic that they sit at the back of the bus, knowing the history of segregation. Another one noted how it was beyond the point, “it isn’t that we sit back here to shit on our ancestors, it is about the choice to sit wherever we want.”
I promise that gay people will hardly take any more “sanctity” away from marriage than has already been taken by the heterosexuals with their gleaming divorce statistics. I’ve also come to the conclusion that it can’t only be about the marriage aspect…it is more that people don’t want the next person any more happy then they are. I tell it to my partner all the time, “it isn’t that we are gay as much, it is more because we are happy and show it.”
Either way, I will continue to be happy and find ways around all and any road blocks that other people decide is best for “morality.” I’m glad that I am 24 and part of a generation that hardly blinks an eye at the fallacy that “gays are coming to destroy the WORLD!!” Trust that the time will come…ignorance never prevails and always looks stupid in the end.
My apologies to Simon for going off topic…I totally see your point. I must also note that I am neither dem or repub as I don’t like to stick myself in small boxes of warped ideology. I take a George Carlin stance when it comes to politics….
“I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don’t vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, ‘If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain,’ but where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created.”
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
I don’t want to get on a soapbox, but I think the whole gay marriage debate usually misses the point. A lot of it has to do with rights that are typically found in traditional families and married couples(affordable health care, hospital visiting rights, ect.). Really I do think that everyone should have the opportunity for these rights, but instead of going after each of these rights one at a time, the easier thing to do is just try and get a classification that already affords these rights.
” I’m glad that I am 24 and part of a generation that hardly blinks an eye at the fallacy that “gays are coming to destroy the WORLD!!” Trust that the time will come…ignorance never prevails and always looks stupid in the end.”
Dude, that is such a limited world view. Have you ever traveled outside the country? I am so sick of hearing this ‘well MY generation is going to make it right’ tripe. You realize YOUR generation isn’t just limited to the United States and Europe right?
Lets see, that just leaves South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, the Pacific Islands, ect. (those places combined include like 80% of the world’s population by the way) for you to sway to your side of the argument before we all hold hands and sing Koombiya.
Lets not forget that America itself is a land of immigrants, and more and more of those people bring their beliefs with them to this country every day. Not to mention that your assumption that everyone in ‘your’ generation agrees with you is bollocks. I’m probably six months to a year older than you, as are most of my friends, and I’d say less than 25% support gay marriage. These are college graduates living in a major metropolitan area too, not backwoods rednecks getting their religious intolerance on.
I have to agree with Scott F, a minority of the population, about 8% if I remember correctly, does not have the right to try and force the other 92% of the population to accept their beliefs “because” they want them to. It doesn’t work that way. Being gay is a choice not a right, just like being straight is a choice. No one in America has the right to try and force the majority to pay for thier way of life, and if you believe that then get ready for a lot of negative views coming your way. I personally could care less about what someone does with another consenting person in the privacy of their home. But I am not going to sit back and pay for health and insurance benefits, not to mention tax breaks because you are engaging in a different life style. Do we give group benefits for polygamy? No. Do some people think it is acceptable, yes but that doesn’t mean that the rest of the country has to support it.
As one of the three Washingtonians that hates coffee, this commentary deeply offends me.
I’ll be expecting my protective class status to come any day now.
You might hate coffee, but do you like a good log?
I am suprised the Chosen One is against gay marriage. Since married people pay more in taxes than singles living together. He believes everyone needs to give a bigger piece of their income to the government, this would be a great way to increase the tax base.
I love your site but I am confused here: Michael Kinsley is a left-wing nut, not a right-winger. He used to be a host on the original CNN “Crossfire” and he represented the left He is a known left, unless he has had a road to Damascus conversion. But I sensed from reading his comments he was saying she had every right to say what she said and others have a right to criticize her, but the question and opinion had no place in the pageant. seems innocent enough. Most Americans aren’t unique in their opposition to same-sex marriage; it has never been permitted anywhere on the earth that I know of until recent times. So it is not an American thing. I just make time for mankind to decide on this topic. In the meantime, we have to allow mankind to have opinions until we figure this out. Even if the opinions are hurtful, the discussion is more important and is a necessary step to where we will end up. There is no fast lane when you are intending to turn a ship 180 degrees from where it has been headed for all of time.
Apparently so…
We all know that for some people “liberal” means “the right to say whatever you want…as long as you agree with me.” Poor old John Stuart Mill is rolling in his grave an awful lot these days.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, on half a pint of Shanty was particularly ill.
As much as I heartily agree with: “I promise that gay people will hardly take any more “sanctity” away from marriage than has already been taken by the heterosexuals with their gleaming divorce statistics.”, I also agree with Scott F. on the generation thing. Every generation that comes along, including mine, thinks it invented squirrels and H2O and sex, and will change the world, and each generation may alter a few things, but…the world, not so much. Human nature has never changed and never will.
The more the gay-marriage lobby sneers at its opponents, the less inclined the opponents will EVER be to listening or acquiescing, and good luck forcing acceptance of gay marriage, ESPECIALLY if gay marriage is shoehorned into existence over the will of the people, as expressed by their votes.
hmmm. They are honoring those who are already married but uphold future marriages.
California high court upholds gay marriage ban
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98E32U80&show_article=1
Sigh. I guess this means more old ladies getting beaten up and more protesters storming churches to screw on the altars, all in the name of “overcoming hate”. Because nothing says “love” and “tolerance” like some in-your-face violence. I hear Mother Theresa could seriously kick some ass.