Miss California answered honestly a question posed to her, and is being savaged for it.
Of course, the Left is calling her all sorts of misogynistic names, because that’s what the Left does. No doubt, here in Boystown, places like Sidetrack (that seem to look for any excuse whatsoever to weaponize the “c-word” and direct it gleefully at women) will be rolling relentless attacks against Carrie Prejean on Comedy and Showtunes nights.
Just like they did that to Sarah Palin, Cindy McCain, and Hillary Clinton. Because, frankly, Sidetrack really is the place to go in Chicago if you’re gay and hate women and think it’s fun to drink way too many frozen cocktails out of frosty mugs and make a complete ass of yourself on any given night.
Beauty contests are incredibly stupid.
Unless they involve Jake Gyllenhaal, Paul Rudd, Jude Law, and whatever speedo-related shenannigans our imaginations can conjure for the best swimsuit competition since last year’s Market Days at Hollywood Beach here in Boystown.
Carrie Prejean is not stupid. She’s honest. Wholly ignorant of her surroundings, and the fact that her crown’s in the hands of people who would give her big, Oprah-sized zeros for speaking her mind, but honest nonetheless.
And it’s acceptable that she does not support “gay marriage”. This is still America, despite attempts by Janet Napolatino, Eric Holder, and the current President to change that. Prejean can support, or not support, whatever she wants. After all, 80% of the people who voted for the current President did NOT support “gay marriage” in California (including almost ALL of his black supporters: the absolute largest group of voters to support Proposition-8 by demographic).
We keep telling you that the term “gay marriage” is the problem, not Prejean and Democrats who voted for the current President while deciding to institutionalize discrimination in the Golden State. As long as the word “marriage” is used, people will make statements like Prejean’s.
There is no doubt in our minds that Prejean is a good woman. We believe she would never actively campaign for any sort of discrimination in matters financial, healthcare related, involving pensions, or otherwise. But, the word “marriage” conjures a knee-jerk response in many people — including those millions of true blue Democratic lockstep voters who helped pick the current president while backing Prop-8.
Do you remember when “dried plums” were called “prunes”?
And prune sales were stagnant, so marketers decided to rebrand the product so people who had knee-jerk negative reactions to it would give prunes a chance, as “dried plums” instead.
Same product, better PR, increased acceptance.
The Left, being as slick as it is in all things marketing and branding, suspiciously doesn’t seem to grasp this concept…which makes us believe they have no real intention of ever securing equal partner benefits for all LGBTQ Americans. Allowing the word “gay marriage” to quash all attempts at true equality is poor public strategy. The only explanation for this stupidity is that the LGBTQ community, at large, really doesn’t want this to pass anymore than the black community ever wants its main issues to be resolved. What happens then? There’s a multi-million if not billion dollar grievance industry in this country. Successfully achieving equal partner rights, or successfully admitting racism as described by the Sharptons, Clyburnes, or Holders of this world no longer exists, would put an awful lot of well-established Leftist hucksters and clowns out of business. All the fun these people have screaming and yelling and attacking people would be lost.
Look at how delighted so many are to attack Miss California right now. It will be literally years before Prejean falls off the Sidetrack comedy playlist. Nobody beats a dead horse more gleefully than balding, aging, queens.
Except maybe Al Sharpton.

April 22, 2009 at 3:05 am
you are 100% correct.
I tip my hat to you for your honesty.
Had the question been phased differently (such as do you think people should be denied rights) her answer would have been exactly what they longed to hear.
please keep speaking the truth.
April 22, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I still think she should have said.
“I would like to stand behind the Obama Administration and President Obama specifically in his stance against Gay Marriage.”
April 22, 2009 at 4:22 pm
OMG, now that would have been awesome!
April 22, 2009 at 4:28 pm
All their little heads would have exploded.
April 22, 2009 at 7:20 pm
*LMAO* Oh that’s priceless!
April 22, 2009 at 10:08 pm
she can have her veiw. that is the American way. I think every State should vote and the vote be respected no matter which way it falls.
Iowa is wrong to not count peoples votes on the issue. Americans can make the wrong choice, that is fundamental to a democrasy. well the U.S. did elect Obama over Clinton & Palin, they do get it wrong.
April 22, 2009 at 3:15 am
Once the left eventually loses “gay marriage” as a divisive issue, they run the risk of gradually losing the support of those people for whom this topic is a prime factor in their voting choice.
I saw her on Hannity today and thought she did a great job holding her head high and having a very positive outlook.
April 22, 2009 at 4:08 am
Thank you HillBuzz for being you. I always look forward to reading your newest blogs. I am glad to see you are addressing the attacks on Ms. Prejean.
In watching all the coverage on this one quote comes to mind, attributed to Voltaire – I disaprove with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.
More proof that the left tolerates no views other than their own.
April 22, 2009 at 5:29 am
First we get Professor Eric, now Cheryl T rings in with a Voltaire quote?
Outstanding.
We’re walkin’ in the tall cotton now, folks.
April 22, 2009 at 1:08 pm
=) I’ve used that quote before! In fact, I used it not too long ago while arguing with one of my ultra liberal friends. It actually put him on the defensive, once he realized how fascist he sounded.
April 22, 2009 at 5:54 pm
I fear this site is becoming far too cerebral for the likes of me.
You folks are awesome.
April 22, 2009 at 5:24 am
I don’t even know why she was asked such a question.
What has it to do with anything?
Beauty contests sure have changed since I was a child watching them on TV.
They used to be fun!
April 22, 2009 at 6:05 pm
My suspicion is, the creep found out she was a Christian, which she makes no bones about, and because she’s from CA where prop. 8 was defeated, the creep took a cheap shot, hitting 2 birds with one stone.
It was an unfair question by an agenda driven fool. She should sue him for slander and being a fool.
Just sayin’
April 22, 2009 at 9:03 pm
ya she randomly selected that judge for her question…nice try
April 22, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Hi, Matt How are you doing?
Just because he is an agenda driven fool doesn’t mean that he could not think quickly enough to drive his point right through her heart by that question.
April 22, 2009 at 5:36 am
“Nobody beats a dead horse more gleefully than balding, aging, queens.
Except maybe Al Sharpton.”
A brutal beatdown, elegantly delivered by an iron fist in a velvet glove.
Damn you guys are good.
April 22, 2009 at 6:02 am
That was awesome!!!!!
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
What intrigues me about Perez is that while asking for others to be tolerant of him he is completely intolerant. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.
Keep up the good work you guys.
April 22, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Good point.
April 22, 2009 at 6:05 am
Hillbuzz -
Excellent post, I was just speaking with friends yesterday that the question didn’t even have any place in the pageant, it’s a political issue….not a ‘world peace’ or ‘hot bikini’ category question.
One point though, as a ‘balding aging queen’ myself, (although still hot) I wish you’d make a distinction between us and the self-hating and bitter ones that are in all ages of our community (even one’s able to change their hair-style every week).
April 22, 2009 at 7:28 am
Econsmed,
That was primarily directed square at Art Johnson himself, who fancies himself to be the unofficial Mayor of Boystown, and owns Sidetrack, and allows that filth to be shown at his bar to demean and berate women for daring to run for political office or oppose the policies of “The One”. Johnson is behind Equality Illinois and backed “The One” over Clinton in the primaries, even though “The One” refused to march in pride parades and has never done a damn thing for LGBTQ rights.
Johnson is a fraud…a balding, aging queen who should be called out for the way he conducts his business, not worshipped for the money he throws around when he chooses to. Sidetrack is a gold mine, but it’s also unfortunately a place where you can still see Sarah Palin bashing just about any day. It will now be fair game on Carrie Prejean too, we bet.
April 22, 2009 at 9:42 am
sounds like a putz and a hypocrite – but how about we settle for ‘miserable, misogynistic,flaccid, bitter queen’ for those of us nice older follically challenged gay guys that don’t fall into the putz category. I don’t mean to sound like the PC police on this one statement,(although I know I do) but using ‘aging balding’ to get the insult across isn’t that far off from that twit Hilton calling Carrie a ‘dumb blond’ to insult her intelligence and opinion.
April 22, 2009 at 6:10 pm
econsumed,
Hilton called her a “dumb bi***”
April 22, 2009 at 10:35 am
Hillbuzz!
Your updates on Sidetracks bother me like nothing else.
I was going to Sidetracks in 1982 when it was a one -room shot gun bar with benches along the side to sit, before the place metastasized into the sprawl that it is now.
When I moved to Chicago in ’86, I would hang out there 3-4 nights a week. I helped Sidetracks inauguarte their Oldies Night, lending them from my library video of the Ronettes and Lesley Gore. I intoduced Boystown to Nino and April’s legendary “Land Of A 1,000 Dances” video…”You gotta know how to pony!”
I can not remember the place being as misogynist as you describe or I would not have patronized the place. I knew Art Johnson and his staff very well. They never struck me as chauvinist.
Sidetracks was really, really fun place, with everyone yelling “Wipe my Mouth! Wipe my Mouth!” on cue. My sister would go with me: she never felt uncomfortable.
What in the Fuck happened?
You have triggered all these memories of Sidetracks and the guys I used to hang with there…Guys who are mostly dead at this point, having succumbed to AIDS or bad drugs.
I can explain that part of the Republican Hatred emanating from there stems from Reagan and his neglect of the AIDS crisis in the 1980′s. I can not blame them for that.
However, Sarah Palin had absolutely nothing to do with Reagan’s AIDS policies.
Frankly, your blog is keeping me from ever returning to visit Boystown.
April 22, 2009 at 6:10 am
Thank you Hillbuzz for being so honest.You really do get it.If the rabid left did not have gay marriage and abortion issues to hold over the heads of their voters what would they do?They are so hypocritical it is appalling the lengths they will go to to get elected.
They have their token half white/ half African American president and after all the race baiting of the Clinton’s you would think the racial issue would die out but it still rears it’s ugly head from time to time when it is convenient to advance their agenda,such as to silence their opponent or hide their real intentions.
I am hoping that more people will wise up and face the facts that the left is no more going to fight for gay marriage than they did for women’s rights or a fair and honest primary and election.They led the charge in attacking Hillary and then Sarah.Using ACORN to get their man elected and illegal contributions was ignored by the media and our government.
I woke up from my stupor on May,31st,2008.Like being born and opening your eyes for the very first time.I could kick myself for being that gullible and I pray that I will never be that way again.
I truly believe that gays will get their marriage rights but it won’t be because of the left.It will be because of brave and honest people like you guys at Hillbuzz.You are really making a difference and all the new posters here are proving that every day.
You give us a fresh out look and thought provoking articles that expand and certainly open our minds.Because of you guys I am seeing things a lot differently than I probably would have.You explain and touch on views that I most likely would never grasp.Keep fighting the good fight and we supporters will be right there beside you.
April 22, 2009 at 6:15 am
Based on what happened in CA w/ Prop 8, Miss CA should have been ready for a question in that regard. Don’t think it would have put her any closer to the crown.
Happened to turn to the channel hosting the Miss USA right when they were at the part where the ladies were coming out thru the curtain in evening wear. There were several ladies who came out in white. Then, Miss NC came through the curtain in the blue dress and I knew she most likely would be the new Miss USA if she answered her question/s half way decent.
April 22, 2009 at 9:30 am
Ginger, what about her reply was indecent? Nothing. There was nothing offensive or inappropriate about what she said. She was stating her opinion, and she did so very nicely.
She also said that she knew there was a possibility that she would be asked that question. She was not unprepared for it.
It just seems to me that Perez Hilton was not going to give anyone points for giving an answer he did not want to hear.
April 22, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Miss USA Creed
We, representing the states of the United States in the Miss USA Pageant, in order to further the cause of peace, justice and mutual understanding, do solemnly dedicate ourselves to the highest ideals of sportsmanship, friendship and goodwill among all the people of the United States.
~
She was representing her state for the title of Miss USA. If she was so prepared, her answer should have been more respective of that and in keeping with the Miss USA creed.
We all have opinions but we are also limited by circumstances as to where we can voice them.
In any case, going back to Miss NC, I was certain that as long as she didn’t do a Miss Teen USA, she was going to win.
April 22, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I meant Miss SC for Teen USA.
April 22, 2009 at 1:12 pm
My problem with this outlook is that she would have had to choose pragmatism over honesty. Honesty too often takes a back seat in this country. Look at politics.
April 22, 2009 at 4:59 pm
So….how was she not respective of that creed? What specifically did she say that was so offensive? You say that we are limited in how we can voice our opinions, but she was only voicing hers because she was asked.
You also say she was representing her state, which is true. Would you have liked her answer better if she had said, “As with the voting majority of California, I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman?”
She did say that we are free to choose where we live and that we are free to live the way we choose.
April 22, 2009 at 8:27 pm
EricP: I love you, but I would use the word *diplomacy* instead of *pragmatism.* Whenever I’m in situations in my life in which I represent others, of many diverse views, even as a managing editor over a staff, I try to be diplomatic. Doing so does not change who I am, nor am I lying.
I am being sensitive to all whom I represent, out of common courtesy and decency and caring for people of varying opinions.
Still, Perez is a dick for inserting–;)–politics into the pageant and for calling Ms. Prejean a “dumb bitch.” I call him a “nasty prick” and contend that he is just as undiplomatic as he accused Prejean of being.
April 23, 2009 at 12:11 am
garlicnosedho:
Yes, diplomacy is the proper word, thank you. I do like to be accurate.
April 22, 2009 at 6:20 am
Hopefully, based on your other post, the right will wake up and realize that their own doctrine of keeping govt out of people’s lives should extend to all taxpayers not just the ones they find worthy.
April 22, 2009 at 6:43 am
Hear hear Ginger.
April 22, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I see your “hear-hear” and raise ya one! :)
April 22, 2009 at 7:10 am
I think most of us do believe that way. We too, have those in our Party that try to define us by particular issues. Then the media takes the ball and runs with it.
April 22, 2009 at 10:55 am
Bing…you win the big ass Panda.
April 22, 2009 at 8:30 pm
No, wait! Isn’t it endangered??
Gaaaaaaaaah!
April 22, 2009 at 6:51 am
Great post, Hillbuzz. And kudos for defending this woman’s right to free speech, even though she is against extending equal rights to gays and lesbians. I suppose that means, according to Janeane Garofalo, you must have “Stockholm Syndrome” (if any of you haven’t heard her comments when she appeared on Olby last week, check it out. Its good for a laugh and an eye-roll)
Once again, THANK YOU HB for practicing what you preach and calling out the double standards and hypocrisies of both the left and right.
P.S. – I went on Perez’s site to read the comments on his posts about Prejean… I’d say about 95% of people were telling him to get the f*** over it and stop being a hypocrite. Some even pointed out that his boy, Obama, doesn’t support “gay marriage” Amazing.
April 22, 2009 at 11:30 am
i don’t believe Prejean is against extending equal rights to gay couples…she was on cavuto yesterday and stated that she has NOTHING against gay rights and admitted she should have clarified herself more…but that was not the question she was asked…i was tempted to go on hilton’s site and see what people were saying but i was afraid it would just be the same stuff that he was saying. i’m glad people are calling him on it…maybe it will make him STFU.
April 22, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Grrr…hearing the name “Janeane Garofolo” is like the guy in ABBOTT AND COSTELLO hearing the words “Niagara Falls”! She epitomizes all that is wrong, evil, and intolerant about neoliberalism. I wish she’d move to another country. I’ll bet Italy wouldn’t take her.
She’s a disgrace to Italians, women, liberals, and Libras! I hope I meet her someday and that she throws the first punch.
April 22, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Garlic, I would love to see that! I hope you meet her too. Yeah! LOL
April 22, 2009 at 7:46 am
I do not agree with your boys on every thing (we do on this one), but your logic is always well-reasoned.
2 stupid questions:
1. Why are they going ask a controversial question if they are not ready for a controverisal answer?
2. WHY HAVE A HOMOSEXUAL MAN JUDGE A WOMEN’S BEAUTY PAGEANT? That is idiotic to me.
April 22, 2009 at 10:47 am
Jack,
Without Homosexual Men there would be no women’s beauty pageants. All the behind-the-scene forces in beauty pageants are gay men.
It has to do with using visual imagary to attract to attract a male sexual partner.
April 22, 2009 at 8:37 pm
I can’t imagine having a women’s beauty pageant WITHOUT a homosexual male involved in it.
Every gay man I’ve ever known knows exactly which man I would or wouldn’t be attracted to, and when my supergay cousin Randy gives me that rare compliment about my clothes or bod, ooh, Lord, I’m in heaven!
April 22, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Your first question is easy to answer. The left only wants to hear the answer that they want, nothing else will do. Your second question is interesting. I understand the whole, most gay men have great taste in cloths, costumes and the like. Most gay men I know can appreciate beauty, but rarely the beauty of the female form, or any of the other beautiful things women have to offer. So who the hell knows? Not me.
April 22, 2009 at 7:58 am
I can not believe that a judge in the pageant can come out and call a contestant a b#### and a c### and he gets a free pass. If the attacks had been racial, the Pageant people would have come out immediately and disavowed what he said. This is a contest supposedly celebrating American women and a judge is allowed to throw misogynistic comments at a contestant with impunity. I hate the stupid contests and can’t believe that anyone watches them, but this just makes me even more crazy. (Jack– could it be that the pageant realizes that Gay men are a large percent of the audience??? If not, I agree with you. I think that Mr. Universe should have me as a judge, because I think all that crazy muscle stuff is really weird.
April 22, 2009 at 10:57 am
Ginger!
You just proved the point I was making to Jeff!
“I think all that crazy muscle stuff is really weird.”
As a woman, you are not as attracted to the visual.
I,however, as A Kinsey 6, am totally turned on by what you just disparaged.
And it’s all OK!
April 22, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I also wonder what sort of backlash we would have seen if it had been a heterosexual man coming out with those comments.
April 22, 2009 at 5:09 pm
A heterosexual man could, and should, never say such things. The Media would crucify him.
However, an emasculated, effeminate homosexual can such things. The media loves their “Bitchy Queens”
A straight man calling a woman a C**** has very violent overtones. Coming from Perez, it’s almost like a girl fight.
What I don’t get are the Lesbians? Don’t they have anything to say about Perez using phrases like that to degrade women?
April 22, 2009 at 6:21 pm
What I would like to know is where in the hell is NOW.
Pardon my french!
April 22, 2009 at 8:40 pm
“Like a girl fight”–LMAO!
April 22, 2009 at 8:02 am
We would never freak out.. You are completely reasonable individuals with a high level of professionalism and smarts to boot. One of the reasons your site is so successful is because you have created a forum in which all ideas and opinions are welcome here.
Of all of the many sites in the cyber world, this one has a “family” feel to it. We have gotten to know all of you through your fantastic writings (think book) and the comments from the great people that post here. This is by far my favorite place to visit and I wish you the best of success with it. !!!
April 22, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Yes, HillBuzz, think “book,” fer cripes’ sake!! Then think “editor” (me). :) ;)
April 22, 2009 at 8:05 am
I do not understand why the RNC allows itself to remain on the defense regarding non-affiliated acts that the left blames on the right. It is so embarrassing and I do not believe we need to defend anything, just stick to the facts.
Why allow the left to accuse the right of being terrorist and extremist? What does the left have to report regarding the “weatherman” acts?
Steele needs to get off the defense, take over the offense and put some “Points” on the board. I will not donate another dime to the RNC until Steele halts the MeganMcCain train and ends the Palin bashing.
April 22, 2009 at 8:13 am
Its too obvious that people choose to demonize a select few who state their views while ignoring some who have the axact same view, ie, Biden and Obama also believe marriage is between a man and woman. Did Perez call them out too? Has any “progressive” site? What is a progressive anyway?
April 22, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Every time I see your name, I spend a good five minutes trying to figure out how to pronounce your surname. Egads!
And yes, excellent point about the blatant and maddening hypocrisy.
April 22, 2009 at 8:45 pm
P.S. that “egads” was directed at my own quirkiness, not at your surname!!!!
April 22, 2009 at 8:19 am
I am waiting for one Republican to have the guts to answer the question “Do you believe in gay marriage” with something like “I believe what Obama, Hillary and other prominent Democrats believe – that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
This issue needs to be put back onto the Democrats and they need to answer why they’re not moving forward on this. I want one prominent Republican to say this truth – “Ask the Democrats why they’re not doing something about gay marriage right now. They have the majority; they were able to pass these massive spending bills without the vote of the GOP, so why haven’t they tried to pass gay marriage? They certainly can do it right now and it would pass and become the law of the land. But why don’t they?”
We know why. Both parties gain from having this a forever unsolved issue. Just like both parties gain from having abortion an issue at every election. These issues rile up the bases so that the rank and file donate money and show up to vote. It doesn’t behoove any party to actually do something about gay marriage because they lose it as a wedge issue.
I’d like to see both of these issues solved by the states. When the federal government gets involved, then the people lose their power and their voice.
April 22, 2009 at 9:11 am
This is a very good point that can be put to a subtle “grass roots” use. As a woman who has always operated in a man’s world professionally, I know that often times you just have to plant a seed so that your adversary thinks he thought up the idea you are pushing all on his own.
Instead of a confrontational conversation about this issue, it is possible for certain people (who are not thought of as polarizing and dogmatic) to ask the question while socializing at places like Sidetracks, with a genuine attitude of puzzlement, “I have been wondering lately why Congress and the administration have been able to pass the stimulus bill, tax executive bonuses at 90%, start the conversation on health care, open up relationships with Cuba, close Gitmo, etc but not start the ball rolling on the federal level with gay marriage. So where do you think we are on that issue?” Plant some seeds of doubt with some of the right people and you can get the conversation rolling way past your own circle. You don’t even need to bring Republicans in to the mix. In fact, it is best to never mention one of those evil people because that may be the only word that is heard. Maybe it could start Gay Marriage Tea Parties :)
April 22, 2009 at 10:18 am
Wonderful input, thank you. Planting a seed at the grass roots level is a great idea.
I was speaking about the exasperation I feel whenever a Republican goes on these TV interviews and inevitably gets asked the question about gay marriage. Every single one of them stumbles over the “talking points” that marriage is between a man and a woman, prompting the anchor to challenge them, casting them as inflexible and bigots.
For once, when a prominent Republican gets asked this, I just want to hear “I feel the same way the Democrats feel; I agree with Obama and Hillary and Biden – that marriage is between a man and a woman.” Then, I would like them to remind the anchor that the Dems are in charge right now and if they really cared about the issue, they could easily pass it on the federal level and make gay marriage legal.
But, yes, I like the idea of the rank and file planting these seeds of doubt about why the Democrats don’t care about their gay constituents…. of course, your language is much more preferable than mine; I tend to be a bit more blunt. :)
April 22, 2009 at 10:36 am
I agree with you here- I was so frustrated watching Fox last night without anyone mentioning that Miss Cali was merely reciting the views of our Dear Leader, whom Perez supported. Eventually, on Hannity, the female commentator, whose name escapes me, did mention this, but it was quickly deflected. This was the most obvious line of defense for both the right and the misused Miss Cali, but she was above that type of response, the right should not have been.
April 22, 2009 at 10:49 am
I know, I know. I share your frustration. Since the Republican spokespeople don’t seem to be able to get the point across, maybe it is time we did it for them.
April 22, 2009 at 6:28 pm
I agree! And welcome back Pie!
April 22, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Oh, you’re good! Very, very good! Bravo!! Excellent!!
April 22, 2009 at 9:42 am
“I’d like to see both of these issues solved by the states. When the federal government gets involved, then the people lose their power and their voice.”
That seems to be the case on ALL issues, doesn’t it? The Feds come in and botch up the works… Schools are a good example.
States should be the ones to decide this issue, and it should be decided properly (by duly debated legislation, rather than by judges who take matters into their own hands.
I’ve always been of the opinion that if the term “marriage” were dropped, this issue would be far closer to being solved to everyone’s satisfaction.
April 22, 2009 at 8:21 am
Great observations by everyone here, as usual. One thing I would like to add is; why was this idiot a judge to begin with? I have not watched any beauty pageants in a while, but I seem to remember, back in the day, that the judges used to be people who understood true beauty. They were former winners, in the fashion business, women enterpreners, etc.
Why are they bringing in F list celebrities as judges now? It makes the whole thing seem like a big farce. No wonder ratings for these shows are so poor. Or maybe this whole thing was staged to boost the ratings?
Nonetheless, Miss California came out the winner. Everyone is talking about her. No one knows the name of the winner. She got a big boost to her career!
What I wouldn’t give to walk into sidetrack with a few of the girls from here, escorted by our Buzzboys. I would love to give the owner of that bar an earful on his intolerance towards women!
April 22, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Agreed! Why would a misogynist be in any way an appropriate judge for a beauty contest?
April 22, 2009 at 8:31 am
Oh, and Perez Hilton using the “b” and “c” word against Miss California was despicable and of course, everyone glosses over that. Misogyny is always okay – whether it’s a straight man or gay man, the words and actions hurled against a woman meets with zero comment from the MSM.
April 22, 2009 at 9:40 am
Have you ever seen his website? He seems to hate most people in general. The ONLY people he gives free passes to are men he has crushes on. Everyone else in the world can bow to him and his opinions.
He’s just yucky.
April 22, 2009 at 10:24 am
Sure, I’ve perused his site a few times and a few other gay gossip sites, like Datalounge. The misogyny on those sites is eye-opening. The “c” word, the “b” word is thrown around so casually.
My point is, it’s ignored by the MSM, implying it’s perfectly acceptable for him to call her those names – he hasn’t been challenged at all as to why he thinks it’s okay to call her these vile names.
Yet he would scream and shout if she were to call him anything other than his name; thank goodness she’s showed a huge amount of class, but why must the woman always take the high road when she’s been personally insulted?
April 22, 2009 at 10:48 am
After last week’s tea parties it should be obvious there are no longer limits to crude speech in the media.
April 22, 2009 at 10:50 am
Has NOW disbanded?
April 22, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Oh, I was agreeing with you. :)
April 22, 2009 at 2:45 pm
thats why i don’t go there..
April 22, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Yes Leigh … he is yucky!
April 22, 2009 at 8:35 am
Thank you Hillbuzz. I’ve been angry about the attacks against this woman. She’s a soft target, someone you can rally misogyny around. Anybody calling Obama, Biden, Kaine, Reid, etc dumb bi%ches? Of course not, but their stance on gay marriage is even worse then hers.
She was set up, put on the spot, exploited. Had she wanted to give a completely ambiguous and politically correct answer she could have said, “I support President Obama’s stand on gay marriage and believe we should all support our president.” Blech, but that would have been funny because Obama doesn’t support gay marriage but people seem to believe he does. Her original answer was certainly better then any he’s ever given.
April 22, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Spot on.
April 22, 2009 at 8:56 am
I’ve found the most intolerant people are those who claim that people should be free to be who they are and decry that it’s wrong to judge. They only feel that way if you believe as they do. If you don’t, be prepared to be judged and vilified.
April 22, 2009 at 9:02 am
Once again, I agree fully with you, HillBuzz. You nailed the hypocrisy of the “tolerant” left on the head. They preach tolerance, but won’t allow any view but their own.
It does amaze me why some “communities” support those that haven’t done anything for them. I’m in Memphis, which has a large black democrat voting block. We also have failing schools, high crime, and a huge race problem. What has their allegiance to the democrat party given them? The break up of families, children having children and no responsible men in the homes.
My one question for liberals is what does the government do well? With the trillions spent on “poverty” there is still the same percentage of people in poverty. Healthcare? Are there Americans waiting in line to go to Canadian hospitals? Great Britain? Cuba? No, but they do come here for the best healthcare in the world. I know, Social Security and Retirement. Government does that better, right? Anybody know anyone who is dependant on Social Security for their retirement. They are doing well aren’t they? How about education? I know here in Memphis, not only are the public schools not safe for my kids, but their teaching the basic skills in teaching Reading, Writing and Arithmetic is horrible, yet we spend millions on education. Here in Memphis, the school system is the 2nd largest employer behind FedEx.
As a conservative, I am accused of being mean and uncaring; yet how mean is it to keep people in poverty just so that you can have power? The Bible says that we are to take care of the poor, not exploit them. I believe that BO, Reid, Pelosi and others that have brought down not only our economy, but the world economy for their own power will answer for what they have done. There’s a reason God doesn’t judge until the end of time. Our decisions affect people for more than our lifetime alone.
Also, how can we help the poor, if we can’t even take care of our own families?
April 22, 2009 at 9:37 am
Excellent! One of the best comments I have read in a long time. Thanks, TN.
April 22, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Welcome TN WAHM!
You wrote: “I believe that BO, Reid, Pelosi and others that have brought down not only our economy, but the world economy for their own power will answer for what they have done.”
Others= Frank, Schumer, and Dodd.
Great post.
April 22, 2009 at 11:36 am
Super post! Jesus said, “The poor you will have with you always.”
Since LBJ kicking off “The Great Society” in 1964, we’ve thrown something like 10 trillion dollars or more at poverty. And it hasn’t worked. All it’s accomplished is creating a mindset to “get yours” courtesy of the US government.
Just heard an emerging rumor about our small town high school: Supposedly 60% are failing. Since 40% of the enrollment is Hispanic, I would assume that at least 10% of them do okay. So that means the problem is actually half white/half Hispanic. Ten years ago, our school was in the state of Iowa’s Top Ten so it’s a fairly recent problem.
Our town has a serious drug problem, lots of which takes place at the high school. So when you factor that in— plus general “dumbing down”, and attention placed on non-English speaking students—it’s no wonder the system is imploding. My neighbor’s daughter is a senior honor student whose last government assignment was to find pictorial examples of Barky’s 10 presidential job descriptions on the internet, print them off and make a little “Mao” booklet. No report, just photo ops of Dear Leader.
If this is taking place in Iowa—a state that still enjoys being #2 or #3 in state education rankings—it’s no wonder what’s going on in your state of Tennessee.
April 22, 2009 at 9:33 am
Great post as always, hillbuzz.
I still can’t figure out why a guy who made his name drawing…ummm…STUFF coming out of people’s mouths on his website was asking a political question, or was there in the first place. Isn’t a gay dude at a straight beauty pageant kind of an oxymoron?
That said, I totally agree with #1 Gelston: the vast majority of Americans favor full civil rights for all American citizens, and any who don’t agree with that are beyond hope anyway.
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happpiness” is NOT followed by “except for gay people.”
April 22, 2009 at 10:44 am
“straight Beauty Pageant” where is that advertised?? is it on the application?? don’t you think there have been Lesbians in the competition??
April 22, 2009 at 11:03 am
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happpiness” is NOT followed by “except for gay people.”
…
Yes, and we all should send Donna Brazile and the DNC a card with this sentiment! Civil Rights and Human Rights are for everyone!
April 22, 2009 at 10:03 am
Miss California was on Fox News a little while ago with Megyn Kelly and said that the California Pageant committee is trying to take her crown away for what she said.
April 22, 2009 at 11:14 am
Many people wrote in to remove Donna Brazile from the DNC RBC and to take her ‘Super Delegate’ Status away and NADA, Zilch…we were all ignored. See you have to be a Super Delegate to get away with it.
April 22, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I was one of those PUMAs who wrote to the DNC, etc., but there she was…after all her lies about not supporting any candidate, etc. But we know from those Hire Heels videos that she herself told other dels that they could “give the numbers to Barack.”
I’m glad she got hers, along with Dean, and they both now reside under Bobo’s bus.
April 23, 2009 at 12:27 pm
If only historians could get the story straight and tell the truth about what happened and how the DNC disenfranchised the voters and their party as a whole by not honoring them as citizen nor as party members.
She shouldn’t have any delegate status and the press/media shouldn’t be doing a cover up of her bigotry against the LGBT community nor of what she did to the best candidate that just happened to be a woman: Hillary R. Clinton.
Thank you for writing them and letting them know you took notice of what the ‘Democratic’ Party was doing.
April 22, 2009 at 11:17 am
I also think Mr. Perez Hilton just handed the Pro-8 their talking points, since he called Miss California a B@ITCH and said he really was thinking the C’ word.
Honestly, I am going to send this dude a card and ask DON’T HELP, PLEASE DON’T HELP, YOU’RE KILLING US!
April 22, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Great point!
April 22, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Then maybe they should remove Obama and Biden from the Oval Office since they have made the same comment.
April 22, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Wow… that’s unbelievable.
April 22, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Really? Take her crown away? Wow. Makes me glad I live in Texas, where we actually understand what free speech is. This is just sick.
April 22, 2009 at 10:06 am
I can’t express how little I care about beauty pageants. So all I knew about this was a brief clip of Miss California saying something about losing because of her answer. I’m going to be honest. Knowing only this, it struck me as sour grapes.
Then I heard what the judge said in very crude language that she lost because of her answer. So in one crude tirade he managed to take the moment away from the winner. Also, he all but guaranteed that Miss California comes out of this with all the more fame and popularity. Miss California is now much better positioned than if she had won. The most memorable winner in my lifetime is the one that lost her crown because of some photos and then went on to have a great career in music and film.
Miss California will do just fine.
The judge’s comments were classless and wrong to take the attention away from the contestants and make it all about him.
The issue of gay marriage aside we have a contestant that expressed her view and a judge that revealed a complete lack of class.
April 22, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Good comparison with Vanessa Williams … though when I think of it, isn’t it ironic that Williams was decrowned for nude, suggestively gay photos (as I remember) …. and Miss California’s crown is now threatened and she is being publicly attacked supporting traditional marriage.
I mean …. wow. Holy culture change, Batman.
Too bad Hilton didn’t ask her about equal rights for gay couples instead of using the M word.
Isn’t Perez Hilton’s 15 minutes up yet? Wasn’t impressed when he popped on the scene, even less impressed now. What a putz.
April 22, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Vanessa Williams. I couldn’t think of her name. I’m really feeling culturally challenged today.
April 22, 2009 at 5:06 pm
“Holy culture change, Batman.”
LOVE it!!!
April 22, 2009 at 10:20 am
Thank you for your objectivity on this subject. My daughter and I had an argument
about it this morning. Whether you agree with her answer or not she did have a right
to her opinion and I am really wondering about the choice of question since no matter
what her answer she would be alienating someone. I wonder if PH had an ulterior motive.
April 22, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Of course he did. No matter who he asked that question to, he was not going to give points unless he got the answer he wanted to hear.
April 22, 2009 at 10:38 am
Delegate Selection (10:57…”Donna Brazile was one of them”…NO CHANGE)
Howard Dean discusses his role in LGBT Delegate Selection. Gov. Dean Clip in DC Discrimination, Defamation, and Conspiracy to Defame Lawsuit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD0ANgN36z8&feature=related
…..
Can we now have Mr. Perez Hilton ask Donna Brazile what CHANGE she blocked as the ‘Influential Individual’ on the DNC platform? Has he seen the Dean deposition and learned or asked why someone that isn’t elected has so much power and why Donna Brazile thinks gay rights aren’t Civil Rights.
Yea, the take on the 21 year old with a bikini mean while the real danger is busy on CNN acting like Miss Civil Rights of America and the press/media is giving her cover.
April 22, 2009 at 10:41 am
When my husband and I married we had no interest in a church wedding. At that point in our lives neither of us wanted a thing to do with religion. We went down to the courthouse and had a civil ceremony. This was our wedding and even now this is the date we celebrate as our anniversary.
Now the problem was that our families demanded a church ceremony. My husband had a friend who was a minister with rather eclectic views of religion. He knew that we were only doing this to keep peace with our families and agreed to do the ceremony in his office. He had an absolutely beautiful office lined with books and the various artifacts from his travels around the world. This suited us fine, but we should have known that what suited us would probably offend our families.
This church wedding to satisfy the relatives satisfied absolutely no one. My mother-in-law couldn’t understand why we didn’t have the ceremony in the sanctuary. Simple. There were only about 20 of us and the office made better sense. My aunt was horrified because this pastor had a statue of Buddha among his artifacts. Didn’t bother us, but my aunt was horrified. Point is, for us this was an entirely unnecessary event that only left everybody in a bad mood.
Perhaps this has shaped my views toward gay marriage, this, and having gay friends in long-time committed relationships.
There is no denying that marriage comes with tax, legal and other consequences. I understand that in many other countries marriage is a civil event. This makes sense when there are so many civil consequences.
This seems to me to make the most sense. Make all marriages civil ceremonies first and then if the couple has a religious preference, or nagging family members, have an additional ceremony that is spiritual in nature. Although, I really wouldn’t recommend it just to satisfy the family.
April 22, 2009 at 5:10 pm
FLMom- I understand your point, but changing marriage the way you’ve suggested would only further make us like one of the most socialized countries on Earth: France. The great thing about our country is that with freedom of religion we can decide where to get married and whether to make that ceremony religious or non-religious.
April 22, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Excellent story, FLMom–thank you for sharing it.
As I recall, the day my ex-husband and I got and signed our marriage license in Hoboken, NJ, was the day we were considered legally married by the state. That was the law, at least in 1983 in NJ. You sign it, you’re married.
April 22, 2009 at 10:59 am
I think if you watch Miss California’s facial expression, you realize – that as she states- she knew answering the question honestly would cost her the “crown”. She was asked her opinion and gave it realizing the consequences. Good for her!
Why was Perez Hilton a judge? Why does society reward talentless, classless, ignorant bores (insert losers) whose only accomplishments are self-promotion and contemptible behavior? The homosexuals couldn’t have a worse public representative, however, Perez is the disgusting caliber of person – not just among homosexuals, but throughout the left – elevated as America’s best. What a lie!
April 22, 2009 at 6:51 pm
It is interesting to me that the Donald has been very silent on this matter. From what I recall he is connected to this beauty pageant. On top of that, he had Perez on Celebrity Apprentice a couple of weeks ago. At the time I wondered why he would have Perez on his show because I didn’t think he would go there for ratings. Of course, I really wonder why he picked Perez as a judge in the first place.
April 22, 2009 at 9:02 pm
I’ve watched a few interviews with judges other than Perez, and they contend she was not ahead of the woman who actually won, that her answer did not affect her standing, and that even if she’d answered otherwise, she still would’ve come in as first runner-up.
I tend to believe them. They seemed sane and sincere and not put off by her answer. As they said, Perez was only one judge, and he alone could not decide the winner.
April 22, 2009 at 11:13 am
Why is it OK for Obama to be against gay marriage, but not Miss California?
Obama has more reason to be FOR gay marriage than Miss California does.
April 22, 2009 at 11:21 am
Rick Warren Endorses Prop 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o4QqGbQmU0
……….
And Obama had Rev. Warren give his invocation, but that is a OK by Mr. Perez Hilton, but let us all get the 21 year old in the bikini…she is dangerous!
April 22, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Outstanding point, Mrs. B
April 22, 2009 at 11:17 am
Thank you Hillbuzz…they forget to mention that their beloved Obama stated he is not in favor of gay marriage either…and probably not just because of his personal convictions…
April 22, 2009 at 11:25 am
Barack Obama on Gay Marriage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8&feature=PlayList&p=772797FBC2C34C3B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=36
…
Here is his clip on the issue
April 22, 2009 at 11:44 am
That always makes me laugh WV, because Obama says, “this is an issue I understand intimately.” “Intimately” is really a poor choice of words to be using, LOL.
I remember an antigay rights guy saying something similar, “I intimately embrace this passionate issue…” I was rolling on the floor before he could finish. Dude, you’re protesting to loudly, knock it off before I start hyperventilating, LOL. 35 sexual innuendos in your first three sentences, does not a convincing argument make! It does make for good comedy though.
April 22, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Hahahaha! Good one, yttik!
April 23, 2009 at 12:33 pm
:lol:
April 22, 2009 at 11:49 am
What I see is that, for some people like Perez, they don’t want equality. Not as much as they want to strike back and hurt those who they imagine hurt them when they were younger.
No, what he and his want is that word “marriage.” Not because they care about the rights so much but, because they know they can then use that as a weapon to attack whatever religion they were dragged to as a little tyke that was so mean and told them being gay was wrong.
That’s why they can so easily drop the slurs and insults–it’s about causing hurt, the more the better.
April 22, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I have to say, I really respect your words on this matter. It is most definetly not the way most people wanting gay marriage to be legal are acting these days. Many people have religious objections to gay marriage and last I checked we still have freedom of religion.
April 22, 2009 at 12:51 pm
This was a setup. She never stood a chance. They ask a question like that knowing what the answer would likely be, then use that as an excuse to unleash their misogynistic wrath. She wasn’t there to use the pageant as a platform for her opinion on gay-marriage, Perez was. What a turd.
I’ve always stood by gay community but lately, I’ve noticed gay Obama voters would rather call me a racist than concede there was anything offensive about the sexism that permeated the primary and general elections. If I say I am hurt and Blame Obama for much of it, they say I am a racist and irrelevant.
There was a time in my life that I probably thought and cared MORE about LGBT rights than women’s rights.
It really hurts that the gay Obama community doesn’t appreciate the advocacy that women have given them over the years. When you call a women who doesn’t support gay marriage a C*nt, you are degrading all women.
It’s makes me sick. No apologies for the misogyny, there never is. Perez is a hypocrite.
April 22, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I’m still wondering why there IS a Gay Obama community.
April 22, 2009 at 5:55 pm
noone I know…My Community still stands with Hillary..
Obama has done NOTHING for us so far…first 100 days are fast approaching…
April 23, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Trust me, they exist.
April 22, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Thanks for your intellectual honesty Hillbuzz. No one should be judged for their opinion. The gay marriage movement has really turned into an embarassment.
April 22, 2009 at 2:47 pm
[...] Gay HRC supporters applaud Carrie Prejean Miss California answered honestly a question posed to her, and is being savaged for it. [...]
April 22, 2009 at 2:47 pm
good job.Hillbuzz..
April 22, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Love you, Hillbuzz, for your honesty and open-minded acceptance of different opinions.
April 22, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Bless you, HillBuzzers, the voice of reasonableness and sanity in an insane world. Was glad to have you in the McCain/Palin camp during the election, still proud to call you friends! Rock on, HillBuzzers…
April 22, 2009 at 7:44 pm
This is why, though sometimes we disagree, I keep coming back. Take Care.
April 22, 2009 at 8:32 pm
you guys are the greatest. i wish we were bff in real life.
April 22, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Guys, I applaud you for being so open-minded about her response. I love you guys and am certain I’d enjoy having you as real life friends. But I’m sorry to say this, too, but I am a Christian and “marriage” has a religious connotation for me that is between a man and a woman, so I can’t say that I will support the term “gay marriage.” I SUPPORT Civil Unions, of course, and equal rights. But I prefer to leave the term “marriage” as it was originally intended and to stick to that definition. I welcome any other term that will afford gay couples the same rights. Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin have the same perspective.
Ok, now I’d like to ask how you gay men are coping with your beliefs among other gay people? Aren’t other gays pummeling you for defending Perjean?
April 23, 2009 at 1:00 am
OK this thread is probably nearing the point of retirement, but today I was expounding to myself my philosophies on gay rights and I wanted to share it for your feedback. I feel like my position is pretty solid now.
To add just a bit of context: I am a Christian, I am heterosexual, and I’m a lily white registered Republican with conservative/libertarian ideologies in most areas.
Here’s my argument:
We do not kill people for being gay. Gay people are not denied their right to life because of their sexuality.
We do not imprison people for being gay. Gay people are not denied their right to liberty because of their sexuality.
We do not prohibit people from working, earning money, owning cars, homes, or land because they are gay. Gay people are not denied their right to the pursuit of happiness.
Being gay is NOT A CRIME.
Furthermore, two gay people sharing their lives with one another does not represent an assault on anyone else’s rights. No man can claim that his own rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness have been somehow impinged by what two people are doing in the privacy of their own home. Whether those two people are straight or gay is of no consequence.
As such, since it is not a crime to be gay and there is no victim when two gay people share there lives, it is beyond the authority of the federal government to abrogate a gay person’s rights simply because they are gay. In fact, it falls within the RESPONSIBILITY of the federal government to ensure that gay people are treated EQUALLY under the law, otherwise the government is guilty of establishing that gay people are second-class citizens.
The word “marriage” carries with it a certain religious context, being that it is often referred to as “holy matrimony”. I agree. “Marriage” belongs in the church. The government does not have the right to DEFINE the word “marriage” but it should have the obligation to RECOGNIZE ALL LEGAL marriages, or it should recognize none.
Therefore, should an accredited church decide to perform gay marriages, the government should recognize them.
Likewise, the government should itself be required to perform both heterosexual and homosexual civil unions, because, since we already established that being gay is NOT a crime, we know that gay people are entitled to the same rights and same protections under the law as straight people.
Doubters, Bill O’Reilly included, will argue that allowing gay “unions” will open the floodgates to people wanting two wives or two husbands, or people wanting to marry animals or minors. But I say that’s baloney.
Polygamy is already illegal. Polygamy is a choice, homosexuality (in my view) is usually (or maybe always) a biological state, not a choice.
People marrying animals is just ridiculous. I don’t even need to provide a counter-argument.
And marrying minors is obviously already taken care of as well. Allowing gay unions has no bearing on that at all.
Some folks will object to gay civil unions on religious grounds. I have two responses.
First, the rational response. Where is your outcry about atheists “marriage”? I have never heard a single person complain about the fact that atheists are allowed to get “married.” In fact, if I brought it up to most of the folks I know who are against gay marriage, they wouldn’t immediately see a problem with it.
And yet, if you decry gay unions on religious grounds (because homosexuality is supposedly against God’s will), would you not also decry atheist unions — perhaps even more so — since NOT believing in God at all is arguably a much bigger problem than simply being a sinner, which we all are?
The fact is, many gay people also believe in God or at least believe in the possibility of God and maybe WANT to believe in God. Are not those people deserving of at least the same unions of love and happiness as people who outright deny the existence of God? I say, emphatically, YES!
Now, the compassionate/religious response.
I merely ask a very pointed question to those who say gay unions should be denied on the basis of religion: “what would Jesus do?”
Assume for a moment that homosexuality is definitely a sin. I find it hard to believe that Jesus would declare a man a second-class citizen simply because he is a sinner. Are we not all sinners in the eyes of the Lord? Do the personal choices of a fellow man, who happens to be gay, diminish our own spirituality? By denying a gay person the same opportunities and recognition under MAN’S law, somehow mean that we have failed to uphold GOD’S law?
I think not. In fact, I think if anything, Jesus would see in their eyes the struggles and hardships borne by those who are gay, and would seek to befriend them. To let them know that they, too, are children of God.
Our Founding Father’s believed that you could arrive at the truth of a topic simply by thinking about it. By utilizing your God-given gift of REASON — that which makes us Man and not Beast.
Our Fathers used reason to arrive at the basic principles upon which our Constitution and country were founded, and I have used reason to affirm they were correct. I have used reason to affirm my believe that God does, in fact, exist. And today I have used reason to argue that gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else. I cannot, by way of reason, find a way to believe otherwise.
April 23, 2009 at 8:32 am
Well done, you bitter, right-wing clinger, Christian! :) Way to shatter the stereotype!
April 23, 2009 at 12:41 pm
“Therefore, should an accredited church decide to perform gay marriages, the government should recognize them.”
This is a fascinating response to the antigay marriage crowd (mmmph Hillbuzz mmmph) and one I never heard before.
It is brilliant though.
The hetereosexual marriage only crowd essentially argues that marriage has a religious root and the government has to recognize that by only sanctioning heterosexual marriages.
They say that historically marriage was only between a man and a woman in their church, and it should stay that way.
But how do they respond if a religion then sanctions gay marriage. They can only say that their religion is better, which is a non sustainable argument.
I’m impressed. This accepts the premise of the anti gay marriage crowd, that marriage is essentialy a matter for religions to decide, and turns it back at them. Brilliant.
April 23, 2009 at 1:04 am
Hm. The sentence which says
“By denying a gay person the same opportunities and recognition under MAN’S law, somehow mean that we have failed to uphold GOD’S law?”
should start with
“By GIVING a gay person…”
and should also say “DOES THAT somehow mean that we have failed to uphold GOD’S law?”
April 23, 2009 at 7:26 am
The story of Ms. Prejean is a sad one because it is obvious she was playing off the cheers of the crowd when pontificating that gay marriage “wasn’t how she was raised”. Well of course it wasn’t Ms. Prejean! It wasn’t how I was raised either, nor was it how most people were raised, but we used our common sense and rose above it.
What I found even more interesting than her pageant answer was that the day after she lost the crown, which she blames on her answer, she said she believed her “faith” was tested by god on that answer and believed she answered correctly. The inference there, in case anyone missed it, is that “god” is on her side. My argument isn’t whether or not she was honest, my argument is that she was and is “wrong”!!!!! The treatment of Ms. Prejean by Perez Hilton was equally wrong and he needs to STFU!!!
Mr. Prejean’s answer was a window into her soul. Had Ms. Prejean been asked the question of the moment in 1965, “Some states have legalized interracial marriage, do you believe interracial is appropriate” and Ms. Prejean had answered as she did on the gay marriage question, that answer would have been just as wrong in 1965 as it is in 2009. Ms. Prejean is entitled to whatever personal position she chooses on gay marriage, but she isn’t entitled to use the world stage to expound on her “religious” opinion and then expect to be crowned Miss USA. FYI Miss USA covers the entire population of the USA including us QUEERS.
I support gay marriage because to accept separate but equal is agreeing to JUST MORE 2nd class citizenry and it is a total surrender of equal rights for cheap expediendcy. My partner and I have been together for 25 years, she is in her late 50′s, I’m in my early 60′s and we’re both tired of waiting for people like Ms. Prejean to get over their sexual orientation superiority complex and her claim to be the flame bearer for the word of god.
April 23, 2009 at 12:20 pm
But those 1960′s interacial marriages were still between a man and a woman.
Why do you soi-disant “Queers” ignore the historical element of the concept of marriage?
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that at no time in recorded history has there ever been marriages between same-sex couples?
Have you ever considered that the history of marriage is based on the man’s ownership and possesion of the woman?
Contemporary homosexual relationships do not come from that same back ground.
I am sorry you feel like a second class citizen. That is as almost as pitiful as you calling your self “Queer” I think your self-identification as a “Queer” might have more to do with you feeling all that “seperate but equal” angst. I hope you start to feel better about yourself at some point in your life.
My partner and I are celebrating our 15th anniverary this year. We have, happily, been registered domestic partners here in NYC for 12 years. Do not call us married!
Frankly we prefer “Domestic Partnership” because of the sense of equality implied between us with the word “partner”. This sense of equality is not present in the words: “marriage”, “husband,” or “wife”.
April 23, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I am sorry – I am one of the “lefties” and fully support Miss California in her response. She has a right to believe what she believes and anyone gay straight or in between who does not get that she has that right is a damn FOOL!! Leave her alone she answered to her conscience and belief.
April 23, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Ms. California, like all Americans, has the right to believe whatever she wants, but I don’t have to agree with it or respect it or think that the person who wears the Crown of Ms. USA should bring her religious dogma to the world stage, in the name of the citizens of the USA. My disagreement with Ms. Prejean doesn’t make me a “damn fool” anymore than another persons support of Ms. Prejeans beliefs. And surely you know that her belief is the product of her religious conviction because she affirmed that the day after she lost the crown when she said the question was a test of her “faith” and she passed the test. In other words, god is on her side.
In case some of you weren’t around or old enough to remember 1965, the notion of interracial marriage was unacceptable by most of society and by people of all races. Children were RAISED to believe it was against scripture, immoral and unnatural and for the record it was ILLEGAL in most states. So the parallel is accurate, even if you don’t agree or accept it.
I use the word “queer” because:
A. I don’t see it as a perjorative when gays are talking to each other or the treatment of gays by others.
And
B. It applies here.
If you want to accept the Dogma of Seperate but Equal then IMHO you’ve signed up for, Jim Crow for Queers, as a substitue to the Civil CONTRACT of marriage. You have allowed straight society to continue to define YOU as queer(different). If that’s what you want you don’t need Civil Unions, all you need is a filing cabinet full of personal contracts and agreements between you and your significant other. If that’s what you want then by all means, fight for it for yourself, but for most of the LGBT community Civil Union means nothing but, “not equal to” the straight people. Most gay folks, especially those in committed relationships want the Civil Contract of marriage if anyone can link me to any statistic that shows otherwise, please do.
Ms. Prejean has EVERY RIGHT to say you’re LOVE doesn’t deserve to be on a par with her love, because that’s “how she was raised” but I have every right to say, Ms. Prejean is FULL OF SHIT!!!!
April 24, 2009 at 10:46 am
When opportunity knocks, beauty and the blogger take it
Serious civil rights activists fighting for equal protection under the law can’t possibly want this guy fronting their righteous cause. If he’s not hissing that Prejean is a “dumb bitch,” he’s decorating her picture on his website with a drawing of a penis. (Small solace: Hilton regularly decorates celebrity pics with phallic scribbles.)
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-et-onthemedia24-2009apr24,0,6483521.column
…
Like I said this dude isn’t helping matters and he surely most know this.
April 25, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Miss California, I compliment you for standing firm on your Christian belief on same sex marriage. More Christian people are needed to stand firm for God and his doctrine. I am a Christian and feel the same as you. I thought America was a country where we could voice our opinions freely with others whether they agreed or disagreed. Evidently, there is a serious breakdown in our democracy when a few are met with opposition on certain matters. Remember to remain strong in your belief and you will always remain victorious in all your endeavors in life. In God’s eyes you were the 2009 winner of the Miss USA pageant
May 6, 2009 at 4:41 pm
[...] http://hillbuzz.org/2009/04/22/miss-california-didnt-say-anything-wrong-go-ahead-and-freak-out-about... [...]
May 7, 2009 at 12:59 am
Carrie is a very brave lady who stood up for her principles and said that gay marriage was wrong. Marriage should be between a man and a woman only. I was so proud of her. She could have taken the PC (politically correct) answer and say that gay marriage was OK., but she is a Christian and stood up for what she believed in.
The gay groups have been attacking her on the internet every day since then. Yesterday, there were some pictures of her in lingerie that was on the internet and they’re trying to destroy her reputation. These were pictures taken when she was about 18, and she’s now 21 years old. Yes, she shouldn’t have posed in these seductive pictures, but these pictures don’t invalidate what she believes, that gay marriage is wrong!