Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Perez Hilton's Hypocritical Rantings

By Eva Rodriguez

It's a wonder that even supporters of same-sex marriage don't reconsider their position after hearing the embarrassing, infuriating, self-absorbed rantings of quasi-celebrity Perez Hilton.

Hilton, a self-proclaimed gay man who made a name for himself by blogging about real celebrities, was a judge for Sunday's Miss USA pageant. There he asked Carrie Prejean, Miss California, whether other states should follow the lead of Vermont, whose legislature recently legalized same-sex marriages. Prejean gave an unsophisticated yet earnest answer: No offense, she began, but in her opinion marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman. She explained that's what she had been brought up to believe. No further elaboration, no discourse on states rights. Not a prize-winning answer -- granted.

And so it was that Prejean lost the crown to Miss North Carolina. If there had been any doubt that the poor answer cost Prejean dearly, there was none after a furious Hilton took to the blogosphere moments after the contest ended and proceeded to -- what's the polite word for this? -- critique Miss California. Prejean lost, Hilton averred, not because she gave the wrong answer in opposing gay marriage, but because she is a "dumb b----" who failed to offer any serious rationale for her position. I doubt that even a nuanced, sophisticated argument that rejected same-sex marriage would have appeased Hilton. He later apologized for using an epithet to describe the beauty queen -- but then rescinded the apology and said that he originally thought of calling her the "c-word”. “C” for “classy,” I'm sure.

Cut to Tuesday, when Prejean was confronted by Hilton's blistering video on a cable morning show. The blonde from San Diego shook her head in somber disbelief. The Beauty Queen vs. The Bully. She analyzed Hilton: angry, sad, a person for whom she feels sorry. And she announced that she will be praying for Hilton. Prejean may have been sincere, but her call to prayer came across as patronizing. What exactly will she be praying for -- that Hilton will suddenly wake up tomorrow to discover his inner heterosexual? Please.

I couldn't disagree more with Prejean's opinions. I support same-sex marriage -- or at the very least civil unions that provide the same legal benefits to same-sex couples that heterosexual couples take for granted. (I'd also prefer for these marriages or unions introduced through legislative acts or a vote of the people, rather than through court orders.) But Prejean and millions others like her have a right to their opinion -- and a right to express that opinion without facing the kind of adolescent vitriol spewed by Hilton over the past couple of days. It's the height of hypocrisy, not to mention counterproductive, that people such as Hilton demand rights and respect for their beliefs and lifestyles and yet try to pulverize those who express a different point of view.

By Eva Rodriguez  | April 21, 2009; 7:34 PM ET
Categories:  Rodriguez  | Tags:  Eva Rodriguez  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What Kaine Is Doing Right and Fenty Is Doing Wrong
Next: Is Obama's Team Too Wall Street?

Comments

Hilton managed to accomplish what was obviously his goal: making the Miss USA pageant ALL ABOUT HIM. I don't care what Miss California said in her answer, his juvenile name-calling of a contestant disqualifies him from all and any judging in the future. Let him go back to drawing genitalia on photos of celebrities; he's not good at anything else.

Posted by: WashingtonDame | April 21, 2009 9:12 PM | Report abuse

"But Prejean and millions others like her have a right to their opinion -- and a right to express that opinion without facing the kind of adolescent vitriol spewed by Hilton over the past couple of days. It's the height of hypocrisy, not to mention counterproductive, that people such as Hilton demand rights and respect for their beliefs and lifestyles and yet try to pulverize those who express a different point of view."

Oh really?

Then please let me express my "point of view" without being subjected to any "adolescent vitriol" or "pulverized":

Ms California (and all heterosexual white females who hold her values) should be enslaved for most of their life and then burned at the stake? Why? Because they are "female" and "white" -- attributes and practices which I deem deviate and thus not entitled to enjoy the same societal rights and privileges I do.

I wonder whether Ms California (and those who share her attributes) would respect the hateful opinion above as just being "a point of view" impact wise if millions of others held this value and acted on it.

Perhaps Ms California (and those who defend her) should be transported back in time (prior to the women's movements) when heterosexual white women (especially non-affluent) had no rights or few compared to those they take for granted today. I'm sure Ms California would have defend the right of these oppressed women to marry oppressive heterosexist males.

It is amazing how the members of discriminated against groups (past and present) internalize/adopt those prejudices and defend them -- in this case, some fundamental exclusionary right of heterosexuals (male and female) to not only discriminate against each other but also LGBT citizens.

I hope Ms California's future heterosexual husband subjects her to some good ole fashion mysognist sexism (domestic abuse, etc.) and rationalizes to her that expressing and practicing such is just his masculine point of view -- him exercising his 1st Amendment Rights impact wise.

It is not Perez Hilton who is the "hypocrite" impact wise or point of view wise but Ms California. She takes her social identities and civic status (heterosexual, female, and white) for granted -- in ignorant beauty contestant bliss of American history and current day ISM practices.

And this female wanted to represent the best that America stands for -- heterosexist patriachial bigotry!

Posted by: GroupThink | April 21, 2009 10:55 PM | Report abuse

If the event were a drag queen, transvestite, or transexual contest Perez would fit right in and may prove of some value in judging. However, asking this guy to be a judge wherein women appear makes little sense. Send him to Mr. Universe or some Steve Reeves contest.

Posted by: Tupac_Goldstein | April 21, 2009 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Prejean has responded in the most honest and forthcoming manner concerning her views on the subject, and was punished for it. Since when is standing up for your right to voice an opinion a sin?

Gay people have a right for state sanctioned civil unions, but that is not what Mr. Hilton has asked. Using the word "marriage" implies religious sanction of the bonding of 2 homosexual individual. As most people who are brought up in their respective religions know, homosexual marriage is wrong. The STATE has the right to grant the same rights to gay couples as currently married couples have, but a religious body may deny the right to sanction such a union. To imply that somehow everyone has to accept gay unions and call it a "marriage" is repugnant.

Ms. California gave a perfectly legitimate answer. Mr. Hilton should be ashamed of himself on bringing in more drama than is necessary. It is no wonder people don't take the gay rights movement seriously - gay rights activists don't believe in democracy if they are given the reigns of power. They expect their views to be sarcosanct, their views to be accepted by all, and would shove their ideologies down everyone's throat. Does anyone wonder why no one takes the Rainbow Coalition movement the same way as the Civil Rights movement now?

Posted by: logicaldoubtofhumansanity | April 22, 2009 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Sometimes, I get so tired of people, I just want --y'know--to hide under my bed for a couple weeks.

Posted by: gaystaggo | April 22, 2009 12:23 AM | Report abuse

U GO groupthink! So much about everything is heterosexist patriarchal INSTITUTIONALIZED bigotry.

Posted by: sellingpencils | April 22, 2009 12:24 AM | Report abuse

SELF PROCLAIMED GAY MAN.....Really!?!?...I mean have you SEEN this guy....yea,and the Sun is self proclaimed a little hot....

Posted by: andio76 | April 22, 2009 12:36 AM | Report abuse

go Carrie, Perez is an embarrasment

Posted by: snapplecat07 | April 22, 2009 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Was Hilton wrong in calling her names - yes. But if she can not give an answer to the question she deserved to loose. It was not her opinion that caused her to loose, it was how she said it. A Miss USA is expected to be poised in all situations - that was not a poised answer. I don't begrudge her the belief system she holds dear - even though it is not my own. I do begrudge those people who are now complaining that she got a bum question, a hard question and one that she should not have had to answer. I am unhappy that now she is blaming him for her answer or for having to answer and those that are taking up for her as a poor, mistreated, little girl. She was asked if she thought other states should follow suit - not what her personal preferance was as to same sex marriage. She lives in CA which has just passed Prop 8 for God's sake. She could have answered that CA didn't so she didn't think other states should - at least that would have answered the question. And the last time I looked CA was not a country.

Posted by: gjkbear | April 22, 2009 1:00 AM | Report abuse

It's amazing that those cryinng for tolerance are far not only from tolerance, but from simple civility. How about the "b-word", and "c-word" that Mr Hilton applied to Miss California. Not to mention that the sex-political censorsship, in a public venue, is,let me use the d-word, disgusting.

Posted by: felix155 | April 22, 2009 1:11 AM | Report abuse

People will look back at these posting and laugh, one day. Coloreds in our schools and neighborhoods? Heavens no. Coloreds dating our kids? Never! Besides, who pays attention to beauty pageants? They went out of style, after Vanessa Williams.

Posted by: rcvinson64 | April 22, 2009 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Most people don't pay much attention to the Miss USA contest but they will now remember Carrie Prejean for standing up for her beliefs in a moment that she realized was super charged with PC.
Carrie Prejean 100
Perez Hiton 0

Carrie Prejean was the real winner that night, congratulations

Posted by: ekim53 | April 22, 2009 1:15 AM | Report abuse

So, Ms. California was brought up to believe that gay marriage is wrong. Having been brought up to believe something is all the justification one needs to continue believing it in adulthood? Fine. I'm sure that thousands of Hitler Youth would justify their anti-Semitism with the same argument.

Posted by: swmuva | April 22, 2009 1:24 AM | Report abuse

The question was a bit tricky, for sure. But Miss USA is supposed to be able to maintain grace under pressure and avoid offending people. She proved to be incompetent in this regard in dealing with a controversial issue. "No offense to anyone, but..." sounded rather immature and unpolished.

Perez's subsequent comments are nonetheless out of line. He was at least as offensive with his adolescent name calling. It's an embarrassment to the pageant that he served as a judge.

Neither of these people are mature or dignified enough to serve as a responsible role model.

Posted by: MontaraCA | April 22, 2009 1:38 AM | Report abuse

Hmmmm,

Here's a no-brainer question I would have loved to asked Ms California:

"Do you think our nation should extend to 102 million women all rights, privileges, and freedoms 100 million men enjoy or should women be excluded from certain rights, privileges, and freedoms that all men enjoy?"

What do you think this heterosexual, white, female would have said:

"Yes. Our our nation should exclude 102 million females from enjoying certain rights, privileges, and freedoms that 100 million men enjoy. I believe this because I grew up in a family, social network, and state (which I believe is a country -- lol) that taught me this is how things should be."

I doubt it!

Even if she held internalized sexist values, a false-consciousness belief that 102 million women should not enjoy all of the same rights as 100 million men, she would have been exposed to enough women's history, feminism, progressive politics, to know Ms USA is supposed to represent (voice) the best of America's values and ideals -- not its status quo worst!

But then again perhaps this is why Ms California was auditioning her body/looks (and as a footnote her other non-aesthetic talents -- what were they, did she have any?) in a beauty contest versus America's Got Talent or even some contemporary Gong Show. She was all azz and tits, no brain, politically unsophisticated -- all of which speaks to what millions of heterosexual males still think is a females place/purpose in our culture: to look hot, be sexy/an object, not think, conform to and obey the heterosexist patriarchy status quo norm ad nauseum!

Ms California met this beauty contestant criteria 100%! So I agree she should have won 1st Place Bimbo Status! Mr. (Openly Gay Male) Perez shouldn't have expected, judged, her to be anything other than what she was and represents: A Brain-Dead Homophobic Status Quo Bimbo!

If this "pejorative label" (point of view) smacks of being an ad hominem (dis-tasteful name-calling), it is! But then why extend some civil/societal right of "substance and relevancy" to a homophobic bimbo, whose brain lacks any historical and contemporary substance and relevancy, when that empty-brain defends denying others citizens rights, privileges, and freedoms that she enjoys and takes for granted because of her "heterosexual, white, female" privilege and identity.

Posted by: GroupThink | April 22, 2009 2:17 AM | Report abuse

Hilton is the king, of the poo-pushers.

Posted by: dashriprock | April 22, 2009 2:25 AM | Report abuse

sigh. she didn't loose the crown because she gave a politically incorrect answer, she lost because her answer was completely incoherent. In her country, its a wonderful thing to have a choice between same-sex marriage and "different-sex" marriage. Take umbrage at Hilton all you like, but suggesting that Miss California was brought low by political incorrectness is just not born out by the answer she gave.

Posted by: lost_kitten56 | April 22, 2009 2:27 AM | Report abuse

How dare you mock an openly gay man as being **self-proclaimed**! Where do you get off mocking any gay man's outness? You have no idea what a struggle it is for many of us to even say "I am gay" to ourselves. When you mock Hilton's outness, you mock the outness of every other openly gay man.

YOU are a hypocrite! You wallow in feminist offense, while you exhibit no capacity whatsoever to comprehend gay rage and simply mock and belittle it. You rant and rave about a gender slur but you expect every "self-proclaimed" gay man, on pain of your mockery and belittlement, to dispassionately debate the validity of his own existence every time some privileged, clueless heterosexual announces he's inferior and expects him not to take offense. Hypocrite!

Same-sex marriage (or civil unions, or whatever your preference is) may be, for you, a nice abstract issue for sterile debate: "Gee, Bob, what should we deign to give those **self-proclaimed** homosexuals?" For gay men--"self-proclaimed", flamboyant, militant, or whatever other mocking adjective strikes your clueless fancy--the issue involves the utter debasement of one of our most important, most personal relationships and ultimately touches on the validity of our very existence as a human being. You go dispassionately debate the validity of your existence as a woman while some twit announces to your face that you're inherently inferior and "politely" adds, "no offense." Go practice what you mockingly preach.

Get a clue and learn how to address gay men with a shred of respect.

Posted by: uh_huhh | April 22, 2009 2:55 AM | Report abuse

It's ridiculous to compare the perceived plight of Gays to that of Women subordinacy and Black enslavement....I can't think of anything more insulting, more repugnant or as patently stupid.

For those that think the issue of gay marriage is the discriminatory practice of denying rights granted to a certain population to others, I feel sorry for your lack of perception.

Let me put things in context for you. This should also clarify the faulty analogy of comparing this movement to that of gender and race rights.

Despite your constant lies, I, as a heterosexual, have no more inherent rights than any homosexual. I can no more marry a man than you can. I can marry a woman just as well as any other man can. So tell me, which rights do I have that you don't???

Does a pedophile who wants to take his 12 year old lust into marriage have any less rights than I do, simply because his unnatural lustful desires aren't elevated to the status of a biologically cohesive adult male-to-female type of relationship that nature has deemed to be most optimal for a functional society?

Don't be ridiculous. You're deluding yourselves. We both have the same rights; you just aspire to append more inclusive amendments to our laws to satisfy your odd behavior.

And as much as I'm ok with civil unions, there is also another nagging issue of marriage that people never seem to confront as well as I think they should--the definition of "Marriage." Marriage has always been defined as the union between two opposite sexes. The incessant need for gays to insist that we call their unholy union "marriage" is what always made little sense to me. If marriage is to include male-to-male unions, what makes it "marriage" anymore then?

This is like if I, as a Man, wanted the definition of a "Woman" to include me...simply because i felt excluded...or I felt I'm not granted the same rights Women are granted. It's ridiculous. What meaning does being a "Woman" have anymore if we toss out its biological basis for it? It has no meaning. Marriage, in the same way, would have no meaning if it is re-defined to include unions that are biologically incompatible and unnatural!

Posted by: M_Op | April 22, 2009 4:26 AM | Report abuse

And as for the issue at hand, with the fool calling Miss California the hypocrite....I say Trick Please!...only under the state of self-deceit and delusion that you've obviously placed yourself in can you possibly make sense of such an allegation...

Perez Hilton's hypocritical and unprofessional behavior is sadly very typical of today's ultra-self-victimized gays and their hard-line supporters who have fooled everyone into thinking that they are being denied fundamental rights.

Posted by: M_Op | April 22, 2009 4:34 AM | Report abuse

hilton was not the only judge that night of the ms usa pageant. i do personally feel and think that ms california was not quite clear with her answer. she bumbled some of her statement. of course i came in on the tail end of the announcement for first runner-up and ms usa. what was ms north carolina's question and answer? ms california seems to me as though she thought she had the contest sewn up in her favor. she could have been more graceful. no matter is she's not ms usa, she is glamorous enough to get anything she wants. what is "her" america? i think that's where she stumbled. the usa is all of ours as i see it. granted she may have been a little nervous. lets get the politics out of this matter. i'm sure she'll wind up being a fox news broadcaster. i was glad to see that two former state reps in this contest has reasonable views about the situation. hilton was not the sole judge at that pageant. let the trumpster settle this matter. i don't think that it was a matter of her being anti-gay, because she did state that people has their own choices to make. it's ok that has her view about these matters, but there is not need to castigate those that do not agree with her.

Posted by: yvonneprivera | April 22, 2009 4:42 AM | Report abuse

The Washington Post's stylebook specifically says the following under the heading of "gay":

"Do not use terms such as avowed or admitted."

Ms. Rodriguez' b!tchy use of "self-proclaimed" violates that rule. And it is quite ironic, in criticizing Perez Hilton for resorting to an inappropriate gender usage, to resort to an innappropriate sexual orientation usage.

It's really the height of hypocrisy that people such as Rodriguez demand respect for their female "lifestyles" and yet insult other people's sexual orientations.

Posted by: uh_huhh | April 22, 2009 4:43 AM | Report abuse

Perez Hilton is a jerk and a bully.

In defense of Ms. California, before she stated her own opinion about same sex marriage she expressed gratitude that under our Constitution each state could decide the issue on its own. What's stupid about that?

Is same gender (let's be honest, GAY and LESBIAN) marriage easy to accept? No. I have difficulty accepting it.

But, for anyone who seeks great assistance in coming to terms with the justness and correctness of the recognition of civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples, I strongly urge you to read the recent decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, which held that the Iowa law that forbade gay and lesbian civil marriages was unconstitutional on equal protection grounds, and ordered the county clerks of Iowa to issue marriage licenses to otherwise qualified gay and lesbian couples.

Oh, there's a lot of legalese in there, that's difficult going even for an experienced attorney who doesn't practice daily in the area of constitutional law. But, the logic is clear, and the absolute meanness and cruel discrimination of denying the right of marriage to gay and lesbian couples is brought into bold, crystal clear relief.

Here's a link to the decision: http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20090403/07-1499.pdf

Yep. The right to gay and lesbian civil marriage is difficult for me to accept. Especially when it inures to the benefit of a jerk and bully like Perez Hilton. But, if we allow hetero jerks and bullies to marry . . . . .

Posted by: bfieldk | April 22, 2009 4:53 AM | Report abuse

The article was fine up to this point:

"Prejean may have been sincere, but her call to prayer came across as patronizing. What exactly will she be praying for -- that Hilton will suddenly wake up tomorrow to discover his inner heterosexual? Please."

Oh please, Ms. Rodriguez. If you simply review the context of Miss Prejean's prayer comments, you know that she wasn't referring to Hilton's sexual orientation, but only to his hateful and vitriolic response to her.

I think it is nothing less than graciousness that Prejean desires Hilton's improvement as a person and sincerely desires the best for him and that she did not attack Hilton in kind.

Posted by: Gromit2 | April 22, 2009 5:13 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, bfieldk, in particular for that final observation (not to discount the rest of your comment).

Here, Rodriguez fails to recognize that Perez Hilton is only one gay man. She universalizes from him to all of us. It makes no difference, for example, how many young straight women some of us gay men have fought to hire, have mentored, or have tried to protect from sexism. We're all Perez Hilton in her mind. We've all "self-proclaimed" our "lifestyles" and "demanded" something that is apparently a tall order: to be treated with common decency as legal equals.

She opens blaring about how people couldn't be blamed for rethinking their support for same-sex marriage because of one gay jerk. Imagine that, respecting a decision to deprive millions of people of rights because of one jerk. And she then closes by lecturing the entire gay community about Hilton's inappropriate remarks, as if we're all somehow his puppetmasters.

If Perez Hilton were Jewish and she similarly blamed all Jews for his behavior, we'd call that anti-Semitism. So what do we call it when she blames all gay people for the behavior of one gay man?

Posted by: uh_huhh | April 22, 2009 5:19 AM | Report abuse

God Bless You Carrie Prejean!!! Perez Hilton is the biggest tit of them all.

Posted by: kitzdakat | April 22, 2009 5:38 AM | Report abuse

I have an idea: let's get the word out that California's gay people want to be married. What's the best way to do that?

Well, why don't we find a fairly repulsive ambassador for all of us gays, get him a nationwide TV gig with a big audience like a beauty pageant (ahem...for women), and have in work a question about gay marriage into the program?

To show in particular what a truly "California issue" gay marriage is, let's have him ask the California participant about her opinion on gay marriage, since, you know, the issue was recently defeated by a fairly sound margin in a pubic referendum. If we can't shame all the people who voted their conscience in the referendum, let's at least shame this one girl.

And, as a backup tactic, in case this girl gives the "wrong" answer, let's be prepared to issue further press statements, in particular zooming in on her personally. Let's use some base, crude words to describe her.

YEP!! Sounds like a great way to advance the cause to me.

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | April 22, 2009 5:39 AM | Report abuse

Rodriguez hasn't thought things out that far, Curmudgeon10. All she knows is she saw one gay man do something, so the entire gay community must have directed him to do it as part of some "homosexual agenda." You know, a group that secretive, conspiratorial, and subversive really ought to be put in a concentration camp, shouldn't it?

Posted by: uh_huhh | April 22, 2009 5:54 AM | Report abuse

Since when have "beauty" pageants required that the contestants possess any resemblance of brain power let alone any intelligence and resulting consequence of knowledge and an ability to articulate. Miss California, not unlike those "representing" other states was merely placed in front of the viewing audience for reasons other than as in this case to feign legitimacy as a "well-rounded individual" an endeavor for which she stumbled badly. Attempting to portray these contestants in a light other than thrusting upon the viewer the intended physical attributes is in effect an unfair burden upon those vying to wear the crown.

Posted by: myopinion1 | April 22, 2009 6:04 AM | Report abuse

Few things annoy me more than when the press gives attention to a talentless nobody who is merely famous for being famous. Let this guy's 15 minutes of fame expire, ASAP. Is is THAT hard to find a judge for the Miss America pagent?

Posted by: terminator_x | April 22, 2009 6:37 AM | Report abuse

"It's ridiculous to compare the perceived plight of Gays to that of Women subordinacy and Black enslavement ... I can't think of anything more insulting, more repugnant or as patently stupid ... Marriage has always been defined as the union between two opposite sexes."

Oh Really?

White colonial heterosexuals created "anti-miscegenation" marriage laws. These laws prohibited colonial whites (male and female but especially female) from marrying black heterosexuals (male and female). These laws are still on the books of many states -- and enforced by racial bigots via their epithets, hate-crimes, visual-stairing, disowning members of their family who inter-racial marry, teaching their kids they must only marry a member of their race/ethnicity.

Heterosexual marriage has not always been defined based on one's visual biological gender (male and femaleness) but also one's race/ethnicity. Should we re-institute "anti-miscengation" laws, restore the good ole days, America's colonial history?

These racist heterosexist marriage laws were challenged and eventually revoked, changed. Perhaps that change should not have taken place. Why? Because those who created anti-miscegenation laws used the same logic/arguments being used today: "marriage has always been between whites -- closet gay/bi-sexual and openly heterosexual". Does anyone think Ms California's future heterosexual husband will be non-white. I doubt it! I doubt "homophobia" is the only "status quo bigotry" in her "white-bimbo-head".

And let's not even talk about African Slaves. Did they ("property") have the legal right to marry, even if they were heterosexual property? Sure they did: "Hey Master! Me and my Boo are gonna hop on down to the white church and get hitch! We'll be back to pick that cotton and tabacoo Master after the honeymoon!"

So, yes, I too find it "repugnant" and "infuriating" and "ignorant" and "stupid" that contemporary heterosexists revise American history to justify their present-day bigotries.

The historical, present-day, and future truth: "MARRIAGE" was, is, and will become whatever "WE THE PEOPLE" (all 302 million of us) define (and re-define) it to be -- open-ended versus absolute.

Posted by: GroupThink | April 22, 2009 7:00 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, but I agree with "Ms" Hilton. There is no place for a bigot in any competition where a brain is even a minor aspect contributing to success.

Homophobia is bigotry. Period. Opposition to gay marriage is a thoughtless, purposeless, ignorant expression of such bigotry.

Posted by: FergusonFoont | April 22, 2009 7:31 AM | Report abuse

He/she needs to rant.. He/she is blogger by trade. Gee what a role model Hilton is...we should all grow up and be as tolerant as he/she is.

Posted by: robinhood2 | April 22, 2009 7:43 AM | Report abuse

This is all about Hilton trying to get 15 more minutes of fame.

Why ask the question, if you don't want someone's honest opinion? Is the goal to make everyone say nothing when questions are posed?

The press has developed a stupid game here. If someone answers a question honestly, they get villified by everyone who doesn't agree with them. If they provide a neutral answer, they get villified for not answering the question. The only acceptible answer is the "politically correct" one.

Funny, the contestant gave the same answer Obama gave in November.

No wonder we don't know what our politicians stand for. To get elected, they just have to satisfy the most vocal minorities in their constituency.

Posted by: postfan1 | April 22, 2009 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Preejan was dumb, Hilton was childish, sure, but they are just a beauty queen and a gossip blogger, respectively. You, ma'am are an opinion writer for the Washington Post, and this line requires some serious clarification:

"But Prejean and millions others like her have a right to their opinion -- and a right to express that opinion without facing the kind of adolescent vitriol spewed by Hilton over the past couple of days."

Where in the Constitution is one guaranteed the "right" not to face "adolescent vitriol" for holding unpopular opinions? We are not allowed for government to punish us for our beliefs, but our fellow citizens can certainly challenge us, shame us, and mock us for them.

Posted by: Santos1 | April 22, 2009 7:56 AM | Report abuse

Gays haven't been deprived of a right to marry. First there is no right to marry and gays have never had it so they can't be deprived of it.

I wonder how long before the incest and child sex movements start trying the mainstream their values using the rhetoric of the gay rights movement?

Posted by: ronjaboy | April 22, 2009 7:58 AM | Report abuse

Yes of course, one guy goes on a tear and that means every person who shares his any of his traits should be deprived of rights. It's enough to make a thoughtful person wonder if Ms. Rodriguez was looking for an excuse to support her opposition to equal marriage rights.

But perhaps I'm being unfair. Perhaps Ms. Rodriguez is completely oblivious to the vitriol that gays and lesbians are subject to on a daily basis. And not from "quasi-celebrities" such as Fred Phelps and his horde, but famous ministers who compare gay marriage to incest and pedophilia all the way up to elected officials who compare consensual sex to bestiality. I assume she was also deeply engrossed in some project or in a coma when George Bush was re-elected in part because he promised to amend the Constitution of the United States to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. She seems to have missed a lot, has Ms. Rodriguez, so much so that she doesn't link Ms. Prejean's opinions to the constant outpouring of hate that comes from all quarters of this country. But somehow, Hilton speaks for us all.

And the Washington Post wonders why its circ. rates are tanking.

p.s. You'll be glad to know your opinions haven't caused me to re-think my support for women's rights.

Posted by: whowhat | April 22, 2009 8:15 AM | Report abuse

We loan [20 Billion Dollars Per Month With Interest] from [Communist-Socialist [China] to Finance our [2 Middle East Occupations] for the past 6 years and it seems under Obama, this will Continue, until [2011].

Communist-Socialist [China] the largest Communist-Socialist Nation on Planet Earth, Buys Our Debts an thus Owns the [Country]
-------------------

An we are in Bed with [China], Bush just came back, from China, telling Communist-Socialist China, how much we need them and how Crucial the Asian Market is to the World, making up [55%] of the Market...

No one calls George W. Bush a Damn [Communist-Socialist]...

It must be Grand to be the [Corporate Color] having All the Perks-Bonuses and Give Me's one can stand ?

Posted by: omaarsblade | April 22, 2009 8:23 AM | Report abuse

groupthink wrote:Ms California (and all heterosexual white females who hold her values) should be enslaved for most of their life and then burned at the stake? Why? Because they are "female" and "white" -- attributes and practices which I deem deviate and thus not entitled to enjoy the same societal rights and privileges I do.

--wow, yr a sick little puppy

Posted by: snapplecat07 | April 22, 2009 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Perez,

"You're fired!" should have been the Donald's only response to this dust up. Hilton's obvious bias against this young woman's opinion on both a highly personal and political issue obviated whatever other "talents" she had demonstrated to become a finalist.

The mass media is obsessed with political correctness in how it stages these "reality" events. The judging panels seem to be made up of a man, a woman and, in this case, a gay. All the bases are covered but Hilton's bias backfired and poor little Miss California is now plodding the talk show circuit and gaining even greater notoriety than the young woman who was the beneficiary of Hilton's swing (pardon the pun) vote.

Mr. Hilton has achieved a degree of celebrity by simply becoming a blogger about celebrity. Now he has become one, in the flesh, demonstrating the kind of bias he rails against as a gay man. What is his next gig? I can't wait to see how he embarasses the cause of gay rights even more.

Posted by: bobfbell | April 22, 2009 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Tolerance only works one-way with the Left.

Posted by: NeverLeft | April 22, 2009 8:28 AM | Report abuse

why is this loser given any credibility? Why has it become mainstream to be low end and trashy?

Posted by: djrhood | April 22, 2009 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Tolerance only works one-way with the Right.

Posted by: sanone38 | April 22, 2009 9:02 AM | Report abuse

SnappleCat:

Please don't take my words ("point of view" as Ms Rodriguez opines) out of context.

But you got my rhetorical point, I hope. That is exactly what I think of all the excuses, rationales, and justifications homophobic heterosexuals use to discriminate against LGBT citizens!

Their words, opinions, rationales (all of them) are that of "bigoted sick little heterosexist puppies" -- including the brain-dead opinion of Ms California:)

And if you're one of these bigoted sick little heterosexist puppies SnappleCat, then you can KMA too:)

But don't get mad, I'm just expressing "my point of view" and exercising my "1st Amendment Rights" -- just like Ms California and any other homophobic bigots (aka, "sick little puppies").

Posted by: GroupThink | April 22, 2009 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Perez Hilton is a disgusting person. He is self-indulgent, smarmy and a narcissist, as well as being physically repulsive. He is the best argument there is against Gay Marriage, or Gay-anything for that matter.

Posted by: pgr88 | April 22, 2009 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Ugh. What do we expect from a friggin' beauty pageant which are at best the very definition of vapidity and vanity and at worst the objectification of women.

Here's an idea: these people are both idiots.

Posted by: distance88 | April 22, 2009 9:15 AM | Report abuse

It's just jealousy on Hilton's part. As a gay man, he wishes he had been born a woman, especially one as attractive as Miss California. Instead, he is a publicity-seeking little man who shpold be judging drag queen contests and not heterosexual events.

Posted by: leap1950 | April 22, 2009 9:22 AM | Report abuse

I get the feeling that we are NOT entitled to our opinion if that opinion falls outside of the left's strictly defined political correctness. Just look at Proposition 8 in California, which was democratically passed by the will of the majority. It was immediately attacked as unacceptable and its supporters were derided and targeted politically. We live in a time of neo-fascism and this time it isn't the right-wing that's leading the charge.

Something tells me that if Perez Hilton was a little more subtle in his bigoted ramblings (such that the true fascist nature of the left was more veiled), that you would have excused it as a perfectly reasonable reason to oppress that pageant contestant.

Posted by: BinkyLover | April 22, 2009 9:24 AM | Report abuse

This writer, Eva Rodriguez, was very condescending towards Prejean. The Miss USA pageant has no credibility in my book. Judges should not be so classless and biased in such a competition, using foul profanity to berate contestants. These ladies are given 30 seconds to answer shallow questions. What kind of serious discourse do you want her to have in 30 seconds? And this nonsense about the right answer is insulting. The right answer is her honest opinion. Men are not the only ones with opinions. Women are not supposed to regurgitate some pc answer just to kiss a judge's butt. That's insulting. The woman stuck to her guns, and she should be respected for that.

Posted by: forgetthis | April 22, 2009 9:29 AM | Report abuse

To Groupthink,
Discriminated? Gay households are the richest demographic in the US! No hospital in the US denies you the right to visit your partner. Survivorship rights are available with little effort on your part. Gay marriage is not about anything but your need to be accepted and acknowledged as something you're not. Please excuse those of us who disagree with your whining about how difficult your life is. Life is tough, it's tougher if you spend your days whining about perceived slights. Get over yourself and you might actually enjoy the rest of your life.

Posted by: the_node | April 22, 2009 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Ms. California basically said that the rights of gay adults should be restricted because that's the way she was raised. I don't think it's so shocking that Perez Hilton, a gay man, would be mad about that.

It's silly to pretend that people can't get mad when others express opinions about their rights. How would people feel if one of the contestants was a white supremacist and expressed her opinions about the rights of black people?

Posted by: acebojangles | April 22, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse

I can't believe the idiotic arguments that are being made to justify denying gays the right to marry. Some fool even said that since gays can marry (just not members of the same sex), what right don't they have that heterosexuals have? How about the right to marry the person they love? I'm glad that we'll soon see the end of this bigotry. 50 years from now people will look back on this much the same as they now do at pictures of the drinking fountains labeled "colored."

Posted by: Gutavo | April 22, 2009 9:47 AM | Report abuse

To me this looks like a conspiracy hatched by the Ms. America pageant. Otherwise who cares about these stupid pageants and some guy called Perez Hilton..is he a butler to Paris or what.

Posted by: reddy531 | April 22, 2009 9:51 AM | Report abuse

To "the_node":

First, KMA!

Second, I'm not gay or bi-sexual. It blows my mind that YOU would assume such, simply because of my points of view here.
I'm a heterosexual who enjoys the right to marry if me and my heterosexual female life partner choose. And that is my point of view -- LGBT citizens don't have that legal choice.

Third, I agree with you: "Please excuse those of us who passionately disagree with your whining homophobic excuses and rationales about how difficult your heterosexist life would be if our nation extends marriage and all other rights to all of its adult citizens".

Fourth, yes me and my heterosexual female partner do make over $100K plus disposable income (after all taxes, expenses/debts, and retirement/investments). So I guess you can add "uppitty-black-heterosexual-negroe-couple" to your bigoted point of view:)

Last, again KMA:) But don't get mad. I'm just expressing my point of view.

Posted by: GroupThink | April 22, 2009 9:52 AM | Report abuse

So Paris decides to drop a b-bomb on her, initially apologizes, and then retracts and says he wished he had brought out the heavy artillery with a c-blast. No, Ms. Rodriguez you don't call that a hypocrite; you call that a phony.
This is not about Preejan's opposition to same-sex marriage or same-sex marriage in general or even the price of tires in China. It's about debate in this society which has become nothing more than a name-calling contest. And Mr. Hilton, who is nothing more than a graffiti artist--I really hate using that term as it implies talent--exemplifies that it happens on the left.
And it happens on the Right as well. On GlennSacks blog I saw a right-winger imply that Mr. Sacks, who supports gay marraige, was gay. Both sides need to grow up and learn to express themselves in more than a fifth-graders recess vocabulary.

Posted by: pueblonative | April 22, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

In her response to the gay marriage question during the competition, Miss California sounded a bit like that other well-known beauty pageant contestant from Alaska, who in her speech to the anti-abortion crowd essentially stated:

"I believe in choice, so long as the only choice available is the choice that I choose to make."

Posted by: labman57 | April 22, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Well, first of all, even if you are against gay marriage, there is a way to answer that question honestly without sounding like an idiot. Miss California did not find it (opposite marriage, really?). But, even that being the case, she lost the crown to Miss North Carolina because Miss North Carolina was prettier... simple as that. It's a BEAUTY CONTEST! Not a future diplomat to the U.N. contest.

Posted by: jenzinoh | April 22, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Groupthink,
No just uppity, the rest is irrelevant. Don't care about your race, sexual preference or income level. But disagreeing with your uppity attitude doesn't make me a bigot. But I'll bet dollars to doughnuts my blood pressure isn't near as high as yours.

Posted by: the_node | April 22, 2009 10:04 AM | Report abuse

So Miss California bumbled over her answer and said "in my country." She was obviously nervous. That's not the point. The issue is the tasteless, foul response which is unbecoming of a judge. The Miss USA pageant should be ashamed of itself.

Posted by: forgetthis | April 22, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

A non-story about non-people.

Posted by: cthehill | April 22, 2009 10:08 AM | Report abuse


"If there had been any doubt that the poor answer cost Prejean dearly,"

It wasn't a poor answer; it was an honest answer. The b1tch set her up.

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | April 22, 2009 10:14 AM | Report abuse

GroupThink,

California, the most liberal state in the union's Prop-8 was on the ballot during a huge sunami of anti-conservative sentiment. Barack Obama then delivered more liberal voters, free-thinking college students, and minorities to the polls than had been seen in decades. Gay Marriage was still voted down in that state. What does that tell you?

Even Minnesota's Al Franken, quite possibly the most polarizing politician of all, was able to ride Obama's swell of popularity to a Senate seat.

You Lose, better luck next time.

Or maybe you can fall on the floor, kick and scream like a 2 year old (or like Perez Hilton) until maybe somebody will listen, but to be honest, we're really quite tired of hearing it. My guess is you'll just call us who do not see your point of view nasty names (perhaps Bigot, or Racist, or Homophobe-that's a good one), that works well for your type of guerilla tactics.

For the record, Obama, Biden, Hillary, and Bill's feeling on this matter are pretty much identical to Ms. California.

Keep on shouting at the rain, but I for one ain't buying into your little guilt trip.

Posted by: NCvotingGOP | April 22, 2009 10:17 AM | Report abuse

I have no idea who Perez Hilton is, but he doesn't seem worth the attentin he's getting.

Posted by: sylvia_giem | April 22, 2009 10:28 AM | Report abuse

To "the node"

Please don't bet -- lol.

Given the status quo point of view you've express on here, I'd say you're not very informed, smart, or sophisticated. By the way, my life partner just happens to be a MD, PhD Doctor -- and one of the best of the best in her field! So again you're WRONG about my health or anything else you wish to assume or project:)

The bottom-line Node is:

I have the wealth, power, social networks, intellect, credentials, and all that other social status stuff to express my point of view, but more significant to act on it: allocate money to human rights, gay rights, and other political causes. I also have enough power, wealth, to protect myself and others (defense and offense wise) from bigots -- not the esoteric kind, but the no-kidding real life kind, those who act on their bigoted values.

I don't take this power for granted! And I most assuredly use it to help out others, those who have less or no power, so that they may also enjoy all of those rights, privileges, and freedoms many Americans often take for granted.

So YOU continue to voice your point of view on here (and anywhere else you desire), exercise your 1st Amendment Rights, and I'll continue to do the same.

I only ask, please don't project any of those presumptive heterosexist opinions onto any LGBT blogger here or offline. I take responsibility for my voice (pro and con). It doesn't represent any group. It represents ME -- my voice, my opinion, my point of view, my values, my politics.

Should it benefits others, I'm grateful and humbled. Should it injure anyone, impact wise, then I'm saddened, for such is never my intent. I only hope those homophobic heterosexuals who express themself here (and offline) are equally willing to accept responsiblity for any impact (pro or con) that their voice may have. Too often "we individuals" think of ourselves as "islands" versus what we are, interconnected, interdependent, beings.

Posted by: GroupThink | April 22, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

I totally agree here. I am a gay rights supporter, but some people are and some people aren't. And if you ask someone whether they are, and they give an honest answer..... I just don't get why Perez has to be so upset. It's so annoying that he is turning this into such a spectacle.

Posted by: linzk717 | April 22, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Funny how so many people admire Miss California for being "honest" but have little tolerance for Hilton being honest to his point of view. I thought Miss California was confusing in her response ... and believe me, I certainly wasn't looking for a statement from a Beauty Pageant contestant to form any opinion one way or the other on same-sex marriage. Nor, do I care what Hilton thinks. But to write that one is honest and the other not, is ridiculous. And also, who cares what Obama, Biden or Clinton have to say about it .. when do we stop thinking other people's "opinions" are better than our own. Who someone chooses to marry is none of anyone else's business ... it is as simple as that!

Posted by: paris1969 | April 22, 2009 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Remember Sean Penn said people who don't support gay marriage are "ignorant" at the Academy Awards. These gay rights people need a political platform to spread their propaganda. But by being so self-rightious, they'll get no sympathy.

Posted by: tiotom77 | April 22, 2009 10:39 AM | Report abuse

GroupThink,
Now that was a reasoned response to which I have nothing but respect.
Thanks
(But your assumptions about my intellect or sophistication belie your sincerity)
Enjoy the rest of your day. I do need to continue my duty defending liberty and preserving the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Posted by: the_node | April 22, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Who cares what this walking, talking barbie doll thinks? Obviously her brain is full of oatmeal. She'll make some guy a nice Stepford Wife.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | April 22, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

And what exactly is the point you're trying to make? That Miss Calif. has a right to her opinion? No one said she didn't, and her response wasn't censored.

But you're flat out wrong when you say she has "a right to express that opinion without facing the kind of adolescent vitriol."

No my friend, that's the risk of having an opinion - that it might not be well-received. And that her only support for her belief was that she had been programmed to think that way since birth deserves harsh criticism.

What is it you would have liked to have happened in this case? If Miss Calif. shouldn't have to face vitriol for her opinions, then Perez Hilton shouldn't have to face your insults either.

Posted by: fitzroysq | April 22, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

PS Who cares what nancyboy Perez Hilton thinks either?

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | April 22, 2009 10:49 AM | Report abuse

"we're really quite tired of hearing it."

Then please let me buy you a 1st class ticket to another nation. I'll even make a phone call and get your citizenship status revoked and enacted for any country of your choice -- perhaps the Great Heterosexist Nation, if it exist?

Until then you might want to buy some ear-plugs, cuz whoever "we're" is, the "it" won't stop:) And if Prop 8 and Majority Rule (referendums) are your claimed authority to defend and practice your bigotry, then please let me buy you a copy of the Constitution and Democrasy in America.

May I refer you to the section on the "Tyranny of the Majority" and de Tocqueville's keen observations about the white majority and black enslaved minority. Perhaps you'll learn some historical lessons, such as not taking the "status quo" for granted:)

The last time I checked, I didn't have any mental/physical chains on. But I'm sure had my ancestors listen to status quo colonial ancestors then I'd still be wearing them, cuz surely them ancestors got tired of hearing about equal rights, extending rights, to those they believed shouldn't be entitled to them, and for many of the same status quo reasons I'm hearing today, online and offline.

Posted by: GroupThink | April 22, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Okay, I am trying to understand what the big problem is with this. Is Perez Hilton such a narcisist that he doesn't realize not everyone agrees with same sex marriage. I believe it is up to the people to decide. I am for more state rights and sorry, Mr. Hilton, your beautiful state of California voted against same sex marriage. What did you think, she was going to be intimidated and not speak her mind? Everyone, including you have the right to your own opinion. Are you going to go to everyone in your state and ask if they voted for or against same sex marriage and if they voted against are you going to call them a b#$@% or c#$% because they didn't share your views. Where is Hollywood when you have Jamie Foxx calling Miley Cyrus, a 16 year a b$#% and saying she needs to make a sex tape and get on heroin and calling her gums big???? Where is Hollywood when you have Janeane Garafolo calling everyone who attended "The TeaBagging Party" as she likes to call it, (along with Uubermann, Anderson, Maddow, ect.) a racist and have some form of brain damage for having beliefs that we do not want bigger government and more taxes pressed upon us. I am appauled and saddened by her views. I am from a southern state, and I am the furthest away from a racist as you can get. I am actually hoping Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal make a go for the 2012 election. And yes, hold on to your seats, Michael Steele, wait for it.... Is black!! And Bobby Jindal.... wait for it, is the som of Indian immigrants, which makes him...... An Indian American, which is.... not white. I believe that in this country everyone has a right to their opinion good or bad, right or wrong. I just don't see how you can berrate one person and cheer another. Boggles the mind I tell you.

Posted by: kenseysmama | April 22, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

"I couldn't disagree more with Prejean's opinions. I support same-sex marriage -- or at the very least civil unions that provide the same legal benefits to same-sex couples that heterosexual couples take for granted." The question was about marriage, not civil unions.

Miss California gave an honest and valid answer to a question that does not belong in that contest. Her fault is that she did not give the kind of answer that some, obviously very vocal, people want. But she was honest, without insulting anyone.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | April 22, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

May all you hateful "Christian" homophobes be blessed with a gay child or grandchild to open your cold, closed hearts. It worked a little for Dick Cheney so it might work for you as well - or, you could just shoot them in the name of poor old Jesus.

Posted by: coloradodog | April 22, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, gjkbear, Miss California gave a dumb answer to the question. I guess she's not as smart as you. P.S. You misspelled the word "lose". It is not spelled "loose".

Posted by: declaire | April 22, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

There are two problems with this whole bit of foolishness: The first is Perez Hilton. He's a show-boating non-celebrity who will do anything to get his photo taken. He could have said he didn't like her answer without behaving embarrassingly and making gays look foolish. The second problem is Ms. Prejean. Her comments are hypocritical. She, naturally, trotted out the Bible to defend her prejudice. The Bible? A woman who just paraded up and down a runway in a bikini so tiny it left nothing to the imagination in front of millions of leering men is casting stones?

Posted by: jaynashvil | April 22, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

I agree with WashingtonDame.

I live in ME where same sex marriage is currently being hotly debated. I have no problems with G/L people marrying. That being said, Hilton is a celebrity-azz-kissing moron. He's had more than his 15 mins of fame - fame that totally has me baffled.

Ms. CA was asked a question and she gave her answer. Period. Had she been better informed, she would've been a tad more intellectual about it re states deciding, etc etc. But she was asked her opinion. On what grounds would she be disqualified for that opinion when it's probably shared by 50% of the U.S. population? Disqualify her for some other infraction - not for what is essentially freedom of speech. I guess the name of this game is mendacity - lie and tell the moron judges exactly what they want to hear. If you want to do that, run for political office.

Posted by: itsagreatday1 | April 22, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

May all you hateful "Christian" homophobes be blessed with a gay child or grandchild to open your cold, closed hearts. It worked a little for Dick Cheney
------------

Nah, it didn't for Cheney. You have to first have a heart...

Posted by: itsagreatday1 | April 22, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Cheney does have a heart, albeit one that is small and diseased. Sort of Grinch-like, pre-transformation.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | April 22, 2009 11:42 AM | Report abuse

I agree that she has a right to her views and opinions, but there are two things that make me look at this differently.

First, Anti-gay remarks are bigotry; I don't care how you try to justify it. It's equivalent to saying "I don't think that black people should be able to marry white people, that's just how I was raised." That's fine for you to believe, but then being shocked that it reflected negatively on you? Please.

And secondly, she was a finalist in a beauty pageant, who did she think was judging this thing? I think that the fact that she still got 2nd place is pretty remarkable. Further, her answer was already clumsy and awkward, and isn't THAT something that she's being judged on?

This is a non-story about a homophobe trying to call sour grapes when her own failings kept her from getting to the top spot (and maybe the winner was really yhat good?). Can we move on to something more important?

Posted by: richardscd | April 22, 2009 11:51 AM | Report abuse

I had never seen Perez Hilton before, but when I saw him on the news, I immediately began vomiting buckets. I thought I was looking at a gigantic Jello mold.

Posted by: wangbang747 | April 22, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

fr ronjaboy:

>Gays haven't been deprived of a right to marry. First there is no right to marry and gays have never had it so they can't be deprived of it.

I wonder how long before the incest and child sex movements start trying the mainstream their values using the rhetoric of the gay rights movement.<

Let me explain this to you. Yes, glbt's most certainly HAVE been denied the RIGHT to marry the legal, consenting, unattached adult of their choice.

We do not wish to marry farm animals, children, or siblings. Grow UP and get a life.

Posted by: Alex511 | April 22, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Just An Opinion -- Hmmmmm:)

Okay, let's do a reality-check!

Nobody can express an opinion, especially one the act on, and not experience a consequence -- approval, neutrality, or disapproval. Not even our 1st Amendment Rights (the Freedom of Speech Bill of Rights part) gives us unconstrained, universal context, rights of speech.

1. One cannot say anything and everything to their boss -- unconstrained without a consquence: "Hey Boss. Your management style and personality suck!" And then if that boss demotes you or fires you, I doubt any court will compel you being re-hired based on some wrongful termination claim -- "I was just expression my opinion".

2. "You Stupid N---, You Ignorant B---, You Queer F---- ..." and so forth can get you killed/murdered if you express such opinions to some individual or group in public.

3. Even this site (and all others) have their "Full Rules" that "regulate" what we can and cannot say -- permiting subjective interpretions of the complainer and site host.

4. More important, our opinions, those we act on, impact the lives of individuals and groups -- especially if those opinions are indeed biased.

Imus has an opinion. He got fired! Rev Wright had an opinion. He was rebuked by mainstream media. David Duke has an opinion. But I doubt any minorities want to hear it, would respond if he stepped into their neighborhood. Third Wave Feminists have opinions, one's they would like enacted. But many males (especially heterosexual) don't respect their right to voice them, especially to enact them. Most elites (the affluent who own and control our employment institutions) rarely care about the opinions of non-elites, unless it impacts their profits.

I don't have any issue with any opinion, as long as it doesn't have a bigoted impact on me, my family, and other citizens. I don't have to get all sophisticated in knowing what is bigoted and not bigoted. I only have to ask myself or the opinionated person: Can I apply your opinion (value) to you. If they say NO then I suspect a double-standard exclusionary biased opinion:)

For example, would any heterosexual object to any non-heterosexual having the opinion that strait-folks shouldn't be entitled to get married -- and seek to have government enforce that opinion? I'm sure straits wouldn't just consider such an opinion, a point of view, especially if acted on, "just a point of view".

Posted by: GroupThink | April 22, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

The problem is that both sides of this argument are mixing religious views with legal rights. Homosexuals are not discriminated against by the individual states, as each state has the right to determine who it will offer legal recognition to in terms of marriage. If you took the word marriage out of the equation, and used the words civil union, or partnership, there would not be an issue. In the state's view a marriage license is nothing more than a legally binding contract. Unfortunately, those members of the same sex union movement insist on using the word marriage, which is synonymous with a religious ceremony, therefore people who grew up being taught that marriage was a covenant before God, are not going to accept same sex marriages. It is my humble opinion that this argument is silly and pointless and could be solved very quickly if both sides took a deep breath and realized they are being foolish.

Posted by: welangIII | April 22, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

i am for rights for all people,if gay people want to get married, as some one said. let them be as miserable as the rest of us. seriously, the beauty comtestant and any other dissenting person has a right to their opinion and the quasi celeb hilton should not call people names that do agree with him. i blame trump for giving that weasel a forum. if you do agree with same sex marriage you don't need him to plead your case.

Posted by: ninnafaye | April 22, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Such a convulsion!

Hilton certainly was within his rights as a judge to vote his conscience, assuming (will we ever really know?) that he was within the parameters of the rules of the competition. He was an immensely stupid jerk to go public USING THE DEMEANING LANGUAGE that he used. B**** is bad enough, but c***????? well, let's not even go there!

One doesn't have to agree with Ms. Prejean (I don't, as it turns out) in order to think she didn't deserve a blast of invective of that kind. One can even agree that she lost the contest fair and square (e.g., for not being PC, for not answering competently, for ______ [YOU fill in the blank], or just because Perez Hilton had an agenda, justified or otherwise, and Prejean got it wrong in his view . . .) without being required to support his intemperate remarks. Ms. Prejean's having incorrect, even offensive, opinions doesn't justify Hilton's lack of civility.

OK, I can hear the outrage now! So do I think this is just a questions of BAD MANNERS on Hilton's part?? No, not JUST bad manners, although Hilton's were just awful. I think it's a case of egregious and hyperbolic (and, I suspect, egomaniacally-inspired) invective which demeans the legitimate call for respect that the gay community is otherwise entitled too. No, this isn't about us straights having a right to expect obsequious and deferential behavior on the part of gays as they struggle to fight discrimination, a struggle which I happen to support. I don't expect the struggle even to be friendly. We'll not be holding hands and singing "Kum Ba Yah" on this issue, I expect. No, this is about all of us preserving respect and rationality in our discourse. I loathe the spewings of Limbaugh and his fellow-travelers not just because I disagree with their lunatic-fringe Neanderthal politics and disregard for the truth, but also because of their intemperance and irrationality. So I should accept similar behavior from Hilton?? Sorry, ain't gonna happen. His being gay shouldn't deny his right to enter the national conversation, but it's no excuse for his boorishness.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | April 22, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

The winner in this debate is clearly Donald Trump. I can't believe beauty pageants still exist. Much less are televised. They seem sort of like pantaloons or girdles. Just sexist, old-fashioned and demeaning. But I digress. Referring to Perez Hilton as a "self-proclaimed" homosexual made my hackles go up, Ms. Rodqiguez. Poor choice of words. On the other hand, you'd have a real challenge on your hands to find someone more worthless than Perez Hilton. I mean, he makes his living scribbling graffiti on paparazzo pictures. That's it. Nothing to it. No need for brains or skills or ethics. But Miss California (while maintaining her right to her opinion, blah, blah, blah) got it wrong. The opposite of marriage is divorce. And just because your parents raised you to be a bigot does not mean it's okay to choose to remain a bigot as an adult. That's not much of an example. And I would guess beauty queens are supposed to set examples. Or open shopping malls. I'm just sayin'

Posted by: avidwpreader | April 22, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

I agree WeLangill:

Let's renounce the word/concept "marriage" and enact "unversal civil unions" in the name of God and Law:) Or let's ban all 302 million citizens from "marrying" each other -- and use the justication that marriage is a sexist patriarchial religious institution that a 21st century superpower nation no longer needs:) In effect, let's create a "relationship contract" that 302 million citizens can equally enjoy, which the entire nation can culturally affirm:) But let's not create "separate but equal doctrines" (straight out of some Jim Crow movie) to justify one group having contractual privileges and titlles that all 302 million Americans cannot enjoy by choice:)

Posted by: GroupThink | April 22, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Some of you are down right frightening. THis poor girl never once said that gays shouldn't have the right to get married, she just expressed her constitutional right to have her opinion about it as she was asked. Basically you are telling her how SHE should live and what SHE should be believe. What I am hearing is reverse discrimination and bigotry. You have the right to be as gay as you want to be. Go where ever you want, do whatever you want to do just as you have fought so hard to be be accepted. Just dont try and force everyone to believe in what you do. Just because I am Christian doesn't mean that I hate Jews or Muslims. I may not agree with some their beliefs but Oh, Well. To each his own. Thats what makes this country so wonderful. Next you will be beating up people just because they AREN'T gay. GIve it a break

Posted by: tisch | April 22, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Well, I appreciate your support for our rights, Ms. Rodriguez--really I do--but what on Earth possesses you to open your column with this line:

"It's a wonder that even supporters of same-sex marriage don't reconsider their position after hearing the embarrassing, infuriating, self-absorbed rantings of quasi-celebrity Perez Hilton"

I think Hilton is a real schmuck myself, and I always have. But why on Earth would or should I question my God-given natural right to not be treated differently by my state or federal governments regarding the relationship that I have with the person I love? Because (surprise!) there are rude and obnoxious gay people as well?

Not.

I found that mere suggestion offensive, and it colored my entire reading of your column.

At any rate, Hilton actually asked the question in a fairly healthy framing. His total lack of a healthy framing for how she responded was really sad and unfortunate. He had a good point in one of his responses, however, in that Prejean could have easily stuck to her position and her belief on the subject, and yet done so in a less alienating way. Of course she or anyone who has the right to disagree that marriage rights should exist for everyone. However, Paris Hilton, idiot though he may be, has the right to ask a question like this, even as part of the Miss American contest in which subjects of the day are asked of contestants.

The eventual winner, Miss North Carolina, has handled this affair brilliantly. Miss California did not, and appears to be blaming her misfortune (if you want to call 2nd place that) of not winning on those doggone politically correct gays! Convenient playing the victim on the backs of gay people....that is so tired and overdone.

I feel for Ms. California, but her behavior after the fact has proven that she's unable to take responsibility for the fact that her answer was not that of the most beautiful person in the contest. Instead, she's almost seemingly blaming those pesky gays and their gaul for asking to be treated equally.....at least in how the press is covering this.

That's not OK with me. Nor is some idea that I would want to give up my position that I should be treated equally under the law.

They both look bad here...

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | April 22, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

The problem is lack of proper education. People who support homosexual marriage are ignorant, and never received a good grounding in history and sociology.
Marriage is the union between men and women, that creates children and family.

Posted by: WilliamBlake | April 22, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

fr logical...:

>...It is no wonder people don't take the gay rights movement seriously - gay rights activists don't believe in democracy if they are given the reigns of power. They expect their views to be sarcosanct, their views to be accepted by all, and would shove their ideologies down everyone's throat...<

Actually, GLBTs and our supporters do NOT "shove" anything down people's throats; that's the rr, the 'dr' james dobdorks, and the following CULTS: the afa, the frc and the fotf, along with that ilk.

Wanna have fun? Go to the next Pride event in your town and have the fundies and so-called "slavic 'Christians' " throw ROCKS at you. Have them shove their ideas down YOUR throat. See what it feels like.

In short, "logic", get a clue, and grow UP.

Posted by: Alex511 | April 22, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

So why was a gay man a judge at a beauty pageant for women in the first place?

And GroupThink, you have some real issues, especially as shown in your first post here.

Posted by: RMS70 | April 22, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

So what's next? Will someone from MoveOn.org be at the next pagaent asking questions about the Bush Administration Torture Memos? Will this be before or after the swimsuit competition?

Posted by: jp1954 | April 22, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I think an important question that should be asked is, "why is a shallow man like Hilton engaging in social issues with a shallow woman in a shallow contest?"

Posted by: obx2004 | April 22, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

WeLangill....I understand where you are coming from regarding your views on marriage.

However, you also need to distinguish between religious and civil marriage. They are, in fact, completely distinct institutions. The civil right to be recognized equally under the law by all levels of government is at stake. Deeming "marriage" as 100% religious is not going to work as a solution that satisfies either side in this debate. You either need to simply recognize that no one OWNS the word "marriage" and that it can mean different things in different contexts, like most other words in the English language, or not. If not, the only choice is civil unions for EVERYONE, and no differences in the rights, priveleges, and repsonsibilities afforded to EVERYONE in that matter.

Or, we could just keep it simple and acknowledge that marriage LAWS in governmental statutory and constitutional law are about civil matters--contracts and all. The religious sacrament is separate, and also very important, especially for the devout.

Is it not possible to have civil marriage for all, and religious marriage deemed appropriate by churches how they deem it to be so?

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | April 22, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

The Pageant obviously knew about Perez Hilton's reputation when they hired him to be a judge. They were probably trying to position themselves as being "edgier" than Miss America to improve their TV ratings (although it would be hard to top Vanessa Williams's pre-pageant porno shoot in the 1980s.) They've succeeded beyond their wildest dreams with this controversy. While we beat ourselves up over gay rights once again, pageant organizers are laughing all the way to the bank. Who are the real homophobes here?

Posted by: swmuva | April 22, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

How can a pageant that is supposedly designed to advance women put a judge who clearly has no respect for females on the judging panel?

Posted by: benevolentanarchist | April 22, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Plain and simply put, Perez Hilton is an opportunistic A**hole.

Posted by: petemik | April 22, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

The problem is lack of proper education. People who support homosexual marriage are ignorant, and never received a good grounding in history and sociology.

Marriage is the union between men and women, that creates children and family.

In the ancient past marriage was mandated by law. People were required to marry, usually by 30, and have children or lose their citizenship, AND/OR face some other penalties.

Posted by: WilliamBlake | April 22, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Who is this Perez Hilton? And why should I care?

Posted by: kwbinMD | April 22, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the Vermont General Assembly took care of the gay marriage issue this year.

The same legislature also took care of the Miss America / Miss USA foolishness in the 1970's when I was a member of that body.

As was then its custom in every state, the Miss America organization got a legislator to introduce a resolution extolling the virtues of the Miss America Pageant.

In every prior year that resolution had passed unanimously on a voice vote without debate.

That year, however, a young Representative rose and said:

"Mr. Speaker, the Miss America Pageant is no better than a cattle show, so I move that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Agriculture."

The vote was called immediately and the House, used to the forever-precedent of automatically voice-voting "yes" on the Miss America Resolution, voted "yes" on the motion and sent the resolution to the Ag Committee, from which it did not emerge during that session.

Also, the Miss America - Miss USA Resolution was never again introduced into the Vermont legislature.

Go, Vermont!

Posted by: norriehoyt | April 22, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Perez Hilton is a snarky passe loser who has made a career out of being a snarky passe loser. As such, he is the perfect judge for Miss USA, a snarky passe beauty pageant that has as much bearing on the real world as Perez does.

Posted by: the_defenseman | April 22, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Congrats Perez Hilton, you grandstanding bag of wind, you just got a lot of people who probably wouldn't have cared about this issue one way or another off the fence by showing what "PC tolerance" is really all about.

The woman expressed her opinion, thats it. You're a tool.

Posted by: luca_20009 | April 22, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

If anyone needed proof of why gays should not be allowed out of the closet - Perez Hilton is it.

Posted by: pgr88 | April 22, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone else notice that the crowd erupted into applause when she stated her opinion that marriage was between a man and a woman? Obviously, she didn't offend everyone. And obviously, not everyone is afraid of the PC Mafia.

Posted by: forgetthis | April 22, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Group Think:

The two issues ARE NOT THE SAME.

You could go into any restaurant or do anything that you wanted because of the color of your skin. No one had to know that you were "gay".

The miscegenation laws were based on color and was between a MAN and WOMAN.

I agree with Ms. Prejean's statement.

I am not supporting this type of whatever you want to call it but it is not marriage, and intend to fight vigorously in in state.


Posted by: JerseyGirl1 | April 22, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it, Perez Hilton, an openly gay flaming homosexual male, is not qualified to be judging a woman's beauty contest. Perez Hilton is definitely qualified to judge a transsexual or transvestite beauty contest. That is his true area of expertise.

Posted by: spam6 | April 22, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Perez Hilton, whoever the hell he is, proves the universality of the internet, its total democracy as well as its total openness to demagoguery.

This "personality" is a self-made product of run amok bloviation. His accomplishments are simply that he has some sort of following and that created a fame of sorts, not dissimilar to Rush Limbaugh's.

He is a malicious insect in love with the sound of his own voice. That was clear in his interview post-contest. He is devoid of morality, not because he's a self-proclaimed gay but because he's vindictive against anyone not sharing his philosophy.

Those who chose him to be a judge need to have their heads examined.

Posted by: can8tiv | April 22, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

In the ancient past marriage was mandated by law. People were required to marry, usually by 30, and have children or lose their citizenship, AND/OR face some other penalties.

Posted by: WilliamBlake | April 22, 2009 1:04 PM


I bet you'd love to force someone to marry you, eh?

Posted by: obx2004 | April 22, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

"OK, I can hear the outrage now!"

No outrage just a reality check:)

Why do the targets of discrimination (regardless of whether culprits believe what they say and do is such) have to live up to (and at all times) this esoteric standard of civility in how they respond to bigoted opinions or acts?

So, yes, civility, logic, rational discourse are the ideal, the standard of conflict resolution, 302 million Americans should live up to -- culprit and victims. But the realit-check is -- we don't! And if and when we don't, the victimizer doesn't get a free pass to where the burden of civility shifts to the injured.

I dare any white person to walk into any black community and start calling kinfolks the N-Word and then expect and demand civility -- cuz you was just expressing your opinion. I dare any male to go out in public and start calling any female the B-Word and see whether all responses (including that of law enforcement) are civilized. I dare Pat Buchanan, David Duke, Rush Limbau, and Palin go into the black community and espouse their political opinions/politics and see whether they'll get a civilized, rational, reception. Conversely, can I go to any KKK enclave (or neo-con GOP community) and voice my civilized opinion on equal rights (including for LGBT citizens) and expect a civilized exchange of differences of opinions?

So let's do a reality check!

Most human beings are more often than not savage, mob-rule, irrational, illogical, quick to be violent, individuals, groups, and institutions ... and will justify it:) It takes enormous conscience and intellectual constraint not to get angry or violent when another human being insults us verbally and via their behavior. It is a wonder that as a species we have yet to become exstinct given our many forms of less than civilized conflict, war being the ultimate expression of such.

For example: Did anyone see Pat Buchanan's MSNBC Hardball critique that our President was a punk for not expressing some American Testosterone when Chavez claim White Americans were racist in interfering with Latin Relations, past and present? This conservative republican neo-con pundit didn't believe Obama has the right to turn the other cheek, ignore the cultural insult, and act dignified/statesman. His argument was: "Americans were insulted. Americans must respond -- and not nicely." And if Obama had done what Pat claimed he should have done, you can get Buchanan would have pulled a GOP Catch-22, and code-word characterized Obama as "An Angry Black Man".

As for this Washington Post, every person on here gets an A+ for civility compared to the vehement opinions exchanged on other blogs.

Posted by: GroupThink | April 22, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Perez Hilton is not looking good from this. He should not have been invited as a judge. Miss California's answer was ridiculous, sounding pretty unintelligent. I disagree with her views, but the way she expressed her opinion definitely should have cost her the crown.

I don't know what Miss North Carolina said, but it couldn't have been as bad as Miss California's.

Getting back to Perez Hilton, he does not represent the gay community. He is just one bi**** queen. There are a lot of these out there, but most gay people are respectful of others.

As to your point. Of course I'd prefer the legislature to legalize gay marriage, but the courts are there a for a reason. They are there to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Everyone praises the civil rights decisions of the court, and the Dred Scott case has always been looked upon as the nadir in court decisions.

Posted by: atacoma | April 22, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

That guy is an example of the mushbrains that permeate our society. The problem is mushbrains are born every day.

Her answer was great. She answered it to include him and he was so mad when she said "no offense to anyone" he did not hear it.

I regret that the winner, Miss NC, is not getting any attention. She drew a bailout question.

Posted by: gsms69 | April 22, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Talk about double standards... Of course it was stupid and hurtful - but to say that I have to reconsider my opinion on same-sex marriage because of Hilton's intemperence is the most simplistic "guilt-by-association" argument imaginable. And it backfires. Hilton's comments pale by comparison to what gays and lesbians may experience simply because they are gay. The National Center for Victims of Crime writes:

"The victimization of gays and lesbians ... includes harassment, vandalism, robbery, assault, rape and murder. ... Violence against gays and lesbians occurs everywhere ... Those who commit these acts come from all social/economic backgrounds ...".

According to your "guilt-by-association" reasoning, Miss California should be in a far deeper hole than any proponent of gay marriage.

Of course she is not responsible for gay bashing, but neither are we for Hilton's antics.

Really, Ms. Rodriguez, as supporters of gay unions we have nothing to apologize for. If anything, it's the opponents who should be in damage control mode. Miss California's statement that she opposed gay marriage because "that's what she had been brought up to believe" is less than weak, it is unacceptable. By that argument we should grant legitimacy to opponents of interracial marriage - after all, many were brought up to believe that to be wrong - or to Taliban-style muslims' rape of their wives "because that is what they are brought up to believe"; people have been brought up to believe that pederasty is fine (ancient Greeks), that cannibalism is good, that all Jews should be exterminated, that it is wrong to allow women outside the house alone... Do they have an inalienable right to such opinions simply because that is "what they were brought up to believe"?! Every schoolchild in America should learn that believing something is right or wrong simply because that's what you've been told is the antithesis of democracy, and cannot ever be used as an argument to deny someone fundamental rights that others take for granted. There may be good arguments against gay marriage, but miss California's is not one of them.

It is indeed a tragedy that Hilton's vitriol has led you to grant respect to her statement, but the fault is yours, not his.

Posted by: archaeoman | April 22, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I have can only hope that what Ms. Prejean will be praying for is for Mr. Hilton to find that he is not the center of even his own universe and that he finds his way past his "adolescent vitriol" and the meanness he has displayed. I am in complete accord with the glbt and the movement toward equal rights for all persons, emphatically including the right for all to marry. What I find difficult to abide are people that hinder that movement through self absorbed, self serving acts which seems to be Mr. Hilton's calling card.

Posted by: ans15 | April 22, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse


She had the right to say how feels this America,
You take that away and what do you have? You Answer the question you seem to have all the answers, Hilton

Posted by: kitkat2 | April 22, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

GO Carrie---Perez had an agenda and I have some gay friends that where embarrassed by his behavior. Also does he suffer from an identity search? his first and last name sound so familiar?

Posted by: perspective4 | April 22, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

We can't talk about the sanctity of marriage and state that it would be more appropriate for Gays to enter into civil unions when the divorce rate among heterosexuals in this country is 50%. If we really believed in the sanctity of marriage, divorce would be illegal.

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | April 22, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

To M_Op (4.26 AM)

You ask: "I, as a heterosexual, have no more inherent rights than any homosexual. I can no more marry a man than you can. I can marry a woman just as well as any other man can. So tell me, which rights do I have that you don't???"

You have the right to marry the consenting adult whom you love. A gay or lesbian person does not have that right.

You also make the bizar argument that if we allow gay marriage we might as well allow pederasty.
A 12-year old is not an adult and is deemed unripe for sexual relationships and decisions as important as marriage. That is why society bans pederasty, irrespective of the genders of those involved. Allowing gay marriage does not open the door to pederasty between an adult male and a 12-year-old boy, just as allowing heterosexual marriage has not opened the door for relationships between adult men and 12-year-old girls.

You sound like someone afraid of something he's unfamiliar with and desperately trying to cobble together arguments to block it. You should think through your analogies and lines of reasoning a bit more carefully. The ones you have come up with so far are pretty silly.

Posted by: archaeoman | April 22, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

fr WilliamBlake:

>The problem is lack of proper education. People who support homosexual marriage are ignorant, and never received a good grounding in history and sociology....<

Your entire post is wrong.

I am a gay Christian woman who married my lovely WIFE last year. I have two degrees, one in Criminal Justice and one in Computer Networking Systems. My favorite subject in school was ALWAYS US History.

Deal with it.

Posted by: Alex511 | April 22, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama must be a bigot and a "dumb b*tch" too, since he opposes gay marriage.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of homosexual individuals would like nothing more than simply the same legal rights and benefits extened to them in partnership as are extended to every pair of heterosexual individuals who get married. And those rights should be extended to them, absolutely. There is no rational reason or excuse not to do so.

But make no mistake. The so-called spokespeople for this cause, like Sean Penn or the completely worthless Perez Hilton, have a much bigger agenda in mind. They do not want just this. They want to assault traditional - mainly conservative - values, like trying to re-define marriage, in an effort to destroy them, to destroy the religions that are their foundations and to create a completely secular and amoral society that will accommodate their every indiscretion (I am NOT referring to homosexuality as an indiscretion, I want to make that clear, but rather to the completely irresponsible behavior that many of these individuals exhibit as routine).

Fight for what is right and you will win, because you deserve to.

Fight to redefine marriage or other traditional values and you will lose, also because you deserve to.

Posted by: etpietro | April 22, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how long before the incest and child sex movements start trying the mainstream their values using the rhetoric of the gay rights movement?

Posted by: ronjaboy
-------------------------------------------

You know, I am quite alarmed that this is the first place people go to. To believe that homosexuality is any kind of mental deficiency or deviency just brings to light your own horrible, myopic narrowmindedness... as if we're all lustful, predatory animals. Please.

Regarding same-sex marriage, who cares? Honestly. Why is this such a big deal to people who are against it? Marriage is a government contract. Matrimony is a sacred sacrament. I want the former, not the latter.

In the end, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, even Pageant also-rans. But, stop trying to make everyone conform to your view of the world. This is not a religious state. We are not Iran.

Posted by: penance09 | April 22, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

*Sigh ...* For heaven's sake, this was a beauty pageant -- not a major political debate. I don't care what Perez Hilton thinks. I don't care what Ms. Prejean thinks.
In fact, I don't understand why Hilton even had to ask the question at that forum. Ms. Prejean is entitled to her opinon, as Hilton is entitled to his. Can we just let it rest now? Geez ...

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | April 22, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Why is this blog entry titled "Perez Hilton's Hypocritical Rantings"? The author fails to establish anything resembling hypocrisy on Hilton's part. How is it hypocritical to get enraged over someone else declaring that they don't believe you should have the same rights as the rest of the citizens of your country?

Indelicate, perhaps. Maybe Hilton should learn to manage his anger a little better, for his own image? Then again, I don't have to live with the humiliation that African Americans did, and gays do, have to every day: that of not being considered a full citizen. So I will refrain from judging Mr. Hilton.

The author of this blog, however, in addition to not understanding what the "h" word means, feels no restraint from judging him. Oh well.

Hilton's real crime, unstated in the post, is asking a beauty contest contestant her opinion on anything important. What training, what education, what experiential expertise does a beauty contestant hold that would make her opinion relevant? It's as insipid as caring what a singer or actor thinks about global climate change.

Posted by: B2O2 | April 22, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

In the brave new world that liberalism will create, homosexuals will be free to insult heterosexuals, blacks to insult whites, illegal aliens to insult the US born, animal lovers to insult meat-eaters, global warmists to insult the non-commital, terrorist supporters to insult and have prosecuted lawyers who drafted laws to combat terror.

Posted by: mhr614 | April 22, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Well, GroupThink,

"Should" and "must" are two different things. "Must" be civil won't happen often enough, far too rarely, actually. I get it. "Should" be civil is the standard nonetheless.

Is my particular sin, then, NOT expressing outrage at Ms. Prejean's opinion regarding same-sex marriage to a degree comparable or greater to my outrage regarding the obnoxious Mr. Hilton?

Sorry, but my comment wasn't intended to be a discussion of Ms. Prejean's faulty opinions (we might agree about that more than you think . . .). It was about the way we "should" argue.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | April 22, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

A belated "kudos" to Groupthink, whose second comment posted above is one of the most incisive points I have seen here on this little mini-flap.

And my own quick Cliff's Notes synopsis of Ms. Rodriquez' thoughtless blog post:

"Those Freedom Riders who rode the buses throughout the South during the 60s, who often got kind of, you know, UPSET at the institutionalized bigotry that those defending Jim Crow held as LEGITIMATE OPINIONS? Well, those civil rights fighters were really impolite hypocrites who should have stood mum and not disrespected the bigotry of their nice Southern hosts."

Did I miss anything Ms. Rodriquez? And by the way, I trust you respect my opinion that all hispanic women are subhuman and should be sold into slavery? You types make great beasts of burden, but it's not like I think you should be allowed to vote and hold jobs or own property. It's just my well-considered opinion though. I assume you will have no problem quietly accepting it and being polite in your disagreement.

(Now, imagine hearing that when there really IS a national movement to enslave all women of hispanic origin. In other words, try to expand your mind a little. Good luck.)

Posted by: B2O2 | April 22, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"Barack Obama must be a bigot and a "dumb b*tch" too, since he opposes gay marriage."

I agree, though I would qualify "political opportunist" and "civil rights hypocrite" given his legal constitutional training, multicultural identities, and progressive non-status quo platform.

I 100% agree he capitulated to status quo heterosexism, homophobic bigotry, to avoid the GOP using the "gay marriage issue" as a diversionary tactic to mobible their base and anti-gay mainstream votes.

I had already wrestled with whether I'd vote for him or Hillary, where Hillary was my first choice, until a group of Black and Japanese Females passionately, intellectually, persuaded me otherwise, as all they know my woman and gender, feminist, civil rights educational background.

Nonetheless, it was a painful vote, given I couldn't believe he opposed gay marriage while trying to soften the hypocrite-sting with his support of civil unions. His "separate but equal opportunism" was as painful as my knowing Bill Clinton enacted the DADT -- and I voted for Bill too!

I make no excuses -- I rationalized my vote -- though few of my LGBT friends did. I told myself, since 1970 I have voted for elite publicly heterosexual white males, few of whom 100% supported my particular group-interest as a black American. But my options, choices were limited -- a GOP candidate (another elite white male) who cared even less about my group's empowerment or the lesser of two evils.

NOT VOTING was not an option, and never will be, not after my kinfolks fought and died to get black voting rights. I'm sure there are many feminist (1st, 2nd, and 3rd wave) who experienced much pain being limited to a vote for elite white males and Obama, and then ending up having to vote for/support Obama when Hillary lost the nomination -- or "had it stolen as many have voiced to me".

So, yes, even I (a staunch gay and women's right supporter) sold gays (and perhaps women) out in voting for Obama, though Hillary espoused a similar anti-gay-marriage stance and it was a group if Ivy-League women of color who helped informed my final decision/choice.

But will this lack of choice in the future, there perhaps being no national candidate sophisticated enough to rise to the Presidential Race admist pervasive anti-gay-bigotry, prevent me from continuing to 100% support gay-rights (including marriage) -- NO!

I will indeed fight for what is "right". And if any secular, religious, conservative, or traditional value seeks to prevent such, then I'll do what every oppressed and discriminated against group and movement has done in America (past and present): PERSIST UNTIL WE THE PEOPLE WIN -- all 302 million of us.

Posted by: GroupThink | April 22, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Ok, GroupThink, we get that you hate hate hate white heterosexuals, ever though you choose to live in a country founded and run by them.

Posted by: NeverLeft | April 22, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

logicaldoubtofhumansanity said:

"As most people who are brought up in their respective religions know, homosexual marriage is wrong."

And so is allowing your kids to go on living after they've been stubborn or misbehaving. See Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

Your Bronze Age notions of what is right or wrong are frightening to those of us who value human decency and common sense.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021:18-21&version=9%3B

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall STONE HIM WITH STONES, THAT HE DIE: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Posted by: B2O2 | April 22, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Did everyone forget that Obama made the same comment Mis California did during the election? He still became President!

Posted by: Howardj1 | April 22, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

If Miss California had said "I believe in same sex marriage in all 50 states"...

and had received a POSITIVE vote from Mr. Hilton and won the pageant...

These same folks would have still blasted Mr. Hilton...

But, no way would they have applauded her for taking a position on an issue...

Posted by: hamptontonyc | April 22, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

I wholeheartedly agree with comments posted by: WashingtonDame | April 21, 2009 9:12 PM

I have always supported gay community and its struggle for full acceptance on a whole range of issues, but in my opinion it was wrong for Perez Hilton to disparage Ms. California. If answer to certain questions are the qualifying criteria, then these questions should be put to the contestants at the beginning of the process, not at the end. I think, it is conduct like this that casts the gay community in a negative light and turns quite a lot of people off.

Posted by: kevin1231 | April 22, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Are heterosexual atheists allowed to get married? How does that sit with the religious crowd?

Posted by: wwc4g | April 22, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

PEREZ HILTON,THE FACE OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY. THESE PEOPLE TURN MY STOMACH.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | April 22, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Prejean gave the wrong answer. The correct answer is as follows:

"I live in America. I believe in equal protection under the law and the separation of church & state. So gay people should receive the same protections and rights as anyone else, but religious ceremonies are determines by the church that holds them."

It isn't hard. In America, no church can grant rights, including the right to use the word 'marriage'. Gay people should be having as many marriages in friendly churches as they want and bringing 14th Amendment cases against unjust laws.

Posted by: hpl99us | April 22, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

post_reader_in_wv:

You've committed no "sin" in my eyes for two reasons:

1. I'm Agnostic -- so such religious rhetoric and terms aren't in my head:)

2. I don't get to "dictate" what anyone should or should not or must or must do. I can only voice my opinion, some of which I act on -- offline, and always with the intend to empower/help ALL versus FEW.

3. I'm not gay or bi-sexual or lesbian. No matter how passionate my voice, no matter what LGBT rights I may support, I can never walk in the daily shoes of anyone LGBT -- and for me or anyone to infer such would be disingenuous.

So, yes, let us all (302 million strive to be civilized, rational, logical -- perhaps even study some fallacies of logic and manipulative rhetoric many exploit). But let us never forget the offline reality check that one post most eloquently and realistically shared with us:

The National Center for Victims of Crime writes:

"The victimization of gays and lesbians ... includes harassment, vandalism, robbery, assault, rape and murder. ... Violence against gays and lesbians occurs everywhere ... Those who commit these acts come from all social/economic backgrounds ...".

Source: archaeoman - 04/22/09 - 2:26 PM

With few exceptions, all bloggers commenting on this post have expressed themself in mostly a civilized way, compared to hateful threatening contention on other sites, and especially given what actually goes on offline. So if anyone has committed a so-called "sin" it would then be all of us, meaning those of us who aren't LGBT citizens, who don't have to live that social reality 24-7/365 in hateful, homophobic, heterosexist, often life threatening America.

For us heterosexuals (and I don't presume you are one), debating, dialoguing, about LGBT rights is an esoteric, abstract, debate even when we "identify and emphathize" At best we can be supportive (but nonetheless clueless) allies or at worst condescending (but nonetheless clueless) opportunist -- those who exploit and co-opt the pain and hopes of a group to advance their own agenda.

Thus your inquiry, whether real or rhetorical, should truly be address to any and all LGBT bloggers on this post, for only they can answer it heart-felt, first-hand -- not I a heterosexual.

Posted by: GroupThink | April 22, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Oh how adorably "down home" she is, to stand by the beliefs she was brought up with. I was "brought up" to believe interracail dating is bad, but after spending 5 minuets thinking critically about the issue sometime in high school, i changed my opinion to be different than my parents. this woman has probably never had a critical thought in her life... and no, no one cares about beauty pageants anymore.

Posted by: lilybelle2 | April 22, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"Ok, GroupThink, we get that you hate hate hate white heterosexuals, ever though you choose to live in a country founded and run by them."

Hmmm, if you deduced this from my many post then surely you misunderstand me. So let me be unequivocal:

I dont' hate white heterosexuals, black heterosexuals, or any heterosexuals. Why? I'm heterosexual and I surely 100% love myself -- the good, the bad, and the ugly ... because I strive to unlearn the latter two sides, life-long. But I do object to, have limited tolerance for "bigotry" on the part of any individual, group, or institution. So if my imprecise opinions suggest I'm hateful of the person rather than a particular bigoted value they espouse, and especially act upon, then you're misunderstood me. I'm sure none of us hate Hitler or even the KKK or even Mysognist (the person) but only their "hateful/bigoted values, especially how they acted upon them.

I apologize if YOU think I hate YOU. I don't apologize if I critique and hate any homophobic, heterosexist, opinions or acts you wish to espouse and act on, apart from all the non-bigoted values I'm going to assume you also have.

Posted by: GroupThink | April 22, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

I congratulate Miss CA for expressing her true opinion. She should not take this loss to heart. I mean how seriously can one take a contest that would have this soft jar of petroleum jelly as a judge? I think the vitriol shown by Perez Hilton only served to strengthen the resolve of the people who oppose gay marriage, a good thing. I hope he and his ilk keep it up only even more obnoxiously.

Posted by: tmonahan1 | April 22, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

i am for rights for all people,if gay people want to get married, as some one said. let them be as miserable as the rest of us. seriously, the beauty comtestant and any other dissenting person has a right to their opinion and the quasi celeb hilton should not call people names that do not agree with him. i blame trump for giving that weasel a forum. if you do agree with same sex marriage you don't need him to plead your case.

Posted by: ninnafaye | April 22, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

“No offense” to the author of this article, however…

Actually, what Perez Hilton said was that Miss California should have answered the question in a non-confrontational manner, such as proclaiming a state-rights position that wouldn’t have required her to take a stand either way. After all, the pageant isn’t looking for controversy from their winner, just a pleasant, visually appealing good will ambassador.

I don’t see the slightest hypocrisy in Hilton’s blog response. While it is certainly true that those who have similar opinions as Miss California have every right to their opinions, people like Perez Hilton have every right to respond as well. Where the author of this article is mistaken is in the assertion that “Prejean and millions others like her have a right to their opinion –and a right to express that opinion without facing the kind of adolescent vitriol spewed by Hilton…” Actually, no they don’t. If they did then Hilton would have been arrested or there would be a lawsuit in the works. He wasn’t arrested. There are no grounds for a lawsuit. He did not violate anyone’s rights. He has every right to respond exactly the way he did.

By Hilton’s viewpoint –and the viewpoint of millions of others like him- Miss California’s response was the kind of small-minded, nonsensical thought process that has lead to very politely worded state constitutional amendments discriminating against gay people by banning same-sex marriage. What is worse, a politely worded discriminatory law or the use of the word ‘b****’ on a video blog that Miss California would have remained blissfully unaware of had it not been presented to her by a morning show seeking controversy?

By taking a stand Miss California lost her crown. If she didn’t want negative consequences she should have given the answer that Hilton suggested. If she truly believes in her position she should be proud to lose a silly crown for standing up for her rights. After all, which one would be more important to a serious, thoughtful person of integrity?

Posted by: allisall | April 22, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

A generation from now gay marriage will be a mundane fact of life. Heterosexual marriages will not be hurt, all the hysteria from bigots won't amount to a hill of beans. Many of us consider the matter long settled and are ignoring all the Chicken Littles gaping in terror at the "harm" that will be caused to traditional marriage because a gay couple down the block is married too.

We keep records. Anyone who's gone on record going lateral about the social harm of same-sex marriage is going to sound pretty stupid when their words are dug out of archives and read aloud over the dinner table, best not to say them at all.

You can't call a coworker by the N-word and still be regarded a gentleman, and if you go hysterical about harming straight marriage you won't score any points either.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | April 22, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I don't disagree with the comment from GroupThink as it pertains to the answer given nor Hilton. However, how dare he/she/they say the "wish" this contestant be subject to domestic abuse, etc. Does he/she/they realize how many women go through this every day and even die? How can that be wished upon anyone?

Posted by: WTPooh1 | April 22, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Hilton, almost single-handedly, has set the gay agenda back with his truculent, bullying demeanor. The only positive thing about his being gay is the near-certainty we won't have to contend with any of his progeny. What an ass!

Posted by: Diogenes | April 22, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I have to disagree with both, and actually all three of you.
As Miss America, (a job!) Ms. Prejean needs to be an open channel for her audience, which is basically every person who is interested in supporting the activity of the MA pageant and her charity work as MA.
So she needed to stay non-political and decline to give a personal answer to the question AT ALL and suggest that politics has no place at Miss America.

Posted by: digtalcomp | April 22, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

It goes back & forth between us & them. (Until more of us learn that it's just us here on this Earth as it IS in the Heavens). Until then, keep in mind that gay people have suffered much worse for much longer at the hands of others. Sure Hilton was rude. (He's a human). But rather than bloviate on that point we must all keep the long term perspective.

Posted by: drum_sing | April 22, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

The real tragedy here is that Ms. California's answer and Ms. Hilton's subsequent public reaction has created a tempest in a teapot that sparked three days now of intense media coverage of an event that sorely needs it. This profits no one but the owner of Miss USA: Donald Trump, the PT Barnum of the 21st Century.

I would no be surprised if he didn't plan this with Perez or at least discuss creating a controversy in broad language. I already don't believe the Tara Conner stuff was all a coincidence.

Wouldn't be surprised if the self-proclaimed "Queen of All Media" wasn't asked back again next year just to drum up ratings.....

Posted by: jaredd | April 22, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

WTPooh1:

I love your aka boo:) As to your question:

"how dare he/she/they say the "wish" this contestant be subject to domestic abuse, etc. Does he/she/they realize how many women go through this every day and even die? How can that be wished upon anyone?"

My answers:

1. It is rhetoric, asking all to put themself in the shoes of LGBT citizens, to try to relate to the status quo violence they suffer daily -- violence expressed with impunity.

2. Yes I do know the stats, forms and frequency of violence, sexual assaults, and rapes committed against women in America and world-wide. I'll share with you those sources/references I have booked marked in my "public policy" folder if you request them.

3. Now you and I agree no human being should be discriminated against, especially in a hurtful, violent, way, can I hear you also say individual, group, and institutional opinions and acts of discrimination against LGBT citizens (especially hate-crimes) should never be justified -- or is your only concern with sexism committed against heterosexual women ... not lesbians, bi-sexuals, gay men, bisexual men, etc.?

I can assure you 100% Pooh, my heterosexual female life partner, who has been a victime of rape/abuse during her college years, wouldn't tolerate even .99999 percent my being with her, if she thought or observe my opinions being anything other than devils advocate, role-reversal, or expressed for a good valid reason. She is not some internalized sexist, self-hating, false-consciousness, I'll tolerate whatever my man says/does female/profession -- I guaranteed it:)

I look forward to your supportive statements about gay rights including marriage -- or at the very least your affirmation that hate-crimes against any LGBT citizens is reprehensible!

Posted by: GroupThink | April 22, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Tolerance works only one way with liberals.

When she failed to give a politically correct answer, the gay judge showed his immature racist views towards those that have different beliefs.

Why are liberals so judgemental of people with different views.

Posted by: tdl62 | April 22, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

The Miss USA pageant must really be sluming if Perez Hilton is a judge. I support gay marriage, but putting this guy on the judging panel is like putting Judge Judy on the Supreme Court. I mean, how can you take Miss USA seriously with this dude as a judge?

Posted by: Garak | April 22, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Ms. California did not deserve to win the crown AND P. Hilton is unqualified to be a judge. It always amazes me these days to see people like any Hilton (Perez, Paris, etc.) considered stars or in a position of authority -- they have accomplished nothing I consider noteworthy or celebratory. However when Ms. California began to stammer out her answer it reminded me of a tongue-twisted 14 year old child trying to sound adult. As another Californian I was surprised to hear we are a separate country and straights and gays have the same rights. Last I checked we were still a simple state and Prop 8 banned same-sex marriage. Hilton shouldn't have been a judge and the fact she didn't win the crown is not because of what she said but rather HOW she said it. Poise not content is what she flunked.

Posted by: Lemon7221 | April 22, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

I find it amazing that Homosexuals view them selves as a minority group and wish to become a protected class.

I have no problem with civil unions, you are free to live as you wish, but please don't consider yourselves a minority group intitled to civil rights protections. Being gay is about sex, not love, and who cares who you choose to sleep with. It is not a love issue because we don't have sex with everyone we love (i.e. your mother!)

Miss California may not be very expressively intelligent, but she is free to feel that marriage be only between men and women without being charged with a hate crime.

Posted by: SouthernFriedBama | April 22, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

The first problem is that Hilton should not have been picked as a judge. Would you consider having a person who hates dogs, has never owned a dog and has never been interested in dogs, judge a Dog Show. NO! Would you have a person who hates poetry, has never read or written any poetry and has no affinity towards poetry judge a poetry contest. NO! So the Miss USA organizers must have decided to be PC and choose an obviously gay man and probably (judging by his degrading language ) a mysoginist. His behaviour after the contest shows that he is (and I am being very generous) so DOWN MARKET. The gay comunity should be ashamed of this person.

Posted by: TAEK1 | April 22, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

maybe perez needs to remove that thingie from his butt!

Posted by: jrzshor | April 22, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

once again homosexuals hijack and subvert a straight family oriented cultural event in this case a beauty contest MISS USA.
this has been the case though out history as homosexuals have always been the fringe players lurking in the shadows of straight family oriented culture waiting for a chance or opportunity to make it all about themselves and their freakish sexual behavior which the very human body itself rejects as unnatural.
homosexuals are those males or females who were beat out in the great continual evolutionary contest of procreation, THEY ARE IMMATURE and utterly EPHEMERAL in their empty and transitory behaviors which is nothing more than a primitive imitation of the procreative sex act of heterosexuals.
even their so called "marriages" are an imitation of straight culture with a dominant and submissive caricatures of husbands and wives.

i really wonder what American children thought and asked their respective parents, as they watched this spectacle unfold before their innocent eyes and ears

should homosexuality's political platforms actually be presented on a MISS USA contest??

i would definitely say in all good taste NO.


Posted by: JudgeAlan | April 22, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

FREEDOM~ IDEAS & SPEECH
Had the question included "union", or noted the benefits (and responsibilities) that generally come with 'conventional' marriage, perhaps the answer would have been different.

The question was one that warranted an opinion --as it was not a question based on a historical, scientific, or other "fact".


Once again, bias and self-serving-agenda determines today's standard of correctness.

Posted by: Nowreally | April 22, 2009 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Asking her about same sex marriage in 2009 is tantamount to asking a contestant about abortion in 1992 -- the hottest topic at the time. The question should never have been asked.
I support civil unions for all - gay and straight. All the states should have the right to do is recognize a civil union for anyone. Marriage is a church thing -- you can do one or both depending on your church. The ballot question in CA should be Do you suport civil unions between men and men, women and women, and men and women, and desire that marriage certificates be provided by religious organizations?
BTW - while I understand Hilton's frustration with the issue in CA at this time, it is absolutely NOT okay to attack any other human the way he did. Never.

Posted by: mosie | April 22, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

I agree mostly with your column. Christians have to realize, however, that those of us who don't believe in their god don't really care if they will be praying for us. It really points to the core of Christianity - namely that it is a totalizing force that is unable to accept difference.

Perez Hilton is a boob, but this incidence reveals once again the intolerance at the core of Christianity (this intolerance is at the core of most other evangelizing religions - it just happened to be Christianity that revealed itself this time).

Posted by: pipkin42 | April 22, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Let me take that one step further: Having a Hilton ask the same-sex marriage question in 2009 is like having Gloria Steinam ask the abortion question in 1992. NO way to 'win' if you don't agree with them. Unfortunate. So very unfortunate.

Posted by: mosie | April 22, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

fr JudgeAlan:

>...THEY ARE IMMATURE and utterly EPHEMERAL in their empty and transitory behaviors which is nothing more than a primitive imitation of the procreative sex act of heterosexuals.
even their so called "marriages" are an imitation of straight culture with a dominant and submissive caricatures of husbands and wives....<

Whether YOU like it or not, I am a gay Christian woman who married my lovely WIFE last year.

I am 52 and she is 39. We are NOT "immature". What IS immature is your ranting about how glbt couples are "immature" and that we are '"imitating 'traditional' marriage.

Deal with the FACT that GLBT's are here to stay.

Posted by: Alex511 | April 22, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

~PATRONIZING OR POLITE?
Eva wrote:
"She analyzed Hilton: angry, sad, a person for whom she feels sorry. And she announced that she will be praying for Hilton. Prejean may have been sincere, but her call to prayer came across as patronizing.

What exactly will she be praying for -- that Hilton will suddenly wake up tomorrow to discover his inner heterosexual? Please."
=======================================

~A bit presumptuous Eva --to ASSUME-- what "she will be praying for" --don't ya think?

Based on her "analysis", perhaps her prayer will be for him to overcome his "sad and angry" self;
~as his day-after rantings exhibited.

Posted by: Nowreally | April 22, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

My one woman and one man marriage was illegal in
many states of the USA not too long ago.
Maybe still is? We're not both white anglo's.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal ..", should not allow
any group to take rights away from another group.

BTW .. if a Miss California or a Miss USA
want to represent me, or any of my fellow
citizens, then they better start respecting us.

W

Posted by: George20 | April 22, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

~ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL
It's getting to the point that we might consider isolating ourselves from everyone; so as to avoid offending anyone.

Posted by: Nowreally | April 22, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

I am sick and damn tired of people justifying their bigotry as "my right to have my opinion" or "my religious view" or whatever nonsequiter people want to use. Fact is...it's bigotry. Call it what it is. Could someone hide behind: I believe that blacks shouldn't marry whites as just "my right to have my opinion?" What if that were my "religious view?" If you're going to be a bigot, be a bigot!!! Stop hiding behind "your view" as though you can't help it. Look, I am no fan of Perez Hilton...I knew him when his name was Mario Lavandeira. He was nice enough then, but is nothing more than a freakshow now...kind of like the Ms. (Enter venue here) Pageant. Am I bigoted towards these awful pageants? Damn straight!! Am I bigoted towards Perez Hilton? Damn straight. Do I want to take away his rights? Damn NO!!!

Finally, there is nothing inherently religious about marriage, so stop with the term "marriage." We, GLBT people, deserve the RIGHT to marry. If YOU have a problem with that, step off!!! Me marrying my partner has no affect on you and your husband or wife.

But really people...let's be honest about our views and who we are. BE a bigot. EMBRACE the bigot if that is indeed what you are. She is a bigot...towards GLBT people, plain and simple. HE is a bigot toward her, plain and simple.

Posted by: BigGaySteve | April 22, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse

"Tolerance only works one way with liberals."

Perfectly stated. They demand it for themelves but refuse to extend it to others.

Posted by: johnwp | April 22, 2009 7:06 PM | Report abuse

I agree with at least one point of Rodriguez's essay. The issue of same-sex marriage is controversial such that intelligent reasonable people hold differing views. Beyond that, however, just what might Prejean have said to produce a "prize winning answer", especially considering the rather obvious point that the question should not even have been asked. But she was asked what she thought and she answered the question honestly. Furthermore, who the heck is Perez Hilton anyhow? And why was such a classless bumpkin given a forum in this event? Officials and organizers of the pageant should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by: bubba31138 | April 22, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

As a gay man, I believe Hilton does not represent the gay community, period. Ever. No matter how much money he makes. He is just nothing but a second rate, repugnant fat cow who thinks of himself as a real celebrity. So please stop all these gay bashing.

Yes, I watched the clips myself after all the hype and I find Ms. California's answer to be incomprehensible. She did not deserve the crown.

And amen, beauty pageants have been out of style since Vanessa Williams.

Posted by: onehitwonder | April 22, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

MULTIPLE CHOICE
Since the pageant is an exhibition of parading evening gowns, bathing suits, musical talent, hair and makeup, the ability to walk in high-heels...
~No more questions

Posted by: Nowreally | April 22, 2009 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Though the character analysis of Miss California and Perez Hilton was interesting in the article, it did not seem to make an effort in understanding either side. From the answer Miss California, Carrie Prejean gave, she had really no clue to the extend her opinion had on Perez, as well as many other gay people. This was extremely evident in Perez's behavior. Miss Prejean does not seem to understand what is like to be treated as a second class person for an entire lifetime. To be in situations where only celebration is allowed even at the intimate family level. To have your parents, siblings, friends, or coworkers initiate and plan celebrations for those in love, but only celebrations that are meant for a man and a women. If a gay person dares to love someone, it gets no celebration. It gets no recognition. To friends and family, gay sons, daughters, brothers, sister, nieces and nephews are invisible. If Miss Prejean could have the empathy needed to understand someone other than herself and her opinions then she would be a Miss USA crown holder. Praying for someone is not understanding someone Miss California. GLBT people are not second class citizens.

Posted by: patrickinorlando | April 22, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

groupthink: if one of the underlying issues here is the dignity and defense of ones own principles, what's the point (I assume there is one) in your rhetorically strategic claim to being a heterosexual white male married to your heterosexual/MD/rape victim wife? I don't get what you're trying to do there and maybe some clarification would help.

I also noticed a lot of people jump all over comparisons of homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. While the latter is clearly stupid, the former is not which is why many of you have conspicuously avoided it. Lets analyze:

genetically unproductive? check
two consenting adults? check (we're leaving the kiddie stuff out of this)
desire to participate in practices enjoyed by the greater population, but denied to you on the basis of impulsive disgust by a significant percentage of the population (tight rope act here)? check

where's the line? Why is one justified but the other not? I support gay marriage and believe incest is repulsive. But can anyone soundly justify this?

Posted by: batigol85 | April 22, 2009 8:19 PM | Report abuse

@bigGaySteve said "Finally, there is nothing inherently religious about marriage,"

And wins the ignorant of the facts post award. A civil union is not religious, a marriage is given it roots in history.

Gays should be allowed to have civil unions with the same rights as marriages. Churches should not be forced to wed gay couples. of course churches should not be allowed to interfere with a women's reproductive rights, but sadly that fight goes on.

As for Group Think, yep angry black male fits you not Obama.


And please remember even today not all heterosexuals couples can marry legally because of reproduction based laws. So how shall we allow more rights to gay couples since they can't (presently) reproduce? and does this logically lead to polygamy?

Posted by: vulturetx | April 22, 2009 8:29 PM | Report abuse

This issue is not about gay marriages or the gay lifestyle. The last time I checked, one of the biggest attributes of our great nation was the freedom of "free speech". A freedom that people value so much, that some have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend this freedom. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the opinion of others, at least respect the freedom to voice their opinion!

Posted by: ColdAsGold | April 22, 2009 8:32 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to mention that in my opinion, the right person won .... & Perez Hilton is a horses XXX. Just my opinion!

Posted by: ColdAsGold | April 22, 2009 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for clearing up who, exactly, Perez Hilton is..........Snooooooooooore

Posted by: mikie44 | April 22, 2009 9:22 PM | Report abuse

I wasn't surprised that Ms. CA is beautiful but brainless, but isn't there something off when she asserts that she's so happy to live in a place where people have a choice??

First of all, I don't think that choicde is available for any citizen of CA after the initiative last year, and second, is it really a realistic "choice" for a gay person to marry a person of the opposite sex? Is it realistic that a straight person might just choose to marry a same sex partner? For equality under the law, it must go both ways.

Posted by: jvlem | April 22, 2009 9:24 PM | Report abuse


Sick little guy....living proof of what that life- or rather death-style will do to your entire being.

Posted by: RudeIsraeli | April 22, 2009 9:40 PM | Report abuse

This incident was silly, but this article is sillier.

Does Perez not have the same "free speech" rights as Ms. California? Is he not allowed to respond to her ridiculous statement? Is he not granted the same privilege to be as snotty as any beauty queen contestant?

"It's a wonder that even supporters of same-sex marriage don't reconsider their position after hearing the embarrassing, infuriating, self-absorbed rantings of quasi-celebrity Perez Hilton." Is this a warning to all gays that if you find even one to be obnoxious, you will reconsider supporting equal rights for the entire group? Is that a demand that gays be grateful for your support--by not irritating you?

Furthermore, civil rights issues have never been decided by the popular vote. This is why we have an independent judiciary: to protect minority groups against popular prejudice. Subjecting an unpopular minority to the popular vote is no more democratic than allowing them a fair hearing in court.

Posted by: RJ24 | April 22, 2009 11:09 PM | Report abuse

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies[b] and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Carrie Prejean has more class in her - I am quite sure very beautiful - little toe than the crude "Perez Hilton."

What is really reprehensible are those who defend this sad, little man.

Posted by: Rob-Roy | April 22, 2009 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Miss California is entitled to her bigoted opinion, and Hilton is entitled to his Obnoxious opinion.


But its not like there is any logical standard for who should be the winner, Hilton was a judge. In this case, Hilton's opinion mattered more. Anyway, the contest is about beauty, as ephemeral a thing as that is to decide upon. If someone says ugly things, they probably shouldn't win a beauty contest. (I don't see Perez winning any)

But lets face it. If Miss California had said that she didn't think black people should be allowed to come to share her drinking fountain, we would understand Hilton's outrage. This story is considered newsworthy because prejudice against gay people is considered an issue of personal opinion, whereas racism is, largely, not.

Posted by: zosima | April 23, 2009 1:54 AM | Report abuse

Let me respond to all those who either failed to understand or misconstrued my statement.

To the guy who, as I expected, compared the illegality of gay marriage to "anti-miscegenation" marriage laws, I say Please!

Laws prohibiting Whites from marrying Blacks were in contradiction of the correct definition of marriage. There is nothing in the institution of marriage that suggests a social construct like "race" is somehow a defining part of it.

When the civil rights movement ended this racist practice, it didn't create laws to RE-DEFINE marriage, it merely upheld its unadulterated version of it!

As for the guy that didn't like the pedophilia analogy. Let me give you another one. If the definition of marriage is to be re-defined to include same sex unions, why can't we allow group marriages and recognize it accordingly? Heck, why not marry primates and other animals while we're at it, b/c there certainly are people who have such a disorder that they would feel the need to.

As for the fools who think that her being raised to believe in a marriage between one man and one woman is akin to being "raised to believe" that certain races aren't supposed to marry other races, again, you are making desperately illogical analogies.

Being "raised" to believe that Whites shouldn't marry someone Black flies in the face of the inherent definition of marriage, and the biological basis behind it. There is nothing biologically unnatural about a Black man, like myself, marrying a White woman. You would have to be an idiot to tell me that same sex marriage is somehow not biologically abnormal.

The definition of marriage hinges on the premise that it requires a man and a woman. Anything deviating from it no longer constitutes marriage.

It is like I, as a man, wanting the definition of "Woman" to be redefined to include me. If that's deemed to be ok, what makes a woman a woman then? Does it even have a meaning anymore if its defining factor (biology) is no longer a determinant.

In the same way, if the biological basis for marriage is no longer a determinant, it fails to have any meaning at all!! You might as well give it a new name--Gayrriage, I propose!

Get a clue, deluded dullards!

Posted by: M_Op | April 23, 2009 3:49 AM | Report abuse

Miss California don't like people who are gay.

Perez Hilton is angry.

Sombody call the Care Police..

(I could do it, but i really don't care)

Posted by: Supertzar | April 23, 2009 5:30 AM | Report abuse

M-Op:

PART I -- LOL.

Ad hominem, now I understand your idiocy!

You defined marriage as a human biological ritual (institution) whose fundamental and primary purpose is procreation between biological men and women. Sexual orientation is not relevant. Why? Because a gay male, bi-sexual male, lesbian, and bi-sexual female could marry given your definition simply because they can procreate.

The problem wit your construction of marriage is -- what if a male and female cannot procreate or don't want to procreate, then what? They are prohibited from being married -- because babies have to come from a married couple having procreative sex. Adoption is out of the question for heterosexuals according to this definition of marriage. If it isn't, then LGBT couples can also adopt. They only can arrange amongst each (male and female) procreate a child (circumstantial sex or articially).

But what's more relevant is, marriage is a human construct, a ritual human beings created, and for multiple reasons, all of which have changed over time -- procreation, recreative sex, companionship, love, pooled resources, raising children, etc. Moreover, the family unit (structure) has changed over time, from multiple kids/extended families to nucleur-families, a dog, picket fence, to single parent/it takes village families.

Our rituals/institutions are not absolute. We didn't create them centuries ago, before christ and after christ (chronology wise), and conclude they can never change form or meaning. Do you honestly think the ancient greeks were practice a 2-parent (husband/wife), 1 to 2 kids, mommy stays at home, while Socrates goes out and earns the corporate bacon life-style -- and this was supposed a universal marriage/family model for all cultures/societies on the planet?

To Be Continued ...

Posted by: GroupThink | April 23, 2009 5:31 AM | Report abuse

M-Op:

PART II -- LOL.

Ad hominem, now I understand your idiocy!

The bottom-line, like the anti-miscegenation colonialist, you want to define marriage to be this or that and for this reasons -- the YOU being an individual human being. Take your value, relationship agenda, multiple that times a couple of million others, and you form a group who seeks to dictate and control what rituals all members of the society do. This group-power to define social rituals and realities is open-ended, for all human rituals ... marriage, work, play, etc. If it were not, then I'd still be a chained-slave in the 21st century.

For example:

"Laws prohibiting Whites from marrying Blacks were in contradiction of the correct definition of marriage. There is nothing in the institution of marriage that suggests a social construct like "race" is somehow a defining part of it."

Well, guess what, if you were one of those 20 blacks that were sold into back in 1629 to the colonies (as slaves or indentured servants -- which one still being a matter of academic/scholarly/historical dispute), then YOU'd not have any input/say-so in how marriage is defined. Only colonial whites would have that voice/right -- because they didn't extend you any political/human rights to defined reality.

So how today in the 21st Century, you (and others) like the racist white colonists want to dictate exclusively(based on some arbitary self-serving biological procreation grounds)that another group (LGBT citizens) cannot enjoy a certain human ritual, legal institution -- marriage. The logic/argument back then is the same being used today -- "we (this group only) get to decide what reality will or won't be (in this case marriage) for all 302 million citizens -- where every rational out your mouth seeks to justify this discrimination.

But that's okay M_OP, cuz you're the fool and idiot. You take the status quo for granted. You delude yourself is it absolute -- that it will never, ever, change. Well you're wrong -- back then, presently, and future wise! It will change. That is not the issue, though perhaps for YOU. The question is, when and how fast, given millions of LGBT citizens shouldn't have to suffer or be denied all the pros and cons of marriage until heterosexist bigots act too slowly to unlearn, renounce, and stop practicing their homophobic values.

The End:)

Why? Because history (that which has yet to be created by LGBT citizens and their non-homophic allies) will be sweeping your biological-deterministic bigoted values into the comical shadows of history, the topic of classroom examination and amusement at how and why so-called enlightened/civilized homo-sapiens held and practiced arbitrary bigotries. Is that not what we do now when we read our history books -- amaze ourselves at the many status quo, taken for granted, savage, ignorant values/practices, of the past, most if not all of which we've renounced:)

Posted by: GroupThink | April 23, 2009 5:37 AM | Report abuse

P.S.

Those who wish to use "biological or genetic determinism" arguments/science to justify their bigotry might want to reloate to Germany -- say, 1930-1945:) Such scientific reductionism of human beings has been used more often than not to define one group as "superior" (males, anglo-saxons, the upper-classes) while others as "inferior" (females, blacks/white-ethnics, asians, etc., middle and poor classes). Such argumens persist (The Bell Curve, IQ-Tests, SATS, Employment-Tests, Inferential-Statistics, Cloning, etc). Whether it is religion, science, or logic (rhetoric), human beings of all persuasions (especially those in power) can use such human artifacts (creations) to justify anything -- the good but especially our bad and ugly societal values and practices. It takes a disciplined mind, deep conscious, and principles heart to recognize our species, a homo-sapiens, greatest capacity but also our most dangerous imperfection -- our IGNORANCE ... humbling ourself to the reality, the objectivity, that we DON'T KNOW IT ALL -- ESPECIALLY ABSOLUTES. Such ominipotent Guidance, Organization, and Direction we tend to associate (mystically) with another one of our mental/cultural creations -- we call/term it G.O.D. Godforbid I should delude myself as an individual, group, institution, or species that am such -- past, present, and future.

Just a footnote M_Op to my two-part diatribe:)

Posted by: GroupThink | April 23, 2009 6:05 AM | Report abuse

Here's an idea......instead of worrying about what this attention-seeking media trained seal said about someone, lets worry about Diane Feinstein directing federal monies to companies affiliated with her husband's business, or about Nancy Pelosi knowing about the so-called "torture" methods to be used years ago and (at least) tacitly signing off on them.....

Posted by: rudy011 | April 23, 2009 7:36 AM | Report abuse

I can't believe that judges at these contests don't have to sign a statement that they won't trash the contestants after the event. I also can't believe a judge would ask such a controversy-ridden question like that, but then I haven't watched a pageant in 25 years or more and don't know what goes on at them any more.

Posted by: hmessinger2 | April 23, 2009 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Incredibly belligerent hateful comments by the robots from the homosexual lobby about this article show that there is definitely something wrong with their brains. People should not speak like this regarding anything, let alone attacking a point of view shared by the vast majority of Americans.

That reminds me of the insane rage these people put on display when they lost the Referendum in California. And these very people attack Tea Party protests?!

These people have nothing to back their insane point of view except for big dirty mouths

Posted by: pihto999 | April 23, 2009 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Perez Hilton, or whatever "name of the day" he/she?it goes by, is the LGBT community's equivelent of Rush Limbaugh. Why did the Miss USA officials get a "gay Nazi" to act as a judge of a female beauty contest? Duh.

Ms. Prejean did not attack gays nor use foul language. Perez, on the other hand, is a foul mouthed, self-centered moron whose sick mind will destroy anyone in his path. Ms. Prejean is entitled to her opinion and beliefs. They also happen to be held by the majority of Americans.

Please keep in mind that Perez is an obnoxious moron who happens to be gay. The vast majority of the LGBT community are not. Oh, and by the way, I thought Ms. Prejean looked super in that bikini.

Posted by: NotBubba | April 23, 2009 8:03 AM | Report abuse

I think that Miss California answer is based on the fact that two men or women together can not produce a child. Of cause the legal benefits were not considered on the part of Miss California. But legal benefits are only a recent consideration in history, so the traditional conservative answer was given but time does change things. The modern world is more complex than the past.

Posted by: artg | April 23, 2009 8:47 AM | Report abuse

If the gay people of this country enjoyed some amount of sympathy and support from the non-gays, their over the top shrill is fast enabling them to lose it.

Just read the posts on this page; these people are coming across as neo-Nazis.

The interviews in the beauthy pageants are usually a big waste of time. Fluffy single sentence answers to equally ridiculous questions, w/o framing in any meaningful context. But then, this is nothing new.

At least Ms CA gave a semi-meaningful answer. The question itself was a sleaze ball question; in the form of YES or NO, it was bound to raise passions on either side. Whoever got this question was not going to come out a winner. At least Ms CA did n't dodge it, and answered it in the way she saw it.

First, I had no idea that the questioner was a gay man himself; that scumbag Perez should have been kicked out for that reason alone; was this pageant a platform to rant his views? What a mongrel?

But even worse, what are these gay Nazis are howling about? The whole world has to see it their way? There is not a single thing in the world that every one will agree on - but these gay Nazis are now becoming so shrill, and are looking to mow down any opposition to their beloved positions.

Posted by: cdns21 | April 23, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

The comments here are quite revealing as to why the majority opinion is still against gay marriage. You come across as foaming-at-the-mouth crazies.

Look, you will eventually have the right to be married in most states. We all know that. But it won't happen fast -- it will take a generation or so at least. In the meantime, you can make that period longer by ranting and raving at every opportunity and behaving like Hilton did here.

Much of America has Prejean's opinion on this issue. Having the country watch as he belittled that opinion using foul language and behaving generally like a lunatic does not advance your cause, and neither do the hysterical diatribes appearing in these comments.

Posted by: brendan03us1 | April 23, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Groupthink said;
"Well, guess what, if you were one of those 20 blacks that were sold into back in 1629 to the colonies (as slaves or indentured servants -- which one still being a matter of academic/scholarly/historical dispute)"
************
The Gentry which bought them pretended they was slaves forever, but the Law said there was no slavery, just indentured servants, and they had to be freed after seven years. And they were.
///////////////////////////////////////////
BigGaySteve said;
Finally, there is nothing inherently religious about marriage, so stop with the term "marriage." We, GLBT people, deserve the RIGHT to marry. If YOU have a problem with that, step off!!! Me marrying my partner has no affect on you and your husband or wife.
///////////////////////////////////////////
You do have the right to marry.
And your free, to marry or not, the person of the opposite sex you chose and can convince to accept your proposal.

Marriage is the formalised union between men and women, that normally produces children, and creates a family. In more ancient times populations were so low, the law demanded people marry and create families, or else.

Society has set aside special provision and protections for married families, on the assumption they are the vehicles primarily supplying and caring for the next generation. The extra burdens this imposes is borne by the bachelors of the society, who take on the military and other dangerous duties and pay a higher tax rate, in order to spare and protect the families raising children.

The issue with homosexual marriage is it completely invalidates the concept of providing for and protecting children and their supporting families. You view it simply as a special relationship between you and your favored partner, that gets special recognition and benefits from society. To my way of looking at it, your two bachelors, who not only are slacking off on not providing your fair share of support 'to the state' as other bachelors, but also want to get to live in the "protected zone" with the women, children, and older married men .


Posted by: WilliamBlake | April 23, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I'm a lesbian (and a native San Franciscan) and found nothing objectionable about Miss California's opinion on marriage. She's entitled to say what she said. By the way, she and Barack Obama are in agreement on same-sex marriage.

Posted by: CarolAnne1 | April 23, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I support same-sex marriage, gay marriage or whatever you want to call it-- except for calling it... marriage.

Now wasn't that easy?

Do you think that Purr-ez Hilton will sign up for Afghanistan? Has he signed up for his selective service card-- or is he a federal scoff-law? Nawty, nawty....

Posted by: AlongTheWatchTowers | April 23, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

For those who say Prejean is wrong, don't you realize that President Obama shares the same position? Is it OK to call him a +*#L*& and a ?J##@! Shouldn't he step down as president because he doesn't agree with you and Perez Hilton on the issue of same-sex marriage?

Posted by: dakotadoug83 | April 23, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"You come across as foaming-at-the-mouth crazies."

Oh really,

So the bigots get to dictate how those they victimize voice their objections? Sureeeeeee they do .... if some KKK member (and their group) said this to me, while they continued to racially discriminate against me, I'd stop "foaming-at-the-mouth" and simply start "whipping some racist-azz" ... perhaps then this bigot (and others like them) would CHANGE:)

Like I said in a prior post, those who victimize, those who defend and practice their bigotry, assume this arrogant status quo right to "dictate" how those they target and victimize must object -- i.e, the victim must speak nicely, the victim must tolerate decades or centuries of discrimination (e.g., "we bigots (usally masked in language of "Most Americans") aren't ready to change yet; "they're so angry, obnoxious, violent, etc.). Yet these whining-bigots go about their status quo life, continuing to defend and practice their bigotry, without any conscience, remorse, or oblivious to the pain, suffer, hurt, discrimination, and often death they cause -- as individuals, as a group, many of our institutions, and many of our laws ... all of which biased serve their bigoted values/life-styles.

I say KMFA bigot ... daily until you unlearn, renounce, and stop practicing your discriminatory values and behavior ... and if that doesn't motivate you, then sure nuff we can take it to the next level ... which is what often must happen for bigots to change ... for some people can be educated but many others remain obstinate, dogmatic, and thus force a less civilized, more aggressive response -- disincentives!

Posted by: GroupThink | April 23, 2009 5:55 PM | Report abuse

"The issue with homosexual marriage is it completely invalidates the concept of providing for and protecting children and their supporting families."

William, no offense ... okay be offended!

But this biological and cultural argument for denying LGBT marriage is one of the dummest, laziest, mental and social observations I've hear to date.

I can list hundreds (if not thousands) of acts/practices heterosexuals do that would meet this YOU CANNOT MARRY criteria you just pulled out your mentally-lazy-ass:

1. incest
2. sexual assault
3. rape
4. domestic abuse
5. cheating
6. divorce
7. no quality time
8. love-less marriages
9. making women dependent on male income
10. limiting women to the domestic sphere
11. discriminating against women in employment, education, housing, etc.
12. Violent movies, cartoons, songs, etc.
13. depriving teens of sex-education, and safer-sex education, thus increasing unwanted pregnancies
14. guilt-tripping women into having unwanted pregancies
15. not providing affordable education, upwardly-mobile jobs/pay, discrmination-free work environments

The list goes on ... of all the culture practices our nation enages in that ...
"invalidates the concept of providing for and protecting children and their supporting families" ... be they heterosexual or LGBT couples.

I mean get real! Marriage is not some reductionist ritual/institution to knock up women ... treat them like sperm recepticles, baby-breeders, domestic servants while mach-men go out into the jungle to hunt food/bacon! What mythical, me-tarzan-she-jane biological deterministic crap is this ... heterosexist patriachy at its worse!

I just love how homophobic heterosexuals mythologize ALL or MOST biological male/female marriages as being this wonderful pancea institution that functions harmoniously with all of our other cultural practices and vice versa. Rarely do I see homophic heterosexuals mentioning all the deviant, immoral, imperfect, bad, ugly things that occur in heterosexual marriages -- not one single "con" about how heterosexual males relate to heterosexual women, their kids (if they have them) and vice versa.

I guess this is the June & Wally Clever, Leave It To Beaver (or Huxtable) idyllic model ... where only (and I emphasize ONLY heterosexuals) can and will live happily ever after in their exclusive "marriage" unions. Hello! Get a clue! Perhaps LGBT couples (extended the legal right to marry) could teach heterosexuals (especially those homophobic) a few things about positive, non-dysfunctional, love -- and maybe even raise their kids to become less dysfunctional and/or bigoted citizens.

Posted by: GroupThink | April 23, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

I don't get it. Why won't my comments be approved. Systematic discrimination by the blog owner???

Posted by: M_Op | April 23, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

M_Op

Many blogs have a number count word filter. This means if your post has too may words it will go into a spam filter, where there is not host there to approve or disapprove comments, becuz there are just too many bloggers. Try shortening your post (or breaking it up into two posts) and that should work.

Cheers!

Posted by: GroupThink | April 23, 2009 7:25 PM | Report abuse

I saw the young lady’s response to the loaded question and why the fairy was allowed to judge a woman’s beauty contest competition, who knows? I believe he should have been judging men since he knows more about what he likes. Only in California could this happen and it reinforces my belief that homo-sexual men are the most vicious women haters alive. I also went to his U-tube site and watched him make a flaming fool of himself. What a tool. How can someone like that be taken seriously anyway?

Carrie Prejean was wrong in her answer because she should have known that the liberal homo judges and officials were slanted concerning the outcome because Hilton was even present. If she really wanted to win she should have lied about her answer. That is what that type wants from their contestants and it would just be another step closer to becoming just like them. If she can not be evil, wicked, greedy and dishonest as well as perverted, she should get out of the business. Miss USA is no longer America’s darling. It is all about politics.

Posted by: longbow65 | April 23, 2009 8:02 PM | Report abuse

I do not normally comment on this type of post because it has never made much sense for men to marry men and women to marry women. I mean, what’s the point. There can never be anything natural and procreating in the effort. Why not just be friends? Is there some economic advantage, or does it just make it all seem more legitimate? I read where all sorts of animals are homos but I would think that would just be for fun. Hell, even the animals know it can not make anything lasting. So my question is why is marriage so important?

Posted by: longbow65 | April 23, 2009 8:14 PM | Report abuse

I support gay marriage. I think it is the civil rights issue of our time. But I was appalled by Perez Hilton, and by the attacks on Prejean. I cant stand beauty pageants, and I certainly dislike the "I was raised that way", which is never used after a positive character attribute, but she is ABSOLUTELY entitled to her views, and the OTHER contestants were not asked anything that carried such a risk.

Lets examine Perez Hilton from now on. How will that man hold up?

Posted by: Willmagnus101 | April 23, 2009 8:16 PM | Report abuse

"I believe he should have been judging men since he knows more about what he likes."

So the qualifications (limitmus test) to judge a beauty contestant is "male" and "heterosexual"? So no "female" (regardless of her sexual orientation) should be allowed to be a judge? Or are you suggesting only "heterosexuals" (regardless of their gender -- male or female)? Mr. Hilton's "gayness" disqualifies him -- cuz no gay person could possible have an knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) to judge anything in our society involving "heterosexuals"? Yet, of course, "heterosexuals" surely can "negative-judge" LGBT persons, and in any context -- contest, relationships, jobs, ect.?


"Only in California could this happen and it reinforces my belief that homo-sexual men are the most vicious women haters alive."

Then I guess you're not female (regardless of your sexual orientation). Why? Because the last time I read the crime stats (and anecdotal reports) on which gender AND sexual orientation were subjecting women to all forms and frequencies of "vicious women hater" acts, it was -- guess who: heterosexual males!

http://www.rainn.org/statistics/

RAINN -- Rape Abuse Incest & National Network (just one of many heterosexual sites of how they (mostly male and female) relate to each other:)

Does this mean LGBT persons don't internalize and practice sexism and other bigotries, of course not. I've met my share of racist gay males and racist white female feminists and conservatives. I also know lots of bigoted kinfolks -- sexist, homophobic, ageist, etc. Yep, I doubt few of our 302 million citizenry are biased/bigoted free (including me). But to suggest Mr. Hilton (and all or most) LGBT persons are MORE BIGOTED than heterosexuals is, well -- just IGNORANT!

P.S. Would it cause you psychological trauma if you found out that Ms California was a closet lesbian or bisexual -- emphasis on "covert"? I doubt it! But then given how oppressive our nation is about citizens (male or female) being "openly" LGBT citizens, such an identity-crisis on her part (or any publicly heterosexual person) is "possible". Blacks (and other minorities) had to use "passing" as a self-defense/survival mechanism during hostile, bigoted, periods in our history. Who is to say such "sexual-orientation-passing" is not quite pervasive -- e.g., DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell).

Posted by: GroupThink | April 23, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

My GroupThink, I touched a button there. After some thought, you are probably right about the wife beaters being more abusive.
Hilton is just a vicious little wanna be man. I stand corrected.

Posted by: longbow65 | April 23, 2009 8:38 PM | Report abuse

LongBow65,

You did not "touch my button" (offend me) is that is what you mean:)

I just wanted to share some "comparative information" to augment your "point of view" -- that's all:) We call can learn MORE, share alternative perspectives, and hopefully grow from such. I can assure you, reading this blog (and many others) truly opens my mind and yes -- and most definitely makes me feel more empathetic/compassionate towards others -- in this case LGBT citizens.

Posted by: GroupThink | April 23, 2009 8:44 PM | Report abuse

LongBow65,

You did not "touch my button" (offend me) is that is what you mean:)

It was not my intent to "correct you". I merely wanted to share some "comparative information" (different point of view) to augment your "point of view" -- that's all:)

We all should share alternative perspectives -- and hopefully we'll learn and grow from such. I can assure you, reading this blog (and many others) truly opens my mind and eyes -- and, yes, most definitely makes me feel more empathetic/compassionate towards others ... in this case LGBT citizens.

Posted by: GroupThink | April 23, 2009 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about that double post! My computer is acting up while I'm doing this multi-tasking:)

Posted by: GroupThink | April 23, 2009 8:48 PM | Report abuse

GroupThink,
Who do you hate? I mean, who do you not like to be around because of their beliefs. I am a pretty common type of guy and just can not warm up to men that like being sexualy active with other men. Who do you hate to be around?

Posted by: longbow65 | April 23, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

LongBow65

Honestly -- MYSELF ... when I'm thinking and acting biased, selfish, cold-blooded, ruthless, unfriendly, un-loving, exclusionary ... and in any other less than ideal, noble, un-evolved, humane ways .... but then like 302 million of us ... I've learn to both tolerate, affirm, co-exist, and become inter-dependent with me, myself, and I:)

As for other persons, I "hate" nobody! Though I do confess I do "dislike" and "have limited tolerance for" biased values, especially those acted upon, that reflect the worst (bad/ugly) side of humanity -- all of those mirror-reflections of myself ... for 302 homo-sapiens (of all persuasions) have more in common than they'd like to admit/agree:)

P.S. My mom (bless her 70 year old self) doesn't like me much (only loves me 99%) because I'm "Agnostic" versus "Christian" (aka "Saveable" as she often rebutes):) Nonetheless, I still and always will (even after she evolves into the "hereafter) love her 100% -- the good, the bad, and her ugly sides ... and not cuz she's my biological mom ... but becuz she's a decent, loving, grounded, common-sense human being ... simply not perfect! Who is -- lol!

I hope this answers our question in a meaningful, qualified, way. If not, I'm sorry. I'm quite shy and not very articulate, though I do try.

Posted by: GroupThink | April 23, 2009 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Intellect and political correctness has replaced truth in the present American culture. We do not deal with conflict anymore and acceptance is much more important in today’s society than the issue being accepted. I am a southerner and hated because of my culture. I really have no problem with it and realize my thought process is different because of traditional values. These I refuse to compromise so I am hated. What I find fascinating is some would rather not deal with or accept the fact that they dislike other cultures or life styles for fear of being considered a bigot, racist or worse. I have been called a bigot for owning firearms. Strange huh?

Posted by: longbow65 | April 23, 2009 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Longbow65,

Nothing you shared is strange or hateable. I've worked and lived in 10 different cultures/nations. I've interacted with the poor, the middle, the upper, and the elite. I've seen horrors one cannot imagine -- things no human being should ever do to another or have done to them. I've seen wonders, beauty, events, human acts that humbled me, made me cry, for their depth of love, meaning, and inspiration were evolutionary. And, yes, I've even spent time in Biloxi, Mississipi (sp??), stood on the beach with Klans men and women burning crosses, though I sure nuff got my color-butt outta there when things esclated. I witness many cultures critique and admire America. I've witness Americans critique and admire other nations. And out of all these life experiences, I'm come to learn many things ... but one most important -- the life-journey and life-learning continues ... the good, the bad, and the ugly. As for being PC (politically correct), all I can say is ... it is just a word ... just like HS (homo-sapien) ... something most if not all us pay lip-service to, when appropriate:)

P.S. I guess I'm a bigot too cuz I use to own and be a sharp-shooter with a M-16 Rifle and .38 Caliber during my military years ... and a decent Shoto-Kan martial artists ... so I guess both would make me a "macho-bigot" -- lol. But don't sweat it, man, cuz we all eventually end up peeling these labels/identities off in the end, to end up sharing only one label/identity in common: "deceased/ dead". So enjoy the journey while it last -- it's only a short 100 year journey, assuming one stays in good health.

Posted by: GroupThink | April 23, 2009 9:28 PM | Report abuse

GroupThink,
You should join the world and stop trying to please everyone. Agnostic belief is very lonely if you have nothing to look forward to when you move on after your time on earth is up. You may have to quit trying so hard and try understanding your own feelings. Crap, I’m starting to sound like a sissy now. I am leaving this site and go out and shoot my AR-15 or choke some puppies. I knew this would happen to me. I am starting to have feelings!!

Posted by: longbow65 | April 23, 2009 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Longbow65,

You go dawg -- lol! I'll bring my M-16 and Japanese Sword and we'll hunt down them "puppies" together ... you can blow its brains out and I'll scalp it .... lol. Then afterwards we'll do bible study, where you can covert and redeem us both, that is if we don't end up sharing the same government-housing as Michael Vick:)

P.S. Just joking -- See, even I can tell "sick, sadistic, cruel, jokes:) Have a great day Sir! I'm gonna go hug my one of my 10 Teddy Bears (my collection) ... now there's some "post-military-sissy-action for ya -- "Hoorah!":) Stay Cool.

Posted by: GroupThink | April 23, 2009 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Perez Hilton should be waterboarded.

Posted by: petemik | April 24, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Ahhhhh...the good ole Miss USA pageant is no dofferent than anything else these days - gives us the POLITICALLY CORRECT answer and you'll do fine; show you have a brain of your own and they'll dismiss you as being biased and anti-liberal and anti-everything else.

The guy has no redeeming value outside of the fact that he is gay, other than that he is useless.

Posted by: zendrell | April 24, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Perez Hilton himself would tell you that he was PMSing. In that context...

Posted by: KathyWi | April 24, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Well, since she is competing to represent America, then it's only appropriate that she lose when she reveals she is a bigot. America should not be represented by bigots, no matter how lovely their shell, their character is rotting.

Posted by: RinOregon | April 24, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

The lady was being asked a simple question about states or government ruling and instead she goes into who should be married and her religious upbringing and belief. I was like well duhhhh...no one asked that.

She is young but sure don't need politics for career since things would stem from her religious beliefs.

Posted by: mac7 | April 25, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse

She should have answered the way our VP did when asked a similar question; it would have sounded a little something like this:

"While I do not PERSONALLY believe in same-sex marriage, I don't think that the GOVERNMENT should dictate whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry."

If she'd said something like that then there would be no issue. She still wouldn't have won, but there wouldn't be all of this controversy.

As for the issue itself, all I have to say is 'seperation of church and state', people! I have yet to hear one argument against gay marriage that is not based in religion...

Posted by: mille2569 | April 25, 2009 10:23 AM | Report abuse

It continues to amaze me that the livestock show industry continues to insist on interview questions as part of the venue.

While America (generally) continues to believe that "dumb as a stick" is part of the feminine ideal, I think Bill Maher had it right; let's just eliminate the talking portion of the pageant. It is more than a little embarrassing.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | April 25, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Typical left wing response....we support free speech unless we happen to disagree. Then you a f'in B or C word. Nice...

Posted by: JohnGalt44 | April 25, 2009 11:40 PM | Report abuse

You claim that "Prejean and millions others like her have a right to their opinion."

Would we be having this discussion if she spoke out against interracial marriage?

Balancing "free speech" with issues of discrimination and civil rights is not always so easy. Hate mongering, whether founded on dubious religious grounds or otherwise, is not protected speech.

Posted by: PaulG2 | April 26, 2009 1:27 AM | Report abuse

May I suggest everyone take a deep breath and contemplate the beautiful spring flowers blooming now before diving into this muck?

OK--everyone centered? Found their chi, whatever that is?

Good. Now.

1. Should beauty contestants be asked controversial political questions?

A. No, unless you honestly think Madeline Albright (were she single) should win Miss USA. Albright could give a vastly better answer than any of the actual contestants, but I don't want to see her in a bikini.

The questions should be softballs, just to see whether the winner can deal with the sort of questions a reigning beauty contest winner would be asked.

Even if you think your issue is central to the survival of Western Civilization, come on. Beauty contests aren't the venue. They're frivolous celebrations of human attractiveness, with enough talent/rhetorical stuff wrapped around them to make us feel OK about ogling people of the gender we're attracted to.

2. Should beauty contest judges who try to derail the contest in the service of a personal agenda be fired?

A. Absolutely. This guy embarrassed the contestant and the contest with his behavior. It was an abuse of authority, much like a supervisor in an office using his position to proposition his secretary.

3. Should Prejean have won?

A. I didn't find her all that beautiful, personally. There's a certain boringness about most beauty contest aspirants, isn't there? Compare them with, for example, Chelsie Hightower, one of the pros on Dancing with the Stars, or an actress like Emma Watson (now 18) from the Harry Potter series. One's too short, the other's too...intelligent? looking--you never find people like that in one of these contests. Yet people like them command your attention when they enter a room, and not just on a hormonal level. But certainly on that as well.

I don't know how you could get people like that into a "beauty contest" but I'd actually watch one if it were so.

So whether Prejean was sabotaged by the bad judge or not, I don't know. But it certainly shouldn't have been on the grounds he gave.

4. Should homosexual rights be equated with women's rights or different races' rights?

A. It's a worthwhile question but not in this forum. Take it outside, guys.

There. Now I feel better. Now let's talk about the Mormon hymn Eliza Dushku has the first line of tattoed on her back ("Lead kindly light"). Isn't that a vastly more interesting subject than anything regarding Miss Prejean or Boy Hilton?

www.popzu.blogspot.com

Posted by: ehkzu | April 26, 2009 3:54 AM | Report abuse

She did not answer the question and it made no sense with how she tried to answer it. The question basically was about same sex marriage be national law or state laws?

What does she do--tell her beliefs and feelings instead and more than one needs to hear. I don't care how religious she was brought up and beliefs instilled in her. Hopefully she is not going into politics because I would not have to hear laws being made in accordance to her religion--can't we move past that.

Posted by: mac7 | April 26, 2009 10:57 AM | Report abuse

gotta' love the article's "self-proclaimed gay".

So, if he was proclaimed gay by homophobes would his rant be acknowledged ...let's say like bawling Boehner's rants?

Here's a rant to out rant all rants:

In this weekend's RNC YouTube message, Sen. Alexander (R-TN) ...bemoans their secret plot has been foiled?

He warns his minions that Obama has made the United States fiscally ineligible for membership in the European Union

...not that we would want that sort of thing...right?.... because we're the United States of America.

Would someone call the GOP/RNC and tell them that Iraq needs rebuilt since they've done NOTHING but rant.

The cherry on that cake is they won't need to await the DOD to reveal their blood soaked photo album of their Christian nation handi-work

. . they can witness the stench of war up close and personal while planning a their trousseau that suits accessorizing with shackles in the Hague.

Posted by: spritey | April 26, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

"Should homosexual rights be equated with women's rights or different races' rights?"

Hmmmm, get a copy of and watch MSNBC's documentaries:

1. Sex Slaves: The Teen Trade:

http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?id=10091931

2. Sex Slaves in The Suburbs

http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?id=8682630

Then ...

Ask whether "heterosexism" views and relates to women (kids, teens, and adults regardless of sexual orientation, age, race, or class), minorities, and LGBT citizens similarly -- as second-class citizens, inferior, deviant, and property, whose primary purpose is to serve a "patriachy bigoted culture".

Ask whether heterosexuals (especially many males) should "self-proclaim" themself as "the standard of normalcy/non-deviancy" (based on biology, gender, sexual-orientation, morality, religion, values, life-stye, or any other rationale) against which LGBT citizens should be judged.

Hmmm, if I were a female (of any age, race, class, sexual-orientation, or nation), my answer to the above question would be an unequivocal: "Yes, because like minorities and gays I'm a high probability real-life statistic for being targeted, victimized in all forms and frequencies, denied societal rights, murdered, or even enslaved/prostituted in the 21st Century."

So perhaps instead of defending our status quo rights to bash and discriminate against LGBT citizens, all 307 million of us (especially those of us who are homophobic) need to look into our "self-proclaimed" religious and secular souls, into our nation's immorality and deviancy mirror (e.g., the media documentraries above or any daily news channel) and ask which segment of our nation is "probably deviant" -- sexual orientation wise, and in many other ways we often project onto other groups.

So perhaps instead of defending our status quo rights to bash and discriminate against LGBT citizens, us TV consumers should stop watching the Miss Universe, Miss America, and Miss Teen USA contests with watch Mr. Universe, Mr. America, Miss Fitness, and Miss Physique bodybuilding competitions. The latter might satisfy our primordial desire to objectify and lust -- sexy muscles without brains and fewer eating disorders instead of brain-dead tits and azz hiding their eating disorders. And maybe, cerebral wise, we might even learn a useful thing or two about eating healthy and exercising, minus the use of steroids:)

Posted by: GroupThink | April 27, 2009 1:36 AM | Report abuse

Its a sad day in America when someone of this kind of self promoting intellect can be in the position to affect the out come of the grace and beauty of No.1 American women. Perez's question was ridiculous and I don't think any answer Carrie gave would of not offended one of the judges. Hilton's position is typical of men with his problem. They have nothing else on their mind. There is nothing humble about these men. The wrath of God is upon these men, and it shall be upon us all if we except it. Simple problems with moral and dignity and hypocritical religion may be the reason for some of the problem America has around the world. How far would the gay liberation army get in the middle east? ......I would like to know how D Trump would of let something this stupid to happen around him. The pageant was ruined by a perverted question.

Posted by: kimkimminni1 | April 27, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

...... urge you to read the recent decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, which held that the Iowa law that forbade gay and lesbian civil marriages was unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.....
///////////////////////////////////////////
That's BS. They are outlawing the concept of Yin and Yang. The philosophical point of view that allows this nonsense is completely alien and unacceptable to me, and many others. Nature created the biological union between men and women, we formalised the relationship as marriage.
Lets rip the hearts out of these SOB's who won't leave us alone and want to destroy whatever is left in our lives to live for.

Posted by: WilliamBlake | April 27, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

...... urge you to read the recent decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, which held that the Iowa law that forbade gay and lesbian civil marriages was unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.....
///////////////////////////////////////////
That's BS. They are outlawing the concept of Yin and Yang. The philosophical point of view that allows this nonsense is completely alien and unacceptable to me, and many others. Nature created the biological union between men and women, we formalised the relationship as marriage.
Lets rip the hearts out of these SOB's who won't leave us alone and want to destroy whatever is left in our lives to live for.

Posted by: WilliamBlake | April 27, 2009 7:40 PM | Report abuse

"How far would the gay liberation army get in the middle east?:

Interesting CULTURAL CONTEXT question. We should often view complex issues from different cultural perspectives outside of our own American cultural parochialism.

I suspect it would probably get further than any "women's issue" in that patriarchy culture/nation. Why? Because many nations there are dominated, ruled, by men more so than what American culture does. This means if most of the power/elite men or the majority decided it is okay to be openly or closet middle-easter male gay or bi-sexual, then that patriarchy culture will permit such. Unfortunately, I doubt if these males(strait, gay, and bi-sexual) would extent equal rights to any of their women citizens (straight, bi-sexual, or lesbian).

I guess this answer the question -- "How far would any women's liberation army get in the middle east?"

Posted by: GroupThink | April 27, 2009 9:11 PM | Report abuse

I discussed this issue on my site but looked at it more from the media perspective. The amount of mainstream media coverage Hilton and Trump have received from this debacle has been amazing. If Prejean's answer had been pro-gay marriage, Hilton would have never gotten the kind of exposure he has seen over the last week. The real social issue has gotten lost in the media hype surrounding these bit players.
www.whenpigsfly.squarespace.com

Posted by: Blackhorse1 | April 27, 2009 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Why on God's Green Earth would anyone still care about this, or care about it at all in the first place, and why is it still up on the Opinion Page?

Let's put them both out of our misery.

Posted by: bawrytr | April 28, 2009 2:15 AM | Report abuse

Why would you assume that Prejean would pray that Hilton discover his inner heterosexual? Did she say that? His online rants reveal him to be a very angry man. Maybe she intended to pray that he learn to cope with his anger.

Posted by: ndriscoll1 | April 28, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

The quickest way for the Democrats to end up where the GOP is today is to act like them. Only the fringes appreciate tantrums and name-calling.

Posted by: st50taw | April 28, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"It's a wonder that even supporters of same-sex marriage don't reconsider their position after hearing the embarrassing, infuriating, self-absorbed rantings of quasi-celebrity Perez Hilton."
... I think supporters of same-sex marriage hold more value in their support than to be swayed by one person's remarks. And, not to mention, Miss California, who attends a college founded by the "Left Behind" books author, is against all progressive rights and legislation.
I would have to say Eva Rodriquez did a terrible job in putting this article together.

Posted by: paris1969 | April 28, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company