Miss California Controversy (from Rumours)

[HejiraNYC]

Stevie ROCKS, Lindsey ROCKS, Perez is a BITCH, not Miss California!! :laugh:

You're right. Miss California is not a BITCH. She's a F***ING HATE-FILLED DIMWITTED BITCH!! :mad:

[RockALittle250]

You're right. Miss California is not a BITCH. She's a F***ING HATE-FILLED DIMWITTED BITCH!! :mad:

Nah...She's just waaaaay over-exposed. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but her 15 minutes are up!

[HejiraNYC]

Nah...She's just waaaaay over-exposed. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but her 15 minutes are up!

I think it's one thing to air her ignorant views on national television, but it's another thing to sign up with the devil and enter a lobbying campaign around said ignorant views. She's disgusting, and quite frankly I think Perez Hilton was actually not harsh enough on her. She is the symbol of everything wrong with America today.

[ontheEdgeof17]

^Agreed.

The thing I HATE most about this world are those who say they follow the Bible, but only certain passages and ignoring those they choose not to practice to fit their lifestyle. I think she is one of those people.

[ChristyL17]

^Agreed.

The thing I HATE most about this world are those who say they follow the Bible, but only certain passages and ignoring those they choose not to practice to fit their lifestyle. I think she is one of those people.

Completely agree with you!!! So hypocritical.

[RockALittle250]

I think it's one thing to air her ignorant views on national television, but it's another thing to sign up with the devil and enter a lobbying campaign around said ignorant views. She's disgusting, and quite frankly I think Perez Hilton was actually not harsh enough on her. She is the symbol of everything wrong with America today.

^Agreed.

The thing I HATE most about this world are those who say they follow the Bible, but only certain passages and ignoring those they choose not to practice to fit their lifestyle. I think she is one of those people.

Completely agree with you!!! So hypocritical.

I should have just kept my mouth shut...this is a hot topic :sorry:

[carol7lynn]

I should have just kept my mouth shut...this is a hot topic :sorry:

No you didn't err. Why? Miss California, despite what some people might think, has a right to her opinion. To quote Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Freedom of expression (She does not support gay marriage.) and the right to peaceful assembly (lobby/special interest group participation) are constitutionally guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. She is not the devil's stooge nor is she a hate filled dim wit or even a bitch because she does not believe in gay marriage. She didn't engage in gay bashing in her answer to the pageant judges' question and the lobby group that she is a member of has not engaged in or advocated hate crimes against gays. The punishment some people are leveling at her does not fit the crime.

The real issue is why did Perez think it necessary to bash Lindsey? Did Lindsey snub him back stage? Or does he think it PC to be a Lindsey hater if you are a Stevie lover? Or is he just an attention grabber? You know say something off the wall just to stir the pot. Who knows.


Carol Lynn
SoCalGal

[Tusk!]

I think it's one thing to air her ignorant views on national television, but it's another thing to sign up with the devil and enter a lobbying campaign around said ignorant views. She's disgusting, and quite frankly I think Perez Hilton was actually not harsh enough on her. She is the symbol of everything wrong with America today.

How is she the symbol of everything wrong with America today? I would bet that the majority of Americans share her viewpoint on gay marriages. She only gave her honest answer to a question and the media has prolonged the controversy much longer than it needs to be.

[HejiraNYC]

No you didn't err. Why? Miss California, despite what some people might think, has a right to her opinion. To quote Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Freedom of expression (She does not support gay marriage.) and the right to peaceful assembly (lobby/special interest group participation) are constitutionally guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Okay then. Then I want to see the KKK burning crosses on national television every night. And I want to see Adolph Hitler footage on national television every night so that Jews will sympathize with where he is coming from. :rolleyes: There is freedom of expression, and then there is just spewing and encouraging hatred. See the difference? Sure, she has a right to free speech, and I have a right to call her a stupid c***y f***ing b!tch.


She is not the devil's stooge nor is she a hate filled dim wit or even a bitch because she does not believe in gay marriage.

Um, excuse me? She is basically saying that 10% of the population deserves to be second class citizens, by virtue of a congenital trait and/or orientation. If she said that blacks should not be allowed to marry or that people from different races should not be allowed to marry, would she be a "hate filled dim wit" bitch then? Oh... and you can't deny that, regardless of what she said, the b!tch cannot string a coherent thought or sentence together.


The punishment some people are leveling at her does not fit the crime.

I agree- she should have had her Miss California crown rescinded as well as all of the vituperative from the mainstream media.

[LukeA]

Okay then. Then I want to see the KKK burning crosses on national television every night. And I want to see Adolph Hitler footage on national television every night so that Jews will sympathize with where he is coming from. :rolleyes: There is freedom of expression, and then there is just spewing and encouraging hatred. See the difference? Sure, she has a right to free speech, and I have a right to call her a stupid c***y f***ing b!tch.

So, we're comparing the legislative denial of gay marriage to Americans lynching blacks and the Holocaust?

Way to make a level-headed, logical cause seem loopy and ignorant.

[HejiraNYC]

How is she the symbol of everything wrong with America today? I would bet that the majority of Americans share her viewpoint on gay marriages. She only gave her honest answer to a question and the media has prolonged the controversy much longer than it needs to be.

First of all, who cares what the "majority of Americans" think about marriage equality? It's a civil rights issue that should not be subject to the whims of popular opinion. Do you think the majority of Americans were in favor of civil rights and interracial marriage back in the sixties? Do you think the majority of Americans were in favor of abolishing slavery in the early 1800's?

Secondly, this is just a quick list of how Miss Prejean offends me:

1. Her ignorant views on marriage equality/gays, obviously.

2. She is a terrible role model and an unfortunate stereotype of weak women that should have gone extinct decades ago. She is all veneer- fake tan, fake hair, fake boobs, tarted up like a trashy whore- and she has absolutely zero substance or any apparent brainpower whatsoever. Stupid people offend me in general. But stupid people who try to overcompensate by playing up the physical attributes is just beyond tragic to me.

3. Her hypocrisy of being such a devoutly religious person with "family values," yet being more than willing to parade around half naked on stage (and fully naked in pictures). What is that old saying about people who live in glass houses?

4. She is trying to milk her 15 minutes of fame by spewing even more hatred- a media whore if there ever was one.

etc...

[HejiraNYC]

So, we're comparing the legislative denial of gay marriage to Americans lynching blacks and the Holocaust?

Way to make a level-headed, logical cause seem loopy and ignorant.

I didn't say it was equivalent to killing people. But the source/intent is identical: hatred.

[David]

Oh... and you can't deny that, regardless of what she said, the b!tch cannot string a coherent thought or sentence together.You really don't like her, do you?

I think she's cool! She'd be good in a new grindhouse flick!

[gldstwmn]

Carrie Prjean took religous politics into a place where diplomacy should reign supreme. That is what Miss USA is all about. She fukced up and should be dethroned. If she wants to spread her opinion, she can practice her right to free speech by taking a job with that committee she was snuggling up to after her pr debacle.

[LukeA]

WTF cares what a dimwitted beauty queen thinks? She was asked the question in the pageant, and she answered it. Everything after has been instigated by hyperventilating indignation that does more to make the same-sex marriage issue look unstable and unfocused than anything else.

[jwd]

Here's Miss California's press conference on the matter.

http://perezhilton.com/2009-05-12-miss-california-in-her-own-words#respond

She has every right to express her opinion without the backlash that she has experienced. She's hardly a dumb or dimwitted girl, unless of course she's dumb or dimwitted because she disagrees with you. :rolleyes: She's not anti-gay or a crusader against gay people. She happens to disagree with gay marriage, as does the majority of Americans, and coincidentally President Obama. She answered the question honestly. Geeesh! Disagree with her, write your Congressman, march for gay rights, speak out, elect politicians who will advance your cause. But to lambaste this girl does nothing but hurt the cause. People shouldn't have to fear expressing their opinions or their beliefs because of what may happen to them. I support Miss California's right to express herself as I support gay people's rights to express themselves without retribution or retaliation.

[DigYourGrave]

The real issue is why did Perez think it necessary to bash Lindsey? Did Lindsey snub him back stage?

Carol Lynn
SoCalGal

Realistically? Yes, he probably did. Wouln't you? :p

[David]

Here's Miss California's press conference on the matter.

http://perezhilton.com/2009-05-12-miss-california-in-her-own-words#respond

She has every right to express her opinion without the backlash that she has experienced. She's hardly a dumb or dimwitted girl, unless of course she's dumb or dimwitted because she disagrees with you. :rolleyes: She's not anti-gay or a crusader against gay people. She happens to disagree with gay marriage, as does the majority of Americans, and coincidentally President Obama. She answered the question honestly. Geeesh! Disagree with her, write your Congressman, march for gay rights, speak out, elect politicians who will advance your cause. But to lambaste this girl does nothing but hurt the cause. People shouldn't have to fear expressing their opinions or their beliefs because of what may happen to them. I support Miss California's right to express herself as I support gay people's rights to express themselves without retribution or retaliation.
Well stated, Joe.

[trackaghost]

Okay, since I'm in the UK I'm completely unfamiliar with this story but surely if she has the right to say what she believes in a public forum, then people should also have the right to disagree with what she says in the public also.
I really resent her putting herself up as a model of women's empowerment though.

[SuzeQuze]

WTF cares what a dimwitted beauty queen thinks? She was asked the question in the pageant, and she answered it. Everything after has been instigated by hyperventilating indignation that does more to make the same-sex marriage issue look unstable and unfocused than anything else.

So the bigger question is why would they ask her such a question in a pageant? It seems like it was designed to create publicity. Ya think?

[David]

Okay, since I'm in the UK I'm completely unfamiliar with this story but surely if she has the right to say what she believes in a public forum, then people should also have the right to disagree with what she says in the public also.
I really resent her putting herself up as a model of women's empowerment though.I don't think it's a rights issue. It's not as if Congress stepped in & outlawed her speech. I think Hilton's hysterical response was boorish -- it's an issue of maturity & manners in civil public discourse. Hilton has shown himself to be nothing but an obnoxious brat.

[GoldDustOrphan]

David's correct, it's not a free speech issue.

What many people don't understand that every contestant of the Miss America pageant is an employee of the Miss America organization and, according to the contracts signed, must adhere to strict standards of behavior. The questions are engineered to test their poise, grace and diplomacy.

She began her answer with ..."No offense," a statement that is usually followed by another statement that is bound to offend. Most of the people judging the contest were gay, as was the person who did her hair and designed her gown. Many officials in the organization are gay. She is dumb if she thought the answer she gave wouldn't offend and upset the audience. Still, I'll give her that moment as a regretable flub.

Here's why she's dumb. She made it clear that she believed in "opposite marriage" between a man and woman, but during an interview with Greta Van Susteran that took place 10 days later, she no longer had an opinion, telling Susteran: "I'm not running for political office. I don't have the answers to everything, you know, in the world out there." She also refused to give her opinion on domestic partnership or gay foster parentsL "I'm not a politician, so I can't give you an answer to that." So, in fact, she really doesn't know what she believes, even though she joined the political campaign of a group dedicated to the repeal of same-sex marriage laws in the few states where they exist.

By the way, in regard to the holocaust. Did you ever wonder why the pink triangle is a symbol of gay politics? That's the symbol gay concentration camp prisoners were forced to wear on their way to the gas chamber or firing squad. Germany was very permissive and tolerant of its visible gay community, until Hitler came to power.

[LukeA]

Here's why she's dumb. She made it clear that she believed in "opposite marriage" between a man and woman, but during an interview with Greta Van Susteran that took place 10 days later, she no longer had an opinion, telling Susteran: "I'm not running for political office. I don't have the answers to everything, you know, in the world out there." She also refused to give her opinion on domestic partnership or gay foster parentsL "I'm not a politician, so I can't give you an answer to that." So, in fact, she really doesn't know what she believes, even though she joined the political campaign of a group dedicated to the repeal of same-sex marriage laws in the few states where they exist.

Exactly. So, why give any weight to what she has to say? The way I see it, the only reason why we're even still discussing this is because the pro-same sex marriage movement, in all their shortsighted, indignant bluster, has unwittingly given her the platform she currently enjoys.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

So what should she have done then? Lied about her beliefs?

[jannieC]

So the bigger question is why would they ask her such a question in a pageant? It seems like it was designed to create publicity. Ya think?

Thank you.

Particularly in light of who was sitting in front of her. It's nutso that we even care what she thinks. And as far as her fakeness (hair, boobs, tan)., this <i>was</i> a beauty pageant. Par for the course. :shrug:

[carrie721]

Thank you.

Particularly in light of who was sitting in front of her. It's nutso that we even care what she thinks. And as far as her fakeness (hair, boobs, tan)., this <i>was</i> a beauty pageant. Par for the course. :shrug:

why do we care? because she's blonde and on tv. :lol:

i kid, i kid.

i care because what she said has been piped into millions of homes and helped energize a movement that affected both my life and those of most of my closest friends in a very personal, negative way. the "fakeness" is prescient because it speaks to her hypocrisy, but i'll get to that later.

as i understand it, all the questions they were asked were related to current social issues. so i think it is fair game. the publicity has worked both ways - for the issue itself and for carrie, and anyone could have predicted that outcome. so to say it is just a publicity stunt on perez's behalf is only to look at part of the story.

as for perez, i think his response was stupid and histrionic and i wish he'd STFU. if anyone came out of that debacle looking like a vapid, hateful sow it was he.

are carrie's opinions rooted in hate? i honestly don't know, but based on what i have heard her say, i kind of doubt it. i think that many people who disagree with gay marriage feel that way because of a fundamental lack of understanding about the issue. and all of the marches and screaming matches in the world aren't going to change anyone's mind.

obviously, there are people who are filled with hate. but there are also people who just don't understand why we want marriage. i have talked to a good number of these people personally. frankly, i think it is a mistake to use the word "marriage." it is word associated with an institution with a long, convoluted history and it is simply too easy for people on the outside of the matter (which is, by most estimates, 90% of the population) to balk at the word without taking the real issues into consideration.

we want next-of-kin rights. we want partner benefits. we want federal recognition of our unions. we can get all of that without the use of the word "marriage." would that make gay unions second class in the eyes of some? maybe. i couldn't care less. i don't need the word "marriage" to ratify my relationships. when we fight for the word, we muddy the waters. it gives anti-marriage voices an easy opportunity to say that we are seeking society's approval for our behavior, that we are aping the straights. that misunderstanding is the root of the problem and the onus is on us to make the issue as cut and dried as we can.

take a look at this misunderstanding in action:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110508.php3

thomas sowell is against gay marriage, but he is hardly hateful. he's one of the most intelligent, rational and unemotional commentators out there. i do not agree with him categorically but i do agree with him that no one is entitled to anyone else's approval. because my gay marriage movement is about rights and not permission, i think it would be prudent for us, instead of getting red in the face at people who disagree, to reframe our case. drop the word "marriage," focus on the legal rights we're after, and highlight the important role gay people play in society (by and large, we do not contribute to overpopulation. we adopt kids no one else wants. we raise property values everywhere we go. because many of us are childless, we can work long hours without it being a detriment to our families. etc).

whose fault is it that otherwise intelligent and informed people see whining, mewling victims when they look at the gay marriage movement? on the one hand, perhaps that is what they want to see. on the other hand, perez hilton, arguably one of the (if not the) most vocal and visible gay members of pop culture is exactly that -- a whining, bratty, nasty victim. and we are letting him speak for us.

furthermore, i just do not understand why people care so much about the word "marriage." why would we want a label for our unions that has such a f*cked up history? the importance of this issue has nothing to do with that legacy. marriage as we want it is an extremely modern concept; so why not acknowledge and promote that by leaving the word alone and forging a new path?

but back to carrie prejean. as i said, i do not think she is hateful. but my sympathy for her is extremely limited because she chose to align herself with people who truly are hateful: maggie gallagher and her ilk. however, the girl is so clueless that i think it would have been wiser to let her discredit herself on her own merits. she has been proven to be a hypocrite on more than one count, and that would have happened whether or not people had spewed their vitriol at her.

[JazmenFlowers]

^^^
:bow:

[sparky]

why do we care? because she's blonde and on tv. :lol:

i kid, i kid.

Um. Wait. Does the opinion of anyone who is not blonde and not on television even matter in this culture?

i care because what she said has been piped into millions of homes and helped energize a movement that affected both my life and those of most of my closest friends in a very personal, negative way. the "fakeness" is prescient because it speaks to her hypocrisy, but i'll get to that later.

I do not know that it energized anything at all. But I will get to that later.

as i understand it, all the questions they were asked were related to current social issues.

In the context of that part of the "show" it was not inappropriate.

so i think it is fair game. the publicity has worked both ways - for the issue itself and for carrie, and anyone could have predicted that outcome. so to say it is just a publicity stunt on perez's behalf is only to look at part of the story.

He asked a loaded question, and I do not doubt for a second that she knew exactly what was coming. If she had handlers and publicists who wanted to steer her clear of a conflict, she could have answered the question in a tone of voice that was respectful of both sides of the issue.

[as for perez, i think his response was stupid and histrionic and i wish he'd STFU. if anyone came out of that debacle looking like a vapid, hateful sow it was he.

Absolutely. He is a nasty, self promoting parasite. The sole reason his website even exists is that he promotes the people he likes and derides the people he hates. Thus, those he likes kiss his ass and get his accolades and place high priced ads through their corporations. The people he dislikes do not matter - he is making plenty of cash through his tie ins.

Do a history search. The shows that advertise get great coverage. Good or bad, it doesn't matter.

I have no IDEA who Spencer Pratt is. Or his fugly wife.
But the show they were on has had front page ads on his site for a year.

He is a businessman. This is Hollywood. No speed limit, this is the fast line. Vomit, etc etc.

are carrie's opinions rooted in hate? i honestly don't know, but based on what i have heard her say, i kind of doubt it. i think that many people who disagree with gay marriage feel that way because of a fundamental lack of understanding about the issue. and all of the marches and screaming matches in the world aren't going to change anyone's mind.

Well, no. They won't. The only thing that will change the minds of those people is knowing people they care about who are homos.
And sometimes not even that helps. Talk to my LDS friends who came out and had their entire families tell them they were effectively DEAD and refused to communicate with them.

BUT, most of the people who believe such things are so poisoned by misinterpreted and buffet style religious interpretations that they lost the concept of logic decades ago.

obviously, there are people who are filled with hate. but there are also people who just don't understand why we want marriage. i have talked to a good number of these people personally. frankly, i think it is a mistake to use the word "marriage." it is word associated with an institution with a long, convoluted history and it is simply too easy for people on the outside of the matter (which is, by most estimates, 90% of the population) to balk at the word without taking the real issues into consideration.

The real problem is that "marriage" has taken on a religious meaning in our cultural dictionary. Why? Um excuse me, it makes a ton of money for churches. It ultimately cannot have an exclusively religious connotation this country. Church and state? Atheists can get married in this country.

we want next-of-kin rights. we want partner benefits. we want federal recognition of our unions. we can get all of that without the use of the word "marriage." would that make gay unions second class in the eyes of some? maybe. i couldn't care less. i don't need the word "marriage" to ratify my relationships. when we fight for the word, we muddy the waters. it gives anti-marriage voices an easy opportunity to say that we are seeking society's approval for our behavior, that we are aping the straights. that misunderstanding is the root of the problem and the onus is on us to make the issue as cut and dried as we can.

Hallelujah Bob. The word means nothing. The rights mean everything.

take a look at this misunderstanding in action:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110508.php3

thomas sowell is against gay marriage, but he is hardly hateful. he's one of the most intelligent, rational and unemotional commentators out there. i do not agree with him categorically but i do agree with him that no one is entitled to anyone else's approval. because my gay marriage movement is about rights and not permission, i think it would be prudent for us, instead of getting red in the face at people who disagree, to reframe our case. drop the word "marriage," focus on the legal rights we're after, and highlight the important role gay people play in society (by and large, we do not contribute to overpopulation. we adopt kids no one else wants. we raise property values everywhere we go. because many of us are childless, we can work long hours without it being a detriment to our families. etc).

I agree completely.

His understanding of the history of marriage is embarrassing and colored by a post WW2 religious point of view. Hello Same Sex Unions In Pre Modern Europe:

http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244099370&sr=8-1

I give him a punt on his logic, but he is hardly a scholar of history outside his education.

Nonetheless your reaction to his logic is valid.


whose fault is it that otherwise intelligent and informed people see whining, mewling victims when they look at the gay marriage movement? on the one hand, perhaps that is what they want to see. on the other hand, perez hilton, arguably one of the (if not the) most vocal and visible gay members of pop culture is exactly that -- a whining, bratty, nasty victim. and we are letting him speak for us.

Perez Hilton, though he may be an entertaining blogger, is a sorry, cliched, and pathetic example of a gay man. All he does is reinforce the sad stereotype that a gay man is nothing more than a woman who was sadly born into a man's body. He obsessed with fashion, style, body image, petty bickering, personal grooming, and idle gossip. He couldn't change a tire or turn off his gas meter in an earthquake to save his nearly worthless life. He is everything straight men spit on gay men for and rightly so. For the record, I doubt he would claim he has more testosterone in his body than Joan Jett has in her earlobe. And he shouldn't. He is a sorry excuse for a man.

He is merely a male.

BUT, I applaud his stance. And I saw him next to me at a marriage march in downtown LA. He is a ridiculous queen but he puts his money where his lip glossed mouth is.

furthermore, i just do not understand why people care so much about the word "marriage." why would we want a label for our unions that has such a f*cked up history? the importance of this issue has nothing to do with that legacy. marriage as we want it is an extremely modern concept; so why not acknowledge and promote that by leaving the word alone and forging a new path?


Yes. Ditch the loaded word and keep the rights. A commitment
is a commitment. Especially, but not exclusively, when it involves children.

but back to carrie prejean. as i said, i do not think she is hateful. but my sympathy for her is extremely limited because she chose to align herself with people who truly are hateful: maggie gallagher and her ilk.

I do not know that she is hateful. She is surely stupid.

As is her manager, her attorney and her agent.

She is being USED my NOM and she is happy to be used.

She didn't really energize anything. She is being manipulated by a group of people who are on the wrong side of history and she is too deluded to know it.

What else does a runner up have to grab onto? She and her entire
machine missed the boat on this. This will result in 7 minutes of infamy.

And let the chips fall where they may.

Sure, she has gotten 1000% more press than any other also ran would have gotten. But did she and her staff never bother to do a google search on Anita Bryant?

however, the girl is so clueless that i think it would have been wiser to let her discredit herself on her own merits. she has been proven to be a hypocrite on more than one count, and that would have happened whether or not people had spewed their vitriol at her.

No doubt about it. She is as dumb as an empty wig box.

Anyone with a 6th grade education can see that. She is the classic
example of 'give her enough rope and she will hang herself.'

Oh, but let us just for a moment examine the hypocrisy angle.

Just for fun.

She is a contestant in a Beauty Pageant.

When you get down to it, that is not about talent. Or intelligence.
It is about one thing and one thing only: the winner is the girl that more guys want to stick it in.

Period.

And to that end, the women parade around in bathing suits.
Bathing suits that cover nothing but their nipples and their openings below the waist. BARELY.

To make them more appealing in terms of appealing to a man's breeding instinct (and by breeding I mean not procreation but merely the act that might lead to procreation), they do the following: wax themselves, dye their hair, bleach their teeth, starve themselves, cover their entire bodies in paint, wear high heels in order to make their hind end appear to be more appealing and available for penetration, and often times undergo surgical procedures to achieve the same aforementioned ends.

I find it WILDY comical that Miss Prejean has been quoted as saying the "devil" was asking her the question about same sex marriage and she felt she had to respond according to her religious faith and beliefs.

This begs the question of who was asking her the question of if she should go under the knife (at the expense of her sponsors!) to get breast implants to make herself to look more sexually desirable as an unmarried woman and win a beauty contest? Whose voice was she listening to when she posed for photos before the pageant where she willingly bared her post surgically enhanced nipples and breasts? Was that the voice of God or the voice of the Devil? And which did she listen to then?

Furthermore, I wonder if she has done a complete reading of Leviticus, which is the only place in the Old Testament that speaks of homosexuality? Has she ever eaten shellfish? Has she ever worn a garment made of mixed fibers? Does she willingly participate in stoning to death women who are not virgins who get married?

Those are only a few of the legs she has to stand on. There are many other frail and sure to collapse legs I could bring up. But why bother? She knows less about the bible than I do.

Hoot about a religious text and you better follow it to the LETTER.

The bottom line is this: in this age, if you engage in public discourse about politics, you better have a spotless record. And prepare to have every single infraction your record contains splattered online. In high resolution and on every website in blood red capital letters.

God help the person who attacks anyone on religious grounds.

If you choose to live by that sword, be prepared to die by it.

And this sad little Orange County girl is going to die a messy, bloody, misinformed death in a very public way.

She stepped into the ring. And she knew the rules.

[strandinthewind]

^

I agree for the most part. However, the same people who vehemently oppose gay marriage also vehemently oppose civil unions. In the end, the easiest solution is for the government to get out of sponsoring any king of marriage as a civil contract. Let the churches marry according the tenets of the respective faith. Then, let people use contract and testament law to accord rights currently given via "marriage," just like the opposers say gay people wanting marriage for that reason should do. They assert it is very easy to contract into these things - so, even the playing field by making everyone do it by contract. But, the crazies think that they are tread upon if the government does not validate their faith, which says to me that their faith is weak to begin with.

As for the sow known as Ms. California, she has made and, along with her peeps, will continue to make lots of money on this issue - ditto for Perez Hilton. It was a fair question and her answer was not the political one, which is the required one. She is not there to way what she personally feels. Rather, she must show she relates to all people.

As for people getting angry with her - of course they have a right to attack her for what she said. Free speech cuts both ways. Moreover, if she had said that blacks should not be able to marry whites, we would not be having this discussion and almost everyone, save for some racists, would be attacking her.

Finally, I wonder how many times she had to fellate Trump to get him to let her bend back - errrr I mean contract :cool:

[gldstwmn]

So the bigger question is why would they ask her such a question in a pageant? It seems like it was designed to create publicity. Ya think?

It was Perez. What did she think he was going to ask her? How are your parents? :lol:

[gldstwmn]

So what should she have done then? Lied about her beliefs?

No. She could have diplomatically stated that it should be left up to the states and been done with it.

[strandinthewind]

No. She could have diplomatically stated that it should be left up to the states and been done with it.

Exactly - diplomacy- which is what she was supposed to show by answering a tough question without being offensive, etc. She did not do that. She chose to answer it in an offensive manner to some. Therefore, she failed the test :shrug:

Maybe her saline pack was leaking :cool:

In addition, these broads are schooled on what questions are going to asked and what the best diplomatic response would be. There is no way she did not know this was coming.

[jwd]

When you get down to it, that is not about talent. Or intelligence.
It is about one thing and one thing only: the winner is the girl that more guys want to stick it in.

:lol: UMMMM YEAH! That's what Perez was thinking about when he cast his vote for whom he wanted to win! :lol:

[carrie721]

Um. Wait. Does the opinion of anyone who is not blonde and not on television even matter in this culture?

no. which is why i stopped listening to you years ago.

:D

I do not know that it energized anything at all. But I will get to that later.

she was fresh meat for them. that is what i meant.

He is a businessman. This is Hollywood. No speed limit, this is the fast line. Vomit, etc etc.

it's just the way that it is heeeeeyuh~

Well, no. They won't. The only thing that will change the minds of those people is knowing people they care about who are homos.
And sometimes not even that helps. Talk to my LDS friends who came out and had their entire families tell them they were effectively DEAD and refused to communicate with them.

BUT, most of the people who believe such things are so poisoned by misinterpreted and buffet style religious interpretations that they lost the concept of logic decades ago.



The real problem is that "marriage" has taken on a religious meaning in our cultural dictionary. Why? Um excuse me, it makes a ton of money for churches. It ultimately cannot have an exclusively religious connotation this country. Church and state? Atheists can get married in this country.

and infertile couples! and couples who have no intention to procreate! but that is a separate issue.

Hallelujah Bob. The word means nothing. The rights mean everything.

my name is not bob.

I agree completely.

His understanding of the history of marriage is embarrassing and colored by a post WW2 religious point of view. Hello Same Sex Unions In Pre Modern Europe:

http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244099370&sr=8-1

great, like i don't already have a 2-foot-high stack of books to read already.

I give him a punt on his logic, but he is hardly a scholar of history outside his education.

Nonetheless your reaction to his logic is valid.

still searching for my surprise face :cool: :lol:

Perez Hilton, though he may be an entertaining blogger, is a sorry, cliched, and pathetic example of a gay man. All he does is reinforce the sad stereotype that a gay man is nothing more than a woman who was sadly born into a man's body. He obsessed with fashion, style, body image, petty bickering, personal grooming, and idle gossip. He couldn't change a tire or turn off his gas meter in an earthquake to save his nearly worthless life. He is everything straight men spit on gay men for and rightly so. For the record, I doubt he would claim he has more testosterone in his body than Joan Jett has in her earlobe. And he shouldn't. He is a sorry excuse for a man.

He is merely a male.

and even that could be up for debate. do you have proof?

BUT, I applaud his stance. And I saw him next to me at a marriage march in downtown LA. He is a ridiculous queen but he puts his money where his lip glossed mouth is.

and vice-versa.

Yes. Ditch the loaded word and keep the rights. A commitment
is a commitment. Especially, but not exclusively, when it involves children.

si.

I do not know that she is hateful. She is surely stupid.

As is her manager, her attorney and her agent.

She is being USED my NOM and she is happy to be used.

is she still associated with them? i lost track.

She didn't really energize anything. She is being manipulated by a group of people who are on the wrong side of history and she is too deluded to know it.

see my point above.

What else does a runner up have to grab onto? She and her entire
machine missed the boat on this. This will result in 7 minutes of infamy.

And let the chips fall where they may.

Sure, she has gotten 1000% more press than any other also ran would have gotten. But did she and her staff never bother to do a google search on Anita Bryant?

they were too busy googling "what happens if you spill peroxide into a container of vaseline?"

No doubt about it. She is as dumb as an empty wig box.

that never gets old.

Anyone with a 6th grade education can see that. She is the classic
example of 'give her enough rope and she will hang herself.'

Oh, but let us just for a moment examine the hypocrisy angle.

Just for fun.

i have nothing to add. but my pom poms are in the shop with my surprise face so all you get is one of these.

:woohoo:

:lol: UMMMM YEAH! That's what Perez was thinking about when he cast his vote for whom he wanted to win! :lol:

i don't know how to adequately express how inane this post is without getting bant, so i'll leave it at that.

[carrie721]

As for people getting angry with her - of course they have a right to attack her for what she said. Free speech cuts both ways. Moreover, if she had said that blacks should not be able to marry whites, we would not be having this discussion and almost everyone, save for some racists, would be attacking her.

of course people have the right to express their anger. but whether it is prudent is another matter.

[strandinthewind]

of course people have the right to express their anger. but whether it is prudent is another matter.

Very few rights were ever given to any sect that did not at least get angry much less have have an uprising - see MLK, Stonewall, etc. In the end, anger is anger and it will come forth -- though, I will say this, with six states on board and others likely to fall in line with, at least, civil unions, this has been a relatively peaceful gain of rights to that extent :shrug:

As for my name is not bob. -- perhaps not, but it is what your head does in the local bar while swilling beer from the can with a bad hairdo(could you at least move away from the mullet :shrug: ) :wavey:

[jwd]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwd
UMMMM YEAH! That's what Perez was thinking about when he cast his vote for whom he wanted to win!

i don't know how to adequately express how inane this post is without getting bant, so i'll leave it at that.

You could have chosen to ignore it if you felt that way about it, but hey, whatever works for you.

[strandinthewind]

You could have chosen to ignore it if you felt that way about it, but hey, whatever works for you.

True - but, it seems obvious to me on a related point that she did something to stop Trump from canning her. I mean she clearly broke her contract in more than one way. Moreover, she made money (presumably without tipping out to The Donald, which I submit is a no no) and set herself up to make loads more - wait until the book deal and movie of the week get produced. Personally, I think she blew him. But, that is just speculation based on many a chick like her that I know :cool:

And, let's face it, most guys want to stick it in all the contestants :shrug:

[jwd]

True - but, it seems obvious to me on a related point that she did something to stop Trump from canning her. I mean she clearly broke her contract in more than one way. Moreover, she made money (presumably without tipping out to The Donald, which I submit is a no no) and set herself up to make loads more - wait until the book deal and movie of the week get produced. Personally, I think she blew him. But, that is just speculation based on many a chick like her that I know :cool:

And, let's face it, most guys want to stick it in all the contestants :shrug:


You know Jason I don't even want to comment on that. It is just speculation as far as I'm concerned and is so far off topic from what the main issue is here. Whether or not Carrie Prejean retains her crown is of no consequence to me AT ALL. It's more a matter of free speech, civil discord, and civil rights to me.

[strandinthewind]

You know Jason I don't even want to comment on that. It is just speculation as far as I'm concerned and is so far off topic from what the main issue is here. Whether or not Carrie Prejean retains her crown is of no consequence to me AT ALL. It's more a matter of free speech, civil discord, and civil rights to me.


1. The U.S. Const. only guarantees no govt. shall restrict the right to free speech - though even that right is limited to speech tending to incite a riot, etc. As for general free speech, no one has the right, etc., not to expect people to react to what they say and clearly she knew she was stepping in it. Have you ever known anyone in one of these things - they literally go into beauty boot camp for weeks. With that much money riding on it, there is no way she did not know that question was in the pot. It does not take much to connect the dots.

2. Again, if she had said "no offense, but I do not think blacks should marry whites" - would you be civil toward her? Even if you personally would be, I suggest the cast majority of people would not be. Maybe you do not connect the two, but many people see it that way.

3. Civil rights are being denied - that tends to piss people off.

P.S. I still think she blew him :D

[jwd]

1. The U.S. Const. only guarantees no govt. shall restrict the right to free speech - though even that right is limited to speech tending to incite a riot, etc. As for general free speech, no one has the right, etc., not to expect people to react to what they say and clearly she knew she was stepping in it. Have you ever known anyone in one of these things - they literally go into beauty boot camp for weeks. With that much money riding on it, there is no way she did not know that question was in the pot. It does not take much to connect the dots.

2. Again, if she had said "no offense, but I do not think blacks should marry whites" - would you be civil toward her? Even if you personally would be, I suggest the cast majority of people would not be. Maybe you do not connect the two, but many people see it that way.

3. Civil rights are being denied - that tends to piss people off.

P.S. I still think she blew him :D

You know what really baffles me about all of this. There is so much outrage against this BEAUTY PAGEANT CONTESTANT, who shares the same viewpoint as President Barack Obama, yet there is no backlash against him. I would think he would be a bigger fish to fry than Carrie Prejean. Why is this?

[strandinthewind]

You know what really baffles me about all of this. There is so much outrage against this BEAUTY PAGEANT CONTESTANT, who shares the same viewpoint as President Barack Obama, yet there is no backlash against him. I would think he would be a bigger fish to fry than Carrie Prejean. Why is this?

I agree. However, this idiot pissed off one of the more powerful people in the media on highly charged issue. Plus, pretty sells. If she had been some fat chick in a fat chick beauty contest. no one would bat an eye.

Also, I have always said Obama is dead wrong on this issue. But, considering the alternative was McCain and four more years of R rule - many forgive Obama on this point. Plus, people think that Obama was just saying that to get elected and he really wants to allow gay marriage. I think to some extent that in true. Time will tell.

Note - Perez also attacks Obama on this issue. But, the press runs with the big breasted bubble headed bleach blond that many of the so called true Christian men would cheat on their wives with in a minute. And, the press has been running stories on Obama's silence on this issue, though I think Obama said something today, which Perez attacked.

[jwd]

I agree. However, this idiot pissed off one of the more powerful people in the media on highly charged issue. Plus, pretty sells. If she had been some fat chick in a fat chick beauty contest. no one would bat an eye.

Also, I have always said Obama is dead wrong on this issue. But, considering the alternative was McCain and four more years of R rule - many forgive Obama on this point. Plus, people think that Obama was just saying that to get elected and he really wants to allow gay marriage. I think to some extent that in true. Time will tell.

Note - Perez also attacks Obama on this issue. But, the press runs with the big breasted bubble headed bleach blond that many of the so called true Christian men would cheat on their wives with in a minute. And, the press has been running stories on Obama's silence on this issue, though I think Obama said something today, which Perez attacked.

I'm really trying hard to understand this, but I would think that if you would let such an important issue as gay marriage rights slide, along with don't ask don't tell, with the President of the United States, that you wouldn't raise such a stink about a beauty pageant contestant giving her honest answer to a question posed to her, which has no bearing whatsoever on whether those rights will be granted or not. I REALLY don't get this!

[carrie721]

Very few rights were ever given to any sect that did not at least get angry much less have have an uprising - see MLK, Stonewall, etc. In the end, anger is anger and it will come forth -- though, I will say this, with six states on board and others likely to fall in line with, at least, civil unions, this has been a relatively peaceful gain of rights to that extent :shrug:

it is in light of those successes that i deem the marches superfluous. and screaming matches are always pointless.

As for -- perhaps not, but it is what your head does in the local bar while swilling beer from the can with a bad hairdo(could you at least move away from the mullet :shrug: ) :wavey:

hey! i don't waste my money on beer.

my head may bob some nights but my face is never near a beer can. :cool:

and as for my hair do ... if you only knew. :lol:

[carrie721]

I'm really trying hard to understand this, but I would think that if you would let such an important issue as gay marriage rights slide, along with don't ask don't tell, with the President of the United States, that you wouldn't raise such a stink about a beauty pageant contestant giving her honest answer to a question posed to her, which has no bearing whatsoever on whether those rights will be granted or not. I REALLY don't get this!

if you can't see any connection between her actions and the anti-marriage movement despite the fact that she has openly aligned herself with NOM, then i guess you're not paying attention :shrug:

furthermore, there is plenty of backlash against obama. again, i don't think you are paying attention.

[jwd]

furthermore, there is plenty of backlash against obama. again, i don't think you are paying attention.

Enlighten me Carrie. What backlash have I not seen?

[strandinthewind]

I'm really trying hard to understand this, but I would think that if you would let such an important issue as gay marriage rights slide, along with don't ask don't tell, with the President of the United States, that you wouldn't raise such a stink about a beauty pageant contestant giving her honest answer to a question posed to her, which has no bearing whatsoever on whether those rights will be granted or not. I REALLY don't get this!

Well, most people I know are also against the Don't Ask Don't Tell - as is Obama.

As for "which has no bearing whatsoever on whether those rights will be granted or not" -- that is not the situation. She emboldened the base of the peeps who do not want gay peoples' unions recognized in any way, which included civil unions and any facsimilie thereof.

Finally, I get that she may have given "an honest answer" -- but, she lost because her personal views were not the right answer and she knew that.

BTW - you never responded to what your reaction would be if she no offense and based on the way she was reared, said blacks and whites should not be allowed to marry.

[strandinthewind]

Enlighten me Carrie. What backlash have I not seen?

The story ran over the last two weeks or so.

But, don't take my word for it:

ay groups grow impatient with Obama
Published: June 4, 2009 at 3:37 PM

Gay rights activists who backed Barack Obama in his U.S. presidential bid say they're frustrated with what they see as his inaction on gay and lesbian issues.

"Obama is out of step with his (Democratic) party, which is overwhelmingly in favor of (same-sex) marriage at this stage," veteran gay rights activist David Mixner told the newspaper Politico.

Same-sex marriage -- which first became a U.S. reality in 2004 -- is now legal in five New England states and Iowa.

"Politicians are finding out that their voters are moving faster than they anticipated," Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told Politico.

The newspaper observed that "the otherwise dreaded former Vice President Dick Cheney" publicly supported gay marriage Monday -- "a position that puts him to the left of Obama," Politico said.

Cheney has a gay daughter.

The White House says Obama is not ready to push his highest-profile pro-gay positions but is expected to move forward soon on lower-profile gay issues, such as restrictions on visas for people with human immunodeficiency virus, Politico said.

Obama "remains fully committed" to advancing the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina said.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/04/Gay-groups-grow-impatient-with-Obama/UPI-39311244144254/

[carrie721]

Enlighten me Carrie. What backlash have I not seen?

check out pretty much any gay blog out there. joemygod and andrew sullivan's sites are great. people are angry about his now-weak rhetoric on DADT and marriage.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PXkf2xaXhGA&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PXkf2xaXhGA&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/the-fierce-urgency-of-whenever.html

obama appears to be carrying on the clinton legacy of taking gay money and reneging on his promises, and i'm not the only person to notice.

[strandinthewind]

. . . and as for my hair do ... if you only knew. :lol:

Lord Child - shudders :laugh:

[carrie721]

Lord Child - shudders :laugh:

it's a tragedy. but tomorrow is payday and it will soon be fixed. :lol:

and on that note, as much as i'd like to get in an old school ledge discussion into the wee hours, i have to get to bed as i have to be at work at 6 a.m.

:mad:

[strandinthewind]

it's a tragedy. but tomorrow is payday and it will soon be fixed. :lol:

and on that note, as much as i'd like to get in an old school ledge discussion into the wee hours, i have to get to bed as i have to be at work at 6 a.m.

:mad:

Alas - time has taken its toll upon us all :cool:

[carrie721]

Alas - time has taken its toll upon us all :cool:

sometimes it's a bitch~*~*~*~*

[jwd]

Well, most people I know are also against the Don't Ask Don't Tell - as is Obama.

Good. I'm glad to hear that. But what has he done about it?


As for "which has no bearing whatsoever on whether those rights will be granted or not" -- that is not the situation. She emboldened the base of the peeps who do not want gay peoples' unions recognized in any way, which included civil unions and any facsimilie thereof.

I understand that she is in favor of gay civil unions and has said that she has gay friends herself. I have to say that Perez Hilton has "emboldened" the base far more than Carrie would ever think of.

Finally, I get that she may have given "an honest answer" -- but, she lost because her personal views were not the right answer and she knew that.

I agree.

BTW - you never responded to what your reaction would be if she no offense and based on the way she was reared, said blacks and whites should not be allowed to marry.

I'd feel the same way. I'd disagree with both of her viewpoints. I'd leave it at that by just agreeing to disagree with her. End of story. We really need to have more civil discussions and not rip and tear at each other because we disagree with each other.

[strandinthewind]

Good. I'm glad to hear that. But what has he done about it?

He has said he is working on it but the economy is the priority right now.

Obama seeks assessment on gays in military
No rush to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | February 1, 2009

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is telling the Pentagon and gay-rights advocates that it will have to study the implications for national security and enlist more support in Congress before trying to overturn the so-called "don't ask, don't tell" law and allow gays to serve openly in the military, according to people involved in the discussions.

They said Obama, who pledged during the campaign to overturn the law, does not want to ask lawmakers to do so until the military has completed a comprehensive assessment of the impact that such a move would have on military discipline. Then, the president hopes to be able to make a case to members of both parties that overturning the 1993 law would be in the best interest of national security.

Obama is hoping to avoid the missteps of the Clinton administration when it tried to open the ranks to gays and lesbians, only to be confronted by fierce resistance from lawmakers and commanders. Early in his presidency, Bill Clinton signed an order allowing gays to serve but was forced to back off. A compromise made it illegal for gays to serve openly, but also restricted investigations into service members' sexual behavior.

"The Clinton experience makes a lot of folks [in the administration] apprehensive," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund, which represents gay military personnel discharged under the current policy. Sarvis, an Army veteran who served in Vietnam, recently met with Obama advisers on the subject.

At the Pentagon, officials say they have been told not to expect the administration to seek to lift the ban quickly. One senior officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press, said staff officers for Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been told it will be several months at the earliest - possibly not even this year - until the top brass will be formally asked to weigh in on a change in policy.

And even then, he said, the military has been assured it will have wide latitude to undertake a detailed study of how a change in the policy would affect the military.

Mullen told reporters earlier this month that he is aware of the president's "intent to do this," but "there are no more specifics with respect to when." When the time comes, he said, he will give the president "my best military advice" on "the impact of what a potential change could be."

During the campaign, Obama signaled his intention to allow gays to serve openly in the military, but did not commit to any timetable.

Last April, Obama told the Advocate, a national gay and lesbian newsmagazine, that he believes there is "increasing recognition within the armed forces that [don't ask, don't tell] is a counterproductive strategy."

As recently as Jan. 15, his spokesman made Obama's ultimate intentions clear. "You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much," Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, responded when asked whether the new president would take action to overturn the 1993 law. "But it's 'Yes.' "

But in addition to winning over the military, Obama and allies in Congress will also have to convince lawmakers in both parties that reversing the policy is necessary, according to several Capitol Hill sources involved in the deliberations. Only legislation approved by the House and Senate and signed by the president can reverse "don't ask, don't tell."

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and a senior member of the Armed Service Committee, is preparing to introduce legislation to lift the ban, but not until he can get a Republican co-sponsor, according to a congressional aide. The aide said Kennedy's office is lobbying several GOP colleagues to join him, including Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Some powerful members of his own party also appear unconvinced.

"I still think we have significant issues with a lot of the Midwestern Democrats being on the fence," the aide said, adding that some Democratic senators are considered "shaky." Some of those include Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska - all representing states with significant conservative constituencies. All three declined to provide their views.

The House of Representatives, with a larger Democratic margin than the Senate, is considered more likely to vote for overturning the current law when a companion bill is introduced by Representative Ellen Tauscher, Democrat of California, whose office confirmed that she is drafting legislation.

Still, Democratic boosters in the House face hurdles of their own. For example, Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the chairman of the powerful Armed Services Committee that would have to vet any such legislation, "isn't there yet," said the congressional aide.

Lauren Dealy, a spokeswoman for the committee, said Skelton supports "don't ask, don't tell" but added that he also believes the panel has a responsibility to reassess the policy at some point.

In the meantime, longtime opponents of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" are preparing to fight any efforts to allow gays to serve openly. Elaine Donnelly, president of the conservative Center for Military Readiness, has testified before Congress on the issue and says that open homosexuality in the military would severely weaken discipline. "Such a policy would impose new, unneeded burdens of sexual tension on men and women serving in high-pressure working conditions," Donnelly said in an interview.

"I think the burden of proof is on those who say the [don't ask, don't tell] law should be repealed," she added.

Advocates for lifting the ban say such arguments are outdated because national attitudes have changed considerably since the law was passed.

And supporters of lifting the ban are arming themselves with a different argument they hope will tip the scales: that allowing gays to serve openly will improve the military.

Government reports show that many of the servicemembers who have been discharged under the policy had critical skills, such as foreign-language proficiency, that are in short supply for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - a point Obama raised in his April interview with the Advocate.

Gay-rights groups also point to research by the University of California, Los Angeles that suggests allowing gays to serve openly would draw tens of thousands of additional recruits - patriotic Americans who have not enlisted because the current policy is perceived as hostile to gays.

To help make their case they have also enlisted more than 100 retired generals and admirals who say the law should be changed.

But Nathaniel Frank, a researcher at the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara that has studied the issue, believes there is good reason for the Obama administration to move cautiously on the issue that harmed Clinton's relationship with the military. Yet Frank also said waiting too long could jeopardize the entire effort: "A delay could let opposition fester and build."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/02/01/obama_seeks_assessment_on_gays_in_military/


Also -- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/15/obama-end-militarys-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy/

I'd feel the same way. I'd disagree with both of her viewpoints. I'd leave it at that by just agreeing to disagree with her. End of story. We really need to have more civil discussions and not rip and tear at each other because we disagree with each other.

I think that sounds good - but, I submit blacks likely would still be drinking out of blacks only water fountains has civil disobedience not occurred - starting with Rosa Parks, etc. So, some crazy talk is warranted - at least history demonstrates that.

[jwd]

check out pretty much any gay blog out there. joemygod and andrew sullivan's sites are great. people are angry about his now-weak rhetoric on DADT and marriage.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PXkf2xaXhGA&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PXkf2xaXhGA&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/the-fierce-urgency-of-whenever.html

obama appears to be carrying on the clinton legacy of taking gay money and reneging on his promises, and i'm not the only person to notice.

Come on Carrie, you can do better than that. That's not backlash! That's questioning Obama's intentions at best.

[strandinthewind]

Come on Carrie, you can do better than that. That's not backlash! That's questioning Obams's intentions at best.

I think we have to remember Obama has been in office for three or so months. In that time, he has had to keep the country from a depression and with Gitmo, the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, Iran, North Korea, a R. party that is trying to play gotcha, a USSC nominee, overturning the stem cell law, and a few other issues.

Moreover, Obama must be careful with the gay in the military thing. If he loses that issue, it will hurt him and set back the gay civil rights movement. Remember, the R's do not want to give gay people any rights in any way - again, based on the premise that gays are filthy, immoral people that cannot be in any way trusted. That whole - if you want to fill your church - preach hate thing. Also, it would not behoove Obama to overturn the law with an Executive Order, if that is even legal and, I think, an executive order only becomes law if Congress doesn't overturn it within thirty days after it is published in the Federal Register. If Congress overturned Obama (highly unlikely on this issue) - it would be disastrous.

Interestingly, Hillary has moved to allow same sex partners of American State Dept. personnel the same travel rights as same sex spouses. This is a very smart move in that it is the thin end of the wedge - an entree into this issue in a relatively benign area.

On edit --

Here is an interesting article on the issue of gays in the military, which demonstrates how fay society has come:

Don't Ask, Don't Tell - The Military Policy on Gays

By Rod Powers, About.com
May 26 2009

It may surprise some of you to learn that homosexuals are allowed to serve in today’s United States Military. They can serve, but they can’t engage in homosexual activities while in the military, nor can they tell anyone about their sexual preference. To do either is a basis for involuntary discharge. That’s the backbone of the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.

Throughout its history, the US Military has had an inconsistent policy when it came to homosexuals in the military. Prior to World War II, there was no written policy barring homosexuals from serving, although sodomy was considered a crime by military law ever since Revolutionary War times. In 1778, Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin became the first soldier to be drummed out of the Continental Army for sodomy.

Homosexuality - a Mental Condition

During World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, the military defined homosexuality as a mental defect, and officially barred homosexuals from serving based on medical criteria. However, when personnel needs increased due to combat, the military developed a habit of relaxing its screening criteria. Many homosexual men and women serviced honorably during these conflicts. Unfortunately, these periods were short-lived. As soon as the need for combat personnel decreased, the military would involuntarily discharge them.

A Complete Ban of Gays in the Military

It wasn't until 1982 that the Department of Defense officially put in writing that “homosexuality was incompatible with military service,” when they published a DOD directive stating such. According to a 1992 report by the Government Accounting Office, nearly 17,000 men and women were discharged under this new directive during the 1980s.

The Birth of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

By the end of that decade, reversing the military's policy was emerging as a priority for advocates of gay and lesbian civil rights. Several lesbian and gay male members of the military came out publicly and vigorously challenged their discharges through the legal system.

By the beginning of 1993, it appeared that the military's ban on gay personnel would soon be overturned.

President Clinton announced that he intended to keep his campaign promise by eliminating military discrimination based on sexual orientation. But, this didn't sit well with the Republican-controlled Congress. Congressional leaders threatened to pass legislation that would bar homosexuals from serving, if Clinton issued an executive order changing the policy.

After lengthy public debate and congressional hearings, the President and Senator Sam Nunn, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, reached a compromise which they labeled Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue. Under its terms, military personnel would not be asked about their sexual orientation and would not be discharged simply for being gay. However having sexual relations, or displaying romantic overtures with members of the same sex, or telling anyone about their sexual orientation is considered "homosexual conduct" under the policy and is a basis for involuntary discharge. This is now known as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, and is the current Department of Defense Policy.

Changing Times

At the time, most military leaders and young enlisted folk (who were forced to live in the barracks with a roommate) took a conservative view about allowing gays to serve openly in the military. I shared these concerns, and -- in fact -- penned the tounge-and-cheek article, Gays in the Military -- the Logistics1, when I first took over the About.com US Military site in 1999. However, times change.....so does the military.....and so have my views. Most junior enlisted (the one's who have to live in the barracks), today, see nothing wrong with homosexuality and would not be bothered by serving with those they know to be gay. Today, almost everyone gets a single room (with no roommate) following basic training and job school. In those few situations where military personnel share living accommodations (such as deployments and ships), it is generally several military members living together. I sincerely doubt there will be many cases of someone inappropriately "hitting on" anyone else around 49 or so witnesses.

The Future of Gays in the Military

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is going to go away, and gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military. That much is clear -- the writing is on the wall. The question is, "when?" That is still uncertain. Like President Clinton before him, President Obama has promised to overturn the law, and allow gays to openly serve. However, like President Clinton, President Obama is facing stiff opposition. Senior military leaders and many Congressional leaders oppose any change. Obama is taking a different track than Clinton did. Instead of facing the issue head-on, and risking a serious challenge (thereby making several political enemies), the President has put the issue on a "back-burner," to leave for a later time.

Don't expect this time to be soon. The President has shown a propensity to side with senior Pentagon officials when it comes to military issues since he's taken office. His decision to revive military trials for some prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and to slow down his original plan for withdrawal of troops from Iraq are just two cases in point.

I suspect the Obama administration will continue to "study the issue," for some time to come. At a time of his choosing (at the best "political time"), he will make his first move. I suspect that move will not be an attempt to overturn the policy, but rather an executive order to the Pentagon to simply stop homosexual discharges, while leaving the original policy on the books. Later, he can negotiate a permanent change with Congressional leaders.

This About.com page has been optimized for print. To view this page in its original form, please visit: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/millegislation/a/dontask.htm

©2009 About.com, Inc., a part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.
Links in this article:

1. http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa011000a.htm

[jwd]

Remember, the R's do not want to give gay people any rights in any way - again, based on the premise that gays are filthy, immoral people that cannot be in any way trusted. That whole - if you want to fill your church - preach hate thing.

Quoting this from the article you made in your previous post:


Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and a senior member of the Armed Service Committee, is preparing to introduce legislation to lift the ban, but not until he can get a Republican co-sponsor, according to a congressional aide. The aide said Kennedy's office is lobbying several GOP colleagues to join him, including Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Some powerful members of his own party also appear unconvinced.

"I still think we have significant issues with a lot of the Midwestern Democrats being on the fence," the aide said, adding that some Democratic senators are considered "shaky." Some of those include Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska - all representing states with significant conservative constituencies. All three declined to provide their views.


Seems like it cuts both ways Jason. I believe there are moderates in both parties. I do hope that the gay rights issues can be advanced by our government in the near future.

[strandinthewind]

. . .Seems like it cuts both ways Jason. I believe there are moderates in both parties. I do hope that the gay rights issues can be advanced by our government in the near future.

Although those D's declined to give their view - Touche' -- however, what I meant was that the R's seemingly could get a unanimous vote against any advancement of gay rights issue. Conversely, the D's likely would get a solid majority or more on an issue advancing gay rights - or, even more if push came to shove. Remember, the far religious right is the base of the R party and they want gay people in jail (see Lawrence v. Texas) - much less their unions or them recognized in any way by the govt.

To me, it is a no brainer - give the gays their rights and move on - I think like in Mass., Vt, and other places, once it is in place, no one really gives a shiitte. But, there is money to be made on both sides - Prop 8 alone generated hundreds of millions in revenue on both sides when you count the peripheral stuff. I mean look at Perez Hilton. While he likely believes in this cause, his site and ergo income sure benefited from the controversy he alone created.

[jwd]

Although those D's declined to give their view - Touche' -- however, what I meant was that the R's seemingly could get a unanimous vote against any advancement of gay rights issue. Conversely, the D's likely would get a solid majority or more on an issue advancing gay rights - or, even more if push came to shove. Remember, the far religious right is the base of the R party and they want gay people in jail (see Lawrence v. Texas) - much less their unions or them recognized in any way by the govt.

But yet California, what most people would classify as a liberal state and heavily Democrat, has itself denied gay marriage rights, both by the vote of the people and its' Supreme Court. ???

[strandinthewind]

But yet California, what most people would classify as a liberal state and heavily Democrat, has itself denied gay marriage rights, both by the vote of the people and its' Supreme Court. ???

California is an anomaly. Here is the history in relevant part.

On September 2, 2005, the California Senate approved the bill 21-15 and on September 6, the California State Assembly followed suit with a vote of 41-35, making California's legislature the first in the nation to approve a same-sex marriage bill without court pressure.

The next day, September 7, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger indicated he would veto the bill, citing Proposition 22, which had passed with the approval a majority of voters five years earlier.

Like the statutes amended by AB 849, Prop 22 prohibited the state from recognizing same-sex marriages, but as an initiative statute, it was not affected by AB 849.

The legislature avoided physically delivering the bill to the governor for over two weeks, during which time advocacy groups urged Schwarzenegger to change his mind. Ultimately, the bill was delivered on September 23 and vetoed on September 29, 2005. Schwarzenegger stated he believed that same-sex marriage should be settled by the courts (rank hypocrisy for the R party whose words he was parroting) or another vote by the people via a statewide initiative or referendum. He argued that the legislature's bill simply complicated the issue, as the constitutionality of Proposition 22 had not yet been determined, and its ultimate disposition would render AB 849 either unconstitutional (being in conflict with a valid voter initiative) or redundant (being guaranteed by the California Constitution itself, as construed by the courts).

Shortly after the newly elected Assembly was sworn in, Leno resubmitted a similar bill on December 4, 2006. AB 43 was passed by the legislature in early September 2007, giving the governor until October 14, 2007, to either sign or veto the bill. Schwarzenegger had stated months before that he would veto AB 43 on the grounds that the issue at hand had already been voted on by California by way of Proposition 22. The governor followed through on his statement and on October 12, 2007, he vetoed AB 43. Schwarzenegger wrote in his veto statement that to solve the issue of gender-neutral marriage, the California Supreme Court needed to finish its rule on the challenge which had been made to Proposition 22.

Proposition 8 (2008)

Months before the state supreme court's ruling, groups who opposed same-sex marriage began circulating initiative petitions. One petition, #07-0068 (titled the "California Marriage Protection Act" by its proponents; titled the "Limit on Marriage" amendment for the ballot by the California Attorney General), having gathered an estimated 764,063 valid signatures, qualified for the November 4, 2008 ballot, as Proposition 8. The measure would add § 7.5 to Article I of the California Constitution mirroring the now-unenforceable Family Code § 308.5. It would attempt to supersede that part of the Supreme Court's holding that authorized the granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Twelve other proposed amendments since 2004 had failed to qualify to be on the ballot. The ability of the voters to remove a fundamental constitutional right by initiative amendment has been called into question, and lawsuits were filed on those grounds asking for the removal of Proposition 8 from the ballot. That lawsuit was dismissed on July 16, 2008.

On the day after the election, the results remained uncertified. With 100% of precincts reporting, the vote was 52.47% in favor of Proposition 8 and 47.53% opposed, with a difference of about 504,000 votes; as many as 3 million absentee and provisional ballots remain to be counted. The organizers of the "No on Prop 8" campaign conceded defeat on Thursday, November 6, issuing a statement saying, "Tuesday’s vote was deeply disappointing to all who believe in equal treatment under the law."

On Wednesday, November 5, 2008, three lawsuits were filed, challenging the validity of Proposition 8 on the grounds that revoking the right of same-sex couples to marry was a constitutional "revision" rather than an "amendment", and therefore required the prior approval of 2/3 of each house of the California State Legislature. Plaintiffs in the various suits included same-sex couples who had married or planned to marry, and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, and the county of Santa Clara. The California Supreme Court heard several challenges to Proposition 8 and on May 26, 2009 upheld the proposition, but did not overturn previous same-sex marriages because while it acknowledged its earlier decision that held marriage was an absolute right, it followed its precedent of not finding a 2/3 vote was required to change the California Const. Note - the two decisions are rather inconsistent.

(most of that comes from wiki)

In the end, The Arnold had changed his mind as have the numbers of Californians who oppose it when contrasted with the 2000 vote. So, the numbers have gone down. Also, had the far religious right not lied in ubiquitous commercials about the effect of gay marriage, saying things like public schools were going to be required to teach children about gay sex, etc. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/the-tragedy-of-california_b_207811.html) -- Finally, if even a small number of black people would get over the homophobia and stop being hypocritical about allowing others the same exact rights they fought for -- and the Hispanics would stop blindly following the Catholic Church -- the next voter initiative will likely pass, esp. when you consider more older people will die and, therefore,m not be able to vote. The younger people are for gay marriage.

Note - the people should never be able to vote of what group gets rights to the exclusion of other groups in the minority. The minority always loses. if the nation could have voted on equal protection for blacks or women's suffrage, those would never have passed the popular vote :shrug: That is exactly why America is not a democracy - it is a Republic that employees a representative democracy.
__________________________________________________

Having said all that, the tide is changing for gay rights and it is way overdue. Sadly, Christianity has been hijacked in the process.

[David]

California is an anomaly. Here is the history in relevant part.

(snip enormous precis)
I can't read all that, strand! That's waaaaay too much. Summarize please in a paragraph or so. Trim verbiage.

[strandinthewind]

I can't read all that, strand! That's waaaaay too much. Summarize please in a paragraph or so. Trim verbiage.

Despite its earlier finding that marriage was an "absolute right," the California Supreme Court did not have the balls to overturn the popular vote.

[LukeA]

But yet California, what most people would classify as a liberal state and heavily Democrat

Not sure what gives you that idea. Once you get out of San Francisco and Los Angeles, the state leans Republican- and its not just the rural areas, either. Orange County and San Diego are decidedly Republican. The state is regularly governed by a Republican. California Republicans tend to be more the fiscally conservative type, rather than the socially conservative (ex. the South), but there are a whole lot of Mormons who enthusiastically backed Prop 8.

When you factor in the widely speculated belief that the historically large black turnout helped sway Prop 8, its not all that hard to believe that Prop 8 passed this past November. The next time it goes up to the voters (hopefully sometime next year), I think a Prop 8 overturn is in the cards.

[BombaySapphire3]

Not sure what gives you that idea. Once you get out of San Francisco and Los Angeles, the state leans Republican- and its not just the rural areas, either. Orange County and San Diego are decidedly Republican. The state is regularly governed by a Republican. California Republicans tend to be more the fiscally conservative type, rather than the socially conservative (ex. the South), but there are a whole lot of Mormons who enthusiastically backed Prop 8.

When you factor in the widely speculated belief that the historically large black turnout helped sway Prop 8, its not all that hard to believe that Prop 8 passed this past November. The next time it goes up to the voters (hopefully sometime next year), I think a Prop 8 overturn is in the cards.

San Diego county (where I grew up incidently) is very slowly trending Democrat..it needs to be noted for the first time ever as far as I know, a Democratic President won this county and Obama came within less than 3 % of winning in the notoriously conservative OC.( This would be almost tantamount to a Repulican President taking half the vote in San Francisco county)The inland counties ..particularly the ones populated by the decendants of the Okies still trend heavily repub..but for the most part they are sparsely populated compared to the megalopolises of SF and LA.Sacramento, now the largest inland city in Ca broke very slightly for Obama in 2008.I also think that some African Americans may have voter's remorse now that they realize that their political bedfellows on 8 are the not so long ago racist Mormons .So in light of all this I concur that a revote on 8 will likely have a different result.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/06/10/prejean.dethroned/index.html

Miss California USA Prejean dethroned

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Carrie Prejean has been dethroned as Miss California USA for "contract violations," including missing scheduled pageant events, according to a state pageant official.


Donald Trump poses with Carrie Prejean in May. Prejean was removed as Miss California USA on Wednesday.

Prejean, 22, retained her title last month despite a controversy over topless photos, missed appearances and her statements against same-sex marriage.

Miss USA pageant owner Donald Trump decided to fire Prejean a month after he gave her a second chance.

"Carrie is a beautiful young woman, and I wish her well as she pursues her other interests," Trump said.

Runner-up Tami Farrell, who was Miss Malibu, will immediately assume the Miss California USA title, state pageant Executive Director Keith Lewis said.

"This was a decision based solely on contract violations, including Ms. Prejean's unwillingness to make appearances on behalf of the Miss California USA organization," he said. Watch the new Miss California talk about the developments »

Lewis told CNN's Larry King on Wednesday that it wasn't one thing Prejean did, but "many, many, many things."

"She came to us and said, 'I'm not interested in your input; I'll make my own decision what I'm going to do,' " Lewis said. "You know, when you have a contract, when you're working for someone, you have a responsibility to follow through on what that requirement is."

Trump brought Prejean and Lewis together in New York for a meeting last month, after which he announced that communications between the beauty queen and pageant officials had been repaired.

"I told Carrie she needed to get back to work and honor her contract with the Miss California USA organization, and I gave her the opportunity to do so," Trump said. "Unfortunately, it just doesn't look like it is going to happen, and I offered Keith my full support in making this decision."

Charles Limandri, Prejean's lawyer, said she learned about the decision Wednesday morning in a phone call from Trump's office.

"This is all kind of a big shock," Limandri said. "We've been working with Mr. Trump's office. She's been doing all the speaking engagements she's been asked to do. It is not true that she has not been cooperating."

No one from the pageant organization ever warned Prejean she was not doing what they wanted, he said.

"Something is going on," he said. "Truth is not being told. I don't understand where this is coming from, or why."

"For people to say that she breached her contract, that she is not doing speaking engagements is false," he said. "She did one last Sunday in Las Vegas and it went really well."

Prejean stepped into controversy at the Miss USA pageant in April when she declared her opposition to same-sex marriage in a response to a question asked during the national pageant by Perez Hilton, a pageant judge. Prejean finished as first runner-up, but it was not clear if her answer cost her the crown.

During a radio interview Wednesday with Billy Bush, who also was host of the pageant, Prejean said it was that controversy that led to her losing her title, not contract issues.

"It's just because of my answer, I think," Prejean told Bush. "None of this would be happening right now if I just said yeah, gays should get married, you're right Perez Hilton."

Wednesday night on Larry King, Bush asked the new Miss California USA the question that sparked controversy for Prejean. Bush asked Tami Farrell whether in light of several states allowing gay marriage she thought other states should do the same.

"I think it's a personal decision and a civil rights issue," Farrell said. "It's something we should let each state decide."

In addition to Prejean's gay marriage answer, controversy boiled to a new level in early May when seminude photos of Prejean appeared on gossip Web sites.

Miss California USA officials -- some of them outspoken advocates of same-sex marriage -- suggested the photos breached the contract Prejean signed with the pageant. These officials also complained they couldn't reach Prejean and she had missed important pageant events.

The controversy seemed over when Trump declared the pictures not to be too racy and Prejean promised to do better in communicating with the state pageant.

Hilton, the judge who asked the same-sex question during the pageant, cheered Prejean's firing.

"Better late than never," Hilton said.


Shanna Moakler, a former Miss USA who resigned as co-executive director of the California pageant when Trump did not dismiss Prejean last month, welcomed Wednesday's decision.

"First and foremost, my faith has been restored in the Miss Universe organization and with Donald Trump," Moakler said. "I believed eventually what I intimately knew would come to fruition."

[MacMan]

I read this last night... didn't investigate it at all... But I thought this girl who was just fired was initially the runner up because of her answer to the gay rights thing that perezhilton asked. I thought she lost because of that. If that's the case, how did she become miss california - only to loose it?

[carrie721]

Come on Carrie, you can do better than that. That's not backlash! That's questioning Obama's intentions at best.

LOL. what were you expecting me to cite? homos having a perez hiltonesque screaming fit? i've already said i find that kind of BS ridiculous. i haven't seen anything of the sort re: obama, and if i had, i wouldn't want anything to do with it. but considering the vast support obama had from many in the homo population after the election due to his strong pro-homo campaign rhetoric, it is profound to see these same people expressing any amount of cynicism and suspicion.

I read this last night... didn't investigate it at all... But I thought this girl who was just fired was initially the runner up because of her answer to the gay rights thing that perezhilton asked. I thought she lost because of that. If that's the case, how did she become miss california - only to loose it?

she won miss california. the title she lost out on was miss USA. miss california is employed under the auspices of the miss USA organization, which may be where the confusion is coming from. now she is being stripped of her miss california crown due to breach of contract.

[strandinthewind]

And, because most of the straight guys in the country want to stick it in her, they are going to take her side regardless of the legality. Notably, most straight guys could give a rat's a$$ - so other than the brief stirring int he loins upon looking at her, they will then be off to the next hot looking babe. Such is life.

In the end, if she breached her contract, which those emails seem to show, then they were justified in firing her. Would they have done so if she had not given the gay marriage answer - probably not. But, it was her answer to that that caused her to make all the unauthorized appearances, etc. that lead to her dismissal for breach of contract. If any of us had an employee who did that, we'd fire them too and regardless of their position on marriage :shrug:

In the end, this chick is being advised by huge power players. There will be a book deal or some other money grab in the near future. She is merely the pretty pawn.

[sparky]

In the end, if she breached her contract, which those emails seem to show, then they were justified in firing her. Would they have done so if she had not given the gay marriage answer - probably not.

Correct. She answered the question in a way that drew in the focus.

In the end, this chick is being advised by huge power players.

Or not so huge, or so smart, as the case may be. They are using her for their ends. And if her "power players" were truly intelligent, they could have parlayed her celebrity into a lifelong career.

Not happening.

She'll be a footnote.

[jwd]

Getting back to the REAL ISSUES......

what were you expecting me to cite? homos having a perez hiltonesque screaming fit? but considering the vast support obama had from many in the homo population after the election due to his strong pro-homo campaign rhetoric, it is profound to see these same people expressing any amount of cynicism and suspicion.

Well, maybe this would cause some of the homos to scream a little more like Perez, and more rightly so.

"When Barack Obama sought the presidency, he pledged to reverse the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military. Yet on Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a gay Ohio soldier's challenge to the law — with the legal backing of none other than the Obama Administration."


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html

[carrie721]

Getting back to the REAL ISSUES......



Well, maybe this would cause some of the homos to scream a little more like Perez, and more rightly so.

that is the last thing anybody needs.

"When Barack Obama sought the presidency, he pledged to reverse the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military. Yet on Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a gay Ohio soldier's challenge to the law — with the legal backing of none other than the Obama Administration."


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html

that decision was actually not the crushing blow it initially seemed to be. this site explains it better than i could.

http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/dadt-scotus-rejection-whats-it-mean/

however, this? this is a big ****ing deal:

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html

obama is a backpedalling clintonian jackass. i was never nuts about him, but that **** still stings.

[strandinthewind]

. . .
Or not so huge, or so smart, as the case may be. They are using her for their ends. And if her "power players" were truly intelligent, they could have parlayed her celebrity into a lifelong career.

Not happening.

She'll be a footnote.

Let me clarify. What I meant was that there is huge money in this issue and she, for the moment, was a hot (looking and socially) person to present it. So, the huge power players used her and she went along willingly because she will get some kind of book deal or make $$$ off of speaking engagements for a limited time off of this. So, she is getting something out of it though she is merely a pawn or footnote. I do not think there was ever any concept by the power players of her getting a career out of this. They are all about the cheapest bang for the buck off of which they will make millions in ad rev., fundraising, etc.

[strandinthewind]

Getting back to the REAL ISSUES......

I think her answer to the question and the subsequent reactions is the real issue in this thread. Obama's timing regarding this issue is ancillary to that :shrug: But, it is still relevant. I think Obama has been in office for five or so months and this is a complicated issue that he cannot afford to lose in a poorly planned and ill timed effort - most politicos agree with that and any lawyer worth 1/2 their salt will tell you that denial of cert can happen for any reason and facts of the case determine whether to pursue the case to the Court. So, while I am not and never was a huge Obama supporter, I am willing to give him a reasonable amount of time, which certainly is longer than his first five months :shrug:

Interestingly, like the blacks, the gays really have nowhere to go and the D's know that. It is not like the gays are going to flock to the R party because the media portrays Obama as dragging his heels :shrug: Moreover, the gays are not going to vote for the R candidate out of spite. Rather, they wisely see that although the D's may not be perfect on this issue, the least the D's usually do in some nonaction as opposed to the R's who openly pursue anti-gay law.

[strandinthewind]

At least she is not so dumb that she can remember a canned answer fed to her :shrug:

As predicted, this sow cannot possibly admit that she violated her contract and that it is all the bad gays demonizing the innocent Christian girl :shrug:

In the end, this c*nt is all about the hypocrisy and is just out to get a dime.

commentary supplied in red

Ex-Miss California USA: Pageant director never supported me

(CNN) -- Former Miss California USA Carrie Prejean wants to set the record straight.

Prejean garnered widespread criticism when she declared her opposition to same-sex marriage in a response to a question posed to her during the Miss USA pageant.

Prejean was allowed to keep her Miss California USA crown in May, despite a controversy over topless photos and missed appearances. However, state pageant Executive Director Keith Lewis took her crown on Wednesday, saying it was a business decision based solely on "contract violations."

Prejean offered her side of the story when she spoke with CNN's Larry King on Friday. She also discussed whether she would sue to reclaim her title and her future plans. The following is an edited version of the interview.

Larry King: You've had a couple of days now, Carrie, to think it all over and it's sunk in. What are your feelings today?

Carrie Prejean: I'm definitely a little bit surprised just by the way that I found out about this. You know, I was called by the media to inform me that I was fired. yea right - like she didn't at the least see it coming - rather, I submit she planned on it to get her name back up in the lights, where it is now and where it was not at the beginning of the week :shrug:

King: Are you saying the pageant didn't call you?

Prejean: No. I haven't received any phone calls. In fact, my lawyer found out from the media, as well, before we received any contact. I still have not, to this day, received any contact from Mr. Lewis. Bullshiitte and she knows it

King: Now, since they were so supportive of you at the time and after the Trump announcement, what do you make of the fact that they didn't call you?

Prejean: Well, I think Mr. Trump was definitely in the middle. And I think that, you know, he has only heard one side. Because Donald Trump is such a bad business man :rolleyes:

Ultimately, at the end of the day, you have to think about, Are you going to release Mr. Keith Lewis or are you going to release Carrie Prejean? I think that they had to release the beauty queen at the end of the day.

King: How do you respond to (charges from Lewis)?

Prejean: Well, Larry, all I can tell you was this basically comes down to the answer that I gave the night of the pageant. As you can see, Mr. Lewis does not agree with the stance that I took. I think he's very angry. I think he's hurt. He said in a previous statement that he's deeply saddened and hurt that -- what Carrie Prejean believes in -- a marriage is between a man and a woman. Politics and religion have no play in the Miss California family.

My question is, then why was the question asked at the pageant in the first place? If politics has no role in the pageant, why was I given this question? Puuuhhhlease, political questions of some sort have been asked for years and she clearly has multiple mock runs with potential questions. Millions of $$$ went into preparing her for this competition. She did not just show up and walk on that stage. her a$$ hurts from producing this shiittee she is trying to sell us in the role of the helpless victim.

It was a hidden personal agenda that judge No. 8 asked, and I think that they were not ready for my answer that I gave.

King: Let's say they were upset by your remarks. They didn't like your answer. Why didn't they just tell Donald Trump », we're unhappy and let's pick the runner-up or whatever?

Prejean: He absolutely did. I mean Keith Lewis held a press conference in Los Angeles and didn't invite me to the press conference and, you know, awarded the first runner up as the new ambassador of California. That is just undermining me and undermining his own titleholder from day one. VideoWatch how e-mails between Prejean, Lewis may have contributed to firing »

As far as the other appearances, I've had some inappropriate appearances that Keith Lewis has asked me to do. And I'm sure you're aware of them already -- one of them being Playboy; another one being a reality show which is being filmed in Costa Rica. So had I said yes to these, I mean, I would have been out of the country.

Again, Playboy, I couldn't believe. I was completely shocked that he would even pass this along to me. Another one was a gay movie premiere that he wanted me to attend incognito. He actually said he wanted me to wear a hat and go in disguise and attend this movie premiere promoting gay marriage and then come out with a statement the next day saying that Carrie Prejean attended a gay movie premiere.

It just doesn't seem right, Larry, does it? Let's see the proof of that - surely she has emails as she did on the other shiitte?

King: Are you now sorry you even entered. Or, in retrospect, has this been a boom for you publicity-wise?

Prejean: You know, this isn't something that I signed up for, Larry. I simply entered in a pageant, the Miss California USA contest, and I gave an answer that a lot of people weren't expecting.

The bottom line, I took a stand, and I think I am now being punished for the answer that I gave. This isn't about contracts. This isn't about me missing out on appearances.

If you want to ask Keith Lewis any appearances that I have made prior to the Miss California U.S. pageant, I will guarantee you, Larry, he will not even -- he can't even tell you an appearance that he -- he scheduled for me.

This isn't about appearances. This isn't about a breach of contract. This is about Keith Lewis not agreeing with the stance that I took on saving traditional marriage. And from day one, he wanted me out.

King: Well, are you going to sue, Carrie?

Prejean: That's -- you know, that's something that is not something that I want to -- I want to do. I think that what's going on is wrong. And I think that there is definitely some information that is missing. And I know that sooner or later, the truth will come out and people will recognize here who's right and who's wrong.

King: What are your lawyers telling you to do or advising you to do?

Prejean: You know, that's up to my lawyers to determine whether or not they think that there will be a lawsuit involved. But that's not up to me, at this point.

King: What are you going to do right now, career-wise?

Prejean: Well, first of all, I want to thank the millions of viewers. I know you have so many viewers on your show, Larry. Thank you so much for your support. Thank you to all the Californians who have supported me, who backed me, who sent me thousands of letters and e-mails. I just want to thank you so much for your prayers, for your support. While they are beating off to your nude pics :rolleyes:

And I know that when God is for you, no one can be against you. So thank you. Because posing nude, getting breast implants, and preaching hate is exactly what the Bible teaches us to do? Maybe she should release a doctor's statement that her hymen is still intact and she is, like a good Christian should do, waiting until marriage.


King: Can you tell us what you're going to do, though?

Prejean: I'm not sure. Definitely some -- a lot of offers -- opportunities have come my way, a lot of offers.

I'm just really excited. I feel relieved. I feel just so blessed and so honored to have represented the state of California. And I'm ready to move on with my life and just be where God leads me. Back to the nude photos :shrug: maybe for a few extra George W.'s we'll, god willing, get a beaver shot

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/06/13/lkl.carrie.prejean/index.html

[jwd]

I think her answer to the question and the subsequent reactions is the real issue in this thread.

Yep, you're right. I just think some of those subsequent reactions were misdirected, misguided, and over the top.


Rather, they wisely see that although the D's may not be perfect on this issue, the least the D's usually do in some nonaction as opposed to the R's who openly pursue anti-gay law.

DADT IS anti gay law. Nonaction is action.

[gldstwmn]

I wish she and Sarah Palin would just go away already. They are two little peas in the same pod.

[strandinthewind]

. . . DADT IS anti gay law. Nonaction is action.

So, there should be no endgame strategy at all. I think that is a very naive position :shrug: Did you read the article Carrie posted?

[strandinthewind]

I wish she and Sarah Palin would just go away already. They are two little peas in the same pod.

Well, in Palin's case, Letterman brought it up. And, as for that crapola, Letterman clearly was talking about Bristol Palin (- the same Bristol Palin that has done numerous interviews, been on the cover of people with her out of wedlock baby, etc. ) Yet, the trash Palins act put upon when someone other than them brings her into the public eye :rolleyes:

But, Palin sees a chance for the spotlight, so she goes for it and, hypocritically, at the expense of her older and younger daughter, the very ones she publicly states she is trying to protect. What a sow.

This chick is deluded if she thinks she can be President. Then again, never underestimate the wild eyed support of the white males who would vote for her just because they want to f*ck her.

[LikeAWillow]

Perez Hilton, though he may be an entertaining blogger, is a sorry, cliched, and pathetic example of a gay man. All he does is reinforce the sad stereotype that a gay man is nothing more than a woman who was sadly born into a man's body.

Sparky--I strongly agree with the majority of your post, but I think another problem hindering the gay rights movement actually lies in what I've quoted. For many, hatred of gay men is really little more than an expression of misogyny. Your phrase "nothing more than a woman..." although certainly not intended to be sexist, cuts to the heart of the matter.

Judith Warner recently wrote a very interesting article on the topic that can be found here:

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/who-are-you-calling-gay/

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I am unsure I would classify Sparky's comment as misogyny, which strictly means hatred of women http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny.

I think Sparky meant (blue words added for clarification) "All he does is reinforce the sad stereotype that a gay man is nothing more than a bitchy and catty woman who was sadly born into a man's body." Women can be bitchy and catty. Acknowledging that does not on its face indicate a hatred of women. Moreover, many women acknowledge that aspect of their sexuality.

But, if the greater concept is that Sparky was insulting women by relating a gay man's attributes to all women in a negative context, then that perhaps could be construed, albeit loosely, as misogynistic. But, we are back to what is racism, what is misogyny, etc. I submit that once the textbook definitions are no longer applied, everything is everything, especially when a straight white male says it :shrug:

I do think, however, that because few know the actual definitions of these words and the media and others' erroneous applications of these rather limited concepts for sensationalism (= ratings) -- gay men would be wise not to make such associations no matter how innocuous, etc.

[sparky]

Let me clarify. What I meant was that there is huge money in this issue and she, for the moment, was a hot (looking and socially) person to present it. So, the huge power players used her and she went along willingly because she will get some kind of book deal or make $$$ off of speaking engagements for a limited time off of this. So, she is getting something out of it though she is merely a pawn or footnote. I do not think there was ever any concept by the power players of her getting a career out of this. They are all about the cheapest bang for the buck off of which they will make millions in ad rev., fundraising, etc.

I agree. The people I was talking about who aren't so bright are the ones she has hired - management, etc.
None of this is going to get her any kind of lasting career or income.

[LikeAWillow]

^^^

I am unsure I would classify Sparky's comment as misogyny, which strictly means hatred of women http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny.

I think Sparky meant (blue words added for clarification) "All he does is reinforce the sad stereotype that a gay man is nothing more than a bitchy and catty woman who was sadly born into a man's body." Women can be bitchy and catty. Acknowledging that does not on its face indicate a hatred of women. Moreover, many women acknowledge that aspect of their sexuality.

But, if the greater concept is that Sparky was insulting women by relating a gay man's attributes to all women in a negative context, then that perhaps could be construed, albeit loosely, as misogynistic. But, we are back to what is racism, what is misogyny, etc. I submit that once the textbook definitions are no longer applied, everything is everything, especially when a straight white male says it :shrug:

I do think, however, that because few know the actual definitions of these words and the media and others' erroneous applications of these rather limited concepts for sensationalism (= ratings) -- gay men would be wise not to make such associations no matter how innocuous, etc.

Oh, I would never say that Sparky intended his statement to be misogynist at all, and I made sure to point that out in my post. I do think you can see from his words, as you said, "loosely," though, that there is societal undercurrent that to be a woman is to be something less than a man, so to be a gay man is to be the same.

I'm a little unsure as to why you defined misogyny for me when you went on to say his comment could be construed as misogynistic :p Root words are my friends.

[strandinthewind]

Oh, I would never say that Sparky intended his statement to be misogynist at all, and I made sure to point that out in my post. I do think you can see from his words, as you said, "loosely," though, that there is societal undercurrent that to be a woman is to be something less than a man, so to be a gay man is to be the same.

I'm a little unsure as to why you defined misogyny for me when you went on to say his comment could be construed as misogynistic :p Root words are my friends.



I always cite the definition because I look it up first to make sure I know what the he'll I am saying LOL. It was no slam on you :cool:

[sparky]

Sparky--I strongly agree with the majority of your post, but I think another problem hindering the gay rights movement actually lies in what I've quoted. For many, hatred of gay men is really little more than an expression of misogyny. Your phrase "nothing more than a woman..." although certainly not intended to be sexist, cuts to the heart of the matter.

Judith Warner recently wrote a very interesting article on the topic that can be found here:

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/who-are-you-calling-gay/

I had read that, Willow. You have a point about the misogyny extension. There is really no doubt that much of the opposition to gay rights is rooted in something akin to misogyny. There is still, and I believe always will be, a strong current of disgust and hostility
expressed toward men who reject traditonally "masculine" bearing and behavior.

It is an extremely complicated subject. I can see both sides of the argument when it comes to the issue. For the sake of brevity that is all I am going to say about it.
The scope of that goes way beyond the topic of this thread.

The whole Prejean thing for me is part of a much bigger picture.
This incident is of interest to me because it draws attention to the larger cultural argument.

On a much more vast scale, and to address the Obama angle that has been brought up, I am furious at and disgusted by Barack Obama.

I was never much of a supporter. I never bought his act. Hope and Change, my ass. My vote for him was really a vote against McCain, and that backwater cut rate brunette Barbie doll Palin.

History may prove me wrong, and it would be a welcome surprise if it did. However, as it stands, he has turned out to be a lying manipulative SOS when it comes to DADT and DOMA. It appears that he pandered to the homos, took the money, and is tossing us under the bus. Just like Clinton did. Could he be putting off the real action until his potential second term? Perhaps. But the real fact is that ending DADT would cost him zero political capital. Even a majority of conservative christians support ending the policy. A policy, btw, that is costing our near bankrupt country millions and is likely even costing lives of our service men and women. Can our military afford to be kicking out dedicated soldiers when we are fighting what amounts to 2 wars? I don't think so.

He just doesn't have the guts. And that is the real letdown. Let me clarify again - I never had much faith in his propaganda in the first place. But this proves to me that Obama the candidate and Obama the president are two very different things.

So as I have said to others, f*ck that shape shifting, yellow bellied
half breed mother****er. I wish he and his wife's nasty assed underbite would have stayed in Chicago.

:laugh:

[sparky]

I do think you can see from his words, as you said, "loosely," though, that there is societal undercurrent that to be a woman is to be something less than a man, so to be a gay man is to be the same.

There certainly is. IMO it isn't about "less than" so much as it is about differences.
That is how I see it, although much of society does and likely always will put a "less than" tag on the comparison.

The modern age is a blip in history, and a few generations cannot and will not erase thousands of years of genetic
and cultural experience that influence what we find attractive and impressive about the genders.

I am not saying it is right or wrong. It just is.

[strandinthewind]

I do think you can see from his words, as you said, "loosely," though, that there is societal undercurrent that to be a woman is to be something less than a man, so to be a gay man is to be the same.

I do not agree with the implication/association. I think it instead means that Perez Hilton is less of a man and more like a woman (effete, bitchy, catty, etc.) - without commenting on the equality of men and women. It is instead an insult to his manhood, machismo, etc. It's kind of a gay male thing to refer to another gay male in that derogatory context.

But, I do see how some might draw that from the association, though I think it is erroneous. On edit - there are many instances where men do see women as less than an equal, which is a bad thing. I am just saying this particular instance is not one of them.

[strandinthewind]

There certainly is. IMO it isn't about "less than" so much as it is about differences.
That is how I see it, although much of society does and likely always will put a "less than" tag on the comparison.

The modern age is a blip in history, and a few generations cannot and will not erase thousands of years of genetic
and cultural experience that influence what we find attractive and impressive about the genders.

I am not saying it is right or wrong. It just is.

And, let me just say once again that you are my bi*ch, you belong to me - capice :wavey:

[carrie721]

And, let me just say once again that you are my bi*ch, you belong to me - capice :wavey:

don't you have a lawn jockey that needs to be driven around atlanta, suzanne?

[strandinthewind]

don't you have a lawn jockey that needs to be driven around atlanta, suzanne?

Well, I moved to Manhattan on March 1.

However, my beloved, black faced law jockey resides on a plantation outside of Atlanta. I do miss it though. Maybe I'll haul it up here to the land of the enemy :eek: I did, however, see one the other day in some shop. Note - there were mammy fans for sale in the bucket affixed to said jockey. Ahhhh - the simple things bring great joy!

[carrie721]

Well, I moved to Manhattan on March 1.

oh, i knew that. don't blame it on me, blame it on my wild hangover.

However, my beloved, black faced law jockey resides on a plantation outside of Atlanta. I do miss it though. Maybe I'll haul it up here to the land of the enemy :eek: I did, however, see one the other day in some shop. Note - there were mammy fans for sale in the bucket affixed to said jockey. Ahhhh - the simple things bring great joy!

i wonder how many of those stevie keeps around for karen to use.

[strandinthewind]

oh, i knew that. don't blame it on me, blame it on my wild hangover . . . .

Lord Child - you and me both!

I had some of my crazy Atlanta friends in town and we tore it up! Currently, I have the shades drawn, the AC on high, a LARGE Diet Coke, and a screacher of a headache. Thank goodness for Law and Order, which I have been watching all day.

[carrie721]

Lord Child - you and me both!

I had some of my crazy Atlanta friends in town and we tore it up! Currently, I have the shades drawn, the AC on high, a LARGE Diet Coke, and a screacher of a headache. Thank goodness for Law and Order, which I have been watching all day.

god. that sounds like an excellent way to recover. i spent last night drinking with a couple of elderly homos and now i have to go to work.

i'll probably puke on a customer.

[strandinthewind]

god. that sounds like an excellent way to recover. i spent last night drinking with a couple of elderly homos and now i have to go to work.

i'll probably puke on a customer.

The old queers are the worse to be around for those maintaining sobriety!

Puking is a good thing :shrug: Speaking of which, I wonder of the former Ms. California has any enamel left on her teeth from her puking, which only adds to her controversy!

[markolas]

On a much more vast scale, and to address the Obama angle that has been brought up, I am furious at and disgusted by Barack Obama.

I was never much of a supporter. I never bought his act. Hope and Change, my ass. My vote for him was really a vote against McCain, and that backwater cut rate brunette Barbie doll Palin.

Same here, tho I don't have quite the level of hostility toward Palin that many do.

History may prove me wrong, and it would be a welcome surprise if it did. However, as it stands, he has turned out to be a lying manipulative SOS when it comes to DADT and DOMA. It appears that he pandered to the homos, took the money, and is tossing us under the bus. Just like Clinton did.

That certainly seems to be the case. I wanted to like Obama - I really did. I held my nose and voted for him in large part because he seemed to be the lesser of two evils, re: gay issues (whether he was or not I'm no longer too sure about). Over the last year or so I've found myself becoming more of a social moderate, which Obama is not - yet he's a spineless jellyfish on the one social issue I'd like him to be progressive on. I have less and less patience with the "it's okay to kill your baby but gay people getting married is wrong" train of thought that is apparently the philosophy of the Democratic Party. I find myself wondering who I'm supposed to vote for now - neither the Dems or the Reps really reflect my convictions, nor do any of the "third parties" that I'm aware of.

Are we to keep holding our noses in the voting booth? At what point do you say "there's some **** I will not eat"?

[strandinthewind]

^

I still say the at just shy of 5 months in office and with all the other shiitte going on - it is too early to tell. And, to his credit, he is doing much of the other stuff he said he'd do :shrug:

[BombaySapphire3]

^

I still say the at just shy of 5 months in office and with all the other shiitte going on - it is too early to tell. And, to his credit, he is doing much of the other stuff he said he'd do :shrug:

Agreed..I think he will eventually m0ve to overturn DADT but I never anticipated gay issues were going to be his strong suit anyway.I voted for him for many other reasons as well and not just to vote against McCain /Palin who incidentally and with each passing week has proven herself even more stupid than I had imagined and that was pretty damn stupid to start with.