"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Gay Marriage Question on Miss USA

Yahoo is reporting on its home page: "Miss California fumbles over a controversial question during the pageant." Now, you watch the video and you tell me if she fumbles or not. It seems to me that Yahoo may just not like her answer.

The question was whether she supports gay marriage. The answer (after some hemming and hawing and political correctness) was no. And it may have cost her the crown. Some in the crowd booed. And in the end, Miss California was runner up.



My question is what the heck is Perez Hilton judging a Miss America contest for? I guess one could argue that he would be an "impartial judge" who would be immune to the ladies charms, if you know what I mean. To me, it seems like a wasted seat. But more importantly, the guy is a raunchy sleazebag who, on his site, called Miss California "a dumb bit#$" today. He later apologized saying he was "just soooo angry, hurt, frustrated by her answer." Awww. Someone doesn't agree with you, poor thing.

But can you imagine America being a country where saying that marriage is between a man and a woman as being controversial?

Worst of all, because I'm pro-traditional marriage this hit me hard because my pageant hopes are up in smoke now. Hey, don't laugh. I twirl a mean baton.

For more commentary, read our Heartbreak! Obama Can't Be Miss USA

Your Ad Here

52 comments:

Brynn said...

If I didn't know better, I'd say I personally wrote your Blog. Your words echo my own so completely!

You're right, of course. There was no fumble, just a pause for a few polite words to be considerate of those that would think differently from her on the issue.

I was happy to hear the cheer and applause from the crowd at her answer.
That's where my focus is going to stay - on the people that still make good sense & use it.

I don't follow Perez Hilton in the slightest bit, and the small snippet you shared from his site sums up my reasons not to.

I appreciate your good sense and thank you for using it and sharing it too!

Cheerio :)

David L Alexander said...

It should come as no surprise, given a sufficiently large audience, that we will at some point meet someone who begs to disagree. What does come as a surprise, is when one responds by confirming the worst stereotypes that others might have about them.

Otherwise known as a "hissy-fit."

Anonymous said...

So it's okay for her to express her discriminatory beliefs which are, at their core, incredibly hateful, but it's not okay for Perez Hilton to, because he was vulgar about it? What a double standard, but right in line with the conservative tourniquet on speech, I suppose.
I think both are free to say what they will, but they have to know there are consequences. If a majority of the audience or folks following these ridiculous pageants support equality (how ironic), then this woman needs to deal with the consequences of her statement. I'm under no illusion that Mr. Hilton doesn't receive hate mail himself (legitimate or not); in fact, I'm sure he's used to it.
I'm not sure why you're surprised that the squelching of minority rights is controversial (even if they've been banned since the inception of civil marriage). You'll recall that "traditional voting" (as one reader so euphemistically referred to exclusionary marriage) includes neither women nor ethnic/racial minorities. You seem to be mixing religious marriage up with civil marriage, too. The two are completely different.

David L Alexander said...

"So it's okay for her to express her discriminatory beliefs which are, at their core, incredibly hateful..."At their core is a disagreement on a set of values, which is not, in and of itself, a sign of hating anybody.

Disagreeing is not the same as hating.

Baron Korf said...

Hail to thee, O Brave Anonymous of the internet! Your vitriol is matched only inversely to your bravery!

Seriously though, tenor does matter. She says she doesn't support something for either sociological, religious or psychological convictions and does so politely. He goes and has a temper tantrum.

You might try trolling somewhere else for your own sake, the eldest billy goat gruff lives here.

iluvshamrocks_22 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
iluvshamrocks_22 said...

6 CommentsClose this window Jump to comment form
Brynn said...
If I didn't know better, I'd say I personally wrote your Blog. Your words echo my own so completely!

You're right, of course. There was no fumble, just a pause for a few polite words to be considerate of those that would think differently from her on the issue.

I was happy to hear the cheer and applause from the crowd at her answer.
That's where my focus is going to stay - on the people that still make good sense & use it.

I don't follow Perez Hilton in the slightest bit, and the small snippet you shared from his site sums up my reasons not to.

I appreciate your good sense and thank you for using it and sharing it too!

Cheerio :)

April 20, 2009 2:12 PM


David L Alexander said...
It should come as no surprise, given a sufficiently large audience, that we will at some point meet someone who begs to disagree. What does come as a surprise, is when one responds by confirming the worst stereotypes that others might have about them.

Otherwise known as a "hissy-fit."

April 20, 2009 2:18 PM


Anonymous said...
So it's okay for her to express her discriminatory beliefs which are, at their core, incredibly hateful, but it's not okay for Perez Hilton to, because he was vulgar about it? What a double standard, but right in line with the conservative tourniquet on speech, I suppose.
I think both are free to say what they will, but they have to know there are consequences. If a majority of the audience or folks following these ridiculous pageants support equality (how ironic), then this woman needs to deal with the consequences of her statement. I'm under no illusion that Mr. Hilton doesn't receive hate mail himself (legitimate or not); in fact, I'm sure he's used to it.
I'm not sure why you're surprised that the squelching of minority rights is controversial (even if they've been banned since the inception of civil marriage). You'll recall that "traditional voting" (as one reader so euphemistically referred to exclusionary marriage) includes neither women nor ethnic/racial minorities. You seem to be mixing religious marriage up with civil marriage, too. The two are completely different.

April 20, 2009 2:34 PM


David L Alexander said...
"So it's okay for her to express her discriminatory beliefs which are, at their core, incredibly hateful..."At their core is a disagreement on a set of values, which is not, in and of itself, a sign of hating anybody.

Disagreeing is not the same as hating.

April 20, 2009 2:42 PM


Baron Korf said...
Hail to thee, O Brave Anonymous of the internet! Your vitriol is matched only inversely to your bravery!

Seriously though, tenor does matter. She says she doesn't support something for either sociological, religious or psychological convictions and does so politely. He goes and has a temper tantrum.

You might try trolling somewhere else for your own sake, the eldest billy goat gruff lives here.

April 20, 2009 2:49 PM


iluvshamrocks_22 said...
"mixing up Religious marriage with civil Marriage"- Question how would you define the two? can there be two definitions of marriage? Are we going to play the relativism card- it is whatever you define it as?

also, it is not just conservatives that are against "same-sex marraige". Obama is against it as well. so, let's not play the left vs right card either!

Matthew said...

Oh my. So saying Marriage should remain between a man and a women makes me a bigot?

Does it help if I say that my mother is gay? How about if I claim that I still love her and my "step mom" even though I don't believe they should have the "right" to marry each other at a Church?

How about if I claim that I'm against Same Sex marriage because I believe that sooner rather then latter Churchs all over America will be forced to close down because of "discriminatory" law suits levied against them?

Does that mean I'm a hateful bigot?

Anonymous said...

Bravo Miss California!
At least one of those Barbi dolls has a brain beneath the painted, plucked, enhanced, lifted, tooth whitened, buff bodied, bewigged exterior package. They ALL look the same and P. Hilton looks like a Munster.

Chris Messer said...

No it means you don't know what the fight is about. No one is fighting for the right to get married in your church. It is hateful to suggest that certain people shouldn't have the same rights as others. Legal rights, here, folks. No one wants to hang out with your church group, or turn your kids gay, or pretend to have something to do right when your preacher walks up to say hello again, for a half-hour. What people do want, is for the government to give everyone equal rights. It's not really an awkward concept, or new. Nor is it new not to want certain groups, based on ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, etc. to be able to enjoy their rights just like us. Your just filling in the void left by the demonstrators against integration in the 60's. It was common to hear that the opposition to integration didn't hate blacks, actually liked them, and some were related to them. It was also common to hear arguments having nothing to do with race, yet still in opposition to integration. Know your role in history, folks. One day you wont want to talk to your kids about the role you played at this cross-roads in history. I live in North Carolina and know people who grew up in households opposed to integration. It's not pretty, and it gives your kids less to be proud of you for.

Chris Messer said...

Anonymous said...
Bravo Miss California!
At least one of those Barbi dolls has a brain beneath the painted, plucked, enhanced, lifted, tooth whitened, buff bodied, bewigged exterior package. They ALL look the same and P. Hilton looks like a Munster.

Paris wasn't in the pageant, smart-guy/gal. But Miss California is really so obviously intelligent. Bravo to you, Anonymous!

Anonymous said...

Chris said: "I live in North Carolina and know people who grew up in households opposed to integration. It's not pretty, and it gives your kids less to be proud of you for."

Ha. At least we can have kids!

David L Alexander said...

"What people do want, is for the government to give everyone equal rights."

Define "equal."

If you do, you find that "equality" and "sameness" are NOT the same. Further, the government does not grant rights in our system of governance; God does. No established religion said that; the Founding Fathers said that in the Declaration of Independence.

There is no hatred of anyone in acknowledging this. If there is, then the "hatred" must be attributed to those who founded this country to begin with, since it is they who are encouraging this attitude that you describe as "hatred."

Baron Korf said...

There is no discrimination. Everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. No one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. Equal protection.

To equate this with civil rights is a joke. Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else, QED.

Messer said...

ok, ok. Let's see here...what do we have in the way of historical parallels...oh, here we are. "equality" and "sameness" aren't the same...where have I seen this before? Oh, I know, When water fountains were installed that worked just as well, but were kept "seperate". Oh, and bathrooms. I guess we wouldn't have needed all that sass from the blacks if we would've given them male/female bathrooms, instead, huh? And their own busses. But they had their own schools, so...? I don't know I guess people just like being able to enjoy the same benefits as everyone else, while not being treated like they are something gross, or forbidden. And Baron... If we allowed everyone to marry someone of their own race, and no one to marry someone of another race, would that be equal protection? If so, is equal protection desirable? Listen, all I need you to understand is that it may seem different, but eventually it wont be. To seperate this equal rights movement from another is fair...it is normal for people to feel like their behavior/opinions/beliefs are the different and valid ones (I'm doing it, too). But let's look at some objective data, here, and try to see if there's not something to compare this too. If you said dogs and people should be allowed to marry we could also fight with opinion all day long, but we could address inherent usefulness. Validity in tax-brackets. And...when it came down to giving dogs equal rights, we could look at legal precedent. It's important to understand that history is cyclical, and that once you immerse yourself in a historical period, there are always all sorts of (almost perfect) parallels. The same things keep going on and on and on. same issues (gay rights has been an issue in every civilization, ever. Generally homosexuality was in a punishable offense catagory, but it was still a topic on the table. We're all just playing our parts, and if my theory on historical cycles exists as I stated, the ones who fought against equal rights (not, "seperate, but equal" rights) will be the embarassed ones (though i imagine this message will be about as effective now as it would have to the people in the 60's protesting outside little rock high school, huh?).

David L Alexander said...

Having a "right" to do something, and being able to do as one wishes, are not the same thing.

matthew archbold said...

Messer, are you also for polygamous marriage?

David L Alexander said...

"ok, ok. Let's see here...what do we have in the way of historical parallels...oh, here we are. "equality" and "sameness" aren't the same...where have I seen this before?"

You haven't. In fact, it is doubtful that you've put any thought into anything you've written aside from a barrage of verbal bludgeoning. Such is not the same as a good argument, but in your case, it keeps you just as busy.

"Separate but equal" accommodations were not equal at all, because those for one group were invariably in better condition than the other. Such laws also encouraged lack of provision for one group, while allowing provision for the other. So there is no comparison here. There is nothing, other than a lack of interest therein, to prevent a homosexual male or female from entering into legal marriage with a member of the opposite sex. That is how civilization defines marriage. The reason has to do with what marriage does for a civilization; basically, allows it to regenerate itself, to continue.

Without a preponderance of artificial help, one might add.

paul zummo said...

Chris's little rant just basically boiled down to "You are all bigots." Sigh. At least if you're going to write such drivel, could you use paragraph breaks so as not to give the reader migraines?

Messer said...

Further, the government does not grant rights in our system of governance; God does.No established religion said that; the Founding Fathers said that in the Declaration of Independence.
Um... the founding fathers may have said that while writing the dec. of Ind., but they sang a different tune while guarenteeing rights to the citizens, AS A GOVERNMENTAL BODY, in the Bill of RIGHTS (see? its right there in the title). our government is what guarentees us our rights. God only guarentees our abilities. The U.S. government is charged with giving us consequences for our actions. I don't recall God having a seat in the house of representatives.

the "hatred" must be attributed to those who founded this country to begin with

ok...I guess you don't have to hate slaves. Good point. But the deal isn't hatred. Who cares? I personally hate professional wrestling. big whoop! it is the seperation that is, if not hateful, at least bigoted. something. You pick a word, but its going to have negative connotations to it. Please don't pick a word like "traditional" there are good and bad implications to the word (go back too far down the tradition line and christmas is a pagan holiday, or you may just end up lion food in a roman coliseum). Prejudice, Bigoted, anti-progressive maybe, but still not specific enough. the only words that define people who specifically target another group and attempt to exclude them from an activity are unfavorable. Maybe make one up. but you can see where the idea that you hate them comes from. maybe you just feel icky about them. Maybe its not even that well defined, "it just doesn't sit right with me" may be your only choice of words, but what your talking about is giving a MINORITY group the same rights as others. It's not good, brother.

messer said...

"Separate but equal" accommodations were not equal at all, because those for one group were invariably in better condition than the other. Such laws also encouraged lack of provision for one group, while allowing provision for the other.

Hello? Are you saying that if we kept bathrooms and water fountains and busses in perfect working order and just as clean for different races that it would be okay to seperate them, legally?

The provisions, here, are tax breaks. Being able to marry legally has become a provision. So now you agree with me, right?

Messer, are you also for polygamous marriage?

Sure. Who's right is it to tell a thinking person of age that they can't enter into a marital contract with two or more people? now...in larger groups, 4 or more(?) im sure a new tax system would need to be put in place. And this is assuming that the children's lives would be no worse off by having to share a mother/father. maybe they could only adopt. I don't know...but yea im not against polygamy based on arbitrary principle.
Sorry about the paragraphs, Paul, but you are obviously not reading with interest anyways.
I don't blog often...I was just surprised that we all didn't just agree on how air-headed she was, leaving this issue to be resolved over time by a changing paradigm in our society.

Messer said...

is it supposed to quote the others on its own, or do we have to manually write,
David L alexander said,...?

David L Alexander said...

Nothing in either the Constitution of the United States, nor the Bill of Rights amending that Constitution, negates the role of a Supreme Being as the author of rights. Even the First Amendment was very specific in terms of refusing to recognize an established system of religion.

We have all manner of laws against people (like you who feel entitled toward) doing anything they want. You know, don't steal, don't cheat, don't shoot anybody -- that sort of thing. All legislation is, in effect, an attempt to enforce a morality on a population. And so it is here.

ProLifeWife said...

So let me get this straight: Miss California says that she doesn't agree with gay marriage, she doesn't support it, and somehow she is filled with hatred???
Have you ever BEEN to Perez Hilton's site?! It is PLAGUED with the hatred and condemnation of others. Miss California politely disagreed. Hilton doesn't politely disagree with anyone. He just flat out hates, condemns, mocks, and humiliates ANYONE he feels like!!! What a hypocrite this guy is!

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

What is that oft-quoted line?

"Tolerance is not enough. YOU. MUST. APPROVE."

Difference of skin tone is not, in any way shape or form, the same as a difference of sex.

If someone really, honestly, deeply believes it is... well, nothing I'll say will reach them, anyways.

AlShappy said...

I don't want my response to be mistaken for an opinion or advice or something that is open for suggestions.

Gay marriage is not 'marriage.' I guess if it comes down to it, then go ahead and marry someone else of the same sex, it won't affect me enough for me to really worry about it. But, there is a major, undeniable and important difference between a gay 'marriage' and marriage as we have know it previously to this new concept.

A marriage is a partnership of a man and a women for the purposes of, firstly, reproduction and the kin selection that goes with it, and secondly, financial security. There are of course many other reasons why people get married, but those are paramount. The point is that a man and a woman can reproduce and therefore benefit the society/country/state/city/neighborhood they are born in; allowing them to get rewards for adding to the overall population, which translated into productivity and GDP.

A partnership between a couple of the same sex cannot by definition reproduce, and so cannot offer the same advantages to the society/country/etc.. and should therefore not be given the same benefits.

Anonymous said...

I am so glad for this site. When I read this morning about how Miss California "fumbles over controversial question" I clicked on the post thinking she said something really stupid or ignorant. I was blown away by how incredibly strong this woman was to state her personal beliefs. My second reaction was how ridiculous Yahoo made her sound!! She spoke what she believed in, her own personal belief/value and she is being mocked and humiliated across the internet. I was so mad, I googed this story until I found this site, I'm glad I just have a chance to say how I feel. And Miss California? You go girl!!!

Christopher Michael said...

Was it just me or was there not significantly more cheering/applause from the audience than booing?

~cmpt

Francisco said...

"No one wants to [...] turn your kids gay [...]"
- Chris Messer.

I disagree.

George Cloney said...

Obviously...NBC airing a farce of a "pageant" for Miss America 2009 really shouldn't surprise anyone. Appointing a gay judge will invite modern-day bigotry and hatred from the left. This is just a blatant attempt to justify an anti-Christian decision against this girl. 90% of the room cheered for Miss California's answer (just as 90% of America cheers against destroying the family) and a smattering of leftists booed (just as a smattering of leftists try to force the rest of us to swallow their perversion and sexually aberrant behavior.)
Did anyone notice how simple the question was for the non-Christian girl? "Should Americans bail out banks?" Thats a no-brainer, obvious favoritism for the liberal, and an obvious attempt at unfairly robbing the conservative Christian girl. This is Obama's kool-aid drinking Amerika.

David L Alexander said...

Whatever happened to contestants wishing for world peace?

LarryD said...

For me, the name of the pageant is now "I Sure Miss America" 2009.

Anonymous said...

Greg J. writes: I, too, was surprised when I'd read that Miss California "fumbled" the question. When I watched the video I saw what always happens when someone answers a question thinking on their feet- namely, pausing and slowly answering using a couple of different points and then giving a summary answer. She did say "country" when I think she meant "state" and that could be considered a "fumble". Unfortunately for her she didn't seem to answer the question. As much as I admire her for voicing her opinion in such a public place, she would have been better off to stick with Perez's question: "Do you think every state should follow suite and why or why not." A better answer might have been something to the affect of saying that no state and no person should ever simply "follow suit" which might be considered a rather mindless act, but rather think clearly, reason rationally, dialogue and come to a conclusion. Each person and each state should decide issues individually. (I admit I wouldn't have been able to think too quickly on my feet. Plus, as a male carrying a couple of extra pounds, I wouldn't have done nearly as well in the swimsuit competition either...) Be that as it may, if they marked her down for her opinion then that simply seems to be reverse discrimination. If it was because she got off track, then so be it. Unfortunately, the light seems to have shifted away from the pageant and more on what people believe and how we feel about that...

MidMoboy said...

can someone please tell me where it is written anywhere that marriage is a right? It isn't. Were it a right, most restrictions and limitations would be unlawful; were it a right neither the church nor the state could say who or what you could marry, laws regrading same-sex, polygamy, marriage of kin, marriage between species, and so forth could be lawfully challenged and beaten. marriage falls more under the idea of a privilege extended to individuals by the state or the church thus giving said authorities the right to limit all of the above options as unlawful.

Now were the state to be obstinate in affording that privilege to others than a heterosexual relationship, I think the churches would be forced into doing what many European and Latin American countries do in not recognizing civil ceremonies and the state not recognizing church ceremonies.

Finally, to messer; your hate and intolerance of those who disagree with you (reread your posts) show who is really intolerant. That this Hilton person, who seems famous for being a cad, discriminated against her because he didn't agree with her...well.. what if it had been Pat Robertson the judge and he nixed Ms California because she did agree with gay 'marriage'? You can't have it both ways and still call yourself a open minded person. You're just as close minded as those you claim to hate.

David L Alexander said...

MidMoboy:

Interesting. But if marriage is a privilege and not a right, who grants it? The state? What did prehistorics do, wait for the rise of nation-states before they could get marriage licenses? I don't mean to dismiss your arguments out of hand; I just want to know that basis for them.

Blue Shoe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blue Shoe said...

You pick a word, but its going to have negative connotations to it. Please don't pick a word like "traditional" there are good and bad implications to the word (go back too far down the tradition line and christmas is a pagan holiday, or you may just end up lion food in a roman coliseum). Prejudice, Bigoted, anti-progressive maybe, but still not specific enough. the only words that define people who specifically target another group and attempt to exclude them from an activity are unfavorable.I find the irony here kind of funny. Notice how "traditional" can be a bad word, but "progressive" must be good (as one of the more nasty meanings of "traditional" is apparently "anti-progressive").

Just as not all traditions are noble or worthy of preservation, nor is all progress good or warranted. They're two sides of the same coin; yes, some things are meant to change, but some things are likewise meant to stay the same.

MidMoBoy said...

In primitive cultures, where most marriages were arranged marriages, the privilege was given by the authority figures present, namely the parents. In pre-historical times, who knows.

David L Alexander said...

MidMoBoy:

So the society at large elevates the status of a couple who seek to be recognized as married. Consider the reasons why this was deemed appropriate, and you have at least a partial case against gay marriage.

Dirtdartwife said...

I thought she sounded great. Especially when she had to answer an opinionated, obviously politically loaded, question with *HER OPINION!* The only people pitching hissy fits are those that are too immature to recognize this fact.

MidMoBoy said...

the bottom line is , though, marriage does not fall under the rank of right but of privilege. Furthermore, if we who belong to the Judeo-Christian traditions are correct (that whole nasty objective truth thing) then ultimately it is God himself who extended the privilege of marriage to specifically a man and a woman. It is so ingrained in our souls that I can think of no society or civilization that allowed for gay marraige. Natural law, you know. Why homosexuals need to call their relationships 'marriages' is beyond me. No offense, but not every relationship in which two people 'love' each other constitutes a marraige...it can be freindship, even a civil union if one must, but not a marriage.

MidMoBoy said...

OH, and why is a gossip maven like Perez Hilton even famous? What does it say about our society that a professional cad like him or a trampy debutante like Paris Hilton are famous? Have the levels sunk so low in our society that we actually view the opinions of bubble-headed flotsam like Perez Hilton? I guess those for whom the Gospel doesn't matter have to find something to try to fill the vacancy...it's like turning down Prime Rib for fetid hamburger though.

hcddbz said...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Her answer was very thoughtful and is in keeping of the ideas of our founding. The beauty of America is that we are made up of different states. Laws and those contracts terms which are allowed in some states may not be allowed in others. People are therefore, free to move to states that express their view point or move from states that do not. If a number of states agree and feel that Federal f government can change rules for the entire country, then our funding document t can be modified to reflect the views of the population, through the amendment process.

At this time America does not want Gay marriage, in most states where people vote on it fails. In the future maybe that will changes but for the majority of human existence marriage was defined between a man and woman. There is no tolerance for when a man has multiple wives or woman to have multiple husbands in the western world. So as we start to change it not just going to be between same sex but other definitions. Will it be between two people or multiple partners?
There have been law suits against the Catholic Church because it does not have women priest. So it is not a far stretch to envision suits against Churches that do not perform it or removal of tax exempt t status.

Anonymous said...

You Know marriage between a man and a woman was ordained by God long before this country we live in recognized it. Gays want to get united they can civil union.

Anonymous said...

I'm not gay and I think that gays should be allowed to marry and have the same legal rights, insurance and tax benefits that heterosexual married couples have. However, I have a problem with anyone being treated unfairly and rudely due to their having an opinion that causes no harm to anyone else.

crusader88 said...

This commbox has been dumbed dow by this late discussion.

This fanatical obsession with rights is misplaced. MidMoboy was correct to point out that marriage is NOT a right- if it were, then someone would be obligated to marry you. Marriage is a covenant, created by God, between two members of opposite sexes under certain conditions (i.e. that they aren't cousins, that neither of them is divorced). It is a privilage, a gift from God, and the proper setting for sexual relations. The sin of Sodom, which cries out to Heaven for vengeance, cannot be legalized, and insults every real marriage by claiming to be on the same level as them.

Only when men look to fulfill their duties before God, and not to justify their sins under the banner of "rights" deserving legal protection, will our country be set straight. Wise up people, and stop genuflecting at the mention of these illusory "rights" which attempt to equate the sin of Sodom with the sacrament of Matrimony.

Nomad said...

I suspect that no one ever told Perez Hilton that "beauty comes from the inside"

Anonymous said...

I did not get the impression that Miss California necessarily hated the gay community and wished to restrict them, but I do believe it is fundamentally wrong to restrict the rights of any citizen based on their sexual orientation.
The right wings say no to gay marriage because it goes against their definition of marriage as part of the private religion.
The left wings say yes to gay marriage because they know they deserve the same rights in this country as anyone else.

The answer is complicated. The governemnt does not have the right to change the policies of private religious institutions, so if they say no to gay marriage, we must respect that. However, the government also has no right to offical recognize ANY religious marriage in a way that gives the couple seperate status based on performing a religious rite. Our country was founded on the ideals of freedom of religion, and in order to preserve a truely unbiased nation, we must have a complete seperation of church and state.
Faith is very personal decision that cannot be made for you. We all enjoy the freedom to pray, or not, in any manner that we choose. If you value that freedom and think all your country deserve the same, keep God out of the government.

Anonymous said...

If we truly support Miss California's view why are we not calling for a boycott of businesses supporting the Miss America Pagent when it supports prejudice judging such as demonstrated.
Why is it hateful to express a view contrary to "natural law". It seems that animals are more "civilized" than humans now.

Anonymous said...

Even though I personally think that gays should be able to marry, I also think that when the people vote in favor or opposition of a law presented for popular vote, It should be accepted. "All people should be treated fairly" is the golden rule that works for those who believe in God and those who wish to believe otherwise. The media's response and the public opinions such as some posted here have indirectly condemned the unfair judgement of the pagent. We don't need to grill everybody who doesn't think the way "we" do. We all just need to get on the same team and forget about our biased views on skin color, sexual orientation, gender, etc. Do what is fair by all and the complex problems of the planet get much more simple. An atheist who says he knows that his opinion that can not be proven or disproven is correct or the religious person who claims the same should all lighten up and look at the logical perspective of which they claim to be true. The most important things while we live our mortal lives are what we do to each other. Live in a way that practices this one rule and you're covered no matter what truths exist beyond our knowledge or that which can not be proven or disproven.

Anonymous said...

whoever this "anomous" is needs to die.

Anonymous said...

Intelligent response from a person who can't even cut/paste "Anonymous "

Post a Comment