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
April 20, 2009 at 7:12 pm
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 at 7:18 pm
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 at 7:34 pm
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 at 7:42 pm
“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 at 7:49 pm
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 at 7:57 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
April 20, 2009 at 7:57 pm
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!
April 20, 2009 at 8:12 pm
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?
April 20, 2009 at 8:23 pm
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.
April 20, 2009 at 8:25 pm
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.
April 20, 2009 at 8:31 pm
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!
April 20, 2009 at 8:36 pm
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!
April 20, 2009 at 8:37 pm
“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.”
April 20, 2009 at 8:39 pm
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.
April 20, 2009 at 9:00 pm
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?).
April 20, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Having a “right” to do something, and being able to do as one wishes, are not the same thing.
April 20, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Messer, are you also for polygamous marriage?
April 20, 2009 at 9:05 pm
“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.
April 20, 2009 at 9:06 pm
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?
April 20, 2009 at 9:16 pm
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.