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 9:25 pm
“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.
April 20, 2009 at 9:26 pm
is it supposed to quote the others on its own, or do we have to manually write,
David L alexander said,…?
April 20, 2009 at 9:42 pm
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.
April 20, 2009 at 9:57 pm
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!
April 20, 2009 at 10:47 pm
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.
April 20, 2009 at 10:52 pm
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.
April 20, 2009 at 10:52 pm
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!!!
April 21, 2009 at 12:10 am
Was it just me or was there not significantly more cheering/applause from the audience than booing?
~cmpt
April 21, 2009 at 12:27 am
“No one wants to […] turn your kids gay […]”
– Chris Messer.
I disagree.
April 21, 2009 at 1:34 am
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.
April 21, 2009 at 1:39 am
Whatever happened to contestants wishing for world peace?
April 21, 2009 at 1:50 am
For me, the name of the pageant is now “I Sure Miss America” 2009.
April 21, 2009 at 2:31 am
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…
April 21, 2009 at 4:26 am
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.
April 21, 2009 at 4:37 am
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.
April 21, 2009 at 5:52 am
This comment has been removed by the author.
April 21, 2009 at 5:55 am
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.
April 21, 2009 at 1:23 pm
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.
April 21, 2009 at 1:42 pm
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.
April 21, 2009 at 2:32 pm
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.