Miss California to campaign against gay marriage

[Justforfun000]

What a bitch! She was entitled to her bigoted opinion and I still think it was a bit ridiculous the way people overboarded on her for simply anwering the question, but now she's demonstrating the hallmarks of a true bigot.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090430/ap_ ... california

NEW YORK – The reigning Miss California has gone to Washington to help launch a campaign opposing same-sex marriage.

Carrie Prejean told NBC's "Today" show Thursday that she'll be working with the National Organization for Marriage to "protect traditional marriages."

The 21-year-old says that marriage is "something that is very dear to my heart" and she's in Washington to help save it.

She says many people have thanked her for standing up for traditional marriage.

Prejean was named the first runner-up to Miss North Carolina in the Miss USA pageant April 19. Her response to celebrity blogger Perez Hilton's question about legalizing same-sex marriage may have cost her the title.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What a bitch! She was entitled to her bigoted opinion and I still think it was a bit ridiculous the way people overboarded on her for simply anwering the question, but now she's demonstrating the hallmarks of a true bigot.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090430/ap_ ... california

NEW YORK – The reigning Miss California has gone to Washington to help launch a campaign opposing same-sex marriage.

Carrie Prejean told NBC's "Today" show Thursday that she'll be working with the National Organization for Marriage to "protect traditional marriages."

The 21-year-old says that marriage is "something that is very dear to my heart" and she's in Washington to help save it.

She says many people have thanked her for standing up for traditional marriage.

Prejean was named the first runner-up to Miss North Carolina in the Miss USA pageant April 19. Her response to celebrity blogger Perez Hilton's question about legalizing same-sex marriage may have cost her the title.

What a fucking cunt.

'Hey bitch, how is my getting married going to hurt marriage, and dont you think that if marriage is near and dear to your heart, it might be near and dear to ours?"

She is engaging in sour grapes.

[General Zod]

So. . .anyone want to argue that she's still not a homophobe?

[Crossroads Inc.]

So. . .anyone want to argue that she's still not a homophobe?

I will... And would you liek to know why? Its because I'm fairly certain she has no part in this.. More then likely some Right wing fundi group, incensed with how she had been 'persecuted' by the evil Liberal Media, calls her up with a "You poor thing! Join our organization and we'll see your wrongs are righted!" In truth, I simply don't think shes SMART enough to actually do this of her own accord...

[General Zod]

So. . .anyone want to argue that she's still not a homophobe?

I will... And would you liek to know why? Its because I'm fairly certain she has no part in this.. More then likely some Right wing fundi group, incensed with how she had been 'persecuted' by the evil Liberal Media, calls her up with a "You poor thing! Join our organization and we'll see your wrongs are righted!" In truth, I simply don't think shes SMART enough to actually do this of her own accord...

Since ignorance is largely responsible for bigotry like this, the idea that homophobes would have reasoned out their position beyond a few rationalizations is somewhat bizarre.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Whenever there's smoke, there's usually fire. Despite the charges of LGBT right groups overreacting, it seems the criticisms of Miss California were pretty much dead on and such reactions were justified... as usual. I don't even know why I continue to take claims of overreactions seriously anymore.

[Covenant]

Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California USA competition, responded with the following statement:
"Given the fact that Carrie Prejean's first act upon returning to California was to headline five services at a church that promotes homosexuality as both unnatural and abnormal, we stand by our concern for her individual image and look forward to a time in the near future when she can put down her personal agenda and assume the responsibilities associated with being Miss California USA."

“I would like to nominate Miss California as the new face of the marriage movement. Much better than mine!” National Organization for Marriage President Maggie Gallagher wrote on National Review’s The Corner.

NOM's new ad, take note of the "Gatherng Storm" reference in the back.
Miss Moron's interview at MSNBC about the new campaign. Feel free to skip ahead to around 2:30 or so.

I really find it hard to believe this isn't what she thinks, by now. She just seems to be equal parts cowardly and distasteful. It doesn't take bravery to admit you're a bigot, but it's still cowardly to hide behind claims that your sister is a "gay activist" and that you don't "mean any offense" while campaigning to keep people unlawfully denied their basic rights. It's the appeal to "my black friend." She's a terrible person.

[Havok]

Its because I'm fairly certain she has no part in this..

Bull fucking shit. It is her voice, her face, her title, her celebrity and as we already know, her OWN fucking opinion and thoughts. Because she is too fucking stupid to organize this, has no bearing on the fact that she clearly is afraid of gay people and their infringement on her wholesome way of life. Fuck this cunt.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ok, I am going to resend what I said earlier, she has EVERY part in this... I simply though she wasn't smart enough to actively start this on her own... That she is going along with all this BS is entire of her own choosing.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Its because I'm fairly certain she has no part in this..

Bull fucking shit. It is her voice, her face, her title, her celebrity and as we already know, her OWN fucking opinion and thoughts. Because she is too fucking stupid to organize this, has no bearing on the fact that she clearly is afraid of gay people and their infringement on her wholesome way of life. Fuck this cunt.

As long as there is evidence to the contrary, there's absolutely no reason to believe that she's being coerced by anyone to campaign against civil rights. Let's face it - she fucking fits her blonde stereotype.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

So we've got Anita Bryant Mk II now? Oi vey, not this shit again. So, shall we study this particular example of bigotry and intolerance till we find something interesting (well, beside the obvious one) to pwn her with? Also Crossroads, good try at the devil's advocate, but this particular one is as red-handed as they get. I think she and NOM met halfway, just like finding a common wavelength. It's also a possibility they've known each other for a while and planned a few things ahead of time, but that's pure speculation at this point pending any further evidence.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I really find it hard to believe this isn't what she thinks, by now. She just seems to be equal parts cowardly and distasteful. It doesn't take bravery to admit you're a bigot, but it's still cowardly to hide behind claims that your sister is a "gay activist" and that you don't "mean any offense" while campaigning to keep people unlawfully denied their basic rights. It's the appeal to "my black friend." She's a terrible person.

So she is spitting on her own sister?

Yeah, she is a bigot. If she cant even support her own sister, she is a bigot and her sister should not consider her a sibling worth mentioning.

[Covenant]

I really find it hard to believe this isn't what she thinks, by now. She just seems to be equal parts cowardly and distasteful. It doesn't take bravery to admit you're a bigot, but it's still cowardly to hide behind claims that your sister is a "gay activist" and that you don't "mean any offense" while campaigning to keep people unlawfully denied their basic rights. It's the appeal to "my black friend." She's a terrible person.

So she is spitting on her own sister?

Yeah, she is a bigot. If she cant even support her own sister, she is a bigot and her sister should not consider her a sibling worth mentioning.

Really, what she did was call her sister a "gay activist" as a way to say "I don't hate all gay people, my sister is tolerant!" as a shield from abuse, when in reality her sister had only attended a single tolerance/something event and was surprised to her herself mentioned as a gay right's activist. There's stories about it, it's not that she said "my sister sucks she's awful and she's a gay lover," it was the "Hey I'm not a racist I have a sister who is dating a black guy" sort of thing. As if she couldn't be less tolerant than her sister. Her workds are confusing and her position shifts a lot, so I call her cowardly for that. If she was actually brave enough to stand up and state her mind, she'd have a position with some granite in it.

For the record I think her sister is cuter than her.

All we can really judge her on are her actions, which have followed a trend that seems pretty to have gone from "I think Marriage should be between a Man and a Woman," to "I think your Marriage should be between a Man and a Woman." Hopefully this quells most of the lingering doubt about how carefully you can seperate a statement from intent, which I think is really a foolish and dangerous thing. There's no reason to not call her a homophobe. I think people have only defended her because they don't want to think of themselves as homophobic either--but I think it makes more sense for people in such a position to reconsider why they think what they think about gay marriage, not to try and redefine bigotry so they're not in it.

I hope being minorly squicked at the first half hour of Milk doesn't qualify me homophobic, but if it irrefutably did, then the fault is with me and not with the definition of what intolerance is. People will do almost anything to avoid having to feel guilty or in-the-wrong about things. Anything, that is, except change their perception.

[The Spartan]

So she is spitting on her own sister?

Yeah, she is a bigot. If she cant even support her own sister, she is a bigot and her sister should not consider her a sibling worth mentioning.

That's pathetic. For fuck's sake, it was realizing that one of my brothers was gay that turned me around.

I wonder if this her bigotry is an overreaction to her sister's beliefs? Perhaps a means of compensating for a perceived wrong?

[Covenant]

I... don't think so. Look at the article I linked to mid-text. I'll post the important part here, so people can make their own assumptions, but the way I took it she just latched onto it and mentioned the one thing her sister did as a smokescreen. Her sister is not gay, by any accounts. The link is reposted here in the quotebox header below.

"My sister is a second lieutenant in the Air Force and she is a gay rights activist," Prejean told "Access Hollywood" last week, adding that Christina is not gay. "She supports gay people, she supports gay marriage. My beliefs have nothing to do with my sister or my mom, or whatever."

Christina Prejean, 22, admitted she was surprised to hear the beauty queen, 21, call her a gay activist.

"I have never even given myself that title. I was kind of surprised that she mentioned it, but I think she wanted to get the point across that our family is tolerant," Christina Prejean said, adding that she only recently got involved in gay rights activism.

"A couple weeks back, I attended a public forum in Idaho about protecting the LGBT community against discrimination," she continued. "That was the very first thing I attended, and I told her about it on the night of the pageant, after she said she felt bad that people might be offended by her response. … But that's obviously such a hot topic that either way, someone was going to be offended."

So it's possible she didn't know her sister attended this ONE event until the night of the controversial statements. Though how related this is with religion, I have to assume that it's got some basis in the Church she attended, so I'd probably find it more likely that her sister is the outlier, and not Miss California. Given how much more literate and well-spoken her sister is, I wouldn't find it at all unlikely if this was the case.

[Darth Wong]

It amazes me how people will bend over backward to make excuses for people like this. I knew she was going to be like this the instant I saw her quote in the other thread, but people were falling over themselves to make excuses for her. How many times will it take for people to understand that fundies speak in code, which is meant for other fundies to hear but which is plainly obvious to anyone who cares to notice?

The same thing happened with Bush back in 2000: he was broadcasting fundie code everywhere at full volume, but because he didn't come right out and say "I'm a hatemongering fundie", people made excuses for him, said that atheists were jumping the gun, etc.

[Kanastrous]

I suspect that she's mostly an opportunist. Didn't win the beauty pageant title, gotta make hay out of whatever exposure or notoriety she did manage to gain during, and this is the ticket.

Sure, she's a bigot too. Maybe that makes her a worse kind of bigot - the opportunistic kind whose heart might not even particularly be in it.

[kinnison]

One the subject of gay marriage, there is a fundamental question that hasn't been asked here (although it has, extensively, elsewhere) and a serious and glaring anomaly.

The question is: What is marriage? And what is marriage for? The traditional answer is that the function of marriage is to bring up children in a stable environment. And in that function, it appears to work; there is a great deal of evidence that children of married parents (on average!) have much less likelihood of going off the rails in any number of ways. It may be that this difference is lessening over time - but is that because the institution of marriage is weakening? The divorce rrate in the UK is at an all time high IIRC. This may be due to the weakening influence of religion. In any case, it is obvious that this function is a non-starter for gay marriages.

Another function of marriage is for the people entering into it to publicly affirm their commitment to each other. Fair enough. Leading on from this are the various legal aspects of this commitment; not being forced to testify against one's spouse, inheritance tax law, that sort of thing.

The anomaly has been addressed in a number of places, not necessarily here. What about committed couples that couldn't possibly be called married? Examples include sisters who have been living together for years and cannot be called married by any definition currently in use. At the moment in Britain, such cohabiting couples are severely disadvantaged compared to unrelated gay couples. Is this fair?

[Zablorg]

One the subject of gay marriage, there is a fundamental question that hasn't been asked here (although it has, extensively, elsewhere) and a serious and glaring anomaly.

The question is: What is marriage? And what is marriage for? The traditional answer is that the function of marriage is to bring up children in a stable environment. And in that function, it appears to work; there is a great deal of evidence that children of married parents (on average!) have much less likelihood of going off the rails in any number of ways. It may be that this difference is lessening over time - but is that because the institution of marriage is weakening? The divorce rrate in the UK is at an all time high IIRC. This may be due to the weakening influence of religion. In any case, it is obvious that this function is a non-starter for gay marriages.

Another function of marriage is for the people entering into it to publicly affirm their commitment to each other. Fair enough. Leading on from this are the various legal aspects of this commitment; not being forced to testify against one's spouse, inheritance tax law, that sort of thing.

The anomaly has been addressed in a number of places, not necessarily here. What about committed couples that couldn't possibly be called married? Examples include sisters who have been living together for years and cannot be called married by any definition currently in use. At the moment in Britain, such cohabiting couples are severely disadvantaged compared to unrelated gay couples. Is this fair?

I'm not seeing this "anomaly" of yours. What's the point you're trying to make?

[rhoenix]

One the subject of gay marriage, there is a fundamental question that hasn't been asked here (although it has, extensively, elsewhere) and a serious and glaring anomaly. The question is: What is marriage? And what is marriage for? The traditional answer is that the function of marriage is to bring up children in a stable environment. And in that function, it appears to work; there is a great deal of evidence that children of married parents (on average!) have much less likelihood of going off the rails in any number of ways.

Ok, you're starting out making a great argument FOR keeping a couple together and happy, whether same-sex or no.

It may be that this difference is lessening over time - but is that because the institution of marriage is weakening?

Giant stinking red herring, and unsupported by facts.

I know, those damn liberal "facts" keep ruining a rant that sounds good to your friends, huh?

The divorce rrate in the UK is at an all time high IIRC.

...Wait for it...

This may be due to the weakening influence of religion.

You're seriously stating this baldly, and with no evidence whatsoever? Really? Given all the scientific studies proving an INVERSE correlation between religious fundamentalism and divorce?

In any case, it is obvious that this function is a non-starter for gay marriages.

How?

Another function of marriage is for the people entering into it to publicly affirm their commitment to each other. Fair enough. Leading on from this are the various legal aspects of this commitment; not being forced to testify against one's spouse, inheritance tax law, that sort of thing.

The anomaly has been addressed in a number of places, not necessarily here. What about committed couples that couldn't possibly be called married? Examples include sisters who have been living together for years and cannot be called married by any definition currently in use. At the moment in Britain, such cohabiting couples are severely disadvantaged compared to unrelated gay couples. Is this fair?

How is this even an issue at all, apart from you taking an unsupported left turn in your own argument? I don't recall seeing or hearing about any sort of virulent ad campaigns directed against those damn liberal activist spinster sisters living together who adopt innocent children so that they can spread their insidious love of cats.

[Samuel]

The traditional answer is that the function of marriage is to bring up children in a stable environment.

Traditional for whom? You've had women marriage in certain spots of Africa, gay marriage in Rome, polyandry in Nepal and more, none of which is designed for bringing up children in a stable environment.

This may be due to the weakening influence of religion.

More likely a growing independence on the part of women due to an increase in income and opportunities.

At the moment in Britain, such cohabiting couples are severely disadvantaged compared to unrelated gay couples. Is this fair?

The difference is that married people are unrelated and that there are priviledges individuals get for being related similar to those being married when it comes to decision making.

[Duckie]

This may be due to the weakening influence of religion.

More likely a growing independence on the part of women due to an increase in income and opportunities.

Actually, you're probably both right, considering the lessening influence of patriarchal, immoral religions holding down women unjustly is a major factor towards womens liberation.

[Samuel]

I'm not so sure- in Japan they are pretty misgonistic, but the marriage and birth rates are low. I think the Catholic Church is right about the fact that not having to spend hours in housework is a major contributor to womens liberation. Also, remember that although divorce is higher for the religious, it is still high for all couples, especially compared to the past.

[Lusankya]

The question is: What is marriage? And what is marriage for? The traditional answer is that the function of marriage is to bring up children in a stable environment.

Actually, the traditional answer is that it's a property rights transaction, with children as a secondary afterthought. That's why men would marry women with great tracts of land and stuff like that. It's why old people and infertile people and people who have no intention of ever having children can still get married. It's also what makes marriage to an impotent 80-year-old-guy attractive.

I'm not so sure- in Japan they are pretty misgonistic, but the marriage and birth rates are low.

I think Japan has an unusual mix of social misogyny but economic freedom for women, which is what creates the weirdness. The economic freedom is the biggest factor in divorce rates, I would think.

[Sriad]

I believe it isn't much more than a good career move (which happens to be in accord with her despicable politics). What is being Miss California going to do for her in a couple years? Rhymes with "Jack fit".

What is being the beautiful face-plate on front of a bunch of Republican issues going to do for her? Rhymes with "buckets of noney".