NBC/MSNBC Promotes Gay Marriage Foe
And here I had thought the MSM was eager to discredit those making the case for traditional marriage.
I’d bet that if they polled 1,000 randomly selected Americans who had watched Miss California, Carrie Prejean, answer Perez Hilton’s question on gay marriage in last week’s Miss USA pageant, an overwhelming majority would say she handled the question with grace. When she goes on TV to discuss the controversy generated by that response, she comes across as poised, self-confident and definitely not bitter.
Not the kind of a woman you’d want to be speaking out in favor of a cause you opposed.
But, MSNBC’s David Shuster has gone on the warpath against the beauty queen, launcing an attack campaign against Miss California for her stance on gay marriage. Don’t think his angry rants will serve to discredit her with anyone save those who already abhor her for that stance. Matt Lauer interviewed her on the Today show.
Has the MSM ever given so much air time to a contestant who lost the Miss USA or Miss America pageant? All they’re doing is giving her a larger platform from which to make the case against gay marriage. When last I checked, she attracted nearly twice as many google hits as did Kristen Dalton, the woman who won the pageant.
My advise to the MSM: ignore Carrie Prejean. Don’t make it easier for her to speak out for maintaining the social status quo on marriage. Given how well she comes across on TV, you only increase her stature by featuring her on your programs.
FROM THE COMMENTS: Leah offers:
If she is successful, you can thank Perez Hilton and all the others in the media who are giving her air time thinking that by doing so they are discrediting her.
The opposite is happening, she is becoming a very attractive young spokesperson for the anti gay marriage crowd.Had Hilton not injected politics into the pageant, none of us would know her feelings about the issue. Had she then won, she never would have broadcast them but kept them to herself.
Well said. I agree. Perez Hilton helped give her a platform. Let her take the job with the anti-gay marriage group, but ignore her.
46 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Traditional marriage? You mean the traditional one that involves the decision of the father, a dowry, children seen as free labour, and love being optional? Why exactly are you using our opponent’s terminology when you should know the power words have over people?
I’d bet that if they polled 1,000 randomly selected Americans who had watched Miss California, Carrie Prejean, answer Perez Hilton’s question on gay marriage in last week’s Miss USA pageant, an overwhelming majority would say she handled the question with grace.
How much are you willing to bet considering the demographics of the audience? I’m willing to match your bet, provided the poll gets done of course.
When she goes on TV to discuss the controversy generated by that response, she comes across as poised, self-confident and definitely not bitter.
That’s a matter of personal perspective. She also came off spouting a type of religion that the large majority of young americans don’t care for, and rightfully so.
I agree that Carrie Prejean should be ignored. Her opinion is simply not representative of her generation.
Comment by Rob — May 1, 2009 @ 6:12 am - May 1, 2009
Good rebuttal Rob. I would also add that her original answer was incoherent. She asserts that in this country we all have the right to choose same-sex marriage or “opposite marriage”. But we don’t have the right to choose. That is the entire point of the marriage equality movement. So other than completely misunderstanding the entire issue, she did a great job.
GPW, how about one syllable noting that this woman has hooked up with NOM and has now decided to turn a 15-second answer into the basis for a new career as Anita Bryant II?
Comment by Bill — May 1, 2009 @ 6:49 am - May 1, 2009
No, traditional marriage — where the state encourages men and women to join together in a legally binding relationship so that as many children as possible are born INTO those ideal circumstances instead of outside of them. The definition decided by the people’s duly elected representatives and recognized by the vast majority of courts.
The definition that recognizes the institution serves a purpose to society and not the new definition that erases the entire function of the institution in favor of making it simply another big government entitlement.
Comment by American Elephant — May 1, 2009 @ 7:34 am - May 1, 2009
Pfffft! Wrong answer! Jonny, tell him about our lovely consolation prizes!
Comment by American Elephant — May 1, 2009 @ 7:47 am - May 1, 2009
filtered
Comment by American Elephant — May 1, 2009 @ 7:48 am - May 1, 2009
BZZZT! wrong again!
According to Pew:
So I guess since YOUR opinion is not representative of ANY generation, you would agree that we should ignore YOU?
But thank you for illustrating so clearly how gay liberals regularly want to silence everyone who opposes them.
Comment by American Elephant — May 1, 2009 @ 8:06 am - May 1, 2009
twice
Comment by American Elephant — May 1, 2009 @ 8:06 am - May 1, 2009
Especially on the marriage issue, the gay left can’t see the snot dripping off the tips of their noses as they look down it toward the spotlight on Miss Prejean.
In the heat of battle to win the pageant, yes Miss Prejean stumbled a bit in her response, but since, she has been right on and the snobs know it. Her popularity soars and her message is clear.
Comment by EDinTampa — May 1, 2009 @ 8:32 am - May 1, 2009
Hmmm. So ask a baited question, get an honest answer and then ignore it? WTF?
You agree with whom that she should be ignored? Perez Hilton? She’s still going apeshitspiceygonzo about it, last I saw.
I agree. Rob’s ignorant bigotry should be ignored, if not publicly mocked.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 1, 2009 @ 8:58 am - May 1, 2009
She is good looking and comes across great on camera. Of COURSE the TV shows are going to go nuts. After the morning show circuit I expect her to be a regular on cable shows until she becomes “TV ugly.” Ann C. watch out!
Comment by gillie — May 1, 2009 @ 9:55 am - May 1, 2009
Well welcome back Anita Bryant, you are looking well these days…
Hopefully she won’t be as successful as the former beauty queen.
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — May 1, 2009 @ 10:14 am - May 1, 2009
And of course Miss Priss Hilton’s jealous as all hell.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 1, 2009 @ 10:33 am - May 1, 2009
A link to an Amazon ad is … just so persuasive.
Comment by V the K — May 1, 2009 @ 10:33 am - May 1, 2009
It may not have occurred to the left, but issues of fundamental morality, and right or wrong, are not determined by a majority vote. There simply is truth, and there is what isn’t truth.
Two men or two women can not make babies without artificial intervention. The left tries to create a fiction… even making up birth certificates with two mommies or two daddies… and then they say, “See… that baby really *is* the product of a same-sex union.”
But at the end of the day… it’s a fiction.
I don’t believe Nature long tolerates foolishness. The more people believe in the fictions they create, and the more they reject truth and wisdom…. the more they are driven away from reason. It may take a while, but the end-result has always been the same.
It would be ironic if the gay left won their gay marriage “in yer face” against the religious right, only to lose it … and more… a generation later when sharia law is imposed.
Comment by V the K — May 1, 2009 @ 10:39 am - May 1, 2009
If she is successful, you can thank Perez Hilton and all the others in the media who are giving her air time thinking that by doing so they are discrediting her.
The opposite is happening, she is becoming a very attractive young spokesperson for the anti gay marriage crowd.
Had Hilton not injected politics into the pageant, none of us would know her feelings about the issue. Had she then won, she never would have broadcast them but kept them to herself.
Once having opened that can of worms and then attacking her for her honest opinion, you better believe that this issue is now on the forefront of her mind. Of course the anti gay marriage crowd have pounced on her as the perfect spokesperson.
And once again, the substance, the discussion, the slow job of convincing people why gay marriage is good – all that falls by the wayside. One thing her side will do voraciously is trumpet how free thought and speech are dead in America. You know what, they have a point there.
Just like I can see CA supreme court upholding 8, because it now is about voters rights, not marriage. This crowd will use Prejean as an example of how the thought police is the supreme judge. That will sway many more people who were on the fence to there side.
Thanks Perez – your bitchy queeny behavior has wrought it’s havoc again.
Comment by Leah — May 1, 2009 @ 10:47 am - May 1, 2009
Carrie Prejean, due to Hilton’s idiocy if bringing politics in, stole the show. Anyone who reads NRO knows that many of its writers and readers love politics, but hate it when politics is brought into areas that don’t need it: operas, religious ceremonies, funerals and beauty pageants.
Also, no offense to Prejean, Kristen Dalton deserved to win. She’s smoking hot. She needs some air time.
Comment by Jordan — May 1, 2009 @ 10:48 am - May 1, 2009
#12 – Good points, V. I would also add to our TITs on this board – if shari’a law did take effect within your lifetime, do you think the Islamofascists would spare you because of your political persuasion? After all, note what they do to gays in Iran and Saudi Arabia…
As far as comparing Carrie Prejean to Ann Coulter, Carrie should be flattered. Both have beauty and brains, with eloquent conversation skills.
What is it about prissy queens being so afraid of beautiful heterosexual women with strong convictions?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 1, 2009 @ 10:50 am - May 1, 2009
#14 – Jordan, another good point. Everyone on the left is raising holy hell about Prejean’s answer, but it was Miss Perez Hilton who asked the stupid question in the first place!
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 1, 2009 @ 10:51 am - May 1, 2009
Support for Gay Marriage = Support for Islamofascism?
I didn’t get that memo, could someone forward it to me please?
Comment by tim maguire — May 1, 2009 @ 11:47 am - May 1, 2009
What is it about prissy queens being so afraid of beautiful heterosexual women with strong convictions?
You can add Sarah Palin to that list and turn the entire left-wing into hysterical prissy queens… which is a pretty fair description.
Comment by V the K — May 1, 2009 @ 11:55 am - May 1, 2009
Support for Gay Marriage = Support for Islamofascism?
It goes like this, dude. The same leftists who favor gay marriage are also too “Non-judgmental” to acknowledge Islamic Fascism as a threat. They also favor economic policies like the Obamacrats’ trillion dollar deficits and hostility to free markets that, left unchecked, lead invariably to economic decline and national weakness. They also believe that “traditional values” mean nothing, and substitute them with “anything goes” San Francisco values, that lead to the spread of diseases both pathological and psychological, the disintegration of families, and the smug self-centered narcissism that defines the left. This weakens the national character further. Meanwhile, our military is weakened, and our willingness to defend our culture evaporates.
In short, we become Europe… which is one or two generations at most away from shariah.
Comment by V the K — May 1, 2009 @ 12:01 pm - May 1, 2009
#19 – Thanks, V – I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 1, 2009 @ 12:05 pm - May 1, 2009
As an aside to Dan’s comments regarding Carrie Prejean on PMSNBC, it may be a blessing in disguise. PMSNBC’s ratings are so far down the toilet that an appearance by Prejean may actually get them above 500,000 viewers for once.
Funny how PMSNBC and CNN are supposed to be the be-all and end-all of news programming, but Fox News beats both their total ratings COMBINED, week after week.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 1, 2009 @ 12:07 pm - May 1, 2009
Thank you, Ph. But it’s easier for my side. I just tell the truth. It’s the left the hard job. They have to make the case that even though progressive command economies have always failed before… this time it will work. Even though military weakness has always invited aggression throughout history… this time, it won’t. Even though throughout human experience, self-absorbed narcissism has always been disastrous for both individuals and societies… this time, it’s a good thing.
It’s always much harder to make a case for that which has always failed than that which has always worked.
Comment by V the K — May 1, 2009 @ 12:19 pm - May 1, 2009
I think it’s hilarious that the MSM spends so much time attacking a woman who shares the same view on gay marriage as Obama.
Comment by OutliciousTV — May 1, 2009 @ 1:34 pm - May 1, 2009
[...] NBC/MSNBC Promotes Gay Marriage Foe [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » MSNBC Gives Platform to Anti-Semite — May 1, 2009 @ 2:18 pm - May 1, 2009
I attended the NOM press conference yesterday and sat just a few feet away from the podium when Ms. Prejean spoke from prepared remarks. She is not in a class with Ann Coulter either for brains or beauty. My impression of her personality is that the more people get to know her, the harder it’s going to be for her to get a date or find employment.
I think it is vital to keep reminding people that Ms. Prejean’s original answer at the pageant stated gays have the choice to marry. We do not. It is important that we emphasize Prejean had her facts wrong.
My impression of the leaders of NOM is that they have worked out that we are reaching people’s hearts and sense of fairness because it is noble and good to want to be married and devote yourself to building a life with your spouse. So they are losing on those grounds. Thus they have latched onto Ms. Prejean as flame bait. They will have her do enraging things, then denounce anyone who responds to her angrily. It’s a perfect set-up.
How should we respond? What I see changing people to favor marriage equality are two things: (1) knowing someone who is gay or lesbian; and (2), loving that person enough to want them to have equal rights.
So I hope our gay and lesbian rights organizations — and bloggers — work to get as many of us as possible to come out, and to stay on the message that we have to be loving because that is that transformative power for achieving equality.
Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian
Comment by Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian — May 1, 2009 @ 2:55 pm - May 1, 2009
Ignoring Carrie doesn´t mean she will fade away. Day by day she is not only defending her answer but becoming a spkesperson for the anti-gay marriage group. I am wondering if she will join Gov. Sarah Palin´s campaign in 2012. She could either be a help or a hindrince to Gov. Palin winning the Republican nomination.
Comment by Roberto — May 1, 2009 @ 4:40 pm - May 1, 2009
#3:
What you’re stating doesn’t negate my statement on ‘traditional’ marriage. The states really got involved in the marriage business in the 17th century. Even the church didn’t get involved in it since the 15th century. Sure it was an arrangement for children to be produced: for plowing fields and filling workshops. It was an arrangment for survival and commerce rather than love. Oh, and the man was the head of the family and had the final say of course. That was the old definition of marriage, and it still continues in conservative third world countries. Western heterosexuals during the 20th century have radically changed its meaning when love became an important factor. You mention that the new definition erases the entire function of the institution, something we hear primarily from the antigay croud, yet you do not explain how that occurs.
Comment by Rob — May 1, 2009 @ 10:35 pm - May 1, 2009
Sorry Rob,
You are wrong on all counts. You are pulling definitions of marriage out of your ass. Furthermore you are confusing the reasons individuals decide to get married and the state interest in marriage. They are not the same.
The people have decided, through their elected representatives that the purpose of marriage is what I stated above. The courts have upheld it. It also happens to be the function marriage performs to society.
You have stated some of the reasons some people have gotten married and decreed that they are the definition of marriage.
Some women get married because all their friends are married. That doesnt make it the definition of marriage.
My definition is supported by statute, yours have NEVER been adopted or supported by anyone anywhere.
zzzzzzz @ your consistent “anti-gay” branding. Supporting traditional marriage is not anti-gay. Give it up. Its tired, childish and asinine.
The states have said that marriage exists to encourage men and women to unite in legally binding relationships so that children will be born into the security of these relationships and raised by their natural parents.
CA and MA courts have said this CANNOT be the definition of marriage because it excludes gay couples — which is true — it does. Marriage where gay marriage has become reality have turned an institution that served a fundamental, crucial purpose to society — that encouraged an ideal, into an institution that has NO meaning and is nothing more than another entitlement program.
Comment by American Elephant — May 2, 2009 @ 12:01 am - May 2, 2009
Sorry dumbass but according to the new ABC/Washington Post poll 49% of people support gay marriage: http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Obama100days/story?id=7459488&page=1
Must be bad to be a self-loathing homosexual like you are
Comment by Michael — May 2, 2009 @ 4:45 am - May 2, 2009
Michael–guess the people in California, a state far more liberal than the rest of the nation, forgot to look at that poll before 52% of them voted in favor of Prop 8.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 2, 2009 @ 5:00 am - May 2, 2009
Michael,
The only homosexuals who are self-loathing are those such as you who consider themselves victims who need government to protect and validate them. Pathetic.
Love how ABC doesn’t allow anyone to look at their methodology.
Newsflash: Poll of liberals finds majority lurch towards liberalism!!!!
But as Dan just reminded you, we just had a REAL poll in California just a few months ago and a large majority amended that state’s constitution, effectively prohibiting gay marriage.
I imagine that sucks pretty bad for pathetic losers who have no self-worth and need government to validate their very existence. But since I’m not one of said pathetic losers, I can only imagine. So, why don’t you tell us? Does it make you cry?
Comment by American Elephant — May 2, 2009 @ 7:14 am - May 2, 2009
carrie prejean is an ugly bigot who will forever be remembered along the likes of Strom Thurmond, Jess Helms, Phyllis Schlafly and Anita Bryant. She should be ashamed of herself and her parents should be ashamed for rearing such an ugly woman.
Comment by buckeyenutlover — May 2, 2009 @ 10:06 am - May 2, 2009
So, little letter person buckeyenutlicker thinks Carrie Prejean is ugly and Perez Hilton is Teh Hawt.
I guess being on the left requires a distortion of reality that would make a supermassive black hole all humble and stuff.
Comment by V the K — May 2, 2009 @ 10:38 am - May 2, 2009
you make a lot of good points in this post. you made a similar post back during the general election when you noted how FOX news and kept promoting domestic terrorists by continuously mentioning bill ayers’s name. right? wait…
hmm…i hasten to add that by your logic, you are also promoting a gay marriage foe by virtue of this post.
Comment by chad — May 2, 2009 @ 1:58 pm - May 2, 2009
[...] NBC/MSNBC Promotes Gay Marriage Foe [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Do Feminists Think Obama Needs a “Heart Transplant”? — May 2, 2009 @ 2:34 pm - May 2, 2009
Bloody hell, I was hoping that the moderator was going to override the filter. Guess this site hasn’t thught about using a catchpa instead?
#6
LOL According to Pew? Where did you get this poll? Let’s see what the most recent Pew Fourm really says:
N.B AE, it asked about marriage not civil unions, and if you remove the 25 to 30 year olds, you’re most likely to see the majority of them support same-sex marriage.
Well I just showed that your poll was either outdated or bunk and that taken the margin of error into consideration, the majority of youth so support by YOUR claimed source. Perhaps we should ignore YOU instead since you don’t bother to check your sources?
Throwing in a false claim and a non-sequitur. Typical of the sycophants of the blog.
Americain Elephant = FAIL
Comment by Rob — May 2, 2009 @ 3:13 pm - May 2, 2009
I was hoping that the moderator was going to override the filter. Guess this site hasn’t thught about using a catchpa instead?
#6
LOL According to Pew? Where did you get this poll? Let’s see what the most recent Pew Fourm really says:
N.B AE, it asked about marriage not civil unions, and if you remove the 25 to 30 year olds, you’re most likely to see the majority of them support same-sex marriage.
Comment by Rob — May 2, 2009 @ 3:17 pm - May 2, 2009
I was hoping that the moderator was going to override the filter. Guess this site hasn’t thught about using a catchpa instead?
Comment by Rob — May 2, 2009 @ 3:18 pm - May 2, 2009
#6
LOL According to Pew? Where did you get that poll? Let’s see what the most recent Pew Fourm really says:
N.B AE, it asked about marriage not civil unions, and if you remove the 25 to 30 year olds, you’re most likely to see the majority of them support same-sex marriage.
Comment by Rob — May 2, 2009 @ 3:20 pm - May 2, 2009
Well I just showed that your poll was either outdated or bunk and that taken the margin of error into consideration, the majority of youth so support by YOUR claimed source. Perhaps we should ignore YOU instead since you don’t bother to check your sources?
Throwing in a false claim and a non-sequitur. To be expected from someone of your caliber. I’ll tell you this though, there’s more evidence that this blog is trying to silence commentators with its filter system than most gay blogs.
Americain Elephant = FAIL
Comment by Rob — May 2, 2009 @ 3:25 pm - May 2, 2009
#29
I never claimed they were the same, but what I’ve stated is based on historical facts. The state did get involved in marriage in the 17th century. Yes it did for ‘legitimate’ population growth, also to add another source of revenue, and to have more control over regional arbitation. Yet the argument is that it’s not a real tradition, just 400 year state policy to intrude into the affairs of its citizens.
They sure did in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa, Norway, Sweden; in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont.
Semantics again. I’m talking about tradition and reasons of marriage, not what people or states define marriage to be.
YOUR definition? So it’s safe to assume that you oppose same-sex marriage?
Comment by Rob — May 2, 2009 @ 3:49 pm - May 2, 2009
Rob, did you forget to take your meds again? Just wondering.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 4, 2009 @ 12:29 pm - May 4, 2009
[...] let me repeat my advice to those on the left eager to insult Carrie Prejean: ignore her.  And then, take the [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » On the “Need” of All Too Many on the Left to Hate — May 4, 2009 @ 4:25 pm - May 4, 2009
[...] let me repeat my advice to those on the left eager to insult Carrie Prejean: ignore her.  And then, take the [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » On the “Need” of All Too Many on the Left to Hate — May 4, 2009 @ 4:26 pm - May 4, 2009