Gay Patriot Header Image

As Leftists Mock and Belittle Carrie Prejean
She Becomes More Popular Than They Can Possibly Imagine

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

To see just how far discourse on controversial social issues has declined in our culture, all you need do is watch a few liberals take on Carrie Prejean, the Miss California who likely loss the Miss USA pageant last month because she said she believed “marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

She did not attack those who believe otherwise.  She did not insult them.  She did not call them names.  She merely offered her opinion.

Yet, for offering a view of marriage nearly identical to that of the Democratic President of the United States, she has been repeatedly ridiculed on the left.  Do those who mocked her know how nasty they sound?  Do they have any sense how people outside the liberal enclaves where they reside will react to such bile?

Do they realize that most people who heard Miss Prejean speak, even the great majority of those who disagree with her, would appreciate the civility with which she expressed her opinion?

Here, we have feminist Gloria Feldt engaging in the most juvenile of insults to mock and belittle this politically incorrect beauty queen.  Just imagine how the media would react if a social conservative had said an advocate of abortion rights needed a “heart transplant:”

(Thanks to Gateway Pundit for providing the video.)

In the clip above, Laura Ingraham referenced the mean-spirited Michael Musto who, in the clip below, acts as if his television audience was identical to the readership of his Village Voice column (which maybe it was since he appeared on MSNBC):

Yes, I know he’s trying to be funny, but it’s just not working.

Musto calls Miss Prejean “dumb and twisted.”  At the same time, we have Keith Olbermann calling Perez Hilton an “intellectual titan.”  Well, in Olbermann’s universe he is.  To achieve such heights, you just need rant in a very loud voice at those holding politically incorrect views.  That’s intellectual discourse to them.

While Musto may think she’s “racking up sympathy for gay movement,” it’s actually Hilton’s mean-spirited remarks echoed by people like Olbermann and himself which is racking up sympathy for Miss Prejean.  And making gay marriage advocates look increasingly juvenile (save those who have the good sense to denounce this childish claptrap).

As Glenn, who alerted me to the second video, put it:

It’s stuff like this that makes all the ‘have you no decency, sir?” stuff from the left hard to swallow. Plus, “œgay gynephobia?” There does seem to be a lot of misogyny coming out of the gay-marriage crowd lately. I don’t think it does them any credit, and if it were coming out of people who didn’t possess the Official Victim Sanction it would be denounced mercilessly by the usual chin-tuggers. Instead, as Gloria Feldt demonstrates, they’re joining right in.

As I said before, all these leftists are doing is giving Miss Prejean a larger platform from which to offer her views.  The more they slur her, the more sympathetic they make her.

Learn something from her.  Don’t slur those who hold a different viewpoint from your own.  State your viewpoint as simply, clearly and civilly as she has done.

Watching left-wing commentators and essayists take to a public stage to mock and belittle someone harboring politically correct points of view is nothing new.  We conservatives have seen all of this before.  Indeed, we have often been on the receiving end of such barbs and crude remarks, just because we don’t toe the left line.  It is simply the way of all too many on the left.  They don’t engage their ideological adversaries.  They insult them.

But, I’ve said this before.  At least now Keith Olbermann has laid his cards on the table.  We know whom he regards as an intellectual titan.

Instead of mocking Miss Prejean, they would do well to consider the wisdom of a titan of another sort:  “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.”  The more they attempt to strike her down, the stronger she becomes.  And the more popular she becomes among her suporters and Americans increasingly irritated by the crowd continually eager to find someone to belittle and to blame.

RELATED:  How We Lose, and How We Lose Again.

Share

143 Comments

  1. More popular than we could possibly imagine? That’s a bit much, don’t ya think?

    Comment by Levi — May 2, 2009 @ 6:03 am - May 2, 2009

  2. I dunno — I can *imagine* an awful lot.

    Comment by Han Solo — May 2, 2009 @ 7:40 am - May 2, 2009

  3. Most of these so-called “news” programs are simply a vehicle for the loonies on the left and the right to feed off each other. One sees the same people every week. (I, for one, am tired of it.) They say the same things every week. They get indignant every week.

    Carrie Prejean changes all that. They can’t ignore her, so they actually have to deal with someone who is spontaneous and unrehearsed.

    We need less pundits and more Carries.

    Comment by Julie the Jarhead — May 2, 2009 @ 8:11 am - May 2, 2009

  4. carrie prejean is a bigot, plain and simple, and she will be called as such. Much like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the like, she will be forever known as a filthy bigot. She should be ashamed of herself, and her parents should be ashamed for rearing such ugly vile.

    Comment by buckeyenutlover — May 2, 2009 @ 9:59 am - May 2, 2009

  5. Keith Olberwoman & the androgynous commenter are having a field day. They look like they are really having fun with their comments.

    Interesting how they are not called bigots or vile or hateful by those who agree with them but Miss Prejean is all of the above by simply believing a fact of life.

    And what must Olberthing and the other thing think about the trans-gender community that carves up their bodies to give the appearance of the opposite gender they are, to include “the pregnant man”.

    Poor confused creatures, all, esp. those in the clips.

    Comment by EDinTampa — May 2, 2009 @ 10:26 am - May 2, 2009

  6. And again, bnl engages in the very vitrol that proves the point.

    Nice StarWars reference, Bruce.

    What I found interesting as a straight white conservative is Pat, er Michael Musto lauches an attack on her as being transgendered. Nice to see the tolerance for the left for the GLBT.

    Just shows they tolerate you, until you cross the line.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 2, 2009 @ 10:28 am - May 2, 2009

  7. I saw that last night and was dying for Laura to rip on Gloria Feldt’s awful face lift- since it’s clearly ok in Gloria’s eyes for ‘feminists’ to belittle other women’s ‘enhancements’. Speaking of eyes, can she even close hers? That’s one severe brow lift, along with a terrible facelift.

    All snarkiness aside, I am proud of Miss Prejean for having the courage to honestly share her view and how she’s comported herself since while facing such nastiness. However, I’m becoming a little uncomfortable with the crusading angle she’s taking up- it just doesn’t seem productive. I wish she’d just graciously bow out of the controversy- she makes it far too easy for the left to point fingers and restate the fallacy that all conservatives think that way. Besides, she’s way too easy a distraction from the trainwreck that this administration is- she’s like Meghan McCain in that they both are being used by the media as diversions from the Obama coup.

    Comment by Patriot Goddess — May 2, 2009 @ 10:30 am - May 2, 2009

  8. When the feminist made her snarky, “she should have gotten a heart transplant instead of breast implants” comment, she once again validated Rush Limbaugh’s Undeniable Truth of Life #24: “Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.”

    The feminist and the gay twerp in the second video have nothing but ugliness in their souls.

    Comment by V the K — May 2, 2009 @ 10:34 am - May 2, 2009

  9. You think maybe the gay twerp is jealous because Carrie Prejean is dating Michael Phelps? Phelps is a way better catch than any guy the gay twerp or Perez Hilton could get any day.

    Comment by V the K — May 2, 2009 @ 10:36 am - May 2, 2009

  10. GPW, I agree that the reaction from many on the the left towards Prejean is unacceptable and ignorant. BUT for those who accept the bile of Coulter, Malkin, Savage, Limbaugh and the countless bloggers who are even more vile, to say on TINY word of criticism of this display of hate is outrageous and hypocritical (yet again).

    “Just imagine how the media would react if a social conservative had said an advocate of abortion rights needed a “heart transplant:””

    They would ignore it, just like they ignore those who call pro-choice advocates mass-murderers, just like they ignore those who call homosexuals pedophiles, abomination, a threat to civilization. Just like they ignore almost every mindless, vicious and false attack by the right towards liberals.

    You want a change in the “discourse on controversial social issues”, then clean your own house first.

    Comment by a different Dave — May 2, 2009 @ 10:43 am - May 2, 2009

  11. After watching the Keith Olbermann video, I am shocked — shocked! — to find breast enhancement and cosmetic surgery taking place in the modeling and entertainment industry. I look forward to future bombshell exposes as Mr. Olbermann continues telling truth to power. Maybe he can also uncover the hypocrisy of Christians who donate money to fund pediatric surgeries that repair cleft palates and congenital heart defects, because, as Perez Hilton would say, they “don’t love the way Jesus made” those children, either.

    The only thing dumber than MSNBC allowing a segment like this to even air on a news network is the idea that these two guys actually believe Perez Hilton’s tirades — and segments like this — are “a real win for this cause.” I wish more of my fellow supporters of gay marriage would realize that.

    Comment by Wesley M. — May 2, 2009 @ 10:50 am - May 2, 2009

  12. DifDave, you clearly have never actually listened to those commentators. There is nothing in common between Limbaugh and Savage.
    Not to mention that just once it would be nice if your side acknowledged a wrong doing without attacking us. You are not pure as the driven snow and your attacks are more about covering up for your own inadequecies than anything else.

    Comment by Leah — May 2, 2009 @ 11:12 am - May 2, 2009

  13. This is the perfect example why I’ve never been a feminist.

    Comment by Leah — May 2, 2009 @ 11:14 am - May 2, 2009

  14. I don’t get her appeal, she didn’t say anything paticularly ground breaking or important. I don’t get whats courageous about what she said, most people share her view…especially those people in power. I suppose because it was Perez Hilton and because its no the political correct answer anymore, that makes it brave. I still find it hard to believe its brave when you have at least 50% of the nation behind you.

    I hope this passes soon, I do want to refight the battles of the 70’s with a new and improved Anita Bryant. I am also somewhat disappointed by her being embraced by people here considering the damage she might be able to do. This is clearly not an enemy of my enemy is my friend type of deal.

    Comment by Darkeyedresolve — May 2, 2009 @ 11:19 am - May 2, 2009

  15. Love this site. Although being a straight WM, I ofter read here for other points of view.

    I don’t get the hate for carrie prejean. She offered her opinion. And whats up with a gay guy judging Miss America anyway? As stated before..she mirrors President Obama’s opinion of the matter. Where all the media hate for him on the subject?

    I voted for Obama..but I have to admit common sense seems to have left the building.

    Comment by jack l. — May 2, 2009 @ 11:34 am - May 2, 2009

  16. This is the point where ADD is challenged to provide an example of Coulter, Limbaugh, or Malkin ever calling anyone a “dumb b-tch” or a “stupid c-nt” oe some similar level of bile. He fails to do so.

    Why is the left incapable of engaging in even mild criticism of their own side unless they can (falsely) claim the other side is much worse. Why can’t they just say wrong is wrong and leave it at that?

    Comment by V the K — May 2, 2009 @ 11:56 am - May 2, 2009

  17. First of all, did you note that FOX NEWS in the video you posted told a VERY QUESTIONABLE assertion that Ms. Prejean had her crown taken away (she never won, and there’s no evidence that she was going to win). The FOX announcer, was, in my opinion, LYING in the setup. And the FOX announcer did not mention the abusive behavior of Billo and Glenn Beck while attacking the same behavior of Musto on MSNBC. She put words into the other persons’ mouth constantly. There was no other side presented. It was just the FOX News announcer bringing someone on to berate with opinions and not letting the other side be presented.

    Before you cheerlead this one, how about relooking at the bold face LIE told in the setup.

    Which is. A 20 year old woman with a fake body in a beauty contest is open for ridicule if they work with a paid political hack (Maggie Gallagher) and an adovcate of thowing all Gays in prison (yes that includes YOU), Orson Card. If you attack peoples equal rights and further the cause of some VERY disturbing people at NOM, then yes, its fair game.

    And you know what, it doesn’t matter what happens on the left, Billo and Savage and Hannity will do the same thing. Attack Gay people and Gay marriage. (Rhetorical Question – I’m wondering when they’ll be doing a piece on Virginia Foxx where it notes that Ms. Foxx never retracted her assertion that Matt Shepard’s sexual orientation was a motive for his death. – but I digress) And yes, Carrie doesn’t come off very well. If she is so eloquent, the WHY ISN”T SHE SPEAKING IN THE FOX NEWS PIECE?

    Sure, Musto is doing the same thing that Carl Cameron, Hannity and Billo do on their shows. Pander to their audience. And yes, it was ridicule. Thats what liberals do. Anger, that’s more of an AM radio thing.

    But if the anti-Gay movement wants to make Carrie Prejean the spokesperson against Gay marriage, I say its a good thing and lets keep her in the news as long as possible. You really think Billo and FOX News are not going to take Maggie Gallagher’s talking points and run with them no matter what?

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — May 2, 2009 @ 12:04 pm - May 2, 2009

  18. Carrie is being presented as a beauty queen. I think that assessments as to her credentials as a “beauty” queen are fair game. There was actually a good point made in the Olberman piece (not the idiotic call for a Congressional investigation) about what constitutes real beauty in these contests.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — May 2, 2009 @ 12:13 pm - May 2, 2009

  19. What Carrie Prejean said: This is America. Everyone has a right to form their own opinion.

    What the progressive left says: Everyone has the right to echo our opinions.

    The lefties who have commented so far just seem to reinforce that view.

    Comment by V the K — May 2, 2009 @ 12:48 pm - May 2, 2009

  20. Saturday Afternoon Reflections The Last Time Sean Penn Said something that made any damn sense and is actually pertinent to our present times.

    http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/05/saturday-afternoon-reflections-were-no.html

    Comment by keyboard jockey — May 2, 2009 @ 12:53 pm - May 2, 2009

  21. Anyone else see another pattern.

    The left can’t refute Carrie Prejean on points, so they start making fun of her boobs.

    Just like the left couldn’t defend Dear Leader’s spending and deficits, so they just repeated the word “tea-baggers” and giggled like ten year old boys.

    Comment by V the K — May 2, 2009 @ 1:13 pm - May 2, 2009

  22. This is the way the media and our country is going, sadly. Instead of debating issues like on Firing Line or Crossfire, we have people asking idiots to talk on the show to be beat down or to back up their idiot views.

    Props to FOX to actually getting someone to debate tho.

    We need Zombie WFB.

    Comment by Jordan — May 2, 2009 @ 1:30 pm - May 2, 2009

  23. If Carrie Prejean was a Buddhist who was protesting animal slaughter and eating meat because of her religious convictions, the left would love her. It is perfectly OK for someone to be against gay marriage because their religious beliefs tell them it’s wrong. It’s OK to protest the Iraq War if you’re a Quaker. It’s OK to protest the death penalty if you’re a Catholic. I fully support her being against gay marriage.

    My church supports gay unions. So, here’s the thing–the Carrie Prejeans of the world have no effect on my life any more than my future same-sex covenant with Jason Statham has on theirs. Let her talk. What can she do? There are lots of Buddhists in the world and yet a lot of people still eat meat.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 2, 2009 @ 1:31 pm - May 2, 2009

  24. Ben Lover – humm…According to your logic, you are a white, ethno-centric bigot just for being of European descent. I suppose (although I could be wrong) that you havent done a thing for Native American Rights. So, not only are you a white, ethno-centric Bigot, you are also an uncaring, white ethno-centric Bigot. This, according to your logic.

    Comment by Duffy - Native Intelligence — May 2, 2009 @ 1:36 pm - May 2, 2009

  25. gpw assumes his conclusion–that prejean’s star is becoming more powerful as the left criticizes her more–without any evidence. exactly how is she becoming more powerful? since the pageant, she has become a spokesperson for NOM and an increasingly marginalized segment of the republican party. and at her first NOM press conference, she had to field questions about her boob job rather than her views on gay marriage. powerful? try embarrassing. i’d be willing to bet that she’d gladly exchange her NOM affiliation and whatever notoriety she’s gained over the past week for the Miss USA crown.

    Comment by chad — May 2, 2009 @ 1:50 pm - May 2, 2009

  26. If Carrie Prejean was a Buddhist who was protesting animal slaughter and eating meat because of her religious convictions, the left would love her.

    Maybe so, but I would give it the same weight as her actual comments. About a 0.1 on a scale of 0 to 10, and that’s being generous.

    It is perfectly OK for someone to be against gay marriage because their religious beliefs tell them it’s wrong. It’s OK to protest the Iraq War if you’re a Quaker. It’s OK to protest the death penalty if you’re a Catholic. I fully support her being against gay marriage.

    I guess so. The thing is, let’s say one is for capital punishment, and doesn’t understand how anyone else doesn’t support it, but then says, “Oh, but I understand your opposition, because you’re Catholic, so that’s okay.” In any case, Carrie Prejean is against same sex marriage. Whatever, so be it.

    So, here’s the thing–the Carrie Prejeans of the world have no effect on my life any more than my future same-sex covenant with Jason Statham has on theirs.

    Yeah, that’s the way it should be. But too many people apparently had other ideas, starting with the idiot Perez Hilton with his mouth.

    Comment by Pat — May 2, 2009 @ 2:03 pm - May 2, 2009

  27. buckeyenutlover, since Miss Prejean holds the exact same position as the President on gay marriage, will you be calling him a bigot, plain and simple?

    Patriot Goddess, you make a great point. Since Feldt mocked Prejean’s boob job, can we mock her for her dye job — no woman her age has hair that black.

    a different Dave (and Tom in Lazybrook), while I do agree that Coulter and Limbaugh sometimes do go over the top, do they ever attack their critics in as personal a manner as do the left-wingers mentioned above. I don’t read those commentators as often as perhaps I should, so I don’t know, You could better make your case with a few examples.

    Darkeyedresolve, good comment. I don’t know about my readers, but I for one am not embracing her, merely defending her against the insults. I probably would not have touched this issue had Pajamas not asked me to write about it (and hey, they pay). And I have praised her for addressing a controversial issue in a civil manner.

    It’s the insults which give her the bigger platform (as per my title).

    And Levi and chad, do you understand hyperbole for rhetorical effect (and for a title that I thought would be fun)?

    Finally, chew on this: If they didn’t criticize her so much, I wouldn’t be defending her nor I daresay would Laura Ingraham or many other bloggers.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 2, 2009 @ 2:05 pm - May 2, 2009

  28. “Why can’t they just say wrong is wrong and leave it at that?”

    “Not to mention that just once it would be nice if your side acknowledged a wrong doing without attacking us. ”

    At least I can acknowledge a wrong doing by my “side”, that’s more than most on here can manage.

    Comment by a different Dave — May 2, 2009 @ 2:07 pm - May 2, 2009

  29. right. how dare i ask you justify the things that you write. my bad.

    Comment by chad — May 2, 2009 @ 2:10 pm - May 2, 2009

  30. The situation has gotten completely out of hand.

    I knew that Olbermann was bad, but not this vile.

    Conservatives sometimes go too far in attacking Obama, but that’s mostly on the Internet. I’ve never heard any vile insults of this nature from Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.

    Comment by Tom the Redhunter — May 2, 2009 @ 2:13 pm - May 2, 2009

  31. Ms. Prejean didn’t say she was against same sex marriage for those states that approved it, that was fine with her. She gave her PERSONAL belief that marriage should be between a man and woman just like Obama and Bill Clinton and many democraps have stated. So why is it fair game to attack her appearance? Imagine if the right had a disagreement with Michelle Obama and started attacking her looks or disparaging her as various body parts, etc, the left would go ballistic. And I certainly don’t get anything Michael Musto stated about Ms. Prejean being a transexual bigot. You have to have consumed a lot of illicit drugs to make such deranged statements. And lastly, why is it that the worst looking leftists are deriding Ms. Prejean on her looks. Two words, Glass Houses.

    Comment by eaglewingz08 — May 2, 2009 @ 2:19 pm - May 2, 2009

  32. […] As Leftists Mock and Belittle Carrie PrejeanShe Becomes More Popular Than They Can Possibly Imagine […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Do Feminists Think Obama Needs a “Heart Transplant”? — May 2, 2009 @ 2:34 pm - May 2, 2009

  33. Uh. guys, She is a spokesperson for an organization led by (in my opinion) a viciously anti-Gay political hack and professional gay basher (Maggie Gallagher) and a gentlement who advocates throwing all Gays in prision and armed insurrection against the government (Orson Card). She became their mouthpiece. NOM opposes civil unions too. And opposes Gay marriage in every state. She didn’t cut an ad for NOM to be run in California, the ad was designed to being run outside California.

    Few were talking about her fake boobs before she decided to attempt to take away or prevent equality in Rhode Island, Maine, and NH.

    Don’t try and present Ms Thang as some woman who had her crown taken away from her because she opposed Gay marriage (she NEVER won the crown and there is NO way to know if she would have won otherwise) and that she doesn’t work to stop Gay marriages and civil unions in other states (which is certainly who she is working with now). Perez Hilton is an idiot. But Carrie Prejean is open to just as much criticism as he is. They both look like idiots.

    And free speech works both ways, Ms. Prejean has a right to join up with Orson Card and Maggie Gallagher. And Keith Olberman has a right to make fun of her.

    If she hadn’t decided to do Orson Card’s bidding, then maybe the criticism would have been over the top. Actually, I think that beauty pagents should be about beauty, not surgery – but I digress. Do we really want to idolize 20 year olds who have plastic surgery? Seriously, If you need help at 20, God help you at 40.

    I know Maggie Gallagher is a professional anti-Gay organizer (its her day job – and she even got paid by the Bush administration for her jounalism – which she didn’t disclose) and a disgraced journalist, and Orson Card is a wacko extremist by any stretch of the imagination, but don’t you think they could have found someone a little more credible.

    I’m fine with Ms. Prejean staying the face of anti-Gay marriage.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — May 2, 2009 @ 2:50 pm - May 2, 2009

  34. Hate yourselves much, gay patriots?

    Comment by Magic Dog — May 2, 2009 @ 3:07 pm - May 2, 2009

  35. The fact that Gloria Feldt, representing the feminists, refusing to defend Carrie Perjean against the insults and slurs hurled at her gives credence to the charge that what really counts with them is the messenger rather than their message, vis a vis Senator Robert Packwood and President Bill Clinton.

    Comment by Roberto — May 2, 2009 @ 3:23 pm - May 2, 2009

  36. #26 G. P. West, As the old time Brits would say “Jolly Good Show, You Did Us Proud”

    Comment by The Old Man — May 2, 2009 @ 3:25 pm - May 2, 2009

  37. Roberto,

    Gloria wasn’t able to get three words in edgewise. She was there to be someone for Laura Ingraham to yell at. If Laura Ingraham allowed Gloria to actually speak her case then you might have some credibility to criticize her.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — May 2, 2009 @ 3:49 pm - May 2, 2009

  38. And if you want to attack Gloria for having a dyejob…Go right ahead. But you see, unlike Ms. Prejean, her credentials aren’t her looks.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — May 2, 2009 @ 3:50 pm - May 2, 2009

  39. 34. You guys just don’t understand. If you advocate laws judging people for living outside of your religious beliefs, then you will be held up as a hypocrite if you don’t uphold all of those religious beliefs. That’s why Barney Frank didn’t lose his seat and Larry Craig and Ed Schrock did.

    Sure you can criticize a social liberal for how they live their lives, but it isn’t going to stick. It isn’t the action that makes the story stick and creates the scandal. Its the hypocricy. Just like a ‘modest’ advocate of denying Gay people equal rights because of her religious beliefs parading around nearly naked with fake breasts would seem.

    And it isn’t that way because of the media or the Gay mainstream. Its that way because that’s the way people think. If you hold yourself up to be the arbiter of morality, then people will expect you to walk the walk. The GOP and Conservatives have made it their talking point for years to bash Democrats for having unChristian morals. And by the Republicans promoting “Judeo-Christian values’. And it worked for them for a while. But this is the payback. Now Democrats (who apparently have no problem winning elections outside the Confederacy in the face of these attacks) have some immunity towards certain (but not all) moral lapses, while the party that has worked and campaigned as the party of morality and enforcing their moral views on others do not.

    And by the way, if you’re upset with feminists going after Bob Packwood harder than Bill Clinton, you just didn’t know Bob Packwood. He was much more liberal than Arlen Specter. Ask your GOP buddies that worked on the hill while Packwood was there about what happened, how well he got along with his family, etc.. I’ll tell you, many of my Conservative GOP staffer friends at the time cheered when he got the boot. Loudly. Hell, even I saw him out with 18-24 year olds (quite possibly staffers) drinking at college bars in DC. My Republican girlfriend (yes) who worked for a Southern Baptist Republican US Senator spent the entire evening cursing about him. And it wasn’t because he was a RINO. Maybe if the GOP hadn’t spent so much time screaming about low morals of Clinton, then there would have been more outrage after he won two elections anyway. But I think after the Conservatives played the “Hillary murdered Vince Foster” card, any attacks by Scaife and co. lost their resonance in the mainstream.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — May 2, 2009 @ 4:14 pm - May 2, 2009

  40. You’re right, GayPatriotWest. If the ridicule keeps up, Sister Silicone Prejean will be more popular than Sarah Palin. And we know who had the last laugh on that one.

    She’s already more popular than a gay man at a Republican function, honey. You see what the party did to Larry Craig and Mark Foley. No wonder David Dreier hasn’t registered at Macy’s.

    Comment by Jean Valjean — May 2, 2009 @ 4:16 pm - May 2, 2009

  41. Everyone has an opinion but for me it all comes down to this:

    If you are going to be the spokesperson for a movement or involved in a movement that calls gay marriage wrong because it’s artificial, perhaps you shouldn’t have anything artificial on your body.

    By actively joining NOM, Prejean became an official talking head. And the breast implants are a legitimate issue to bring up.

    The mea culpas from the right on this issue are hilarious, particularly from Laura Ingraham after the brush up with Megan McCain where Ingraham made snarky comments about McCain’s weight.

    Stop blaming “the left” for this. As it is, neither Musto nor Hilton are spokespeople for gay rights. But those who are spokespeople, such as Joe Solmonese, have not attacked Prejean.

    The young lady has only herself to blame.

    Comment by a. mcewen — May 2, 2009 @ 4:33 pm - May 2, 2009

  42. Sarah Palin, Carrie Prejean, so-called feminists–see a pattern here?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 2, 2009 @ 4:46 pm - May 2, 2009

  43. Tom in Lazybrook said, “And if you want to attack Gloria for having a dyejob…Go right ahead. But you see, unlike Ms. Prejean, her credentials aren’t her looks.”

    Gloria’s credentials are that she’s a feminist and women’s activist and she touts her ‘courageous leadership’ on her website. So this women’s activist leader is ciriticizing the appearance of another woman- that’s real feminist leadership and really courageous. Feminism has become a joke with a few exceptions.

    Feminists showed their true colors when Bill rapist Clinton got a total pass with them. They might as well have been throwing their panties at him. They lost all credibility then and have been nothing but attention-seeking sellouts since.

    The thing is, she might have made a valid point if she hadn’t immediately taken on the victim role with Laura and then proceeded to take the low road by bringing up Prejean’s fake boobies. Of course, unable to take my eyes off that constantly surprised look on her face, I may have been to distracted to notice a valid point in there with all that whining and jealous criticism.

    Comment by Patriot Goddess — May 2, 2009 @ 4:59 pm - May 2, 2009

  44. […] As Leftists Mock and Belittle Carrie PrejeanShe Becomes More Popular Than They Can Possibly Imagine […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Emotionally Satisfying, but Politically Counterproductive Responses to Gay Marriage Opponents — May 2, 2009 @ 5:10 pm - May 2, 2009

  45. Anita Bryant was a beauty queen a beauty queen with an opinion, too. So, gay patriots, ain’t it about time you rehabilitated her, too?

    Comment by Magic Dog — May 2, 2009 @ 5:21 pm - May 2, 2009

  46. God bless Laura Ingraham!

    Gloria Feldt, you’re a disgrace! You introduced the subject of Prejean’s breast implants so you could ridicule her on her body! On national TV! How do you sleep at night? I’m not a feminist (of your political stripe) and I wouldn’t do that to you in a million years!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 2, 2009 @ 5:25 pm - May 2, 2009

  47. This is my first visit to your website, and it is an honorable one. Thank you.

    Comment by Fred Tyler — May 2, 2009 @ 5:29 pm - May 2, 2009

  48. TOM in LAZYBROOK – the way you use CAPITALS is the WEB equivalent of frothing and FOAMING with SPITTLE. Why don’t you take a chill pill, DUDE? This whole Carrie Prejean must really be 100% spot-on target, to get you all frothing and foaming like that – and I’m glad it did.

    BY the WAY, TOM, FOX is not an acroynym for anything, so THERE is no reason FOR you to be CAPITALIZING it, UNLESS you were frothing and foaming with spittle. The Fox-related acronym equivalent to acronyms like MSNBC, CBS, etc. would be FNC (Fox News Channel).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 2, 2009 @ 5:33 pm - May 2, 2009

  49. 42. I didn’t realize that Bill Clinton raped anyone. Its assertions like that that resulted in Bill Clinton being able to escape the scandal in the first place.

    You wanna rethink that assertion? Or maybe back it up.

    But back to the larger point. Sure, Gloria isn’t a well known activist. But she wasn’t there for her looks. But the larger point is why would anyone left of center ever go on a program with Laura Ingraham after her disgraceful treatment of a guest like that? Laura didn’t win any debate. There was no debate. It was just a misrepresentation of the facts (‘had her crown taken away’) then a lecture with no appropriate response to get a word in edgewise. If you want to see something instructive, perhaps you should have seen David Shuster over at MSNBC with the NOM ‘chairman’. Was David Shuster taking the opposing view with him? Sure, but he let the otherside get its’ point in.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — May 2, 2009 @ 5:47 pm - May 2, 2009

  50. 48. I will refrain from using caps in the future. I’m not frothing. I use caps for emphasis. But at any rate, no one uses FNC. Everyone calls it Fox or Fox News.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — May 2, 2009 @ 5:49 pm - May 2, 2009

  51. “As it is, neither Musto nor Hilton are spokespeople for gay rights.”

    Exactly

    “But those who are spokespeople, such as Joe Solmonese”

    He speaks for HRC, not necessarily gay rights and certainly not “the left”

    “Feminists showed their true colors when Bill rapist Clinton got a total pass with them.”

    As did anti-gay “christians” when they embraced Prejean because of her words without looking at the fact that she in fact represents them very little. Though really, in either case is it showing true-colors or simply the reality that you can’t always choose the messenger and that their negative aspects are at least temporarily outweighed by the bonkers antics of the opposition. Also Clinton did not get a total pass anymore than Prejean is now.

    “The lefties who have commented so far just seem to reinforce that view.”

    Only in your “I hate everything liberal” mind V. Personally I have always advocated giving the anti-gays as much coverage as possible

    Comment by a different Dave — May 2, 2009 @ 5:53 pm - May 2, 2009

  52. Magic Dog, who’s rehabbing anyone? Well, the Miss California pageant is trying under the veiled threat of dethroning or decrowning, whatever it is that they do, as referenced by Keith Lewis. Gee, such tolerance for those with different views- publicly recant and denounce your values or lose your crown. Will they rip her implants out too?

    Comment by Patriot Goddess — May 2, 2009 @ 5:58 pm - May 2, 2009

  53. TIL, Clinton was accused of rape by Juanita Broddrick and sexual harassment by Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey. (Paula Jones legal investigators claimed to have other women who came forward, including a 14 year old girl.) Those women were maligned by the media and maligned or ignored by feminist groups. Broaddrick filed suit but it was dismissed and she was rewarded with a ‘coincidental’ IRS audit afterward.

    Comment by Patriot Goddess — May 2, 2009 @ 6:12 pm - May 2, 2009

  54. Kudos to Tom for truth telling. One of the more surreal aspects of this “conversation” is that The Great Gay Patriot seems so clueless. Olbermann does not believe that Perez Hilton is an intellectual titan – he is pointing out how ludicrous it is that Prejean makes Perez seem like one.
    Does the G.G.P understand what he is writing when he talks of being “politically correct”? The most amazing part is Prejean’s exploitation of “victimhood” to gain another 15 seconds of fame. The GGP seems to approve of this.

    Comment by bbbustard — May 2, 2009 @ 6:13 pm - May 2, 2009

  55. via, a bumper crop of trolls on this thread.

    So, Tom, adDave, magic etc. It’s ok to accuse someone of being a transexual if you disagree with them. Got it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 2, 2009 @ 6:15 pm - May 2, 2009

  56. Why did this all become such a big deal to the gay activists that think all gays want same-sex marriage? Well…..she said that her belief was that marriage was between a man and woman. They didn’t like her thinking that. They also don’t like the idea that somehow a 20 year old slipped by their education program, so maybe we should pour more money into education and diversity efforts. They also think that it may be her parents fault because they may believe in God and that is nothing more than a superstition. Also, you know, gays know more about hair and nails and make-up and they don’t need this beauty queen thinking she is more knowledgeable about anything, but especially that. And it almost sounds like she doesn’t want to hang out with fag hags…..oh my! So it was important to point out any flaws she may have and trash her at every opportunity (she’s conveniently blond too, how nice). Is it possible for the offending gays to be any more superficial? This is why I hate being gay sometimes. Because many of my own kind are so narrow in thought, selfish, potty-minded, and great pretenders of tolerance. Do you think it is possible to be gay and respectful of anyone else and their views? Do some of you blame your moms or something? Could those of you that I’m talking about quit being such freaks and actually listen to other people instead of just reacting like a stereotypical gay? YOU are the reason we are not getting anywhere. OK…..I’m done. You can go back to being a f*gg*t now. I’ve already accepted that you won’t grow out of it.

    Comment by Scott Lassiter — May 2, 2009 @ 6:16 pm - May 2, 2009

  57. Scott – your post is a little scary.
    Why this stereotyping about God being a supersition? Fag Hags?
    Happily, the progress that the gay community has made in the last 40 years is wonderfully impressive.

    Comment by bbbustard — May 2, 2009 @ 6:24 pm - May 2, 2009

  58. The left lunatics (everyone but the left recognizes that lunacy is not exclusive to just one party) appear to be suffering some degree of permanent damage after all those years in a state of BDS. They do not appear likely to recover, even with heavy dosages of hope and change medication.

    Expect to see this virulent variant of BDS to be addressed in the DSM, laying a foundation for many new claims under the ADA. Heck, eventually, they will probably even seek a tax credit specifically targeted at providing necessary mental health counseling.

    For the time being, a state of denial prevails. Best to just treat them with kindness, soothing words, and a very cold tea bag applied to their fevered foreheads.

    A mind is a such terrible thing to see going to waste. But then, that’s only a concern if there was actually a mind to waste in the first place. Quick, how many states are there in America? No cheating, now.

    J

    Comment by J — May 2, 2009 @ 7:03 pm - May 2, 2009

  59. These people need to read my two ground breaking books on the subject….”The Erotic Inadequacies of the Gay Pee Pee” and “Faggotry Can Be Cured”

    Comment by Robbins Mitchell — May 2, 2009 @ 7:07 pm - May 2, 2009

  60. Gloria to actually speak her case then you might have some credibility to criticize her.

    Um, Gloria straight up lied about Laura in that segment and Laura Ingraham wasn’t going to let Gloria’s lie and then subsequent tactic of speaking against the host go unchallenged. Not Laura’s fault liberals are unhinged babies when they’re are forced to deal with facts vs their own BS.

    Comment by Sunflower — May 2, 2009 @ 7:28 pm - May 2, 2009

  61. The Left never misses an opportunity to “feel” righteous, even if that affirmation comes at the expense of the gay community.

    Comment by Fen — May 2, 2009 @ 7:28 pm - May 2, 2009

  62. So, I guess this mean that to the progressive left, “wonderfully impressive progress” means that victim groups whine a lot louder over ever more trivial sleights.

    Comment by V the K — May 2, 2009 @ 7:30 pm - May 2, 2009

  63. I think the Gay community has taken a significant and unneeded hit by this dust-up regardless of whether Ms. Prejean goes on to hang out with nasty right-wingers or whether she has implants.

    First, Perez Hilton’s spittle-laced rant – filled with name-calling and threats – has put a face on gay rights proponents that can only hurt the the gay marriage movement.

    Second, do you really think that thinking people will be convinced by the argument that her opinion about Gay Marriage (which matches that of Pres. Obama and the majority of Americans) is completely invalid because she had implants? Not that she gave a stirring intellectual defense of the other side but no one’s looking at her for her intellect anyway. If the best defense of gay marriage is “she should have had a heart transplant rather than a boob job” then I’m afraid you’ve lost the argument even if you win the legislature. If you simply stand by the argument from equal rights – recognizing that it may take a decade to really carry the day – then you’ll likely find that society as a whole will embrace you far more quickly than if you act like middle school kids.

    Finally, there are few heterosexual men who won’t reflexively take her side simply because she’s amazingly beautiful. The gay community would have been MUCH better served by simply showing some humor, applauding her honesty and taking credit for the fact that she started her answer by confirming the tolerance that marks our society in this day and age. Would it really have killed Perez to give her a 5 out of 10 and a gracious smile? It would have been a HUGE win for you – marking a degree of maturity and confidence that no one now believes you have.

    The guys here (I’m assuming guys) who are claiming that she had no chance of winning the competition or that she isn’t “really” a beauty queen just make me laugh; are you serious? If you are gay and you don’t see it then trust me as a heterosexual – she’s drop dead gorgeous. If you are not gay and don’t see it then you are just pretending for the sake of the argument.

    BTW: the pageant judges themselves made the point that she’d likely have won – she was ahead in all categories until Perez gave her a zero.

    Comment by Wildmonk — May 2, 2009 @ 7:40 pm - May 2, 2009

  64. “heart transplant:”? For Feldt, a brain transplant is more like it.

    Comment by DADvocate — May 2, 2009 @ 7:44 pm - May 2, 2009

  65. […] GayPatriot: Do those who mocked her know how nasty they sound? Do they have any sense how people outside the liberal enclaves where they reside will react to such bile? […]

    Pingback by Chicago Boyz » Blog Archive » “As Leftists Mock and Belittle Carrie Prejean She Becomes More Popular Than They Can Possibly Imagine” — May 2, 2009 @ 7:45 pm - May 2, 2009

  66. Libs are just petty, vindictive, totalitarians. They are every malevolent thing they accused George Bush of being. Sadly, they’ve got one of their own in the white house and they feel more empowered than ever to wage their war on decency.

    Comment by Rob B — May 2, 2009 @ 7:48 pm - May 2, 2009

  67. I see amongst Levi’s multitude of “issues”, we can mark down reading comprehension, as one of them.

    Comment by BDJ — May 2, 2009 @ 7:48 pm - May 2, 2009

  68. You’re absolutely right. It’s a fundamental fact of social psychology that needlessly attacked the supposed “minority” only wins them converts and sympathizers.

    Comment by Chandler — May 2, 2009 @ 7:53 pm - May 2, 2009

  69. What Ms. Prejean has done AFTER the Perez Hilton comment is certainly valid for criticism. Orson Scott Card is one of my favorite authors but I don’t like his position on gay marriage, which includes occasionally making an example of gay people by punishing them. I am unhappy with her for joining that cause of his.

    But nevertheless, what Perez Hilton did is beyond the pale. Ms. Prejean’s answer was entirely reasonable and did in fact practically match the President’s answer. For Mr. Hilton to give her a score of 0, and then to rant and rave on his website, using words such as cunt, and bitch, makes him beneath ridicule, and unworthy of any role of spokesman for any reasonable movement.

    Comment by Mike Devx — May 2, 2009 @ 8:16 pm - May 2, 2009

  70. Livewire, are you stupid or just another pseudo-conservative liar? I never said, implied or otherwise gave any impression to a rational person that I supported ANYTHING that those attacking Prejean have said. In one tiny little comment you prove that you are no different than they are. Sickening.

    Comment by a different Dave — May 2, 2009 @ 8:16 pm - May 2, 2009

  71. “Why is the left incapable of engaging in even mild criticism of their own side unless they can (falsely) claim the other side is much worse. Why can’t they just say wrong is wrong and leave it at that?”
    Because they cannot defend their postion.

    Comment by Robert — May 2, 2009 @ 8:33 pm - May 2, 2009

  72. Good post as usual. Wildmonk nails it. Perez’ rant really disgusted a lot of people. Many of us grow weary of all the sturm und drang, and find it increasing difficult to give a sh*t.

    Comment by Jack Okie — May 2, 2009 @ 8:41 pm - May 2, 2009

  73. Note how the left-wing gays never raise a peep about Islamic treatment of gays.

    Being a homosexual carries the DEATH PENALTY in many Islamic countries, you know. And a gruesome death at that. Gay men are thrown from the top of a tall minaret. Lesbians are stoned.

    But never a peep from these US gay leftists.

    On some level, I actually want Islam to make inroads into the West. If nothing else, it will put radical gays and feminists in their place.

    Comment by Toads — May 2, 2009 @ 9:14 pm - May 2, 2009

  74. A Beauty Queen is being attacked by Ugly Queens.

    Comment by Toads — May 2, 2009 @ 9:15 pm - May 2, 2009

  75. Since there are so many trolls on this thread, it is time to remind the left that they are ugly, and how better-looking people are right-wing. This is market tested to get under the skin of a leftist.

    The difference between left and right is no longer ideological. It is biological.

    Comment by Anon — May 2, 2009 @ 9:17 pm - May 2, 2009

  76. As a local, “out” radio personality stated, Ms. Prejean was merely a pageant contestant. She can’t be expected to speak for opponents of gay marriage anymore than “Ms. Hilton” can be expected to speak for the entire LGBT community, or any proponent of gay marriage.

    Comment by James — May 2, 2009 @ 9:21 pm - May 2, 2009

  77. She didn’t give a coherent argument. In fact, she outright contradicted herself. She said in America you should be able to choose, but then claimed that it should be up to others who you’re allowed to marry. How about we have a vote on who she can/can’t marry? I respect her freedom to choose a church or tradition that excludes homosexuals from equal recognition, but why does she think she should b able to force her view on the rest of us on the basis of nothing more than that it’s her tradition? Personally, I’d prefer the bigots in the closet and the homosexuals out.

    Comment by jrshipley — May 2, 2009 @ 9:21 pm - May 2, 2009

  78. “Finally, there are few heterosexual men who won’t reflexively take her side simply because she’s amazingly beautiful. ”

    Indeed. I would gladly knock out Perez Hilton’s teeth on her behalf. A lot of black and Hispanic men would too (given how they voted on Prop 8 in CA).

    When people like Perez Hilton and that Olbermann guest speak loudly and often, they have the opposite effect of their supposed goals.

    Also, don’t think that other countries, where gays are less tolerated than in the US, are not watching this. Iran, China, or Saudi Arabia could simply use this as an excuse to crack down on innocent gays and execute them. Maybe they already are.

    Comment by Anon — May 2, 2009 @ 9:21 pm - May 2, 2009

  79. Are we now into policing “beliefs”? I can see voting politicians into/out of elected office in part because of (certain) beliefs. But since when do we care what a 21-year old woman with no influence or power believes?

    What’s your best estimate as to the number of US citizens whose views on marriage were changed by discovering the beliefs Ms. Prejean holds? Oh, sure, we all know about that guy in Ohio who is withholding his opinion until he determines the prevailing gay marriage views of all 50 state pageant winners, and says he will go with the majority. But, aside from him — who else?

    Comment by Terry Ott — May 2, 2009 @ 9:22 pm - May 2, 2009

  80. Donald Trump usually never misses a chance to be on TV.

    He is conspicuoualy silent on this issue, even though it was created due to decisions his organization took.

    Comment by Anon — May 2, 2009 @ 9:23 pm - May 2, 2009

  81. She’s dating Michael Phelps? Is it serious? When do we get to vote on whether they should be allowed to get married?

    Comment by jrshipley — May 2, 2009 @ 9:23 pm - May 2, 2009

  82. If the Right was smart, they would be hounding Donald Trump (a Giuliani Republican himself) to make a statement on this issue.

    No matter what he says, the gay left will hate him and slander him.

    The right should pressure Trump and open a second front on this issue. But they don’t think strategically enough to do it.

    Comment by Anon — May 2, 2009 @ 9:28 pm - May 2, 2009

  83. […] more powerful than you could possibly imagine.’ The more they attempt to strike her down, the stronger she becomes. And the more popular she becomes among her supporters and Americans increasingly irritated by the […]

    Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » Quotes of the day — May 2, 2009 @ 9:30 pm - May 2, 2009

  84. And as is usual for adDave (welcome back BTW, thought you were gone forever) he misses the point.

    No one has condemned the specific attack referenced. So apparently when smearing a young woman, you can say anything you want in insulting her. Even if it steps on a ‘identiy politics issue’.

    Again, the left shows, ‘we love the GBLT, unless we’re smearing our opponents by accusing them as being part of the GBLT.’

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 2, 2009 @ 9:38 pm - May 2, 2009

  85. What a vile hateful bunch of people have assembled here to castigate a young woman who stated her personal belief.
    I cannot wait until our host links to the last remaining feminist’s May 09 Salon essay.
    For those of you too bigoted to know, that would be Camille Paglia and, I’m certain, she’ll rip you a new one.

    Comment by MikeD — May 2, 2009 @ 9:40 pm - May 2, 2009

  86. Look, the issue here is the hypocrisy of those who claim to be victims of intolerance and demand of others unyielding and total acceptance of their claims and beliefs.

    It is inescapable that if for any other reason a prominent news personality made fun of a woman because of her beliefs or her looks would be pounced on and deplored by all the “right” people and groups, except if said woman holds beliefs that do not conform to what is chapter and verse of the New Left.

    And no, I am not a “right wing” ideologue, rather, I was a Cliniton-Gore-Lieberman voter, but admittedly, I’m growing ever more tired and frustrated at the hostility and vitriol that the so-called “progressives” are employing at those who disagree with them.

    It is not a surprise that the unremitting and intense vilification by the Left is leading to ever more resistance by moderates and conservatives alike.

    The hate and projection of people like “Perez Hilton” and Michel Musto is disgusting. Plain and simple.

    MSNBC should be ashamed that they ran that segment and Rachel Maddow acted the coward and fool for allowing it to go without comment.

    Shame.

    Comment by NotYou — May 2, 2009 @ 10:20 pm - May 2, 2009

  87. 10:1 Gloria Feldt has never been (felt), by a man.

    Comment by Sharp — May 2, 2009 @ 10:48 pm - May 2, 2009

  88. Wildmonk pretty much nails my point of view. Those that would like to see gay marriage become a national reality do not have to convince the snarky leftist segment of the population- they have to convince people like me. Personally, I don’t care, have at it… but many of my friends and family do not feel as I do. Guess which side everyone I’ve talked with is more sympathetic toward. When you attack and vilify her you look like an ass, especially when the attacks end up being about her personal appearance. (’cause, you know, there’s never been a hot beauty queen with implants…)

    And you know what happens? People like me, that would normally support gay marriage and might even be willing to speak out in favor of it become at the least, apathetic. And those that despise political correctness get a poster child. Nice going. I hope after your smug self-congratulations for taking down the b*tch are over, you realize how much damage you’ve done to your own movement. Maybe next time we can have an actual civil discussion.

    Comment by JWhire — May 2, 2009 @ 10:55 pm - May 2, 2009

  89. […] Carrie Prejean is pulling a “Kenobi” before the Intoleranti’s very eyes.  Shouldn’t surprise anyone.  After all, her position on gay marriage is the same as that […]

    Pingback by UPDATED: Any Chance Carrie Prejean is a Democrat? « The Rhetorican — May 2, 2009 @ 10:56 pm - May 2, 2009

  90. “Gay Patriot,” thanks a lot. You’ve just given every Christian wingnut a human shield for homophobic attacks. What scumbags you are.

    Comment by Magic Dog — May 2, 2009 @ 10:57 pm - May 2, 2009

  91. […] Kudos to the Gay Patriot for pointing out the lack of civility of the left when it comes to their treatment of Miss California Carrie Prajean. This young lady answered a question honestly, and all they could do was insult and belittle her. How ironic is it that all they did was make her stronger? […]

    Pingback by Quick Hits | The Lonely Conservative — May 2, 2009 @ 11:59 pm - May 2, 2009

  92. I am a conservative heterosexual who actually supports gay marriage. However, the reaction of progressives to Prejean does begin to change that, in all honesty. I don’t like jerks, whether it’s a bigot (and Prejean is not) or an Olbermann. Since I live in Oregon, I have had the opportunity to vote against anti-gay initiatives in the past. The next time I don’t know how I will vote.

    Comment by mike — May 2, 2009 @ 11:59 pm - May 2, 2009

  93. When will gays admit that nature greated two genders, and the two have to mate for reproduction?

    Leftists who think they are hip to evolution don’t know this, somehow.

    Comment by Anon — May 3, 2009 @ 12:12 am - May 3, 2009

  94. What gays don’t understand is that people just don’t care.

    When gays demand this or that, it’s like any other group. Everybody has their own demands.

    Have friends. Go to work if you’re lucky enough. Give a little. And don’t complain.

    Comment by New To Blog — May 3, 2009 @ 12:22 am - May 3, 2009

  95. Now can the left celebrate diversity if not everybody agrees with them?

    Comment by Jim Treacher — May 3, 2009 @ 1:04 am - May 3, 2009

  96. Magic Dog, please enlighten me. How do I give them such a shield. Since I don’t want to do such things, I need to know so I can avoid such rhetoric in the future. Thanks.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 3, 2009 @ 1:08 am - May 3, 2009

  97. 75-How about we have a vote on who she can/can’t marry?

    Nobody is telling anyone whom they can’t marry. Any man can marry any woman and vice versa, that’s the definition of marriage, and it’s not new and didn’t just come into being during some right-wing Republican administration.

    A large number of conservatives are willing, in fact eager, to meet gays more than halfway by endorsing civil unions, but that just gets shouted down.

    The fact is it’s not a civil rights issue. Marriage is well established, and it is well defined. One man and one woman. After all the gay haters came out of the woodwork post-Prop 8, the only way that will change is if the courts can be subverted. Which is likely…

    Comment by Mudshark — May 3, 2009 @ 1:12 am - May 3, 2009

  98. Jim, the Left’s idea of celebrating diversity is “Look at all the rainbow colors of the people under our (i.e., the government’s) thumb!”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 3, 2009 @ 1:14 am - May 3, 2009

  99. From the moment I learned that “Miss USA” is chosen as the prettiest woman from the gays point of view (as they are the judges), I feel very strange about the competition. E.g. I would not now say “You can win Miss USA” as a compliment.

    Comment by DN — May 3, 2009 @ 2:02 am - May 3, 2009

  100. The difference between Obama and Ms. Prejean is that it is plain that she means what she says.

    On the other hand, everyone knows that Obama is a lying, venal hard-Left scumbag who will say whatever he thinks the rubes want to hear in order to get elected. When he says he opposes gay marriage, all the queens snicker and say, “sure you do, big fella.”

    Comment by John Skookum — May 3, 2009 @ 2:12 am - May 3, 2009

  101. John,

    She is supporting her Christan moral ethics by parading around nearly naked with fake boobs.

    And to the others. The National Organization for Marriage is led by those that OPPOSE civil unions. Period.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — May 3, 2009 @ 3:23 am - May 3, 2009

  102. On the other hand, everyone knows that Obama is a lying, venal hard-Left scumbag who will say whatever he thinks the rubes want to hear in order to get elected.

    Seems “the right” can be pretty ugly, too.

    Look, I think it’s a bad thing for Musto and others to attack this woman for expressing her viewpoint. But just because they are doing it and because they are to the left doesn’t mean they are speaking for “the left.” Just like this revolting comment above mine I just quoted from – would it be fair or reasonable of me to say “John Skoo0kum” is representative of “the right,” that “this is what the right is saying” about Obama? Hardly. So cool off everyone. Very few of us on the left feel the way Musto does. I worry when the Gay Patriot loosely throws around phrases like “hateful leftists” he is painting a vast group of people with a very broad brush.

    Comment by richard — May 3, 2009 @ 3:55 am - May 3, 2009

  103. buckeyenutlover said “carrie prejean is a bigot, plain and simple, and she will be called as such. Much like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the like, she will be forever known as a filthy bigot. She should be ashamed of herself, and her parents should be ashamed for rearing such ugly vile.”.

    I’m a fiscal conservative but feel that gay marriage should be allowed. However I have to bite my tongue on this entire issue to prevent being ridiculed thank’s to morons posting trash as this poster did. I want to defend you but it’s difficult when you come across attacking people for having original thoughts. I have several gay friend who won’t make that stop to come out because of you people. You are an embarrassment to normal people who just so happen to be gay. This absurdity only proves that point. She spoke an opinion, opinions are legal in the country last I heard,

    Comment by proudtx — May 3, 2009 @ 4:46 am - May 3, 2009

  104. The strange thing about this entire discussion is that homosexuals, whether Christian, Buddhist or whatever, are not banned from marriage.

    For example Gov McGreevy married twice and even bore children; now these days he may be off having a wonderful time will his boyfriend however he was able to marry….twice.

    I guess marriage depends on the meaning of homosexual.

    Comment by syn — May 3, 2009 @ 4:59 am - May 3, 2009

  105. Perez Hilton and Michael Musto and Keith Olbermann … most effective warriors against gay marriage EVAH

    You go girls. For a while there I thought it was a juggernaut. Now I realize it’s a train wreck.

    Just a few more of these and we can shit-can civil unions.

    Just a couple of dozen more of these and we can shit-can gay adoption of children.

    Who knows …. maybe we can even turn Market and Castro into a place safe for decent people again.

    Comment by Paul A'Barge — May 3, 2009 @ 5:55 am - May 3, 2009

  106. As a straight woman I find myself in accord once again with my left-leaning friend, Leah.

    I have seen in the comments a lot of unnecessary vitriol. Miss Perjean was asked a question. She answered the question and for her effort she was called a very foul name.

    If seems that there are people who have responded here who seem to think that it is ok to call a woman who is straight a “c..t” but this is not appropriate if you want to win the hearts and minds of people who are straight.

    The point to be made is that left wing homosexuals are attempting to make a mockery of marriage by their insistence that they participate in such a union. This is the reason that they get the backs of straight people up.

    The hysterics of Perez Hilton are not going to win friends. The same goes for people who have shows on the TV. If anything they will just continue to turn people off. These people will be seen as being loud mouths.

    One commenter wrote that Miss Perjean was shoving her views down the throats of homosexuals. Well, at the pageant that was not true. She was given a question and she answered the question. She was quite generous in her answer before she stated that she considered marriage to be between a man and woman. I think of marriage in the same way.

    However, there are men and women who live together. They are not married in the sense that they do not have either a civil license or the blessing of a Christian Church – that is, their arrangement is not a sacramental marriage because it has not been blessed or sanctioned.

    I do not believe that the government has the right to interfere in the bedroom. In other words I agree with the point of view of the civil libertarian. I believe that what is happening in Iran and other Muslim countries to homosexuals is wrong because I believe that such government action is persecuting a minority based upon sexual preference. That should not mean that I condone the actions of that minority.

    I some very harsh opinions about Miss Perjean. Whilst I do not endorse her actions after the beauty pageant, I do think that she had the right to express what she believed without the vilification of her position. When people vilify someone because that person expresses an opinion that is not the same as theirs then those people are in fact hypocrites when they cry “poor me”.

    If you want to win the hearts and minds of straight people then you need to do a lot of reflection about the leftist viewpoints. I like reading the gay patriot website because it is like being in an oasis after the barrenness of leftist political thought. The same is true for a number of other sites including one site that is run by a libertarian. I find that these are the people who are able to express themselves without the self-deprecation and the vilification of others which is so prevalent amongst the leftist-liberals that frequent these blogs.

    Comment by thestraightaussie — May 3, 2009 @ 7:16 am - May 3, 2009

  107. Although it’s a secondary issue, I think it’s important to point out to the commenters here who routinely and cavalierly condemn Foxnews as a 24/7 right-wing propaganda outlet, that these two clips are illustrative of the difference between Foxnews and MSNBC: Foxnews invites on a guest who has the exact opposite opinion of the show’s host, while MSNBC invites on a guest who can be counted on to parrot the IDENTICAL opinion shared by the show’s host. Foxnews is where conservatives debate liberals 24/7. MSNBC is just liberals agreeing with liberals 24/7.

    Comment by Sean A — May 3, 2009 @ 7:24 am - May 3, 2009

  108. Foxnews invites on a guest who has the exact opposite opinion of the show’s host, while MSNBC invites on a guest who can be counted on to parrot the IDENTICAL opinion shared by the show’s host.

    Excellent point.

    Comment by V the K — May 3, 2009 @ 8:26 am - May 3, 2009

  109. How many factions special interest groups, helped get Barack H Obama elected. There was N.O.W. who didn’t speak out on any of the misogynist behavior in the media, toward Hillary or Sarah Palin.

    Gay people came out for Obama even though he stated he was against Gay marriage.
    Prop 8 in California no one speaks of the ethnic faction behind it so it is blamed on Mormons because they are safe to blame.

    Civil Rights movement how did that faction fare?

    http://cinie.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/good-thing-im-not-a-civil-rights-activist/

    The only people to date who are benefiting from an Obama administration look to be his Banker Buddies, and the Abortion Industry, oh and government bureaucracies.

    Cinie is a PUMA, and a gay black woman, she can really write. The post before the last one, I posted above was “It’s a good thing I am not a feminist”

    The different factions that got Barack H Obama elected GOT USED that’s it end of story. The different factions had banded together hoping for gentler, kinder, machine gun handler LOL!

    I am straight, I have gay people in my family why shouldn’t they get married if they want to? It doesn’t make sense to be against it. If like we are told, it is healthy for people to be in committed monogamous relationships isn’t marriage the natural outcome?

    Maybe the real argument lies in separating church from state. The state can recognize marriage, it doesn’t require the church. Religion is always a lagging trend indicator for social change.

    The Miss California is enjoying her 15 minutes it is self defeating for her detractors, to turn her 15 minutes into half an hour 🙂

    Comment by keyboard jockey — May 3, 2009 @ 8:33 am - May 3, 2009

  110. Why the hell is a gay guy a judge in a female beauty contest anyway?

    Comment by Chester White — May 3, 2009 @ 8:44 am - May 3, 2009

  111. This is exactly why I stopped being a leftwinger. These conformist liberal diatribes are ignorant.

    I am slowly drifting towards being a conservative. Up until recently I kept all of my leftwing ideology intact, especially my opposition to totalitarian fascism (as in Afghanistan and Iraq).

    Now I find my beliefs on gun control, global warming and marriage is drifting towards conservative ideals.

    The Liberal reign of stupidity is alienating me…

    Comment by Freedom Now — May 3, 2009 @ 8:53 am - May 3, 2009

  112. I’m not surprised by the left’s verbal abusing of Prejean. So far, her treatment is nothing more than ‘Palin Lite’….and the leftists can’t be accused of bringing their misogynistic ‘A’ game until they begin suggesting that she be raped, in order to show her the error of her ways.

    Comment by Steve S — May 3, 2009 @ 8:53 am - May 3, 2009

  113. Comment by Chester White — May 3, 2009,

    That’s a very good point that Donald Trump never really addressed. When asked why he was chosen as a judge, Trump answered, something to do with celebrity? Very vague but he does love his pageant getting attention- buzz….so it worked.

    Miss California has been asked a more difficult question than the media has ever asked Barack H Obama… go figure that one out, and he won the media’s beauty contest 🙂

    Comment by keyboard jockey — May 3, 2009 @ 9:03 am - May 3, 2009

  114. #106: “Maybe the real argument lies in separating church from state. The state can recognize marriage, it doesn’t require the church. Religion is always a lagging trend indicator for social change.”

    So, if we just “separate church from state” the “state” will recognize same-sex marriage? How does that make any sense? Do you really think that California (for example) does not recognize same-sex marriage because the state is somehow intertwined with religion? I suppose California is a theocracy now? Ridiculous.

    Comment by Sean A — May 3, 2009 @ 9:05 am - May 3, 2009

  115. Comment by Sean A

    What did Miss California point to as the reason she was against same sex marriage “her religion” she didn’t point to the Government Federal or State.

    Comment by keyboard jockey — May 3, 2009 @ 9:18 am - May 3, 2009

  116. #107: “Why the hell is a gay guy a judge in a female beauty contest anyway?”

    The better question is why a useless panderer of salacious celebrity gossip (complete with photos of celebrities that he personally decorates with crude drawings of ejaculating penises) is on Larry King Live to “debate” one of the predominant social issues of our time against Dennis Prager. Pathetic.

    As long as the gay left sits back and lets people like Hilton, Musto, and Feldt do the talking (and trashing), same-sex marriage will continue to remain out of reach in jurisdictions where even the most left-leaning moderates remain unpersuaded because they simply can’t feel any allegiance to these pigs and the cause they are supposedly helping. Anyone who doesn’t see Feldt’s comments as shockingly, shamelessly hypocritical is already on her side to begin with. But that coveted moderate “soccer mom” demographic wants nothing to do with Feldt’s brand of feminism. Her appearance further damaged the public image of “feminism” (not that the Clinton Presidency, and the Left’s treatment of Hillary and Sarah Palin hadn’t slayed it for good already), and damaged the image of same-sex marriage proponents along with it. So, as a pundit, Feldt is a truly useless failure.

    Comment by Sean A — May 3, 2009 @ 9:30 am - May 3, 2009

  117. I give up my comments are not showing up.

    Comment by keyboard jockey — May 3, 2009 @ 9:38 am - May 3, 2009

  118. 110: “What did Miss California point to as the reason she was against same sex marriage “her religion” she didn’t point to the Government Federal or State.”

    Oh, I see. What you’re saying is that your definition of “separation of church and state” means that people who have opinions on political issues that are influenced by their religion beliefs should not be able to have any say or influence on those political issues. Thus, if Carrie Prejean’s religion is the basis for her opposition to same-sex marriage, I guess she should be prohibited from voting on initiatives like Proposition 8, right?

    Comment by Sean A — May 3, 2009 @ 9:56 am - May 3, 2009

  119. Comment by Sean A

    Separation of church and state, there is a reason for it. For example what if you are a Hindu or a Buddhist and you are for same sex marriage, this is just for example’s sake. The Christians in the STATE get to decide what the STATE recognizes for everyone based on their RELIGION.

    I don’t need to argue this point so this is my last comment on it, besides my last comments got stuck in cyberspace I am guessing.

    Comment by keyboard jockey — May 3, 2009 @ 10:05 am - May 3, 2009

  120. again my comments are not showing up so I give up.

    Comment by keyboard jockey — May 3, 2009 @ 10:06 am - May 3, 2009

  121. If Carrie Prejean wanted publicity and fame (which is what I assume most beauty pageant winners who to achieve) her comment and pageant martyrdom did it.

    I bet most people who now know Carrie can’t even name the woman who WON the pageant.

    Good for Carrie. She stuck by her beliefs despite the risks. She could have taken the easy path, but she didn’t.

    Kudos for her.

    Comment by DMartyr — May 3, 2009 @ 10:18 am - May 3, 2009

  122. Perez Hilton will do more damage to gay marriage than what Fred Phelps could only dream of.

    No bikers will ride out to cover Perez in a blanket.

    Comment by The Rude Dog — May 3, 2009 @ 12:31 pm - May 3, 2009

  123. #119: “The Christians in the STATE get to decide what the STATE recognizes for everyone based on their RELIGION.”

    Get to decide? Oh! You mean VOTING, right? So, by “separation of church and state,” what you really mean is “separating” Christians from voting booths because they might do something crazy like vote for or against something because of their religious beliefs. You’re right, keyboard jockey–those Christians are a real menace at election time. Something should be done about it.

    And hey, don’t sweat the filtered comments you tried to post. I don’t need to read them–I get you loud and clear.

    Comment by Sean A — May 3, 2009 @ 2:11 pm - May 3, 2009

  124. #122: “Perez Hilton will do more damage to gay marriage than what Fred Phelps could only dream of.”

    Well, considering that Phelps is a life-long Democrat, hopefully he will take the time to thank Hilton for his assistance when they run into each other at a DNC fundraiser.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1999/03/man-who-loves-hate

    Comment by Sean A — May 3, 2009 @ 2:28 pm - May 3, 2009

  125. I saw the Factor piece when it aired. I thought it would have been funny if Laura had said “Maybe you should have paid for a brain instead of all that plastic in your face”.

    Comment by John — May 3, 2009 @ 3:30 pm - May 3, 2009

  126. I have yet to see any gay leftists acknowledge that in Islamic countries, homosexuality carries the DEATH PENALTY, and innocent gays are executed by the state all the time in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc.

    I have yet to see any gay leftists admit this.

    Comment by Anon — May 3, 2009 @ 3:37 pm - May 3, 2009

  127. This episode, combined with the gay rights assault on the Mormors after the gay marriage vote in California, is turning a lot of people off to “gay rights” or whatever.

    Gays have successfully moved themselves backs years, if not a good decade, in the eyes of many regular folks.

    I myself went from ambivalence on the issue to sending money to groups opposing gay marriage.

    It’s hard to imagine that was the intent.

    Gays went from an odd curiousity to a special interest group of vile, vile people.

    I can’t wait till Ms. Prejean gets her own TV show so I can watch it to spite the homo-fascists.

    Comment by Sean — May 3, 2009 @ 5:22 pm - May 3, 2009

  128. On the subject of separation of Church and State – it seems that some people have no understanding about what that means. That means you need a history lesson.

    I would start the lesson by looking at ancient history because in those times the rulers e.g. the Pharaoh of Egypt and Caesar were considered to be gods. They were worshipped as living gods. Anyone who did not toe the line was executed because it was considered as treason. This is the reason that the early Christians were thrown to the lions – they refused to worship Caesar and make sacrifices to him as a god.

    This persecution of Christians ended for a time under Constantine when he made Christianity the state religion. However, the persecution did not disappear. Fast forward to the time of Henry VIII and following when you have all sorts of turmoil in England and in Europe. Henry decided to make himself the head of the Church in England. There was a civil war and Charles 1 was beheaded. The Roundheads became the rulers. Eventually they were defeated and the monarchy was restored but the turmoil did not cease. At the same time there was more turmoil in Europe and things were changing with the Catholic Church having less of a say in the affairs of state.

    This is the period in which the first people sailed to the Americas. I am leaving out a lot of the history to make the point about how in that time period there was an official state religion – the Church of England. Your founding fathers did not want an official state religion. This is precisely the meaning of separation of church and state.

    Now move ahead to the 20th century and the emperor of Japan at the time of the second world war. He was also seen as a divine person. Shinto was the state religion. It had an impact upon the way in which the Japanese fought during the second world war. The present emperor worked hard to separate church and state.

    It is so very wrong to state that it is an issue relating to how Christians think and vote. That is not separation of Church and state. Most of what is thrust on people these days is not the separation of Church and state. It is just atheists (a religion) trying to hold sway over everyone.

    What most atheists do not realize is that they are playing into the hands of the most dangerous of theocrats – Islam. In Islam there is no separation of Church and state.

    Comment by thestraightaussie — May 3, 2009 @ 5:31 pm - May 3, 2009

  129. Let’s take a minute more to talk about Orson Scott Card.

    Tom in Lazybrook obviously has strong opinions about Card. In two posts, he states that Card favors “… throwing all Gays in prision [sic.]”

    I’m no expert on Card. It certainly is true that he wrote an article where he stated that he believed that laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books and should, in some cases, be enforced.

    However, he did state that such laws should not be enforced indiscriminately. He specifically condemned violence against gay people.

    Card states clearly that he regards homosexual behavior as a sin. He goes on to say that sinners should be treated kindly, and he adds that even “hypocritical homosexuals” (by which Card means gay people who don’t regard being gay as wrong) should be treated with compassion.

    Interested persons may read a long statement of Card’s views at http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html.

    I invite readers to judge for themselves whether or not political debate would be more civil if Orson Scott Card were the model for argumentation, instead of Perez Hilton, Michael Musto, Keith Olberman, and Tom in Lazybrook.

    Comment by William Krebs — May 3, 2009 @ 5:43 pm - May 3, 2009

  130. “I have yet to see any gay leftists admit this.”

    Perhaps you should consider reading something besides right wing propaganda. In the real world we know that gay leftists are quite aware of what is going on and speak against it. I would agree that the major groups who claim to represent gay thought in the US are disgustingly silent on the issue. To judge all on the gay left by these groups is ignorant.

    Comment by a different Dave — May 3, 2009 @ 9:20 pm - May 3, 2009

  131. Taking our country’s beliefs on the separation of church out of context are the hallmarks of insecure liberals.

    Even though I am an atheist, I dont mind if someone is very vocal about their Christian beliefs. I dont believe in hocus pocus so I am not threatened by Christian evangelism.

    If such people want to debate with me over religion, I have no problem discussing the issue rationally without resorting to insults. In addition I try not to take facts out of context just to support my argument. If you really are secure in your beliefs then there is no reason for nastiness or high school debate team practices of juvenile disinformation. Of course if the person I am debating is not respecting me then I have the option of ending the conversation or returning the favor.

    When people such as “keyboard jockey” justifies voter disenfranchisement because he or she doesn’t like another voter’s Christian beliefs, you really have to question that person’s commitment to the ideals our democratic republic.

    Comment by Freedom Now — May 3, 2009 @ 11:02 pm - May 3, 2009

  132. […] Read the Article in the Gay Patriot Here […]

    Pingback by Miss CA & the Lefty Hate Factor « Outpost 54 - Peering Into The Abyss — May 3, 2009 @ 11:32 pm - May 3, 2009

  133. Freedom Now,

    we have differences of opinion yet we can agree on these very salient points.

    Yes, if you are secure in your belief of atheism that is fine by me and my Christian beliefs. Yes you have it right about voter disenfranchisement, and I salute your comments :). You do get it 🙂

    Comment by thestraightaussie — May 3, 2009 @ 11:35 pm - May 3, 2009

  134. This episode illustrates less the Obi-Wan as the Yoda. Anger, fear, aggression the dark side are they. Decent people who care for each other and the future of the nation can rationally disagree about gay marriage. If they choose to do so. What happened here is that passions and emotions trumped clear thinking and reason. The attacks on Carrie Prejean are personal, emotive and irrational. They are designed to stir emotion just as they spring from it. People should not permit themselves to be swayed on the issue of gay marriage either for or against because of an emotion guided tirade. Use your mind and separate the individual speakers and their particular quirks from the issue.

    Here is where the arguments that claim that one side is more hateful than the other come from as well. You always we have people who spiral into hate and insult filled diatribes against their opposition. Neither left or right has a monopoly on hate or irrationality. One can debate whether one side tends towards it more than the other. Without question, it is destructive to sanction or engage in such behavior.

    Respect those worthy of respect and work for something real. Carrie Prejean gave an honest defensible answer and was treated like the worst kind of person in the world. It was merely a microcosm of what too much of our debate in this great nation has become.

    Comment by Robert — May 4, 2009 @ 3:42 am - May 4, 2009

  135. I do not believe that if 75% of the country believes in marriage between a man and a woman, that it is correct to use the term “they are following a politically incorrect way of thought.” There is nothing politically incorrect about it. That term gets thrown around way to much. And usually by someone or some group looking to change a view or opinion.
    Face it a spade is a spade no matter how politically incorrect you want to call it.

    Comment by James Frazier — May 4, 2009 @ 9:02 am - May 4, 2009

  136. While some who have posted here have had some valid, insightful comments there are those who have not:

    In short, a vicious attack by a small petty man who happens to be homosexual has set the pro-gay marriage movement back years if not idefinitely combined with the judicial tyranny in Iowa and two other states of the four total I believe.

    Indeed Vermont is the only state with valid constitutionally passed gay marriage – it was passed by the legislature / governor and not the judiciary as the US Constitution demands. I may disapprove but Vermont does have the right to make that experiment. Federalism (enshrined in the US Constitution) is how social & moral policies are supposed to be carried out by the 50 state gov’t. That ensures a slow measured change in policy, debate and competing policies that can be measured against each other as far as positive / negative effect.

    The vile diatribe by your stereotypical homosexual activist (going on for decades now) is why I went from anti-gay marriage / pro-civil union to my current position of pretty much opposing the whole “Gay Gestapo” agenda.

    To the leftists who posted some less then insightful comments:

    Remember the judge who says “Poof I see gay marriage” in the US Constitution

    is the same who says “Poof the 5th ammendment doesn’t exist the gov’t can seize your house/property to give to another private entity”

    or says “Poof the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give you the right to bear arms and protect yourself from say a genuine homophobe”

    or says “Poof the 1st Amendment doesn’t guarrantee free political speech” (Illegal and unconstitutional campaign finance reform)

    And so forth.

    When you are willing to give up Natural Law (US Constitution and all of the Founding Documents) in favor of Positivism (ie arbitrary law – the result matters) you have already forged the chains of enslavement for you and the next generation.

    It saddens me to see so many Americans willing to give up the fundamental pre-existing rights acknowledged in the US Constitution for that which is hardly a safe replacement – be it gay marriage, “hate speech” codes, “free” healthcare etc.

    The relevant section of the US Constitution does not mention sexual behavior or marriage thereby under the not yet repealed tenth amendment leaving it to the 50 states:

    Amendment 14
    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
    the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    There is no law prohibiting homosexuals from marrying – the legal definition is and always has been that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Comparisions between laws prohibiting interracial marriage etc are invalid since the 14th was passed in 1868 and all such laws are thus null and void (kept alive in the past for a time by *gasp* judicial tyranny)

    I would strongly advise anyone who is pro-gay marriage or gay civil union to keep on going down this road – the darkest moments of U.S. history usually have had a complicit judiciary who ignored the intent of the US Constitution and legislated from the bench.

    The problem is if they are willing to do it on one issue they will most likely do that on many.

    Comment by Pat O'Dooley — May 5, 2009 @ 4:43 am - May 5, 2009

  137. Comment by Pat O’Dooley — May 5, 2009 @ 4:43 am – May 5, 2009

    I agree

    Comment by keyboard jockey — May 5, 2009 @ 9:48 am - May 5, 2009

  138. Perez Hilton, Star-Maker. Funny, I can’t remember who won the pageant, or which state she represented. The poor winner got thrown off the runway, so to speak, and hasn’t been heard from since. Ms. CA is ready for her closeup, Mr. Demille.

    Comment by twolaneflash — May 5, 2009 @ 7:56 pm - May 5, 2009

  139. I happened upon this website whilst doing a search on …..what ever….. Wow,…I, in my wildest dreams never envisioned a gay, conservative site. Knew you (gay conservatives) existed, thought you were all in the closet (bad pun, I know)…. My ignorance precedes me. Kudos to the webmaster and all who love this great republic.
    I won’t comment on my views of Gay marriage, as my opinion it is not the subject of the thread.
    I will say that I applaud Ms. Prejean for her honesty, after all, is that not what we all wish for….people to be honest? Agree with her or not, how can you ever trust a liar.
    As for Perez the show clown, I wouldn’t hit him if I was gay…..Peace.

    Comment by Splinter — May 6, 2009 @ 10:42 pm - May 6, 2009

  140. Oh, and before I forget……Once N.O.W. gave Clinton the “Green Light” to abuse anyone in a skirt, they have in my mind, become as irrelevant as France. Why anyone would grant them any credibility is a wonderment.

    Comment by Splinter — May 6, 2009 @ 10:52 pm - May 6, 2009

  141. Media sucks! News Sucks and thank god people can See & Hear the BS..no wonder people are looking for other ways to share info…..no more mass media, no more broadcast, and yes where is real news,,,
    The USA Media is a bunch of talking holes… And activism is reduced to bunch of one sided marketers saying the same crap just trying to cut out any opposing view point…freedom of speech works both ways

    Comment by Bob — September 4, 2009 @ 2:42 pm - September 4, 2009

  142. A gay conservative? Isn’t that like a Jewish nazi or a black Klansman?

    Comment by Maggie — February 28, 2010 @ 6:40 pm - February 28, 2010

  143. Gosh, Maggie, you’re so original. However did you come up with that notion? Evidence please, thanks!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 28, 2010 @ 6:52 pm - February 28, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.