Gay Patriot Header Image

How a Reasonable Person Should Respond to Carrie Prejean

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:00 pm - May 11, 2009.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage

Few in the media or left-wing blogosphere seem to be heeding my advice to ignore Carrie Prejean. Just yesterday, while doing cardio at the gym, I looked up to see the bleach blonde beauty queen featured in a segment on CNN.

Has any beauty queen received as much attention as she?

Given the hysterical reaction of many outspoken gay marriage advocates to her statement supporting the traditional definition of marriage, I decided to offer a rational response to that civil statement:

We’re delighted you responded in a civil tone:

Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.

She’s right that we can choose same-sex marriage, the difference is that only a few states recognize those unions.  Yes, we have that freedom, but same-sex couples in most states don’t get the benefits which accrue to those who “choose” traditional marriage.

And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.

We respect that you stated this belief without denigrating gay people.  Let us hope that those social conservatives who now herald you for articulating a position near and dear to their hearts will follow suit.  Instead of attacking gay people, they will defend the longstanding definition of this ancient and honorable institution.

You needn’t worry, however.  We’re not asking you to change your beliefs.  With religious liberty provisions like those in the Vermont and Maine legislation recognizing same-sex marriages, your church would remain free to continue define marriage as it has always defined it.  These laws are only about civil marriage and do not impact the practices of particular religious institutions.

Once again, we appreciate you responded in such a civil manner.  While we don’t agree with your views, we certainly support your right to express them.  It’s unfortunate that after posing his question in such a civil manner, Perez Hilton chose to personalize this issue by insulting you personally.  He was wrong to do so.

If you continue to make the case for the traditional definition of marriage, which you have every right to do, we hope you will continue in the tone with which you first addressed the issue and will fault your fellow gay marriage opponents who are using the current controversy to demonize gay people.

ADDENDUM:  Shortly after finishing this post, read a reader’s link to this piece revealing yet another irrational response to Miss Prejean.  What is it with these people?  Why does her position, that of the President of the United States, get them so hysterical?

They’re the ones trying to change a longstanding definition of an ancient institution.   Shouldn’t they expect people to defend the status quo?

Share

36 Comments

  1. you always make a lot of sense.ireally enjoy reading this blog.keep up the good work

    Comment by charles hunter — May 11, 2009 @ 6:31 pm - May 11, 2009

  2. It is hypocritical that people are persecuting this young woman and trying to destroy her credibility because she agrees with Obama about homosexual marriage.

    Why aren’t these haters ferreting out Obama’s college records, medical records, college thesis, and the facts surrounding his birth?

    They are afraid of Obama, so attack a young woman of no particular importance who can’t strike back.

    Comment by Anonymous — May 11, 2009 @ 7:59 pm - May 11, 2009

  3. Does anyone recall when Obama said during a nationally televised interview that he is opposed to same-sex marriage because he’s a christian? Even CNN recently re-aired that sound bite to make a point that Obama is not the gay hero he portends to be, or, even worse, than gays portend him to be. I think gay Americans want so desperately for someone in government to really really like them (they like me, they really like me!) that they are imagining this guy to be a gay superhero. Guiliani would have done more for gays than this guy. Guiliani actually has gay close friends (he lived eith a gay couple while he was mayor of New York after his wife kicked him out of the mayor’s mansion); I doubt Obama knows that many gays personally. I for one don’t really want the government to like me much. It would make me feel sullied.

    Comment by Mark — May 11, 2009 @ 8:15 pm - May 11, 2009

  4. I would have voted for Giuliani if he had gotten the nomination, espcially against Obama considering that I had little choice but to vote for McCain. Yet let’s not forget that he too is a politician and acts like one just like the rest of them. He skipped the wedding of the gay friends you mention, Mark, which might be politically expedient but isn’t exactly high on the loyalty scale.

    As for Obama, I’ve seen quite a number of liberals at least begin to question him on gay rights. That would make an interesting post, Dan. *hint, hint*

    Comment by John — May 11, 2009 @ 8:25 pm - May 11, 2009

  5. Dan, I had to laugh at your concrete suggestions for how the left should have handled Prejean.
    When has the left done anything reasonable or productive when dealing with the opposition.

    It is always attack, smear, demean and lie. Even our president sat and laughed when Wanda Sykes poured her vitriol out on Conservative talk show hosts.

    A dumb little blonde from San Diego is just to easy to tear down.

    Comment by Leah — May 11, 2009 @ 8:39 pm - May 11, 2009

  6. #2: “Why aren’t these haters ferreting out Obama’s college records, medical records, college thesis, and the facts surrounding his birth?”

    It’s hard to get much of anything done when you’re on your knees.

    Comment by Sean A — May 11, 2009 @ 8:53 pm - May 11, 2009

  7. “They’re the ones trying to change a longstanding definition of an ancient institution”

    Civil marriage in a constitutional democracy is not an ancient institution. Constitutional democracy is not an ancient institution.
    No one is forcing any ancient institution, like a church, to accept any new definition.

    The self-hate just twists all your rational faculties, doesn’t it.

    Comment by Tano — May 11, 2009 @ 8:55 pm - May 11, 2009

  8. Do you seriously and honestly think that all gay marriage proponents want is equality in ‘civil marriages’? Don’t be silly- civil unions weren’t enough- they had a different name. ‘Civil marriage’ isn’t going to be enough either. Makes you wonder exactly what will be enough.

    Comment by A Conservative Teacher — May 11, 2009 @ 10:22 pm - May 11, 2009

  9. A court case, in 1967 Loving v. Virginia said that 15 states must recognize that their definition of traditional marrgiage was flawed, change their laws and forced them to recognize other state’s marriages.

    In this case the courts altered society and went against long held religious and social norms and said interracial marraiges were A-O.K.

    A question:
    GPW if you were active in 1967 would you be against that ruling? If so, how can you justify your current position?

    Comment by gillie — May 11, 2009 @ 10:27 pm - May 11, 2009

  10. Comment by gillie — May 11, 2009 @ 10:27 pm – May 11, 2009

    Your analogy is often cited, but it’s entirely irrelevant.

    Skin color is an immutable characteristic. Sexual conduct represents nothing but conscious behavior.

    What’s the problem with policies that favor the union of a man and a woman–a relationship that has propagated societies since the beginning of mankind?

    In the end, blacks should be insulted by your analogy, and I’ve read that many of them are.

    Comment by SAM — May 11, 2009 @ 10:44 pm - May 11, 2009

  11. “Sexual conduct represents nothing but conscious behavior”
    huh?
    Being gay is not simply “sexual conduct”
    I would imagine that my conservative pals would agree with me on that, Right?

    Comment by gillie — May 11, 2009 @ 11:01 pm - May 11, 2009

  12. #11 – “Being gay is not simply “sexual conduct””

    Only if you allow your orientation to dictate your lifestyle.

    So gillie – are you gay first, or American first?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 11, 2009 @ 11:14 pm - May 11, 2009

  13. peter – neither, I just exist as I am every day.

    Comment by gillie — May 11, 2009 @ 11:22 pm - May 11, 2009

  14. #13. Your comment sounds so…nebulous and existential. However, it avoids a responsible, articulate statement of what you believe. If you cannot articulate what you believe, dont hide behind a useless, meaningless statement. Once again, what is with “White” people who cannot participate in meaningful dialogue?

    Comment by Duffy - Native Intelligence — May 11, 2009 @ 11:31 pm - May 11, 2009

  15. #14 it was not existential but simlply a glib response

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

  16. #15 It was a bullshit response because you weren’t counting on being challenged.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 12, 2009 @ 1:03 am - May 12, 2009

  17. Please send your post to O’Reilly. He said on his show tonight that no gays are standing up for her rights. I think he would appreciate a reasonable point of view.
    Have you considered the libertarian point of view of dropping the word marriage from the legislature altogether and have all unions be recognized as contractual civil unions and leave marriage to the churches? I think the biggest scare among reasonable straight people is that gay rights are being used to trample on the others right to freedom of religion. As we have seen with Christian groups losing court cases for denying services to gay couples.

    Comment by Jamie — May 12, 2009 @ 3:48 am - May 12, 2009

  18. A court case, in 1967 Loving v. Virginia said that 15 states must recognize that their definition of traditional marrgiage was flawed, change their laws and forced them to recognize other state’s marriages….

    … if you were active in 1967 would you be against that ruling? If so, how can you justify your current position

    In 1972, the exact same Supreme Court, with all the exact same justices that decided Loving v. Virginia REJECTED the ridiculous argument that because the court ruled that skin color is irrelevant to marriage that gender is therefore also irrelevant. They REJECTED exactly those arguments when they dismissed Baker v. Nelson on the merits. meaning the arguments of the appeal had no merit.

    here is a better question for you:

    Why do you keep referencing the court that rejected your argument as proof that your argument is valid?

    And an even better question:

    Why, after all this time, have you not bothered to understand why it is that the court you think proves your case actually disproves it.

    Comment by American Elephant — May 12, 2009 @ 4:03 am - May 12, 2009

  19. American Elephant: Supreme Court decisions can be overturned. It is worth noting that at the time, same-sex marriage existed nowhere in the world, so the court would be the first body in the world to allow it.

    Contrast this to loving, where interracial marriage was not only around, it was the norm. The court wasn’t doing anything revolutionary, it was simply bringing a few states up to standard. If you look to the first ruling a court makes on any given issue as the only valid ruling, then take a look at Plessy v. Ferguson.

    SAM: “Skin color is an immutable characteristic. Sexual conduct represents nothing but conscious behavior. ” that is true, but it is also true that interracial relationships (and consequentially interracial marriage) are also choices – a black man must consciously choose to have a relationship with a white woman.

    Under your criteria of “it’s a choice therefore it can legitimately be denied”, you must also apply it to interracial marriage (so states must be allowed to ban it if they wish, given that one chooses who they marry, so surely they can also choose to marry one who is of your own race. Interracial marriage and same-sex marriage have more in common than you might think.

    Comment by Bart M — May 12, 2009 @ 7:07 am - May 12, 2009

  20. AE
    It seems you miss the point. I am not arguing legality here as I am sure there are others much better versed in law than I.
    I am simply pointing out the fallacy of “traditional marriage”
    There is no such thing at all.
    As Loving V. Virginia shows the definition of marriage is defined by the Government.
    Not society, not religion, not social norms.

    And thank you for bringing up Baker v Nelson, because this just further amplifies my point that that indeed the government can limit scope or widen scope of marriage at any time.

    The government can say what is and what is not marriage and the new conservative catch phrase “traditional marriage” is a sham.

    Comment by gillie — May 12, 2009 @ 8:34 am - May 12, 2009

  21. #13 – Thanks, gillie, you just proved my point. You have no concept of identity except for what the liberal mantra of the day is.

    I pity you for your shallow existence.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 12, 2009 @ 10:35 am - May 12, 2009

  22. [...] i did find a reasonable response to Ms. Prejean from a member of the gay community at GayPatriot, if you’re interested in a rational response. If more gays were like GayPatriot, they’d [...]

    Pingback by This ain’t Hell, but you can see it from here » Blog Archive » Carrie Prejean is still Ms. CA — May 12, 2009 @ 12:24 pm - May 12, 2009

  23. Poor Gillie, even a stopped watch is right more often than you

    I am simply pointing out the fallacy of “traditional marriage”
    There is no such thing at all.

    Sorry, there is. Marriage in America, has always been between the two genders necessary to create children. Period.

    As Loving V. Virginia shows the definition of marriage is defined by the Government.
    Not society, not religion, not social norms.

    Loving v Virginia shows no such thing. Loving v. Virginia shows that statutes are superseded by the Constitution.

    Indeed, Baker v. Nelson shows precisely the opposite of what you claim. It shows that marriage is defined by the people, not the courts.

    Comment by American Elephant — May 12, 2009 @ 6:38 pm - May 12, 2009

  24. not quite on topic here, but I thought you might be interested in this:
    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,25473520-1702,00.html?from=public_rss

    The story involves a man molesting young children and girls in particular. It is only to make the point that pedophiles include both straight and gay men and women. It is also to point out that we all need to fight this particular thing together without taking sides.

    Comment by thestraightaussie — May 13, 2009 @ 7:00 am - May 13, 2009

  25. Marriage in America, has always been between the two genders necessary to create children. Period.

    Not since infertile persons, including cases where the woman is clearly past childbearing years. In fact, not only is it a case of trying not to make exceptions, but society has encouraged and applauded such marriages.

    Comment by Pat — May 13, 2009 @ 7:19 am - May 13, 2009

  26. Infertility != change in gender.

    Thanks for playing Pat.

    Comment by The Livewire — May 13, 2009 @ 9:10 am - May 13, 2009

  27. And, Pat, if children are irrelevant to marriage, then gay liberals who adopt children and scream that their children are being “harmed” by the lack of marriage are lying.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 13, 2009 @ 11:23 am - May 13, 2009

  28. Livewire, excuse me? Seriously, I have no idea what you mean here.

    And, Pat, if children are irrelevant to marriage, then gay liberals who adopt children and scream that their children are being “harmed” by the lack of marriage are lying.

    NDT, first of all, I don’t agree with your premise. And only gay liberals adopt children and want to marry? Some infertile opposite sex couples adopt children. Is it whining when they have the audacity to want to marry as well?

    My point is that we have allowed infertile opposite sex couples to marry. Even if they don’t want to adopt children. We also allow fertile couples who have no intention of having children to marry. I understand the point that we don’t want to micromanage every single opposite sex couple that wants to marry and check to see if they can or want to procreate. On the other hand, we celebrate and encourage marriage between opposite sex couples in their 70s, who clearly cannot procreate.

    So it’s not that children are irrelevant to marriage. It’s that there is a lot more to marriage than just having children.

    Comment by Pat — May 13, 2009 @ 4:24 pm - May 13, 2009

  29. Not quite to this topic, but it ain’t over just yet:
    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/05/13/ent.miss.california.usa/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

    Comment by thestraightaussie — May 14, 2009 @ 5:35 am - May 14, 2009

  30. Pat those points are true, but it is not the full picture.

    1. There are couples who marry thinking that they will be able to have children, only to discover that one or other partner is infertile. It is not that they have been allowed to marry despite infertility.

    2. “even if they don’t want to adopt children”? Some have to go to Asian and African countries to adopt because of the lack of babies available for adoption as well as some very “obscene” adoption laws.

    3. A large number of heterosexual couples do not have either a civil or religious marriage. They live together as a common law man and wife. The situation of the common law couple has, I believe, been addressed in various countries and the partners are protected to some degree. The only thing that needs to change is that gay couples should be afforded the same kind of protection as the common law relationship.

    Comment by thestraightaussie — May 14, 2009 @ 5:41 am - May 14, 2009

  31. 1. There are couples who marry thinking that they will be able to have children, only to discover that one or other partner is infertile. It is not that they have been allowed to marry despite infertility.

    Thestraightaussie, I agree with this statement. But I don’t see it how it changes my point. Sure, we probably know all such couples. And we don’t enourage these couples to divorce whether or not they decide to adopt children.

    2. “even if they don’t want to adopt children”? Some have to go to Asian and African countries to adopt because of the lack of babies available for adoption as well as some very “obscene” adoption laws.

    That’s true as well. My cousin and her husband did just that. But again, I don’t see this changing my argument in any way, except to maybe change the statement to, “even if they don’t want to or unable to adopt children because of restrictive laws or cost.”

    3. A large number of heterosexual couples do not have either a civil or religious marriage. They live together as a common law man and wife. The situation of the common law couple has, I believe, been addressed in various countries and the partners are protected to some degree. The only thing that needs to change is that gay couples should be afforded the same kind of protection as the common law relationship.

    I partly agree with your point here. Sure, there are straight couples, who in their mind, are as committed as married couples that choose not to get married. Fine by me. All couples should have that choice. And gay couples who do not want to get married should get have the same rights and protections as their straight counterparts who do not get married. Where I am disagreeing with you is that should not be the only option for gay couples who do want to get married.

    Comment by Pat — May 14, 2009 @ 6:55 am - May 14, 2009

  32. Pat.

    You replied to Marriage in America, has always been between the two genders necessary to create children. Period.

    With this:
    Not since infertile persons, including cases where the woman is clearly past childbearing years. In fact, not only is it a case of trying not to make exceptions, but society has encouraged and applauded such marriages.

    Last time I checked, menopause doesn’t make one less of a woman (i.e. opposite gender to a man).

    Comment by The Livewire — May 14, 2009 @ 6:56 am - May 14, 2009

  33. Livewire, that’s what you meant. Thanks. Yes, I’m fully aware that a woman who has menopause is no less a woman. Same with other women who are infertile otherwise. I apologize if my comment implied otherwise.

    However, infertility does preclude one from procreating. And yet we still encourage such marriages. Except for a few nutcases, I’ve never heard anyone say, “Gee, I don’t want to check to see if married couples are going to procreate and have laws to provide exceptions, but I wish that couple in their 70s didn’t marry and make a mockery of traditional marriage.” That’s what I was responding to.

    Comment by Pat — May 14, 2009 @ 9:06 am - May 14, 2009

  34. Everyone is talking about what the adults want from marriage ie. Kids…but the kids don’t get a choice from being adopted by same sex couples.

    Comment by Maz — May 14, 2009 @ 3:50 pm - May 14, 2009

  35. [...] somehow, I don’t think Joe will listen. I already offered some advice which neither he nor any of his confrères (or consoeurs, as the case may be) seem to have followed [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Maggie Gallagher Asks a Great Question — May 19, 2009 @ 9:57 pm - May 19, 2009

  36. [...] RELATED:  How a Reasonable Person Should Respond to Carrie Prejean [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Should CA Supreme Court Uphold Prop 8 when it releases its ruling on Tuesday . . . — May 24, 2009 @ 9:59 pm - May 24, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.