Hurling Even More Ad Hominems at Carrie Prejean & Her Allies
As recently as five years ago, even gay marriage advocates didn’t think it possible to move legislation recognizing same-sex marriages through elected legislatures. Knowing that polls were against them, their preferred route was through courts.
While they won in the Hawai’i Supreme Court in 1993 and 1997, they lost at the ballot box in the Aloha State in 1998 and would lose all but one referendum and initiative in the following decade And that one victory, Arizona in 2006, would turn into a defeat two years later when citizens in the Grand Canyon State voted on a proposition would allow the state only to recognize traditional marriage, but not bar same-sex civil unions (as had the earlier initiative).
Given the popularity of initiatives defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and given the fact that until very recently, sexual difference has been central to nearly everyone’s understanding of marriage, you’d think those trying to expand the definition to include same-sex couples might have a little respect for those who favor the longstanding status quo.
And yet, when a politically incorrect person (as opposed to a politician with the appropriate partisan immunity) states her support of that traditional definition, she faces the wrath of the left. Witness the reaction of the director of the Miss California pageant, Keith Lewis, to Carrie Prejean’s affiliation with Maggie Gallagher’s National Organization for Marriage (NOM):
(H/t Townhall via reader Peter Hughes.)
Why must he so attack Maggie Gallagher? And why do so many gay lefties use the word “shame” to describe the actions of their ideological adversaries? His tone was harsh the opposite of the women he’s attacking. He would have better better served to follow my advice.
Why can’t these people show some class, some grace, in confronting their adversaries? Why must they adopt so harsh a tone and so vitriolic a vocabulary?
They need to learn from others who have pushed so massive a social change, focusing on the virtues of that change and not the deficiencies of those who defend the status quo.
24 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Are there ANY heterosexual men whatsoever who work for the miss USA pageant at any level?
I haven’t seen any so far.
And what an ass blaming everyone else BUT the gay activists who attacked Carrie Prejean for the ugliness that has insued.
The people of California voted AGAINST gay marriage. Carrie Prejean represents the majority of Californians. That is something the homos cant seem to get through their big gay heads.
Comment by American Elephant — May 12, 2009 @ 3:20 am - May 12, 2009
Are there ANY heterosexual men whatsoever who work for the miss USA pageant at any level?
American Elephant
***************
Are you suggesting that Donald Trump is gay?
Comment by slp — May 12, 2009 @ 4:10 am - May 12, 2009
That is something the homos cant seem to get through their big gay heads.
Well who would expect much more from the comments at this site?
These are your “allies” Dan?
BTW, American Elephant, Californians also affirmed racial apartheid in initiatives. Most Americans support Roe v. Wade. I find it hard to believe you are in favor of an ethical or legal system based on pure majority rule. That’s not the system we have. Unfortunately, both the right wing and the left wing select it when it suits them and ignore it when it does not. As you are doing here.
Carrie Prejean is nothing to be worried about. She and “Perez Hilton” are soaking up their fifteen minutes of fame (although she has gone on to express, unconvincingly, agnosticism on civil unions and adoptions by same-sex couples, which suggests she is being far more strategic in her public views than she is being principled).
Comment by Alec — May 12, 2009 @ 8:07 am - May 12, 2009
When I was a younger gay man in the mid 90s and gay marriage was first rearing its head in NY gay political/legal circles, there was a symposium by I believe LLDEF and the NYCLU Gay Project (or some such pc offshoot of the CLU). One participant,I believe, by the name Paula Ettlebrook (it’s been a few years so the name may have faded with time) gave the classic lesbian leftwing feminist manifesto of the day, that the purpose of marriage was patriarchal and entitled to no respect. That if gay marriage was achieved it was not to support marriage as an institution but to pave the way for polyandry, polygamy, and various other sundry ‘human affectional relationships’. None of the other participants objected to that characterization of gay marriage as the camel’s nose to a radical undoing of traditional marriage. Since Paula was with the CLU, I believe she represented that civil liberties’ communities take on where they wanted this issue to head. So when I hear GLBT spokespeoples (pc is such a miasmic attack on clear language) say that all that gay people want is gay marriage and that will satisfy them, I know that is false and that gay marriage is but a trojan horse for many other even more radical attacks to be lobbed by the left at marriage and social relationships.
Comment by eaglewingz08 — May 12, 2009 @ 8:45 am - May 12, 2009
Well put and Amen.
Behind political correctness is a the mind of a censor. Behind the mind of the censor is a the intolerance of a prig. Behind the intolerance of a prig is an appeal to authority. Behind the appeal to authority is the oligarchy, gestapo, fascist, politburo, thought police, big brother, ministry of truth, fairness doctrine, affirmative speak, bureau of state propaganda, Congressional show trials, dictator and on and on and on. (Look at how many colleges run their students through indoctrination programs so that they will learn to think and speak correctly. If you do not love and promote diversity, you are a bigot. If you do not understand how a gay or a black or a woman or a fat person or an abused child, etc. understands reality, you are a bigot. It is all so predetermined and hypocritical. It is patent intolerance of those who do not fit the diversity mold. And it is fueled by a mighty righteous indignation.)
The mind that dwells on political correctness also invents hate crimes and is ever ready to judge and punish motive.
Comment by heliotrope — May 12, 2009 @ 9:55 am - May 12, 2009
Alec, I am confused by this comment:
1) I have not seen the statistics that back your statement vis a vis Roe v. Wade.
2) How does the assertion that “(m)ost Americans support Roe v. Wade” lead to the conclusion AE or anyone therefore is “in favor of an ethical or legal system based on pure majority rule.”?
3) The ethos and mores of a society are, in fact, the outcome of majority opinion. I will drop the word rule, for this reason. The majority can be made to adapt to nearly any ethos and set of mores. The gestapo, Pol Pot, thought police, etc. can have a remarkable effect on how a society acts and believes. They assess safety first and act accordingly.
4) Europe is being over populated by Islamic people and every European country is adapting to aspects of Sharia. Sharia is an ethical and legal system of its own. To ignore this reality is to feign ignorance of daily political strife in England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France, Spain and even Canada where the Canadian Human Rights Commission has made a total bollux of thought police enforcement against objecting to Sharia.
For these reasons and more, I can not get a grasp of the meaning of what you stated above.
Comment by heliotrope — May 12, 2009 @ 10:13 am - May 12, 2009
#5 – Helio, feel free to ignore Mr. Baldwin. He emotes without facts, therefore he is a liberal.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 12, 2009 @ 10:33 am - May 12, 2009
“And why do so many gay lefties use the word “shame” to describe the actions of their ideological adversaries?”
Heck if I know, Dan – most if not all the gay lefties I know have no concept of the word “shame.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 12, 2009 @ 10:33 am - May 12, 2009
Well who would expect much more from the comments at this site?
These are your “allies” Dan?
BTW, American Elephant, Californians also affirmed racial apartheid in initiatives.
Yeah, Prop 209/Civil Rights Act of 1964….real examples of apartheid there, buddy.
Anyway, gays will find tolerance with the Right (and the majority of Americans) but they will not find approval. But that’s ok because there’s a lot of things I don’t approve of that I think people should have the freedom to do.
Comment by Roy Mustang — May 12, 2009 @ 12:17 pm - May 12, 2009
[...] Gay Patriot has an excellent post entitled Hurling Even More Ad Hominems at Carrie Prejean & Her Allies [...]
Pingback by Double Standard On Racy Pageant Contenders Photos? Update With The Decision » Pirate’s Cove — May 12, 2009 @ 2:15 pm - May 12, 2009
The only thing shameful going on here is the shameless way in which this self-righteous homo is trying to pretend that this is about some dry contractual issue and not about Prejean’s beliefs. It’s already well-known that the organization pressured Prejean to apologize for her belief and not talk about her faith. So, any attempt the pageant makes to assert claims that Prejean breached her contract should be ignored. Any ability the organization may have had to raise legitimate contractual issues evaporated with their initial, knee-jerk attacks on her statement and her beliefs.
Comment by Sean A — May 12, 2009 @ 3:32 pm - May 12, 2009
And by the way, how pathetic is it that one of the individuals leading this crusade against Prejean is the woman sitting next to Keith Lewis, Shana Moakler? Funny how everyone in the media seems to have forgotten that this is a woman who starts brawling fist-fights at nightclubs with the likes of Paris Hilton.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-10-04-paris-hilton_x.htm
Comment by Sean A — May 12, 2009 @ 3:39 pm - May 12, 2009
The longer this stuff goes on, the more it seems that gays don’t want gay marriage, but want to control whether or not people believe gay marriage is correct or not. The attacks on Ms. Perjean are not because of her stance on a public policy issue, but personal attacks on her personal views of the world. What do gays want to do- control her thoughts? Is this something that free people support? This is getting ugly.
Comment by A Conservative Teacher — May 12, 2009 @ 4:05 pm - May 12, 2009
[...] Gay Patriot has an excellent post entitled Hurling Even More Ad Hominems at Carrie Prejean & Her Allies [...]
Pingback by Double Standard On Racy Pageant Contenders Photos? : Stop The ACLU — May 12, 2009 @ 6:07 pm - May 12, 2009
#2 No, Trump doesn’t work for the pageant, he owns it. But I am glad to see he did the right thing and didn’t give in to the gay nazis.
Alec,
I am not in favor of pure majority rule, no one’s rights should be up to a majority vote. But getting benefits for a behavior you refuse to exhibit is not a right as the United States Supreme Court settled when they rejected precisely that argument in Baker v. Nelson. The people, therefore, have the right to define marriage as they deem best.
YOU, on the other hand, would take that right to self governance away from them to feed your deep seated need to have people lie to you, by telling you homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same. They aren’t. Deal with it.
Are you seriously such an enormous girl that you are going to tell me you are offended by that??? Grow up!
Comment by American Elephant — May 12, 2009 @ 6:25 pm - May 12, 2009
And what’s funny is that gay-sex liberals like Alec think Proposition 209, which eliminated preferential treatment on the basis of race in California, is a “racist” law.
What Alec considers racist, clearly, is not being allowed to discriminate on the basis of race.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2009 @ 7:46 pm - May 12, 2009
I should have known that’s what he meant! And he expects us to take him seriously?
Comment by American Elephant — May 13, 2009 @ 12:26 am - May 13, 2009
Actually I wasn’t referring to Prop 209; I was referring to an initiative that passed in the forties or fifties, and was struck down (using very novel reasoning somewhat akin to Romer v. Evans), although all it did was prohibit the state from banning racial discrimination in housing, I believe.
Nice try.
As for the rest, since all you have left is “gay sex liberal” and “Mr. Baldwin,” I’ll leave you to your rot.
Comment by Alec — May 13, 2009 @ 1:11 am - May 13, 2009
Ha ha ha ha ha! Very funny, Dan!
People can’t show class and grace when they don’t have any.
Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — May 13, 2009 @ 4:00 am - May 13, 2009
That blond woman sitting next to Lewis is Shanna Moakler, a former Playboy centerfold. She’s the assistant pageant director.
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y
Comment by Captain Saveaho — May 13, 2009 @ 6:01 am - May 13, 2009
#18. Ah, so using Alec logic (an oxymoron) I can call the democrats the party of racists because of their long historic oposition to equal rights.
Got it.
Comment by The Livewire — May 13, 2009 @ 6:41 am - May 13, 2009
The Livewire,
What in the hell are you talking about? I was referring to the passage of a popular initiative in California over half a century ago. I didn’t say anything about party politics. It was about direct demoracy. Can you read?
Comment by Alec — May 13, 2009 @ 7:57 am - May 13, 2009
Californians also affirmed racial apartheid in initiatives.
So if you’re lumping ‘Californians’ together in an initiative ’50 years ago’ as their consensus, surely you agree that lumping the democrats into their long history of opposition to equality is fair.
My reading skills are fine, Alec. Your logic skills are lacking.
Comment by The Livewire — May 13, 2009 @ 9:09 am - May 13, 2009
It was an example of majority rule, and an “activist” judiciary employing a novel legal theory to invalidate it under the 14th amendment. Sure, it is fair to point to the long history of the Southern Democrats; it is equally fair to highlight the southern strategy on the part of the Republicans, and the party’s transition into right wing lunacy.
Comment by Alec — May 13, 2009 @ 3:48 pm - May 13, 2009