If you just read what those on on the left, particularly the gay left, and in their MSM echo chamber said about Carrie Prejean without hearing the beauty queen’s actual words, you might have thought she had slandered gays, saying that the reason “homosexuals” weren’t worthy of state-sanctioned married was because we were perverts, incapable of relationship.
But, she didn’t smear us. She just articulated how she defined marriage — which is how all societies have defined the institution since time immemorial, by gender difference.*
Even though she expressed an opinion nearly identical to that of the President of the United States, she became a punching bag for the politically correct, even for one of his closest advisors.
She might have merited such mockery had she truly derided gay people, but she didn’t. It just makes you wonder about the need of so many to vilify the politically incorrect. Considering why she didn’t say makes wonder me if their issue is not with her, but with themselves.
*To be sure, some societies have allowed men to have multiple wives, provided they were all female and an occasional society did sanction polyandry where a woman could have multiple husbands. Even in those cases, neither the wives nor the husbands were married to one another.
In the Native American berdache tradition, a man could marry another man, provided of course that one of the two lived in the guise of the opposite sex, in societies with more strictly defined gender roles than we have in the United States today.
Because it’s not what they want to hear. Anything not handed down from Il Douche, the KOSholes, Huffington Plaigerism etc. frightens them.
I agree. Regardless of where you stand on this issue of same sex marriage, she gave her opinion on the definition of marriage because she was asked, not because she was out preaching. She also said she hopes not to offend anyone with her opinion It’s her opinion and to see someone demonized because of their opinion shows the hollowness and crassness of the people engaging in this hate. Worst of all, to see it coming from administration people really belittles this administration. Over and over I have come to see this administration as lacking in any class or grace. They are bullies.
Krystal, they are also cowards. The true test of someone’s beliefs and ideas is how they react when those beliefs are challenged. Leftists almost uniformly react with outrageous defensiveness and personal attacks because leftists have no depth, and virtually every position they take can be exposed with simple logic or reasoning.
Unfortunately, many people are afraid of the onslaught of leftist mob tactics [much of it from the media] and either quickly apologize or stay silent. If we had a truly objective media, oh how lovely this country would be!
Also, Sir, I seem to recall that she didn’t volunteer that statement to preach an agenda, but simply replied to a question asked of her.
She may have been foolish to give an honest reply instead of calculating what response may have most pleased her inquisitor, but it takes true scum to mount and maintain so vicious and relentless an onslaught upon her for daring to disagree with them.
As for David Axelrod’s charming comment; he is the living image of the sleaziest hustler one can imagine.
–
If you espouse an opinion, whether asked for it or offering it independently, you should have a reason for your opinion. Simply stating a definition is not offering the opinion underlying that definition or the reason for it. Once again, you attack progay marriage supporters for not wanting to debate, yet you won’t recognize that conservatives who oppose marriage refuse to debate it.
While I don’t see a beauty pageant contestant or a gossip columnist judge having real impact on their own, it’s hit the touchstone on this topic: anti-gay marriage proponents ideas are really based on fear and ignorance – as all prejudice is based. All this historical, sacred stuff becomes ludicrous, especially when you look at the ease with which people can marry and divorce in this country. People used tradition, history and the “special relationship” between master and slave as a reason to keep slavery going in this country. That reasoning eventually fell away and frankly, I expect these anti-marriage sentiments to fall away one day as well.
Frankly, if our government, at all levels, simply stopped granting special legal rights to married couples in this country, then it truly would be a personal, spiritual, private matter and everyone could do as they wished and probably wouldn’t care.
And I’m not to sure about the reason for brining up Indian marriage tradition. Should we say “give us equal marriage rights as long as we promise one will play the girl/one will play the guy”? Personally, I find the 2 gay guys from New Jersey more interesting – Whoa-ya!
See how quickly Kevin turns from asserting that opponents of gay marriage don’t want to debate the issue to then asserting that all of the arguments of gay marriage opponents are “based on fear and ignorance.”
What Carrie Prejean might have said was that she was raised to believe in a traditional definition of marriage and that she doesn’t see why that definition needs to change now. You might want to call that “fear,” but someone else might describe it as prudence, in not wanting to change a tradition that has served most societies well for thousands of years in favor of an alternative that has just started to be tested in a few places in the last few years. Or, to consider a different argument, she might have said that she doesn’t believe the case has been made in a sufficiently compelling manner to persuade her to change her belief in traditional marriage.
Although several gay intellectuals such as Bruce Bawer, Jonathan Rauch, and at one time, Andrew Sullivan, have at various points published books or articles making the case for same sex marriage, over the past few years, the most publicly visible proponents of the issue have, sadly, followed Sullivan’s devolution into emotional overreaction and name-calling.
I don’t see what you’re still in a lather about. Of all the many blogs I read, many left gay, no one is even considering this issue anymore, and all in all it was news outlets like TMX, Fox, and MSNBC that have continued the controversy seemingly for the ratings. Is gaypatriot attempting to do the same?
What I don’t find is those on the Right willing to admit that the consequences she has encountered are as valid as her opinion about gay marriage in the first place.
The Miss USA organization was in no way obligated to award her the crown. It’s a private organization and her answer wasn’t related to protected class status. So her claim of bias was moot. She has faced a crap-storm of criticism, but again why shouldn’t she? And again why shouldn’t she face losing her Miss California crown if it’s revealed that she signed her pageant agreement under false pretenses and then further violated that agreement by partaking in activities expressly prohibited in the agreement?
I understand the motivation for gaypatriot coming to her defense, but continuing to portray her as a victim in black & white sentiments is both dishonest and ignoble.
Yes, because the fact that the gay community attacked her as a “dumb bitch” and a “cunt” on national television is perfectly OK with you, isn’t it, Buckeye Bob?
What you’re trying to do is paper over the fact that the ugly hatemongering side of the gay community came out — and completely backfired on you. People now know that gay-sex marriage supporters like you go on TV and scream that anyone who doesn’t endorse and support gay-sex marriage is a “dumb bitch” and a “cunt” — and even more hilariously, call Obama’s identical position “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Let’s not forget the white house staff, NDT. Funny how they won’t let the meme go.
Then why do private businesses obligated let Big Government decide who they can employ and who they can fire?
What is a vile militant gay advocate doing judging a heterosexual beauty contest in the first place? Do heterosexual straight men decide the winners of gay male beauty pagents? Again, Ms. Prejean did not even come out and say that the states that had passed gay marriage laws should repeal them, she stated if that’s what the people wanted, then that’s what should pass, and if the people don’t want it, then it should not be forced on them. A very libertarian and/or federalist conservative position. A much more intelligent position than anything mustered by Mean Michael Musto, Hilton Perverted Perez, or any of the leftwing new show talkers.
Heh:
…
Indeed.
Say Dan, what was it you were saying about the Dixie Chicks?
Alec, you’re off in non-sequetor land…
See, that’s the difference between the last administration and the current one. The last administration would not attack its critics or those who disagreed with it. The current one will attack people on NPR who agree with them.
Could someone please explain to me how Alec’s comment is in the slightest bit relevant to the subject?
The Dixie Chicks were not treated to the kind of vile bashing that we have seen going on towards Carrie. The Dixie Chicks were not confronted by a member of the White House staff calling them dogs.
Yes, there were conservatives that were upset because the Dixie Chicks made statements that they considered to be disloyal.
I do not know the Dixie Chicks, I do not listen to their music. I am a conservative person, but I am not of the far right within conservatism. There are many conservatives that are right in the centre, leaning left on one issue and right on another issue. They might even belong to other parties, but they do have one thing in common and that is their conservative values.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, I had misgivings. I did not want my country to participate in that invasion. However, when the invasion began, and a new picture emerged, including a people who welcomed the troops with open arms, I changed my mind. That emerging picture including all the discoveries about the Saddam Hussein Baath Party torture chambers that existed, a country where people simply disappeared – many were taken from their homes, never to return. The police stations often held the records of the “disappeared”. I learned more about the marshland crimes of Saddam Hussein, and how he was attempting to kill the people of the marshland area. I already knew about his gassing of the Kurds. These are reasons enough to change my mind about the situation. The real clincher was learning the truth about how Saddam Hussein came to power and how he kept power. He really did have to go.
The war itself was over just as it was declared by GWB – the allied invasion was over, but the Al Qaeda and allies were not finished. There are links between Iran and Moqutada al Sadr, as well as between Iran and Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah, and Iran and Syria. These alliances remain serious threats to everyone in the Middle East.
Saddam Hussein came to power through a coup. He murdered the members of the old parliament. Why then should he have been treated as though his life and his reign in Iraq were sacrosanct when he was supplying through weapons and money, those very same people who threaten the stability of every nation?
The Dixie Chicks trashed the USA when they were in another country. That kind of behaviour is wrong. They deserved to be criticized for their actions.
Carrie Prejean was asked a question by a “fag”. The “fag” was unhappy with the answer because Carrie did not endorse his distorted views of the world. That “fag” launched a disgusting attack upon Carrie claiming all manner of things against her, including turning himself into a victim, when he was the one doing all of the vilifying.
We all have the right to disagree with a position that goes against our traditional values, without the ugly false claim that those of us who have those values are either ignorant or fearful, or bigots. It is just not true. The real bigots are those who continue to make this attack upon traditional values.
#15 – TSA (if you don’t mind me abbreviating your name purely for convenience’s sake), what a lot of our liberal trolls fail to remember is that the main backlash in this country against the Dixie Chicks came from their own fans (i.e. constituency), rather than from the White House or the RNC.
Most if not all country/western fans are socially conservative; in fact, some of the best post-9/11 anthems came from people like Toby Keith and Charlie Daniels. What the Dixie Chicks said – and the manner in which they said it – went sharply against what the mainstream C&W fans believed.
Nobody in the RNC organized anti-Dixie Chicks events like CD burnings or public denunciations. I challenge any liberal troll out there (hello, Alec and Kevin) to prove otherwise.
In fact, when the trio was nominated for a CMA Award in 2003, their names were met with so many boos that the emcee, Vince Gill, told the audience to “act like Christians” and settle down. (I guess if he’d told them to “act like Muslims,” they would have set off bombs. But I digress.)
To compare the Dixie Chicks (or, as I refer to them, the “Three French Hens”) to Carrie Prejean is, as LW put it, a non-sequitur. Apples to oranges. The Dixie Chicks had an agenda, period. Carrie didn’t.
Regards,
Peter H.
7: Funny how you ignored the paragraph I wrote about using the same excuses about the history of slavery or pointing out that marriage and divorce are so easily obtainable in this country. It’s because those points are part of a logical response to the whole sacred/historical argument.
Stop wondering. The issue is definitely with them.
Peter,
thanks for the response :). That clears up a lot of things for this Aussie.
I did read about their behaviour when it happened because I am a regular reader at Hyscience and there were comments on that blog.
The reaction is the same as the reaction given to Sinead O’Connor when she had done one of her rants. She got booed off the stage in New York (from memory) and that was by her fans.
I do not listen to much in the way of C&W and yes I would agree that a lot of the base are conservative in their values, and they are patriots, which means saying what was said by the Dixie Chicks was going to see them lose support.
You are also right about the RNC and the White House ignoring these silly women.
In some countries slavery still exists. The perpetrators of the slave trade are Muslims.
Slavery has a very long history. In the ancient times slaves were not treated in a mean fashion. That was not so true in the Americas – but even those stories might have been exaggerated.
No one can change the history of slavery, why it existed or even how slaves were treated. The serfs of the Middle Ages were also members of the slave class. Last but not least the men and women sent to the colonies from England because they have been sentenced for petty crimes such as stealing a loaf of bread were treated as slave labour.
However, the issue of slavery has nothing to do with the manner in which Carrie Prejean was treated.
As to the issue of marriage, well as a Christian I see marriage as something that is between a man and a woman. It is only sacred when the ceremony is performed in a church. Civil unions before a marriage celebrant have the force of law, but they are not sacred.
There are large numbers of family units where there has been neither a civil service or a church service to seal their partnership. These are recognized as common law marriages. I see no reason why gays need any other type of recognition than that given to the common law unions.
The grandstanding and posturing that I see is nothing more than an attempt to bring down the institution of marriage and after being exposed to the ugliness of the campaign for gay marriage I think it is fair to say that there is a hidden agenda that is meant to punish Christians, especially the Catholic Church by this insistence upon getting married.
As to the issue of marriage, well as a Christian I see marriage as something that is between a man and a woman. It is only sacred when the ceremony is performed in a church. Civil unions before a marriage celebrant have the force of law, but they are not sacred.
Thestraightaussie, I have no problem with this. In fact, I pretty much agree with it. In fact, if you were a lesbian, you still might feel this way, and believe that you should not marry a woman. That would be your choice. I’m simply saying that this choice need not be forced on others. Also, some churches do perform same sex marriages. So those who entered such a marriage regard their marriage as sacred, even if you don’t. Heck, who knows, maybe they don’t see your marriage as sacred. Who cares? Right?
There are large numbers of family units where there has been neither a civil service or a church service to seal their partnership. These are recognized as common law marriages. I see no reason why gays need any other type of recognition than that given to the common law unions.
I’ll have to disagree with you here. First of all, I never want to force a church to marry any couple that they don’t want to marry. So I think we’re in agreement there. I don’t see why same sex couples should be limited to common law unions, even if all states did recognize such unions. Now some couples want to limit themselves to that. Maybe that’s all you would want to limit yourself to. That would be your choice.
The grandstanding and posturing that I see is nothing more than an attempt to bring down the institution of marriage and after being exposed to the ugliness of the campaign for gay marriage I think it is fair to say that there is a hidden agenda that is meant to punish Christians, especially the Catholic Church by this insistence upon getting married.
I’m afraid that you are correct to a point. There are people who have an agenda that has nothing to do with same sex marriage for themselves and/or others. And I’m sure some of it is to try to stick it to some religions. But this is not true for most same sex marriage supporters (which, by the way include mostly straight people). And there are gay (and straight) people who argue why same sex marriage would benefit those who enter it, society as a whole, and the institution itself. If you, like Dan, are saying there should be more of it, I’ll have to agree with it.
But keep in mind that even those who try to bring down marriage really don’t have the power to do that. That power belongs to each and every one of us who enter a marriage.