Quote :

"there's been a huge controversy about Miss California's remarks link? i haven't heard of this...i dont follow miss america though...did she bash gay marriage or say she wished we had it?"

She was asked about her thoughts on gay marriage and she answered that she believed marriage was meant for one man and one woman. Perez Hilton then goes on a foaming at the mouth temper tantrum.

The whole thing being "news" is stupid, but then again, so are pageants.


[Edited on April 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM. Reason : 3]

4/22/2009 1:09:23 PM

i just think it made an interesting point about people and their opinions. no matter what she had answered, she's going to be attacked.

My favorite quote from Roland:

Quote :

"Hey, Hilton, from a real journalist to a wanna-be who traffics in gossip: Never ask a question if you're unprepared for the answer!"

4/22/2009 1:21:33 PM

I think the contestant from North Carolina won the whole thing if I heard right.

4/22/2009 1:43:30 PM

yeah, they've been talking about Miss USA on Fox News multiple times a day for about a week. It's on every show - the morning show, the Special Report thing, the mid-day shows, O'Reilly. For the past 3 days, I think it has been the morning show's leading topic. the whole thing is absurd on so many levels..... 1) it's miss USA --> who gives a shit, 2) the "villain" here is Perez Hilton --> who gives a shit what he says, 3) why the fuck is Perez Hilton on any panel of judges to begin with, 4) it's miss USA --> who gives a shit

4/22/2009 1:52:48 PM

I agree:

Quote :

"who gives a shit"

But it does seem at least obliquely related to the topic of this thread. I think something along the lines of "It's not for me, but this is America where everyone should be afforded equal rights no matter what my personal beliefs are" would have been generally accepted by everyone including that thing, Perez Hilton.

Instead, yes, she truthfully gave her opinion. Unfortunately it's a bigoted opinion that should be decried.

Funny though: I went to google to find the exact quotation that she said and from
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517137,00.html
it has pictures of both Miss California and the winner Miss North Carolina and I honestly couldn't tell them apart.

4/22/2009 1:58:59 PM

^ I want you to tell me how her comments were bigoted. Then, after you tell me what I think your going to say, I'll destroy the arguement you presented.

BTW, she is Ms. California.....Californians voted for Prop 8 just a few months ago. Her opinion is that of the people of her state.



[Edited on April 22, 2009 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

4/22/2009 2:15:59 PM

Quote :

"We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what? In my country and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Being that this was a beauty contest, I hope that answer didn't change the outcome for Miss CA, but I am glad any time that NC gets represented positively in the national spotlight including the win for Miss NC.

4/22/2009 2:20:20 PM

Quote :

""We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what? In my country and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman."

But then follows it up with this in an interview....

Quote :

""My sister is a second lieutenant in the Air Force and she is a gay rights activist," she said of her sib, who is not gay. "She supports gay people, she supports gay marriage. My beliefs have nothing to do with my sister or my mom, or whatever.""

Just find the two statements someone contradictory.

4/22/2009 2:34:58 PM

Quote :

"In my country and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman." "

What about this is not bigoted? Yes, it's honest. It's honestly discriminatory.

Suppose I were to say "In my country and my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a white woman and a white man." Would that not be bigoted?

Oh, and just because the majority of Californians voted for it doesn't make it right. In fact, one would typically think just the opposite about Californians' judgment, amirite?

[Edited on April 22, 2009 at 2:41 PM. Reason : amirite?]

4/22/2009 2:40:19 PM

well, can we all agree on one thing here? That Perez Hilton is an irrelevant dolt?

4/22/2009 2:56:08 PM

Hell yeah!

4/22/2009 2:56:54 PM

Miss CA:

Quote :

""We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what? In my country and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.""

CA has a constitutional ban on marriage equality.

Miss NC - Kristen Dalton:

Quote :

""The beautiful thing about America is that we have the right to choose, we have the right to choose what partner we want to love, commit and spend the rest of our lives with. I think that all couples should be able to be recognized legally, and they should be able to enter into a union. Whether or not it should be defined as marriage, I don't know, I'll leave that up to the politicians." "

NC does not have a constitutional ban on marriage equality. We are the only state in the south without one.

I've heard that Miss CA's answer may have hurt her in that she was inarticulate rather than her answer not being one they wanted to hear.

But then again I don't think anyone is really looking to beauty queens for advice on politics or civil rights regardless of what their answers are.

4/23/2009 2:08:56 PM

The way to fix the Miss USA pagent is to make sure you get judges who want to have sex with the contestants!

Why is Perez Hilton even there? Get some heteros at the judges table. They won't care what her answer is, as long as she answers it jumping on a trampoline.

4/23/2009 11:00:21 PM

I don't get why they'd let Perez Hilton near anything that wants to preserve any illusion of respectability.

4/23/2009 11:26:25 PM

damn the chick from NC had a good response...exactly how i feel...we dont have to call it "marriage" but we can let them have unions...best of both worlds imo

4/27/2009 2:48:18 AM

The beauty pageant affair will be illustrative of a pretty typical media strategy used by religious right wing groups. While Perez Hilton stoked the fire, it's no doubt that future anti-marriage attack ads will focus on his response as an example of how marriage equality means losing the ability to speak openly about religious issues in general. It will be along the same lines as the "teaching kids about gay marriage in schools" nonsense that was floated about during the Proposition 8 campaign.

In other news, apparently the stupid bitch is now dating Michael Phelps:

Quote :

"Miss California Carrie Prejean's wacky granny Jeanette Coppolla is blabbing to reporters about her anti-gay-marriage granddaughter dating Olympic swimmer/bong-puffer Michael Phelps."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2009/04/carrie-prejean-is-dating-bong-smoker-michael-phelps-.html

4/27/2009 3:28:25 AM

Quote :

"I don't get why they'd let Perez Hilton near anything that wants to preserve any illusion of respectability."

jesus antonio - you still are quite retarded -


i'm excited, i get to see two people i love get married in vt this weekend - woot!

4/30/2009 9:56:31 AM

We can add Maine to the list, it passed the legislature, & the Governor of Maine signed it today.

5/6/2009 2:10:40 PM

its the first thing the maine state legislature has done right in a while

5/6/2009 2:16:57 PM

This should be a state issue. And im happy that some states are doing, what I feel to be, the right thing.

5/6/2009 3:53:04 PM

do you believe that those who suported DOMA should be castigated?

[Edited on May 6, 2009 at 4:02 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2009 4:01:50 PM

DOMA is ridiculous. It should be handled at the state level. Period.

Im more concerned with consistancy. Instead of people claiming state rights wanting states rights until the states vote against what they want.. then they want the feds to overrule the states, just be consistant. This inst a federal issue or the responsiblity of the fed, leave it to the states. period

5/6/2009 4:45:07 PM

aren't all the tax benefits from being married federal tax breaks? I thought they were, but maybe I'm remembering wrong.

5/6/2009 4:57:05 PM

Quote :

"jesus antonio - you still are quite retarded - "

And who the fuck are you?

In other news, DC has decided to recognize same sex marriage (the only dissenting vote on the city council was Marion Barry lol). And it passed in the NH House and Senate.

[Edited on May 6, 2009 at 6:53 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2009 6:50:21 PM

NH just passed it through the legislature today, now it is up to the gov to sign or not, maybe we'll know sometime tomorrow.

5/6/2009 8:56:29 PM

Quote :

"aren't all the tax benefits from being married federal tax breaks?"

You typically get a break at the state level for being married as well.

5/6/2009 10:45:37 PM

Quote :

"Im more concerned with consistancy. Instead of people claiming state rights wanting states rights until the states vote against what they want.. then they want the feds to overrule the states, just be consistant. This inst a federal issue or the responsiblity of the fed, leave it to the states. period"

Ensuring basic, equal rights is a federal concern. This is why SC couldn't vote to re-instate slavery or to ban inter-racial marriage.

5/7/2009 9:14:32 AM

^Again I disagree. Anyone who uses slavery as an excuse/example to control power at the federal level doesnt know their history.

You had the north that prohibited slavery and south that allowed it. In 1793 and 1850 The FEDERAL fugitive slave laws forced northern states to returned escaped slaves to thier southern owners, thus nullying the northern states law. The northern states fought back and tried to pass personal liberty laws to slow down or prevent the deportation of the escaped slaves back to the south. The 1842 Prigg vs. Penn case, the FEDERAL supreme court rules that these laws were unconstitutional bc they sought to preempt FEDERAL law. In 1857 the court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford that no slaves or desendants of slaves should be US citizens and that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited slaves in the western territories as unconsitutional.. So the Federal govt bascially EXPANDS slavery while denying the slave the ability to escape to the north.

I think this is a good example of perception over reality. Yes the federal govt came around, however, how many people went back to tryranny bc of the judgement of a few? That is why having these states laws are so important. It gives people away to escape unjust LOCAL governments. But when the Fed delivers an unjust ruling there is no escape until a later date. In fact it wasnt until 1862 that DC, under total federal control, banned slavery.

5/7/2009 11:17:23 AM

Quote :

"You had the north that prohibited slavery and south that allowed it. In 1793 and 1850 The FEDERAL fugitive slave laws forced northern states to returned escaped slaves to thier southern owners, thus nullying the northern states law"

So you have an example of misapplied federal policy. Denial of equal rights in a state IS a federal issue.

5/7/2009 12:33:42 PM

we probably should have let the states sort out segregation too.

5/7/2009 12:57:43 PM

I think you are missing the point.

Oh and since you brought up segregation Google Plessy v. Ferguson

5/7/2009 1:46:39 PM

what point am i missing? what right did the fed have butting into the state-run schools in the first place? the families who were getting discriminated against could just move to a more free state, right? i mean that's what we're arguing about here, right?

plessy v ferguson should have stood by how you're arguing.

[Edited on May 7, 2009 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2009 2:06:16 PM

No matter your position on gay marriage, I think we can all agree that Perez Hilton is a massive douche.

5/7/2009 4:08:37 PM

(this comment is directed towards anyone, it is just a general contribution in regards to the discussion of marriage equality as a "states rights" issue)

I think there are legitimately many many issues where states rights are the appropriate level of government to deal with an issue, but I don't think equal civil rights is one of them. I hope by the time my parents are old that I never have to make the choice of moving across country away from the state I grew up in, where most everyone I know lives, to have CIVIL marriage equality, or staying in my home state to take care of them.

I was born in NC, my family for several generations are from NC on both my parents side of the family, I went to college in NC, my husband & his family are from NC, almost all my professional & job contacts are in NC, & so for me it isn't as simple as letting people who favor marriage equality move to a more equal state.


I will never sue a church in NC to recognize my marriage (got married in Boston earlier this year), but it sure would be nice to know I don't have to worry about hospital visitation rights, or to even be able to buy car insurance together with our current provider, and that sort of thing. And sure we can spend hundreds of dollars and many hours creating lots of legal documents under the supervision of an attorney to create some of the legal bonds civil marriage inherently entails, but it still isn't as encompassing as civil marriage. Even legally hyphenating our last name was unnecessarily difficult, time consuming, and costly.

5/7/2009 4:20:16 PM

This may just be semantics, but marriage (gay or straight) is not a civil right. Its an established cultural tradition. It just so happens that the federal government creates laws around it. The Fed should treat gay marriage the same as it treats normal marriage for sure since they are entitled to equal treatment under the law. But the idea that you are entitled to the recoginition of a social union by the government (straight, gay, or polygamy) is dumb.

Also, (semantics again) anyone who calls a push for gay rights "marriage equality" drives me nuts. Its not equality unless you include marriage between multiple individuals.

In my opinion states and the fed should not recognize any marriage nor any social union. It complicates the tax code. Most tax benefits are designed to encourage people to have kids. Instead of filing as a couple to claim these benefits, instead each individual legal guardian should file their children as dependents and the benefits should be split between them. The end result would be the same benefits, less complicated tax code, and the government wouldn't be able to do shit about who the filing people are.

The other major benefit for married couples is things like beneficiaries in insurance, emergency contacts, or other things where normally people are only allowed to pick immediate family. In this case allow people to simply pick anyone for these situations regardless of relation.

In summary, instead of trying to argue states rights vs fed rights, get the government out of it entirely. Cultural traditions (like religious traditions) are not really the gov's bag.

5/7/2009 5:00:48 PM

I don't disagree with the get the gov out of it entirely argument, but I don't think that will ever happen. And there is a hell of a lot better chance for leveling the playing field for straight & gay couples by adding marriage for gay couples than there is for removing gov recognized marriage altogether. Gay marriage supporters are called anti-marriage enough as is, it would be impossible to try to turn that movement into one to remove government from marriage altogether for everyone. And as long as marriage is offered to straight couples, which I see no sign of them planning on stopping, then it is an issue of equality if it isn't offered to gay couples.

5/7/2009 7:14:07 PM

Supplanter, the point I think most of you are missing is that throughout history the Feds have ruled and taken away those rights and often imposed on the states who have allowed equal rights.

So you seem to be all for the Federal govt making the decision and taking away the rights from the states. So lets just pretend the feds do come in and OUTLAW it from ALL states. Im pretty damn sure you would then be all for states rights and wouldnt mind the move. Its all about mobility, the feds will take longer to get it right but will. Until then you have states that will allow things and give people the option to go to those states if they support it while support builds in others and eventually to the federal level. But if the fed comes in and makes the "wrong" decision you have NO choice, and no where to go but wait until they reverse the decision. Thats all my point was.

5/7/2009 9:45:40 PM

Quote :

"I've heard that Miss CA's answer may have hurt her in that she was inarticulate rather than her answer not being one they wanted to hear."

If you'll buy that, then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you

5/7/2009 10:24:42 PM

Quote :

"This may just be semantics, but marriage (gay or straight) is not a civil right."

Equal protection under the law is a civil right. Please see the fourteenth amendment. Oh, and that would be the federal constitution, by the way.

Quote :

"I don't think equal civil rights is one of them"

You're absolutely right. And the constitution doesn't think so either. In fact it was so terribly important that we, as a nation, amended the constitution a fourteenth time to emphasize this very point.

Reiterating, no state shall:

Quote :

"deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If anybody here can make a case that doesn't border on fucking silly, asinine, "yea the gays can marry womens too!!!1" nonsense, that banning gay marriage ensures the "equal protection of the laws," then I will happily entertain a so-called states' rights position.

5/8/2009 4:10:16 AM

Quote :

"Equal protection under the law is a civil right. Please see the fourteenth amendment. Oh, and that would be the federal constitution, by the way. "

i see you didnt read the rest of my post.

5/8/2009 9:33:45 AM

Quote :

"In my country and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman."""

Isn't Pres. Obama's opinion pretty close to Miss California's? If so, wouldn't it be more productive for the gay community to go after him?

5/8/2009 10:25:47 AM

there has already been plenty of that. see: lots of blogs, etc of gay people following the prop 8 vote. of course some of that was quelled when it came out that obama offered to do a tv spot against prop 8, but the anti-prop 8 people didn't want him.

5/8/2009 10:55:59 AM

I think it's safe to say that anyone that is actually against marriage equality, at this point, is a religious bigot. It's wrong for any state to deny two people the right to join in civil union, whether you want to call it "gay marriage" or not. While I agree that many things should be handled at state level, this is a bit different. This is a case where the current law is actually discriminatory.

5/8/2009 12:38:50 PM

Not all people who are against gay marraige are religious.

5/8/2009 12:53:00 PM

Yeah, there are non-religious bigots as well. However, the vast majority of people I see speaking out against gay marriage are doing so for religious reasons. Either you believe that some people are just naturally attracted to the same sex, or you think homosexuality is a sin/fabrication/lie/abomination.

5/8/2009 1:11:53 PM

gotta love that poisoning the well. fantastic logical fallacy.

5/11/2009 8:14:52 PM

Refute the point that most (or all, which was my point) objections to gay marriage are religious in nature or derived from religious beliefs, other than semantics.

5/11/2009 10:38:03 PM

no, you support your point, without calling anyone who disagrees a bigot.

5/11/2009 10:57:10 PM

I think that anyone that disagrees should be defined as a bigot, though. So yeah, that part has to stay.

5/11/2009 11:19:03 PM

set em up

5/17/2009 11:08:16 PM