Carrie Prejean, Miss California and runner-up for Miss USA on Sunday evening, was asked a question by blogger Perez Hilton about gay marriage. She answered it honestly and was blasted by many because she believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
Did her answer cost her the Miss USA crown? Many, including Perez Hilton, are still blasting her for her answer, but we say she wins for standing up for what she believes is right.
Did her answer cost her the Miss USA crown? Many, including Perez Hilton, are still blasting her for her answer, but we say she wins for standing up for what she believes is right.
58 comments:
Tolerance?
Winner or runner up? The lesson to be learned is those that scream tolerance to loudest and the most continually demonstrate their complete and total lack of and opposition to tolerance. Did this woman say that it was her opinion? Did she advocate that others with different opinions should be discriminated against? No
The lack of tolerance discussed is a lack of tolerance for this woman’s opinion. Did she or has she ever acted on that opinion to the detriment of others?
Whether you like it her opinion or not she is entitled to it. So what we have here is, if she lost in part or in full because of her opinion we have the people that scream tolerance doing exactly what they do not want others to do and that is to act to the detriment of others because they did not like the opinion of this woman. That is called an act of discrimination.
In my opinion there is little difference between this and the islamofascist who is the president of Iran. He demands acceptance of him, his country and his religion while simultaneously preaching and demanding the destruction and downfall of the entire world to be followed by the world wide triumph of his islamofascist views and the conversion of the entire planet to Islam.
Demanding tolerance without giving tolerance seems to be the watch word (phrase) of our times. So much for the concept of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and you thought that the basis of our society is the situational ethics being preached by the left.
Thats the consequence of the normal accepting perversion....they, the perverts, don't want acceptance they want rule.
Good for her.
Why would she be asked such a political question in the first place? She's not running for any office. Maybe we should just ban these type of questions being asked if they're going to punish someone because of how they respond. How do we prove her answer actually harmed her? We can't.
Since when did they change these beauty pageants to intellect and opinion pageants?
IF this is the consequence for standing up to what you believe in...I say good for her, too!
God Bless you Carrie! You have stood up for your beliefs and should not have to wear duct tape, and pretend to be someone you are not. You will receive the greatest crown in heaven, much bigger than the one here on earth.
Carrie,
You should be commended for replying honestly to a baited question that could have been answered by any of the girls, but it was you. You were the true winner intellectually and spiritually, so don't bemoan the prize of integrity and deserved fame that will come to you as a result of this unfortunate incident.
She will be the Fox News reporter.
We need more honesty like this in the world instead of lopsided PC ideas ruining the country. A very admirable person!
With rights comes responability.
You have the right to color your hair any color you want but I also have the right to laugh at it.
You do not have the right to yell fire in a hall filled with people.
Unlike other countries where you have to follow the leader with his views and religion, in this Country you have the right to be yourself and state your views in open forum like this.
Thank God we live in the U.S.A.
Good for you Carrie! If more people were concerned about being true to themselves and to what is morally and bibically correct,our country would not be in shape it is in now. It is all about being "politically correct" and not offending anyone. You did say no offense and definding your right to believe what you do was great. God bless you and let God use you as an example for his glory!
Carrie,
You are my Hero!! You showed more grace, maturity and strength than most people twice your age.
Your crown in heaven will put that tacky crown to shame. GOD BLESS YOU AND GOD BLESS AMERICA
Please, 'Mr. Hilton' (i name myself after a billionaire with no IQ who will screw anything) I think that is enough said right there.
The sick perverted agenda is to make normal perverse at the same time making perversion seem normal.
She stands up for what she believes is right, unlike this pathetic excuse for a blog who supported baby-killer Weisner in the mayoral election because it somehow benefitted them politically. Openline would probably support a known homo, hell they would probably stand up in a fa**ot wedding, if they thought it would help Rich Lawrence's politcal career. Hypocrites
YOU WILL ANSWER IN HELL FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF A MAN WHO BROUGHT THE ABORTION MILL TO OUR TOWN AND SUPPORTS IT STILLL. SINNERS.
Carrie,
You only have one judge to answer to. And I know He will be pleased with you for "standing firm".
Carrie,
God bless you for standing up for what you know is right. You are a true inspiration and this shows the younger ones coming up behind you that we all should stand behind what we believe in through the word of the Lord.
Way to go Miss California! Thanks for standing for what you believe in. God Bless You and He will!!!
I am so sick of the homosexual agenda in this country and the fact that some little known homosexual bigot can go on national tv and try to humiliate a young woman by asking this loaded question is intolerable. I am so proud of Miss CA for holding her head high and speaking her moral beliefs with such conviction. Why isn't the leftist homosexual agenda based media speaking out against Perez Hilton for his intolerance? Where are all the gay's who speak out for a person's rights to believe what they feel is right for them? Isn't it amazing that it never goes the other way!
Know there are millions who believe what you said was absolutely right on Miss CA! We support you 100%!
Carrie,
I'm so proud of you for standing up for what you believe and not doing what is politically correct. We need more people with your courage. GOD BLESS YOU!!!
Carrie rocks and something tells me that she will be bigger than whoever won Miss USA.
Finally! Someone isn't afraid to say what millions of people want to say but don't because Hollywood says shame on you if you think for yourself! They are always saying that you should fight for the right to be who you are! Well I guess that means ONLY if you agree with them, right? Please! Why would he put her on the spot like that? I think that was a ridiculous question to begin with. By the way, California has voted AGAINST same sex marriage TWICE now! She didn't say anything derogatory or rude, he asked her opinion and she gave it! Now he's all over the internet calling her a B*#@H and everything else under the sun... who is being a bigot now?
I get the feeling that the homos are trying to blame the straits for their sick condition by continually attacking the people with morals.
If you want to see real intollerance just wait til the cal suprme court again over rules the will of the people and overturns the proposition to prevent homo marriages.
Gay people are icky! I don't like thinking about them having their butt sex! We should kill them all!
HOMOSEXUALITY IS A ONLY A PART OF THIS COUNTRY'S CURRENT CULTURE OF DEATH.
THE FIRST THING WE NEED TO DO IS TO GET RID OF TEH ABORTION MILL IN AURORA AND GET WEISNER OUT OF OFFICE.
well, I see that all the old people and the pp protesters are commenting today
This is a generational issue that will go away when all the old farts die.
The bigots are circling their wagons. They didn't like it when they had to share water fountains and they don't like it now that society is finally moving towards treating gays as human beings.
9:16
This is not about bigots circling the wagons not about treating homosexuals as human beings.
This is about a homosexual male acting as bigoted as the people he claims to be bigots.
This about people like this homosexual male that cannot see the other side of the fence, demand tolerance of others but fail to demand of it himself and thereby acts the in that manner as those about who he complains.
So which is the worse conduct? He asked for an opinion and she gave an opinion and she might very well have been punished because of her opinion simply because he did not like her opinion.
It is people like this fellow that are destroying one of the basic tenents of this nation, free speech.
This guy demonstrated the worst in many of the people and groups of this nation.
This pig faced thing is neither male or female but rather a fluke of the universe.
Some thoughtful comments on the Carrie Prejean event and opinion appear in an article entitled, “Carrie Prejean's Koufax Moment” by Bruce Walker. I think that he summed up this matter quite nicely with the following:
“If we are wise, then we will see that Eric Liddell was right to follow his conscience. If we are good, then we will grasp that Bess Myerson was honorable in honoring her people. If we seek tolerance, then we will bless Sandy Koufax for placing his faith above his fame. And if we care about a future of peace, justice, and love, then we will applaud Carrie Prejean for saying what she thought was right, whatever the cost.”
“Beyond that, we must say that the haters of old are the haters of now. The bigots who disparaged Myerson are the bigots who mock Prejean. The narrow minds and narrower hearts who cannot endure different beliefs to speak an honest opinion are the true enemies of real tolerance.”
You will have to read the entire article to get the full import of what he writes. Even if you choose not to read the article these two paragraphs speak volumes. See the complete article at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/carrie_prejeans_koufax_moment.html
Leonard, you don't know that. You don't know that any of those judges did anything of the sort. What you do know is that gay people are beaten and ridiculed endlessly just for being gay. You do know that Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered just for being gay in 1998, and his case was only the most public.
To suggest that people should be tolerant of intolerance is absurd. If Carrie Prejean's opinion cost her the Miss USA pageant, that is a shame. But you have no proof that her answer to that question had anything to do with it. And I would submit that losing a beauty pageant is a much smaller price to pay than losing your job, your dignity or your life, threats gay people deal with all the time.
Thanks for that last comment, 8:30 am. I'd also like to point out that just because she was raised to believe something doesn't make that "something" right, or even admirable. I think if this country decided everything by voting at the polls, we'd still be a country of "separate but equal" and a whole host of other ignorant and evil concepts.
What certain people (especially Judeo-Christians) cannot accept is that they may be wrong about what makes a person gay, that it's not a "choice". They're terrified of having to reconcile that fact with the song and dance they were taught in Sunday School. I would know, I'm a gay man that sat through 20 years of ignorant hate being preached in the guise of God's love.
My words were, “if she lost in part or in full because of her opinion” and “she might very well have been punished because of her opinion”. Neither of these phrases state that she lost because of her opinion.
Just as I do not know that she lost because of her opinion, you do not know that she did not lose because of that opinion or whether she lost for other reasons.
It seems that the evidence would now suggest that she was, in fact, somehow punished for her opinion. Why do I write that? The statements made by Perez Hilton himself seem to indicate that she was downgraded or had points taken off or otherwise punished for her opinion. After the fact he was very clear on his statements about her and her opinion.
Irrespective of the facts of this event, it is my opinion that in this nation today we see the people and groups screaming the loudest and demanding the most of tolerance from others are the least tolerant people and groups among us.
What a B.S. loaded question. A total setup. Damned if she did, damned if she didn't. Why was Perez even invited? It was just to push his left wing homo agenda.
4:38 - you really hate having to share the lunch counter, don't you? Leonard - "if", "might", "it seems..." - In other words, you really don't know and you're creating a strawman. I wonder why? Apparently Perez isn't the only one with an agenda. By the way, aside from the content, her response wasn't very articulate. She should have lost points for that alone.
You know what? I think the pretty, rich white girl is going to be fine. I find it amazing that the intolerant are considered the oppressed party here. If her opinion had been that all Jews should be rounded up in camps, would you be so quick to defend her?
Gay is the new black, folks, and in 50 years, we're going to look back on our treatment of homosexuals with the same disgust and embarrassment that we view slavery now.
Not knowing at the time, if Perez Hilton punished Miss Prejean is no longer relevant. The facts are that Perez himself has answered the question. What more do you now need to know? One of the so called oppressed that screams about being oppressed when given the opportunity becomes the oppressor. It is that simple. Please tell me how that solves anything? Does that advance the cause? Does that quell the disagreement? Does that fan the fire of the disagreement? Does that create greater schism or less?
If a black judge had asked if black people should be allowed to marry, and Prejean had said no, what would you think of that? Would the black judge be justified in deducting points for that?
There is nothing morally wrong with being black. Black people can't change that.
Acting on gay feelings is a SIN in God's eyes. Duh. Your question isn't even relavant.
Gay people can't change the fact that they're gay, either. I know many who wish they could, because intolerant people like you have forced them into thinking they are somehow wrong, some kind of abomination. This is intolerance. Not everyone believes in your god, or your interpretation of the bible. And news flash, they used the bible to justify slavery too.
4/25/09 8:38 AM Wow, you are really stupid! Let me guess, you live in Aurora and did not graduate high school.
Please tell me where in the video clip what words this woman said indicating that people of the homosexual or lesbian bent cannot or should not be allowed to marry?
"In my country, the way I was raised, marriage is between a man and a woman." She thinks it's great that we can choose, but if it were up to her, she would choose to sideline, marginalize and dehumanize gays, just for being gay.
8:38 am is not stupid. He knows The Truth of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.
You mean your lord, Jesus Christ. Not everyone's.
Before the 20th century no one needed a license to get married. Have you ever considered the definition of license? Black’s Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."
Consider the following from the case West v. West, 689 N.E.2d 1215 (1998):
In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State. When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State. Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926).
Read, “Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State.” as “Marriage is a three-party contract between the people obtaining the license to marry and the State.” The issue is not whether you can marry, but rather the sanctioning and recognition of the marriage by the state so that you (the married couple) can participate in certain contracts with the corporation we call government. I suggest to you that most, if not all, of those contract items with the government can be obtained by private contract without the government.
Having written the above do not read this as suggesting that people should not get married. I am all for it. I think and believe that marriage and family is the foundation upon which this country has become as strong as it has and that should not be impaired.
I am trying to look at a small portion of the reasoning used by the corporation we call government to require licensing of marriage. Part of that reasoning is that obtaining the license and the sanctioning of the marriage by the state creates a contract with that corporation we call government. That contract becomes much more extensive than the newlywed couple can even imagine.
Yes I have written this before. “Invisible Contracts” Are you catching on just a little?
I don't see how this proves that not letting gay people participate in this contract just because they are gay is anything but homophobic discrimination. Do you have an argument against that, Leonard?
You have totally missed the point of the comment.
Your comment seems to be changing the subject. I am trying to bring it back on course. Perhaps you can explain further?
Interesting, 8:38. Until the late 20th century, Blacks could not hold the priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints because they had been marked by God. Cain killed Abel and they interpreted black skin as God's indication of displeasure and punishment for what he had done.
Of course, when the government was about to take away their tax-free status because of this bigoted and idiotic viewpoint, the prophet suddenly had a "revelation' from God and Blacks could indeed hold the priesthood.
Of course, you'll say "Mormons aren't real Christians", but most fundimentalist Christians seemed to be willing to overlook that issue when Mit Romney was running for President.
I also find it interesting that Christians are now adjusting their stance on Homosexuality. Now they'll admit that BEING gay isn't a sin, but ACTING on it is. Like most concepts that have run their course, you are now forced to constantly adjust and redefine your viewpoints just to stay relevant.
8:38: Something being a "sin" in God's eyes is completely irrelevant in regard to the policies of the United States government. Leviticus and Romans are not the Constitution - not even close.
Why would you want to be forced into the contract with the government?
Most of what you will get as part of that contract you can accomplish by private contract.
Leonard, you are now completely missing the point. What gay and lesbian people want is the option to participate in that contract. As it is now, even if they had been together for 50 years, a gay man cannot be in the hospital room when his partner is dying. Did you know that? This is what they want. Equal treatment.
The entire point is this: not allowing gay people to marry is an act of discrimination, one far worse than taking points away from a bigoted rich white girl in a beauty pageant.
I was just reading an article online about the woman who was with her partner and her kids on a cruise. The one woman fell and hit her head. She was taken to the hospital where the social worker kept her partner out of the hospital room. (It was that hospital's policy not to let anyone but "legal" family in) The woman died alone.
It makes me sick to my stomach to read this kind of thing, and think that I have neighbors gloating over and supporting this kind of treatment.
But yeah, I'm sure what I'm asking for is "special treatment".
First, we have to agree to disagree.
With that, I am not talking about the contract between two people. I am talking about the contract imposed by the government on people that get married.
I cannot speak to all possibilities and permutations of facts but I suggest that private contracts between those two people can get over most of the hurtles.
Granted you may not be able to file joint tax returns or claim a deduction but that in my opinion is not worth the other impositions of that government imposed contract the enforcement of which is accomplished by the full police power of the state.
Yes, Leonard, we understand the contract of marriage is not worth it to you. But it is to millions of gay and lesbian people, who just want to be treated equally under the law.
You compared the guy standing up for gay rights to "the islamofascist who is president of Iran," and now you are trying to change the subject and weasel out of the discussion.
I would like to hear from you just why someone should be tolerant of intolerance. That is the central issue here. Why is denying someone equal rights under the law simply because of sexual orientation okay? And why should speaking out against that form of prejudicial intolerance be considered bigotry?
Speaking of gay marriage, has Alex Arroyo resigned from chairman of the Aurora Dems yet? I hear people want him out yesterday.
Post a Comment