Last night at the Miss U.S.A. Pageant, Perez Hilton asked Miss California whether she believed every state should legalize gay marriage. Miss California’s answer—involving her belief that “opposite marriage” (which is her Miss South Carolina-esque name for heterosexual marriage) is the way it should be—is widely theorized to have blown her chance at the crown.
Apparently, Hilton responded by calling Miss California a “dumb bitch.”
(Thanks to nolaseatac for the tip.)
People of principle often have to give up things in order to remain true to their values. If her position on the sanctity of marriage cost her the crown I suspect Miss California does not for a second begrudge the choice she made.
Hilton is a classless bag of shit.
@1: Too true. Perez had to give up a minute of his time talking to that vacuous bimbo.
That’s funny.
Did Miss USA become relevant again somehow?
Whatever you may feel about her position it is hard not to respect her integrity. She had to know the response would cost her but she choose to stick with her convictions. Pretty impressive for a blonde beauty pageant contestant.
Perez Hilton judging the Miss U.S.A. Pageant… is that just wrong or the rightest thing ever?
Also… they still televise these things? I thought pageants were ratings poison in resent years. I guess it’s cheaper than a reality show.
Those “question” portions of the pageants are a waste of time (other than to laugh at all the pea-brained responses).
They should replace it with a strip-and-pole-dance portion.
These things are about looks, right? Talent contests and “all I want is world peace!” are meaningless.
@1, I actually agree with you about that. I think she is a bigotted bitch but she is entitled to her perverted opinions. But sadly such stupitity is supported by many who make the laws.
I mean I think women who try out for Miss America are nothing more than cum guzzeling sluts but that is just my bigotted opinion. And then again, I’m not trying to make that law.
@1 FTW Priceless
everywhere like such as
People of Faith have often been persecuted for their beliefs. Secular Humanist America has become such a place.
Way to represent, Miss California. Prejudice and fake boobs, it’s really all we need more of here.
Did Perez Hilton become relevant again somehow?
So you’re lucky to live in a country where people have that choice… except the 46 states where it’s illegal to make that choice.
Holy shit, Perez was a judge and I missed it? Sadness…
Perez Hilton judging the Miss U.S.A. Pageant is like Rosie ODonald picking the Celery Festival Queen
Why do christians hate?
Perez Hilton judging the Miss U.S.A. Pageant would be like asking Rev Warren to pick a sexy new thong for Dan.
Integrity? Huh? How is a bigot’s steadfastness something to admire?
If we Americans can’t turn to the people who look best in a swimsuit to dole out our freedoms, who can we turn to?
I have to say I disagree with her statement, but I respect her decision to speak her opinion. That said, she contradicted herself and that likely cost her points in the interview section of the pagent. (I could be wrong, it has been a long time since I was in a pagent. Can’t say I enjoyed it, but the scholarship money was helpful.) Not her opinion.
Everyone’s fawning over her. “She’s so braaave,” “She stayed true to herseeeelf.”
Yes, she stayed true to her bigoted upbringing. CONGRATS!
And in regard to what Perez may have said — or not said — who cares? The twat lost on her own account, but at least she’s got a white trashy fan base to keep her chin up.
So she looks nice in a bikini, this means I should give a fuck what she has to say about anything because? Pageants are one of the dumber things we do. They should just cut out the stupid and superfluous shit like talent and interviews and just go straight with a strip tease and blow off. It would at least be mildly entertaining and much more honest.
@5 “Whatever you may feel about her position it is hard not to respect her integrity”
Oh yes, just like how we have to respect Bush for his integrity. And Lenin, too. Oh, and don’t forget the Bakkers. All people with LOTS of integrity – they lived what they believed and dragged us along with them whether we wanted to go or not. It’s just so unfortunate for them that we couldn’t just accept their integrity, that we had to speak out – cause wars! – I mean really, shame on us for not turning the other cheek.
The lesson here is that regardless of the the idiotic, conservative, oppressive, hateful, homophobic shit people throw at us, there is an expectation that to be “nice” or “polite” or “respectful” we have to be quiet and hold our tongues.
Bullshit.
You don’t have to agree with everyone. It’s all right to speak out and call shenanigans when a bimbo like this gets up and champions her idiotic beliefs. It’s the duty to our fellow humans to make sure that shit like this does not go unchallenged.
@24 There is a fine line between taking a principled stance and being a stubborn dumbass. She is on the wrong side.
#19 Makes the Point so well.
“Integrity” is the new discrimination against Gay citizens and the desire for Civil Rights (marriage)? WTF? Now shall we talk about “integrity” against Jews? Or how about we keep our “integrity” and allow African Americans their separate drinking fountains. It’s all about “integrity”.
She didn’t actually answer the question.
She DID address the burning issue of whether American should be able to chose between homosexual and opposite marriage. NOM and the like seem bent on suggesting that the gays are going to force themselves on straights or something – thank goodness heterosexual people have been forcing themselves into marriages for quite a while, so we’ve built-in that tricky “I Do.” line.
Her answer seemed to suggest that while she supports choice, she’s going to marry a dude. That’s great.
@26, exactly. For some reason, people still seem to think that this is a matter of opinion, not of civil rights. Just because 50% of people are wrong on the topic doesn’t make the question a moral grey-area.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if she had come out in support of apartheid, or pro-slavery, she would have been panned for her display of ‘bravery.’
Those opinions are protected in this country, but they’re not respectable. The same goes for her anti-civil rights stance. She may as well have called Martin Luther King Jr a terrorist.
People usually shut up and listen when the hot person has something to say. If it’s that mystifying to you when put on an international stage, then all your friends are ugly.
@21 is right. The question was improper, the answer couragious. I am sure that Miss California knew that she was handed a loaded question, and that her answer would not be “PC”, yet she chose to treat the question(and questioner) with respect and answer honestly. We know it excluded the possibility of a positive vote from at least one judge.
The intolerance exhibited by a portion of our society that extolles it’s own tolerance is breath-taking!
Hilton Perez should never have had his question approved for this contest. His facial expression after Ms. CA’s honest answer was completely immature and belies his unsuitabilty for even being considered a judge. The contestant gave an honest answer to question that had no business being asked in the first place. If she was penalized for it, then the judge’s narrow-mindedness is at fault not the contestant’s. The Producers of that show should be ashamed at exploiting the contestants by ensuring that intentionally controversial questions get asked. They are ratings whores and should also be held accountable.
It is everyone’s right as a US Citizen to have the freedom of expression, whether someone else agrees with it or not. And to have people go after her because she has a different view point is exactly what is wrong with society today. Everyone is trying to be so PC that it is costing us our very freedoms, and that my friends is unacceptable.
So I pose this question to you.
At what cost are we ready to give up our inalienable rights in order to avoid upsetting a certain group of people? Should those shows be the venue to ask questions designed to inflame the public on both sides in order to garner cheap ratings at the expense of the contestants?
Ms. California is a victim in this whole mess. She shouldn’t be the one being villified whatsoever.
Or so it seems to me.
Here’s a reality check for Reality Check: Miss California’s rights remain inalienable. Stating opinions that are unpopular with certain segments of society may incur their disapproval but that doesn’t take their right to say it away.
You girls are totally right.
We are dancing around the issue out of deference to your feelings and that is a wasted effort.
She should be totally respected for holding the correct opinion about an important moral issue, but most of all for having the courage to express it in a very public setting when she knew it would cost her something that probably meant a lot to her and would earn the scorn of the coarser cruder half of public opinion.
Lots of people agree totally with her but would not have the courage to say it publicly, or even to a pollster.
Like citizens in 1930s Germany (that’s right- we’re going to talk about NAZIS!) they hide their revulsion at the direction their country is going out of fear of what the opinion Brown Shirts will say or do to them.
Beautiful.
Courageous.
100% right on homosexual marriage.
She is a rare creature and a national treasure.
@30 Actually judging people on what they believe is perfectly acceptable. Along with actions it is the two things we have the most control over and most show who we are. Freedom of expression and of conscious doe not mean freedom from criticism or consequence.
@ those who contend that she’s entitled to her opinion. Yes, but…
The problem is that it’s not “just an opinion.” You people (meaning those against same-sex marriage) actively try to prevent people from doing something incredibly meaningful to their own lives that in no way affects yours. Your opinion may be that it’s wrong, but that in no way gives you the right to stop it from hapenning.
True democracy is messy. There are a lot of people that say some pretty hateful things and I’m not about to prevent them from saying them because that’s censorship, and evil fears the light. However, when you back up your actual opinion with actions that negatively affect people’s lives, it’s no longer “just an opinion”: You’re then actively screwing with their hapiness, and how dare you, really?
I’m not gay, I’m just not a tremendous douchebag. Good day.
@30-If she had stumblingly excplained that she believe mixed-race marriages should be made illegal again because people of different races could not bear equal yolks (as I believe the fine people at Bob Jones University were claiming until quite recently) and because, while she bore no ill will towards black people, they DID bear the mark of Cain, would we still be required to “respect her integrity”? Would you still be tsking at the judges and other commentors for intolerence? I support her right to speak what she believes. That does not mean I have to respect what she believes or, for that matter, her.
So, we live in a country where statements of outright bigotry toward a vulnerable minority can cost someone a beauty contest win? GREAT.
This isn’t a sign that freedom of speech or expression is being infringed upon. It is a sign that homophobia and the belief that gays and lesbians should not be treated as equals under the law are becoming no longer palatable to mainstream America. That, my fellow Sloggers, is a good thing.
and @ 32
Seriously? Fucking Nazis? 32 comments and you’ve already Godwin-ed the thread?
Swine, indeed.
@33 I agree completely, and don’t let my previous words imply otherwise.
I’m more disgusted with the show’s producers and Perez for pushing a political agenda on the show.
I think those participating need to take a stand against their shows becoming an even bigger farce by allowing activists to become the focal point of the show, irrespective of the nature of their activism.
I guess you’re not allowed to win Miss USA if you’re a Christian. I hope she sues since the only reason she lost was due to Hilton’s anti-Christian bigotry.
@30: Why should we tolerate bigotry? As mentioned by others in this thread, if she were to have said:
She’d have been booed off the stage! She can certainly have that opinion, but it is not an acceptable opinion in polite society. That is where the question of same-sex marriage is headed. You can ABSOLUTELY be against it, but the days are coming where you will be reviled like racists are today.
Enjoy.
uh, good for Perez Hilton…why SHOULD the questions be easy? BUT, people shouldn’t be jumping on her for her inelegant answer…she might be PRO gay marriage but she was afraid to give an honest response…she was trying to give an acceptable PAGEANT non-response designed to avoid honesty and offend the least number of people.
And comments implying that Perez Hilton shouldn’t be judging beauty pageants because he’s gay, ARE stupid and homosexist…uh, who do you think runs/controls a huge part of the fashion/cosmetics industry?
It was a perfectly valid question, and a simple one. He may as well have asked her the sum of 2 + 2. If she insists the answer is 5, then it’s fair to roll your eyes at her and to chuckle at her ignorance and closed-mindedness. Miss America (as stupid as the concept is) is supposed to represent the best of our country. And while that’s never really the outcome of the pageant, at least we weeded out a bigot from the running.
Her answer was the moral equivalent of the gal from 2 years ago who stumbled over the map question. Sure, she gave her opinion, and her opinion was stupid. Should we not judge her for that?
@39: She said nothing about being a Christian. She said she was opposed to gay marriage.
Why do people assume she stuck to her integrity, and not that she misjudged the fact that the position she espoused no longer has broad appeal?
Some people give her too much credit.
Reality Check, I think you’re failing to see the representative nature of this type of competition. She’s not some woman they happened to corner with a pitfall question, she’s Miss California. She’s a quasi-politcal being, (absurd as that sounds). There’s nothing wrong with asking her questions pertaining to the cultural climate of her state.
I don’t think her answer was particularly brave. There are a lot of sporks who share her opinion – probably a good chunk of the pageant community.
I had to gag a bit when Pearls Before Swine called here a “national treasure”
I think instead of asking her *whether* it should be legalized everywhere, he should have asked her ‘what steps should be taken to create broad appeal for the movement.’
That’s the biggest mistake Hilton made. I mean, you don’t go asking questions like ‘should abusive child labor be outlawed in all countries?’ You ask questions like ‘As Miss America, what will you do to call attention to the problem of child labor?’ The moral question is answered and the unconstitutionality of banning gay marriage has been demonstrated across the board. Pretending it’s even open for debate anymore was his mistake.
She’s a pageant contestant forced to choose between her beliefs and the crown. This must be the gathering storm we were warned about.
This was a nice piece of cultural mind control.
Allow a known partisan with a known view to judge the pageant and let him ask a politically loaded question.
Piss off the judge and you loose for sure (and get to be insulted by said douchebag).
If you are one of the majority of Americans who oppose homosexual marriage you have a choice; be honest to your beliefs and lose or lie and curry favor with the PC judges.
It is a piece of blackmail repeated a million times over every day in America.
Participate in the Day of Silence?
Sure you can opt out; but how many of your teachers will be sneering Hilton style at your decision? How is this going to affect your grades? Your letters of recommendation?
It will take a rare and courageous teenager to buck the system.
Those who squeal at comparisons to 1930s Germany either don’t know how Joseph Goebbels worked or, more likely, know full well and dislike being ratted out.
“ What do you think about the Jewish problem, Fräulein? “
Yeah, swine @ 32, there are uniformed thugs beating down all the poor, poor anti gay marriage folks, aren’t there?
Wait, there aren’t? So that completely invalidates your comparison to early 30s Germany?
Why, yes it does. You’re today’s winner of the Godwin’s Law rebuke. Thanks for playing.
48
I assume you are being snarky but you are 100% right.
@ 49, my post at 50 goes for you too.
50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ8jeJwrb…
A. She didn’t answer the question.
B. She wasn’t terribly articulate/smooth (“in my country”… “in my family”).
C. Her first statement was inaccurate — “we live in a country where you can choose” (you can only actually choose in four states).
Regardless of her position, she would not have gotten high marks from me as a judge.
@ 53, fail. You don’t know anything about Nazism, do you? The SA weren’t just a mob.
@38 is it really any more of a ‘political’ question then the ones about the environment or world peace or helping the poor?
@49 please explain why she has a right to be Miss California. Its a private event and they can ask whatever damn questions they like and exclude people for what ever reason. Its a fucking beauty pageant after all. Sorry but your bigotry is become outdated. I am sure segregationists felt the same way in the sixties.
Miss California lost because she NEVER ANSWERED the f’rickin question!
Ques: Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit?
Miss California stated what she and her family believed- that marriage was between a man and a woman… on opposite day… Or something. And worse of all she said “and you know what?” before she made that statement. She clearly can’t articulate or UNITE- which are two singularly important characteristics of a Miss USA winner…
Was anyone actually shocked by her response? Since when do Miss USA contestants give answers worth listening to? Oh, right. Never.
I love how people are saying she had to “choose between her beliefs and her crown” as if a beauty pageant crown is an inalienable right.
@20: Dude, what you say is true. It’s like science.
@51–Snark intended. I’m with Hernandez @59.
@54, thank you. If she lost because of this question she lost because she gave an answer as intelligible as Miss SC a few years back. As you point out, in her country there is no “choice” on this matter. Besides, this isn’t an issue of choice. I am heterosexual and when my wife and I got married we had no interest in having a “choice” between same or “opposite” sex marriage. We simply wanted to get married and, thankfully, were allowed to. Gay couples are allowed to in only a few states (I doubt the “option” of heterosexual marriage is very apealing to them) and if they want it to be recognized, they have to remain in that state forever.
I admire Incomprehensibility. “We’re lucky that in our country we can choose?” Not in 46 states we can’t!
@54: Thank you. Exactly what I was going to post.
Also, those are the ugliest earrings I’ve ever seen.
I cannot believe we are even discussing a question asked by a celebrity gossip blogger at a Miss USA pagent. Are you fucking serious?
A lot of people think like Miss California and now they will feel justified in calling themselves Christian martyrs. Just look at all the people commenting on this post. Where did they come from?
Who cares? Gay people have real lives to lead. Somewhere in this country a gay person is being denied access to their spouse’s deathbed because they aren’t legally married. What are we going to do about that?
In a just world, both Perez Hilton and Miss California would be taken out and drowned.
who gives a shit about these terrible terrible people
Very odd.
Articulate? Not by a long shot, but this audience has a verbal comprehension deficit of similar proportions.
The contestant spoke favorably of personal choice, and spoke favorably of legalized same-sex marriage, while expressing her own personal opinion that it was a bad choice.
“I don’t approve, but it’s your choice” may not be the world’s most enlightened perspective, but worlds more enlightened than most of what’s being thrown around here.
I am amazed that people are accusing others of taking away their “rights” when people react unfavorably to their repugnant comments. If I can quote celebrated CONSERVATIVE thinker P.J. O’Rourke: “There’s only one human right, to do as you damn well please, and with it comes the only human duty, to accept the consequences.” If I marched into your house during Sunday dinner and insulted your mother, I should have no expectation that you quietly accept it, and neither should Miss California expect that she has the right to say unpopular things and be treated favorably.
@39 – you honestly think the winner, Miss North Carolina, is not a Christian? For reals? That she’s not probably very open about her Christianity?
Miss California was incoherent – Perez Hilton wasn’t the only judge.
Wonder how she feels about shoplifting wine …
Her response was not even coherent enough to even actually determine what her real answer was to the question. She starts by saying that she thinks its awesome people can choose same-sex or “opposite” marriage in this country, even though they can’t. Then she says marriage should be between a man and a woman. So….she’s…against?…gay marriage? Its not really clear. What is clear is that she’s barely competent enough to remember to breath.
#54 pretty much said it. The only thing I’d add is that I didn’t see integrity. She tried to have it both ways with that nonsense at the beginning about people having choice (as if gays and lesbians actually do, in most of the U.S.), and adding the business about meaning no disrespect — as if there could possibly be anything respectful about holding the opinion that a minority doesn’t merit the same rights as the majority. She fucked up on every possible level.
Wait a minute, Weren’t young people void of moral values!?
And how is it that expressing ones support of traditional marriage make one a bigot, the thought police especially the gay one smells blood in the water once again. But they will have to engage in mass character assassination because there are many youngster who hold the same values like Miss California does. Also since when are homosexuals viewed as judges for female beauty? Bad idea Mr Trump, bad idea.
@ 74, um, been at a hairstylist lately? Wait, no, you probably haven’t.
What the hell, you Fucking gay fags, and lesbo’s. You people are fucked up in the head, and are disgusting. Why should you have the right to marry? What do you have to prove to the world that you are married?
Miss California is 100% correct. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
AND GO FUCK YOURSELVES GOD DIDN’T CREATE PEOPLE TO BE BORN GAY!!!
so you are saying god didn’t create people to be gay and yet there are gay people on this earth? once again another contradictory statement for a bible diddler.
God created everything asshole. From your pathetic waste of sperm to a dog that would hump a dead deer. You know nothing of god except what some peopel tell you in a book. hope there isn’t a manual for your dick in there.
Beauty pageant contestants should be required to create intelligent but depraved porn. then be judged on that too. it would cover both sides of the whole ‘you’re cattle’ component of putting women on display. Beauty pageants are Rated “G” porn. We should ramp them up for higher dollar value.
rich2001’s anti-gay diatribe wouldn’t be so funny, if he wasn’t actually hoping to go down on dan (or michael) savage soon…
@76: Now, see, Rich — you’re sending mixed messages here. Your book of myths says that god doesn’t like people fucking themselves, either (that’s called onanism). Yet that’s your directive to people who are fucking in another way that you and your book of myths find icky.
At least TRY to keep it consistent. Otherwise you’ll look like a ranting fool. Oh, wait. Too late.
As much as I do not have a problem with same-sex marriage, I do agree that each individual has their rights to express their ideas. And for Perez Hilton to call Miss Cali a “dumbass”, all I can say is that Hilton you are a stupid jackass who shouldn’t even be a judge, because obviously you don’t know how to respect different ideas at all
@80: So she can express her idea that gays shouldn’t have equal rights, but Perez can’t express his idea that she’s a dumbass?
Rich2001 sounds like Daniel Freykis. “Go live in France pussy you faggots!”
@ 81 — Her idea is that gays should have equal rights (though she overestimates the extent to which they already do), even though she disapproves of gay marriage.
Her response is no more inarticulate than most unrehearsed human discourse, and the reasonably coherent plain reading is that she celebrates the right to marry, thought she disapproves of the practice — as is the norm in her community of reference (“my country … my family”), i.e., where she comes from.
The Slog is having its way with a straw man here, as Dan Savage did with his attack on Garrison Keillor.
Extremism, intolerance and blacklisting are not pretty, no matter where you’re coming from.
RonK, Seattle @ 83
I am guessing you have never been in a pagent. Forgive me if I am wrong. I have. She was judged on her ability to be articulate and answer the question she was asked. She errored in both areas. Miss USA is a spokesperson, and the job involves speaking well. She was being held to a higher level than average human discourse, there was a higher level of articulation expected from her. It was a competition and she unfortunately made multiple errors in the interview.
@83: I disagree.
So first she misstates the truth (homosexuals are not able to choose in this land — just in some few places), but then she states that she believes that gay marriage should not available in her country. That would be =/= equal rights. So she does NOT believe in equal rights for homosexuals. And I find that repugnant and not someone I want representing the USA, even in the beauty queen, opening malls and judging pie contests sense.
kim @ 84 — You seem to think I have expressed an opinion on the outcome of the pageant. I have not.
I addressed the false premise on which this entire furor is based, namely, the assertion that she spoke in opposition to equal rights for same-sex couples. Various commenters claimed simultaneously that she was so incoherent that you couldn’t tell what she was saying, and that she opposed equal rights.
Her response clearly applauded the availability of same-sex marriage, though she overestimates the “half full” nature of the current four state tally (with marriages in those states not even recognized in other states).
As to articulate response, it’s hard to top finalist Miss Arizona. Question:
Answer:
@ 85 — If you insist on a literal reading of the word “country”, then you must assume she is flawlessly articulate. And if she is flawlessly articulate, then you must credit that she thinks “it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other”.
Her stance is a step ahead of (or example) John Edwards, who is clearly troubled by the conflict between his sense of justice and the dictates of his religious tradition.
In my country, there is a tradition that you can disapprove of what someone says (or does), and still defend their right to say (or do) it. She disapproves, and defends.
What’s the custom in your country?
@87: Ronnie, I am with you, babe! Depends on what the definition of country is, I hear you. To a nominally intelligent person in the Miss USA contest “my country” might mean the USA. To Miss California it might mean Pretty Pony Land.
I support her right to say whatever she wants. But if what she says is morally reprehensible, I have the right think she’s repugnant and I can still have no interest in her representing me, as an American. AND I can still support someone saying in his blog that she’s a dumb bitch.
Jack @ 88 — In a finished edit, “country” might mean “USA”.
In the context under discussion, however, “country” clearly means “where I come from”. Are you such a hater that you must insist on misreading the comment?
Even in your distorted reading, she didn’t say same-sex marriage should be illegal in her “country” — she said just the opposite.
I’ll ask you again: Is there any room in YOUR country for people who disapprove of what YOU do or say, but still defend — and applaud — YOUR right to do or say it? (Because without these people, there’d be no gay marriage, even in four states … and for that matter, no reproductive choice either.)
p.s. Perez Hilton is a dumb bitch, and everybody knows it.
@89: Yes — country means where she comes from. The USA. That’s her country, alright. Are you saying that she’s too stupid to know what country means and that she said my country instead of my town or my community?
You can parse it out and make it mean whatever you want, Ron. I support your right to do that. And I have the right to say that your argument has no merit because you are arguing facts that simply do not exist outside of your imagination. She didn’t say “oh, I meant in my [fill in the blank].” Her words stand and she has not refuted them. In fact she has since said “I have no regrets…God was testing my character and faith.” (Because he had nothing better to do on Sunday.)
I already answered your question Ron, but since you’re slow: Yes, she has every right to say what she did. She can live in the same country I do (just to spell it out, I mean the United States of America, not Peoria or Upper Sandusky). Perez has every right to express HIS opinion on HIS blog and live in the USA, too. And I have every right to think she’s a small minded bigot and say so on SLOG.
faggy poopy buttsex is gross and smells like shit
I am all for gay marriage and equality for all. While I disagree with what she said I support her right to say it. A person who speaks their heart should not be characterized as a dumbass. It was obviously a loaded question, and I would imagine that Hilton knew what her leanings were in the first place and knew what her answer would be. This ambush was uncalled for and Hilton had a agenda.
You’re playing dumb, Cracker jack.
I assume you’ve seen the video. She said “my country”, paused, backed out and and started over. That’s a common enough verbal stumble, same as her “opposite marriage” for “opposite-sex marriage”.
And you’re still pretending you didn’t comprehend my question. The question had nothing to do with HER right to say anything … or YOUR right to say anything … or your imagining you’re such a good boy for defending her right to say what she thinks even as you disapprove of what (you think) she says.
One more time. Do you recognize that SHE can both disapprove of what you do, and defend your right to do it?
If you recognize that, then only a very convoluted reading of her response is plausibly offensive.
I’m not playing;
I’m as dumb as a stump.
Hey! My first sock puppet! I feel like I’ve achieved some Slog notoriety! 🙂 Good thing we don’t have commenter registration, I’d never have had this moment.
@93: Yes, I recognize that she can disapprove of what I do and defend my right to do it. The fact that she disapproves of marriage equality is, to me, equivalent to someone disapproving of women having the vote or black people having civil rights. If one of the women had made the same comment in regards to race or gender equity, she’d have been booed off the stage. I can be as offended by her as I wish.
LOL — and I didn’t even have the right handle on. C’est la blog!
96
You can’t handle registration, MORON
Rainbow @ 95 —
Q: Where does she say she disapproves of marriage equality?
A: She doesn’t. Nowhere, no how. In fact, she applauds marriage equality. YOU say she disapproves of marriage equality.
When she says “marriage should be between a man and a woman”, YOU insist she means “marriage should be between a man and a woman … and anything else should be prohibited by law“.
Q: If she said “marriage should be for life”, or “marriage should be for true love”, would you also insist she really meant “… and anything else should be prohibited by law“?
A: You’re just making shit up to give your hatin’ self something more to hate on.
Ron, you’re a moron. Your question @ 83 is devoid of intellectual merit, and is the very picture of “strawman.”
There’s nothing to parse here. It’s crystal clear what Miss California meant. You’re deliberately obfuscating that for… what? Stealth conservatism? Mental masturbation? I don’t know, but I do know but it’s empty.
i say GO PEREZ. Fuck that stupid whore. If there was ever a time to get behind perez hilton, now is it.
@98:
If you’re going to provide questions AND my answers, you have no interest in what I actually think. I don’t need a sock-puppet, you’ve got your own. Have fun fighting with him.
Wow, lot’s of opinions here. I saw this at another blog that covered Miss Prejain going on the Today show and back herself up, and a response from Mr. Hilton as well.
http://thesuperficial.com/2009/04/miss_c…
Now, the host of the Today show seemed to be echoing a lot of the arguments given by conservative commentators here: that it was an unnecessarily political question and we don’t want a beauty pageant to turn into an ideological battleground.
However, and this was the telling point, Hilton said that other questions were just as politically charged, the previous question being about the government bailout and tax protests. While I certainly don’t have the wherewithal to watch the entire Q&A section of the Miss USA pageant, I would suggest that if something as politically orientated as the bailout was acceptable, the gay marriage issue should be acceptable as well. And if in answering the bailout question the previous contestant had something like ‘impeach those liberal slimebags because this isn’t Russia’ (hypothetically), she might have gotten a pretty low score from a judge who had actually paid attention to what’s been going on recently.
I would like to suggest that Miss Prejain’s answer was ignorant and tactless, no matter what the belief behind it. The Q&A is the only chance in a beauty pageant to see what’s going on behind that glitter, and Prejain’s shallow and uncritical understanding of the issues involved probably did as much to earn her a low score as her personal beliefs.
And on a personal note, outrage at religious persecution does not constitute religious persecution. A fundamentalist standing up for a barbaric belief justified retroactively through a hypocritical reading of the bible and supported through a argument from the respect of a non-existent tradition deserves to be judged negatively by his or her peers, just as a proponent of universal Sharia law would be judged. Y’all aren’t martyrs, y’all’re Romans.
And, yes, Mr. Hilton is a douchebag.
If asked if she supported marriage between Jews and Christians, and she responded, “I don’t think Jews shouldn’t marry Christians.” what would have been the response?
Also, if she’s so into her faith, she wouldn’t have been in a beauty pageant in the first place.
When choosing between her faith and being in a Miss America pageant, she chose the pageant. Oh right, only gays have to follow the Bible, or go to Hell. True Christians can simply ignore scriptures they don’t want to follow. She’s too pretty to go to Hell.
Matt @ 99 — There’s no question in my post @ 83 … but you can’t handle the questions I have raised precisely because they have intellectual merit. They expose salient possibilities you clumsily neglected in your haste to get your hate on, and if you take them into consideration your whole position suddenly comes unstrung. Incidentally, name-calling is without intellectual merit.
Cracker Jack @ 101 — There you go again. You say she believes X, she never said she believes X, I infer you added X. Fair inference? But run away and pout if you can’t think of a better response.
Rob @ 103 — Jews and Christians, eh? If she said this from a (her family’s) religious perspective, it would be utterly unremarkable. Many Christians and an ovewhelming majority of religious Jews would agree, and many such lawful unions proceed every day in this country, only without the “church wedding” part.
If she professed this view from any other perspective, it would be bizarre (as would the question). And if she opined that such unions should be illegal, it would be very bizarre … but she didn’t, and she didn’t opine that same-sex marriages should be illegal either.
On this issue, she staked out “pro choice” territory — for the choice, against the act — just like an indispensable fraction of America’s “pro choice” majority on abortion: don’t approve of abortion, wouldn’t have an abortion, would advise anyone else against an abortion, might think they’d go to hell if they had an abortion, but still think other people should have the choice.
If it’s inconceivable to you that a lot of people think this way, I’ve got news for you — you’re probably a bigot.
@104: LOL — that’s a quote of you, moron.
@ 12….How is she prejudiced if she believes that marriage should be between a man and woman? Methinks you need to look up the definition of that word my friend.
Ron, you’d have a leg to stand on regarding insults if you didn’t engage in them yourself.
I will correct myself – I should have said “point” rather than “question” in my post @ 99. Otherwise, that statement alone has more intellectual merit than anything you’ve stated on this thread.
Maybe it’s just me, but i dont get why this has to be so complicated…Can’t we just have the government issue “unions” so that everybody has the same legal rights and let the religious bodies decide who they want to allow to “marry” in their church, temple etc.
Seems like that would create a church/state division that is obviously needed here and it would provide equal (legal)rights to all. Churches could then discriminate against whoever they like, which is appropriate.
unfortunately #108, “marriage” is not the same as “civil union”. there needs to be no difference, even in name, or else the church really is dictating over the state. as it appears to be doing currently.
I’m 100 percent for gay marriage, but why, oh, why is this a topic on Miss America. I mean beauty pageants are still one of the few honest functions that admits that guys like to look at chicks in bikinis. Why does “gay” always have to interject itself where it doesn’t belong. I mean, I don’t go to gay bars and try to get people to look at chicks in miniskirts.
Cracker Jack throws in the towel … Matt form Denver throws in the towel …
Moving on to the next episode, does anyone doubt that Perez Hilton is working furiously to out Miss California’s lesbian sister and get her kicked out of the Air Force?
So the lesson here for Miss California is to run for President, because the worst she’ll do is Secretary of State?
Way to declare yourself the winner, Ron. I thought you were all about the substance?
Hey, 110, to answer your question: maybe guys aren’t the only ones who like to “look at chicks in bikinis.”
Who gives a shit about either of these people? The only reason they even have questions in the USA pageant is to put up a front that the competition is not based on looks. For christ sake, they have a evening gown (to show “grace”) and a swimsuit (to show “fitness”) competition. All the while with caked on makeup. Are any of the answers to the questions even given eloquently or articulated with “grace”? Nope… Perez shouldn’t me calling her a bitch, because to make anti-gay laws cease, we have to try and convince those who don’t support gay marriage to get out and vote. So many people are apathetic because “it doesn’t affect them”, so why bother? Perez definitely didn’t help the cause. I doubt Ms. California even votes. The Ms. USA competition is laughable and so is this whole situation.
@111: You have nothing new to offer. Your arguments are circular and based on a false construct that you are trying to establish as “fact” (e.g., she didn’t mean what she said (and what she’s then said she’s proud for saying)). You create from whole cloth the other side of a debate and then attribute it to those who hold the opposite view and then argue against your construct instead of what they’re saying. Go tilt at windmills, Ron.
Paul,
Check out this commentary by Roland Martin:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/22/m…
He’s got a point.
Sorry, Jack; you lose by forfeit.
You offer no reasoning to support your belief that Miss California spoke in opposition to marriage equality. You insist on your conclusion as the only possibility. That’s less than circular argument — it’s a stuck-point fault.
I pose an alternative to your conclusion — the “pro choice” interpretation. It’s commonplace in all kinds of controversies, and you proudly adopt it yourself in other settings. I argue this alternative takes even less creative parsing and selective reading of her statement.
You offer no reasoning to support your conclusion over this alternative (much less to exclude the alternative).
I made several stabs at eliciting the inferences behind your conclusion. That’s not creating things “from whole cloth” — that’s explicating a controversyu, to find where opposing cases coincide and where they branch apart. From start to finish, in high dudgeon, you refused to engage.
At this point, granted , I have nothing new to offer … nothing that will bring you out from behind that tree. In this debate, you haven’t even shown up. It’s a forfeit.
Ron —
You did not elicit an inference, you made up a position from your imagination and attributed it to me. That is not explicating a controversy, that’s putting words (unsupported by my previous posts) into my mouth.
You are absolutely correct — she has said it’s lovely that the choice is available in this country (in very small pockets, not nationally, but let’s overlook that for now). She then said that she believes that same sex marriage should not be in her country.
That’s my problem, Ron. She went too far. She stepped into that great church/state divide. If she had just said “I recognize the difference between legal and religious marriage and while I am glad that parts of our country allow legal marriage for all, independent of religion, my religious belief is that marriage is between one man and one woman.” I’d have had no problem with that. But she didn’t say that. She said she believed that same sex marriage should not be in her country. And when you try to pull a Clinton and deconstruct her words and say she didn’t mean what she said (and has since supported), you’re creating an argument based on a fiction, on a supposition. While that may be an interesting debate, it’s not a debate of the event in question.
Oh and just so you understand how a debate and, indeed, adult discourse works, it’s not a forfeit because you say so. Grow up.
@108
Because the word “marriage” is littered throughout numerous tax forms, mortgage applications, legal documents, privacy policies, on and on. . . They are all contractual with each term such as “marriage” explicitly defined. A “Civil Union” is not defined in many (all?) of those. . . and therefore wouldn’t have any meaning. . . and therefore not equal.
Jack — You believe she “said that she believes that same sex marriage should not be in her country “? You know she simply didn’t say this.
So how do you infer this from the text … even from the errant version you tossed up @ 85 as a supposed verbatim quote?
1.[a] Apart from your inversion of sentence structure (dragging an introductory phrase “in my country” over twenty words to become the complement of the linking verb “be”) …
[1.b.] … your inversion of expression (from “between a man and a woman” to “same sex marriage …
[1.c.] … your universalization of her concrete, individual “a marriage” to “marriage” …
[1.d.] … excepting the phrase “no offense”, there’s not no negative nowhere in the original — nothing to the effect that same sex marriage “should not be” (as in “not exist”).
2. She never invokes the state – or the church – in the original text. In subsequent remarks she mentions the church, but not the state.
3. Your reading would have her assert “it’s great that Americans are able to choose … same-sex marriage”, and then just seven words later contradict that by saying they shouldn’t have that choice! That’s an unreasonably tendentious interpretation, unless the text leaves us no choice.
4. You place great weight on the phrase “in my country” as a cue to de jure intent. (In fact, your version of the text erroneously duplicates the phrase, and truncates potentially vital context.) Would a reading of “in my country” as “in my community” or “in my part of the country” be more consistent with immediate context (which refers to “my family” and “how I was raised”) … especially since we’ve seen her nervously stumble and drop words earlier in the piece?
Is it at all conceivable to you that she meant what she said in the first part (“great … choose”!), and witnessed for her personal ideal of “a marriage” in the second (as many in religious communities distinguish between civil marriage (with all the legal rights thereto) and “true marriage” (as a spiritual estate)? Not to endorse any of that, but can you categorically exclude the possibility that this is what she meant???
Or did you torture the text beyond all reason, in order to derive a meaning you could then find objectionable?
1: “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.” Any argument you make that she did not say that is fatuous.
2: She invokes her country. Her country is the state.
3: Yes, she’s not very well spoken. Hence one of the reasons she did not win.
4: Sure, if you want to amend her quote, a quote she’s since said she’s proud of making, then you can make her say whatever you would like. But, again, that’s a different debate, not one based on her words.
It’s conceivable that she misspoke, but she says she did not and stands by her statement. So it’s only you that’s trying to massage her text into something else.
So the person with Love in their name supports traditional marriage. How precious. Let’s see, our traditional marriage is an eastern based institution that was embedded in the west via the Old Dick Heads Testement. Yes, traditional marriage. We must honor it because it is so old. The traditional exchange of women, often from dirty old man to dirty old man so dirty old men can have fresh young wives. In reality, since so many of us have come to reject the OLd Dick Heads Testement, modern marriage is not at all traditional anymore. Women can select and reject without their fathers knowledge. Divorce without the churches’ permission. One can even meet their mate online. If one really supports traditional marriage, which I’m sure Miss California does not, they would be swimming with the Jack Mormons or moving to the Middle East.
You’re quite a piece of work, Cracker jack.
1. I proposed no such argument. Now, show me where she said “same sex marriage should not be in her country.”
2. Conventional English usage — and even the professional vocabulary of political scientists, attorneys or policy wonks — admits a much broader array of meanings.
3. In extemporaneous speech, nobody is well-spoken. Nobody. That’s why no well-adjusted adult takes seriously any claim that an adversary’s every word was meant precisely as uttered — whether at family gatherings, on Meet the Press, or in formal court.
4. So when I interpret “my country” as plausibly meaning “where I come from”, etc., I’m amending her quote? What are you doing when you interpret “my country” as “the state” (or more ominously perhaps, the State)?
As it happens, we’re going to find out what she really thinks on the legalities soon enough. Perez Hilton has created a monster — a powerful spokesfigure for the “family values” faction. In other settings she’s quite articulate, comfortable in her own skin, and now she’s a bigger celeb than Miss USA (who opines that gays should be satisfied with civil unions). Now she’ll get every invitation under the sun to lead every ballot initiative against equality.
The self-righteous Hollywood crowd whose hubris fumbled away the Prop 8 campaign has done it again.
Perez Hilton makes a living off of destroying other people. He’s a social parasite. For him, maligning Miss California is simply business as usual.
Ron —
I understand your argument. I don’t agree with it. If she had since mitigated her stance in ANY way, I would agree that she just spoke poorly. But she has since stood behind her words, so I believe she said what she meant and meant what she said. There’s an adage that this brings to mind: if someone shows you who they are, believe them.
I agree, the right was delivered a living martyr. Here’s hoping they don’t capitalize on her.