NOTE – This column was first printed in BAY WINDOWS on May 7th. For more information please visit www.baywindows.com
by Kevin Sowyrda
Miss California USA and President Barack Obama have something interesting in common.
They are both opposed to same-sex marriage. It didn’t cost Obama the presidency, but it probably did cost Miss California two things; the bigger crown she was expecting at the recent Miss America contest and any hope for a decent dialogue on her position, with which I take strong exception.
The public pillaging Carrie Prejean has suffered at the hands of liberals who forget what the word really means has been painful to view. The lynching’s been led by, among others, the insufferable duet of Village Voice gossip columnist Michael Musto and liberal MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermannn, who believe that when a woman disagrees with the gay boys and the not so gay boys she’s to be shredded like so much bad pork. But first some background for those of you who’ve been underground, hiding from the Swine Flu that’s going to end the world as we know it.
Prejean, aka Miss California USA, was asked by openly gay gossip blogger Perez Hilton, who was serving as a pageant judge at the April 19 Miss USA contest, what her position was on same-sex marriage. Prejean articulated this frank and diplomatic answer. “We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.” When you think about it, Prejean’s response hardly differed from Obama’s recent words on the subject, “marriage is only between a man and a woman.”
But Prejean doesn’t have that Obama Teflon and now she knows what a fish feels like when being prepared as sushi. No sooner had the pageant concluded that Perez got the hate ball rolling by posting a Rosie O’Donnell like video on his web page where he called Prejean a “bitch” and some other childish derogatives, none of which should be flabbergasting given the source. Hilton’s bite and infamy date back to before Aug. 17, 2007 when he reported on his web page that Fidel Castro had died and further insisted that he was the first person in the world to report it. He’s right. He’s the only person to have reported that. Hilton is also nothing less than a lightning rod for controversy not just because he declares living people dead but also for outing celebrities, and not because they’ve ever lifted a finger against the gay community. Anger issues, Perez?
So not to be outdone in the category of venomous castigators, Keith Olbermann invited his soul mate Michael Musto to his cave at MSNBC to dissect Prejean further; for her physique and a host of other taboo, personal issues.
It’s the type of commentary Rush Limbaugh would have shied away from. Here’s how the dyspeptic Musto described Prejean. “This is the kind of girl who sits on the TV and watches the sofa. You know, she thinks innuendo is an Italian suppository. Can I keep going? On the pageants now, they really should have easier questions, like, ‘What’s your middle name?’ or ‘What show was Seinfeld on?’ I mean, this girl’s a ding-dong. I didn’t even like her earrings.” And it degenerated further. Said Musto, “They also paid for Carrie to cut off her penis, and sand her Adam’s apple and get a head-to-toe waxing. I know for a fact that Carrie Prejean was Harry Prejean, a homophobic man, who liked marriage so much he did it three times. Now he’s a babe who needs a brain implant. Maybe they could inject some fat from her butt. Oh, they have?”
Olbermann reveled in this potty mouth routine, chiming in with some old- fashioned woman bashing typical for his caustic demeanor, including a stream of references to Prejean’s breasts and the completely outlandish thought that Perez Hilton is now an “intellectual giant” for his performance as a hard-hitting beauty pageant official.
It’s disgusting. When men are allowed to pile on and eviscerate a woman whose crime against humanity is stating her opinion, the true meaning of liberal has been perverted by people who are no more liberal than was Jerry Falwell. All they’re doing is churning the pot of hate speech in an attempt to vilify anyone who dares to subscribe, however tactfully, to an opinion that differs from their own theology. Olbermann preaches ad infinitum that that’s what the Republicans do. Clearly he’s projecting. It’s what he himself does as do so many of his liberal comrades who don’t know what liberal really means and have spent the past days nailing Carrie Prejean to the cross.
Liberal means a woman should be allowed to freely and independently say what she thinks without men ridiculing and demeaning her to the point that the transcripts begin to read like sordid material written for Hustler Magazine. Liberal means people who disagree with you are your opponents, but not your enemies. To travel the other path is to go the way of Nixon.
For the life of me, I don’t know why the Miss California-Prejeans of the world should be bothered if a same-sex couple marries. It seems to me we’ve got ample supply of hate in this world and anything we can do to foster loving and committed relationships should be accessible to all. But there’s something intellectually degenerate about countering those who dissent on the marriage issue by employing debate tactics from the Iranian Parliament.
We’re better than that and any woman, even Miss California USA, should not suffer such violent, verbal abuse at the hands of the male-dominated liberal establishment.
There’s so much wrong with this paternalistic diatribe I hardly know where to begin.
<
p>Who cares what gender she is? The fact that she’s a woman does not confer upon her any immunity from criticism. She uttered an opinion on national TV, and is receiving negative and positive feedback for it. So what? Liberals, whether male or female, may criticize bigoted thinking whenever they come upon it. Conservatives are hailing her as a Palinesque heroine. Were she to have articulated bigoted views about interracial marriage, she would likely be subjected to similar vilification (or praise, in some cases). Big deal.
<
p>Save your paternalism for your own children. Women, whether they are homophobic, gay-friendly, or indifferent don’t need to be saved from “violent, verbal abuse at the hands of the male dominated liberal establishment” by you or anybody else. She’s perfectly capable of taking care of herself.
<
p>
Expressing the exact same sentiment without the subsequent “liberal” excoriation (Obama, Kerry, Clinton, etc?) The public opinions of politicians are surely more damaging to the cause than the statements of a pageant winner- thus, one would think, more deserving of intense opposition, ridicule, etc.
Man-rooms and weekend fishing trips nationwide all agree: Perez Hilton ain’t in the club. He probably doesn’t want to be, either.
<
p>Do you think this male-dominated establishment is a regular reader of Perez, or worse, watches his video blogs? Does anyone care what Perez Hilton says? Probably not many people, and those people probably are going to agree with him not because he says it, but because it’s their viewpoint already.
<
p>This chick had the courage to look Perez in the face and be honest about how she feels, knowing his reaction wouldn’t be a good one. If anything, Perez’ reaction makes me look on him as a whiny, crying bitch rather than anyone to be taken serious. And the pageant contestant…my only question about her is “who?”
Probably not the best choice of words when defending against charges of homophobia. At best it makes you look like a jerk.
I’m saying that this person is putting Perez Hilton into the “male dominated establishment”, where if such an establishment were to exist, he would most certainly be excluded from it.
I agree the accusation is ridiculous. Even if Paris weren’t involved, her comments were stupid and offensive. In fact the entire post is part of a disturbing trend to paint bigots as victims. Hopefully no one is buying it.
What next? Pro-lifers are bigots? Anti-affirmative action people are bigots?
<
p>You want to get rid of the estate tax? Bigot.
Leaving the pro-lifer red herring aside, yes, those people are bigots. And her statements are and were bigoted. As are straight people who call gay people “bitches” (sexist, too).
getting rid of the estate tax makes you a bigot? Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No…it’s me taking you seriously…flyyyying away….
Nice try, though. Bet you’re a big hit at parties.
note that the word “bigot” has been drained of meaning during the course of many years of “agree with me or you’re a ka-blabetty-blabble” argumentation.
<
p>Several years ago, one was a bigot if one thought that the Legislature should vote on SSM in MA, but vote NO.
<
p>It can be, and ought to be, ignored.
Because it applies to you and therefore makes you uncomfortable?
Your claim about the last SSM vote is the reddest of red herrings. Completely out of context and a broad distortion. The folks that got flak for that position went much further in their arguments that that.
<
p>It is interesting to watch straight white Christian males blithely dismiss objections to specific, bigoted remarks. You should be ashamed.
A-hole.
She has the right to believe what she wants. Her being honest about it shows true courage and I admire her for that. On the other hand, I can also see the long and hateful fight the gay community has had to endure in order to acquire their rights and the right to marry, and their mission isn’t finished yet. I think the lashing out at her is from fear of taking two steps back into the dark ages. With that said, I am offended by the hateful verbal battering of Carrie Prejean. Everyone, not just certain groups, have the right to be who they are, and if Ms. Prejean believes marraige is between a man and a woman than she has that right just as much as the gay community has the right to believe it isn’t.
I loathe Keith Olbermann after what he did to Hillary Clinton. He is a woman hater. You can just see the joy he gets out of denigrating women. I have not watched his show since June of 2008. I hear he’s still a jerk.
other people have the right to bash them in public. IF you’re going to express bigoted views, THEN you’re going to pay the price. Free speech =! no consequences.
<
p>Prejean got the ire she deserved in a country so obsessed with these sorts of things. She wanted the spotlight and she got it. The media gave her a rope and she hung herself with it. The whole thing would have went away if she either shut up about it after the contest or apologized for offending the hundreds of thousands of people who give a damn about both pageantry and equality. She didn’t do either of those things, so people took offense to a woman who decided all on her own to become a public figure.
No! I don’t want diversity! I want everyone to think like me on this issue!
<
p>Here’s my take: if she had proffered this opinion in a situation where it was not asked of her, I would grant the bashing coming. However, it wasn’t her randomly spewing hate. They asked her how she felt about something and she gave an answer. She didn’t lie or make up some nonsensical answer like the chick from Arizona who rambled like a loon about Universal Healthcare.
<
p>
<
p>Or it would have gone away if Perez hadn’t turned it into a big deal. She wasn’t the one having freakouts online the day after. He was. As far as offending people, they asked her a question and she answered it. Is this pageant a liberal litmus test or a contest of beauty, honesty and grace?
To frame in terms of a complaint I’ve seen you make repeatedly: what if she said that as a Protestant, she felt that Catholics were deluded? It’s a fairly common born again meme.
<
p>That JohnD is on your side should give you a hint how wrong you are about this.
Care to rebut or just feeling cranky?
I don’t know about Edgar, but I’m reluctant to rate or comment on anything in this thread because it has the scent of an exchange that does more damage by publicizing or perpetuating than by ignoring.
<
p>It’s the same reason Mr. Dawkins and most biologists won’t “debate” evolution with creationists — the very debate itself gives more visibility to a non-issue than it deserves.
<
p>The homophobic rightwing already gets plenty of visibility as it is.
but yes, we’re just providing a forum for people to claim victimhood.
Think about it. Ryan and apparently you are proclaiming millions of people to be “bigots”. People you have never met, know nothing about, and will never meet. My father, for instance. You have declared these people bigots like the Pope excommunicated England.
<
p>Diversity isn’t a bunch of people with different colored skin sitting around agreeing with each other. THIS is what diversity is — diversity of THOUGHT and OPINION. You aren’t always going to agree with everyone else but this is what you asked for. If you are going to decide that people who don’t agree with you are bigots then you have no place in a conversation with diverse people.
<
p>As to your point about Protestants, uh, many of them do think we are deluded. Ever seen Jesus Camp? That little girl said I go to a “dead church”. Well those people can go ahead and think and say whatever they want. She can go ahead and call me deluded but I’d rather take the path of Erasmus and educate the ignorant than the path of Ryan and declare her to be a bigot.
One day you’ll read what you just wrote and be deeply ashamed.
with that kind of attitude.
Your postings on here are the kind of thing you’ll come to regret once you reach adulthood. Just like that faux hawk.
You don’t actually have one, do you? O_o
but my hair is too curly when it’s long enough to have one so it didn’t look good.
<
p>I’m currently sporting an Abe Lincoln in-progress. Not sure how beardy I’ll go though.
Somehow I knew that. 😉 Now I just have to work on my mind reading skills and I’ll be the prefect modern conservative. Can’t be a wingnut if you don’t already know what people REALLY mean, can you?
Didn’t Roe (Norma McCorvey) recently say she was deeply ashamed?
<
p>
What I meant is — not all people who oppose SSM are bigots. It depends on tone and intent. So, if you oppose SSM because of bigoted opinions (or prejudice as I’ve now been taught to say), you’re a bigot (or prejudiced).
<
p>That said, I still haven’t heard a compelling argument for opposing same sex CIVIL marriage.
is that little girl and her family aren’t trying to ban marriage for Catholic people.
<
p>I don’t care what people think about me as a person — they can be as prejudiced as they want in their own individual thoughts. However, something ceases to be mere prejudice and starts to become bigotry when people use their prejudices as justification for supporting policies seeking to suppress equality, or when they act on their prejudices and try to do real harm. Do that and people like me just aren’t going to stay quiet anymore.
<
p>So, yeah, people who oppose legalizing civil marriage equality are bigoted against gay people. That doesn’t mean they’re hopeless. That doesn’t mean they should be hated. But, I’m not going to hold someone’s hand, metaphorically speaking, while they learn better. Sometimes it takes being called a bigot to finally decide to clean up your ways.
trying to ban it? The problem with turning everyone who doesn’t agree with you into a bigot, is that you run the risk of turning those who are passively against you into people who are actively against you.
<
p>
<
p>Hey fatty! Why don’t you go lose weight, fatty! Come on fatass, get to the gym! Hey fatass, why don’t you drop a few so that when universal healthcare happens I don’t have to pay for your diabetes!
<
p>INCORRECT. Namecalling is NOT a method to get people to “clean up their ways.” No mean name anyone ever called me got me to conform to what that person’s concept of normal was.
Namecalling alone may not get people to clean up their ways, but pointed critiques can. Moreover, I know I could stand to lose some pounds, Carrie Prejean probably didn’t know she suffered from bigotry. It would do her more good to hear that her views are prejudiced than me I need to get to the gym. I can see that in the mirror, Carrie Prejean is probably around people who mostly feel the same way as she, so is that much less likely to hear it.
<
p>Of course, I don’t suggest purely name calling in her direction, a la the ever-awful Perez, but she need not be coddled either.
<
p>We all face prejudices, and in time they pass (sometimes a long time) I remember the day when a woman who had a child out of wedlock was considered a whore, or a divorced woman was worthless and someone to avoid. It can really hurt, and make you hate the people who feel that way. So I understand your anger, but you just have to trust that most people accept the idea of gay marriage and those who don’t, well, they may never. You have to learn to not care what they think.
<
p>There are always going to be people who believe marriage is between a man and a woman, not because they hate or disrespect the gay community, but because they simply believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, it is more of a religious teaching that is not likely to change any time soon. It’s time to embrace those people, and be able to walk along side them in disagreement, otherwise you will be fighting for the rest of your life.
I do have to care what they think if they’re going to vote on their bigotry. If they’re going to elect candidates to office who think I shouldn’t have such basic protections as nondisrimination policies in terms of finding work and housing, I need to be angry, vocal and active.
<
p>The thing is a lot of people can be moved on marriage equality. Look at Joe! Furthermore, there’s a lot of people in the squishy middle who think gay people should have equal rights, but don’t know the issues well and don’t have enough gay influences, so they’re open to the lies and deception of the fringe right — who you’re absolutely right, probably can’t be changed. However, that’s a very, very tiny wing of this country… which is why it’s so important to be vocal and active and not just accept people’s bigotry. If that tiny minority just kept to themselves and only policed their churches, I wouldn’t care, but the sad fact is they’re the American Taliban and they won’t be happy until we’re all living in their version of Sharia law. If they somehow, miraculously, won on gay rights — you can bet your ass they’d be moving on to their next targets, after, like perhaps women.
Why is it the people who disagree with it are “bigoted assholes”? OBAMA has publicly disclosed that he is not in favor of gay marriage so is he too a BIGOTED ASSHOLE?
<
p>Maybe, just maybe there are issues in this country which have fringe support and maybe supporters of that fringe issue could be denigrated with insulting labels but when you get to issues which almost divides the nation in half I think it’s wrong to call opposition (half the country) “BIGOTED ASSHOLES”. So much for civil debate.
<
p>Prejean has hardly “hung herself” and my take is many people admire her not only for her incredible beauty but for having the guts to answer a question honestly and not give the standard “save the world” bullshit answer we hear from many public personalities.
My rights as a human being shouldn’t be subject to the whim’s of society. Sorry. If you can’t handle that, you suffer from bigotry. Sorry. Why would I ever want to have a civil debate with people who think I’m subhuman for being gay? I’m not going to win my rights by having tea parties with the enemy.
not on the merits of whether gay marriage should be allowed or not, but rather the question as to whether or not it’s your right as a human being. Seeing as how marriage is a purely social construct, I don’t think one could consider it to be a right inherent to humanity as one would put the rights like the right to live or even in a broader sense, free speech.
<
p>Also, humanity does not have an inclusive definition of marriage.
<
p>I would say it’s more your right as an American.
It’s a societal construct, but where this becomes a right is equality under the law. Either there should be marriage equality or no marriage at all. Anything else is a suppression of civil rights. Given that there’s legitimate reasons why society should have marriage, the smart policy decision is to allow it to people regardless of whether they’re gay, straight or something in between — but, yes, you’re right on the semantics. When I see NOM argue against marriage for everyone, maybe I’ll stop suggesting they’re pushing for policies of bigotry.
Dont’ be such a whiner. Everybody in the world with an issue can pull a “baby” response like yours. There are exactly “shitloads” of issues we all deal with on a daily basis and fired-up zealots will tell you why anyone opposing their view is a bigoted asshole, “fill in the blank”phobic, heartless, lawless, closeminded blah blah blah. You’re one of those Dems that wants more and more of my money so how should I clasify you and how can I even consider “having tea” with you while you rob me of my hard earnered money? Shall I call you a robber, a thief, a malcontent… and hold my breathe till you go away? Luckily there are civil people on both sides of most arguments (Catholics/Protestants in Ireland, Egypt/Israel…) who engage in civil debate to solve issues, no matter how strongly they detest the other person/side. Isn’t that Obama’s message?
<
p>People like you are a distraction and often do nothing but drag down your side of an argument.
<
p>Have you addressed your President and Sen John Kerry being labeled as “bigoted assholes” by you?
is not necessary. Calling Carrie Prejeans a bigot for her opinion is not necessary either.
<
p>A bigot is…
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.(merriam-webster.com)
<
p>Perhaps if Carrie spewed venomous language and name calling and vowed to fight to the death to stop gay marriage, then yes she would be a bigot. She didn’t do that, she just made a rather mild mannered and apologetic statement of her opinion, she even said she hoped she didn’t offend anyone.
<
p>Intolerance goes both ways. Who’s being hateful and intolerant. That’s the real question.
If she doesn’t think people like me deserves equal rights — she’s a bigot. Period.
<
p>Even if I accepted the latter half of your argument — that she’d have to go out of her way to express her bigotry — she’d still be a bigot. Almost immediately after she said what she said, she joined up with the Supreme Bigots at the NOM campaign against marriage equality — including creating a commercial for them against gay rights and equality.
<
p>People who are intolerant of those who think they’re only subhuman are not intolerant themselves. They’re rational. I should not be kind, give my money to or help those who would seek to suppress my rights as a human being. To do so would only help their efforts to make me less human.
Bigots? By your definition?
Those folks don’t meet Ryan’s definition of a bigot as “someone who doesn’t believe everyone should have equal rights”, as they do not in fact support gay marriage (which is what I assume Ryan means by “equal rights” in this context) Generally, I try to respond in some fashion when I’m downrating- although perhaps I’ve also been lax in this regard from time to time.
Did you watch the video or read what she said?
Do Obama, Kerry and Clinton really believe that people like Ryan don’t deserve equal rights? I suppose you could make that argument, but all you did was throw out their names. Not really a worthwhile response, if you ask me.
<
p>
as to what he thinks “full equality” means, but it’s pretty clear that he’s at least pushed for more rights for gay people. I will note that he faced a primary challenge last time around in large part because of his position on marriage equality. A stronger candidate may have even done better.
<
p>These people either suffer from risk aversion or, indeed, lingering prejudice. However, the very fact that all of them recognize that there is a problem and that gay people are deprived basic rights they should have at least shows that they’re attempting to help further the agenda of equality. Carrie Prejean is a long way from that.
Perhaps you were able to look into her eyes and see her soul, as it were. I would be quite willing to assent to the idea that people who do not favor gay marriage are bigoted, if only that definition were to be applied equally to all who profess that position. Apparently there’s more to it than that, so I accept your modification of the definition to exclude those who have otherwise been supportive of gay rights, anti-hate-crime legislation, etc.
I finally got around to watching the Today show video– Prejean indeed appears to be actively campaigning against gay marriage in her Lauer interview, and in that respect she is different from the three political leaders I cited above. So in retrospect, I deserved all the downrating (although I still think the original definition could be applied to the anti-equality politicians, whose actions and pronouncements have greater significance than those of beauty pageant winners, professional athletes, or other celebrities).
Obama runs the risk of losing the glbt movement forever if he doesn’t start acting in support of them. There’s no liberal movement more frustrated with him right now than gay people – that’s for sure. So, yes, what politicians say and do matters far more than Prejean – I can agree with you on that. Glad you came around on Prejean — she’s done herself no favors. I would not have cared one iota if she didn’t try to make herself a martyr and sign up with the anti-marriage crowd.
but they had to attack her and call her a bigot and hate on her. So what does she do? She throws up a huge middle finger and NOW she’s going to campaign against gays.
<
p>Yep, lots of good it did to turn to hate when dealing with her.
She was working with NoM BEFORE her speech. Even the CBN article says so.
Do all the contributors know how intolerant you are?
I agree with you, but I think the beauty contestant has become a convenient symbol for people on both sides of the issue. I disagree with her, but I don’t think that she is a bigot, simply a product of her environment. And the attacks against her are, at times, overkill.
…is there was no depth to her argument. Fair or not, there’s a stereotype of pageant contestants as getting by on looks alone and not having or needing much in the way of brains. I’ve seen the clip of her response and she does seem to play right into the stereotype. If I remember correctly her only explanation was along the lines of that’s how I was raised or what my parents taught me. Not that upbringing doesn’t shape all of our worldviews to some extent, but her response screamed incapability of thinking for herself. When people answer like that, especially on an issue that could be informed by religion such as homosexuality, I feel like asking, “Does that mean you still believe in Santa Claus too, or was he too secular for your family anyway?” I do know people who aren’t quite ready for marriage equality, even as they are accepting of gay family members, but if you’re still arguing a moral value to homosexuality as if it were a choice then I do see your views as outdated, and yes, bigoted.
a product of one’s environment.
<
p>People thankfully aren’t born a bigot. They can learn better. I hope Carrie Prejean does.
She’s about to be sanctioned by the Miss USA Pageant for several contract violations including posing nude and working for the National Organization for Marriage.
<
p>
<
p>Just in case there’s some confusion about her intent, she’s about to appear in a series of anti-gay marriage advertisements. Product of her environment or not, she’s actively campaigning to take away other people’s rights.
We all know how badly that turned out for Vanessa (or as Penthouse billed it… “The controversial pictures that launched her career”).
<
p>She didn’t say that she didn’t think you deserve equal rights. She said…..
<
p>
<
p>Then she went on to say that she personally thinks marriage is between a man and woman.
<
p>I tried to find the commercial she did and can’t so I don’t know what she said there, or what else she may have said at a later time, I haven’t really been following the story. My interpretation of her answer the night of the pageant is that she thinks it’s great that in America you can choose one or the other. Isn’t that what you’ve been fighting for?
<
p>I think we are using the term “bigot” a little loosely here. I really cannot fully understand what it’s like to be a gay person because I am not. I don’t know what it has felt like to have to fight your fight, and struggle for rights for so long, and to have to fight against truly hateful and vicious people. (Except that I’m a woman, and women have had their own battles, not to mention how abusive the pageants are toward defining what a perfect woman is suppose to be) But at some point soon, this is all going to have to land in place where you have your full rights, and then personal opinions about what marriage is are going to have to be tolerated. My personal opinion about marriage is that it is an ancient institution of little or no value, no matter who is getting married. It is a religious ritual that seems to mean nothing anymore, with the high divorce rate not to mention affairs and abuse that is rampant in so many marriages. To tell you the truth, I think a civil union is a more appropriate form of becoming a family than marriage is….and I mean that for any marriage.
that other people don’t get rights, that’s an affront to equality.
<
p>Furthermore, she chose that, in her view, she doesn’t think I have rights. It’s implicit in the very sentence you quoted, but also explicit when she goes on to say that she believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
<
p>Moving on,
<
p>
<
p>I don’t. I think people should be less afraid of using such words when they are, in fact, true. Unless people are called out for their bigotry, they’ll go on being bigoted. This is how people learn. I’ll use a personal example: I used to say “that’s so retarded” all the time – without even thinking. It’s every bit as bad as people who say “that’s so gay” or who call others a “fag.” I just didn’t realize it. That’s the environment I grew up in. Then, one day, after I said it, one of my co-workers said, “Ryan, that offends me. You shouldn’t say that.” I took a few seconds, thought about it and owned up to it — and erased it from my vocabulary. I could have been offended by my coworker for calling me out on my own unrealized prejudice, but instead I decided to take it as a lesson. I am better for it.
<
p>So, yes, Carrie Prejean – right now – is a bigoted against gay people. It’s not completely her fault; she was clearly raised in an intolerant environment. She can learn to be better. But if people don’t call her out on her bigotry, that won’t happen. That’s why, when the shoe fits, it’s important to be accurate and critical, even if uncomfortable.
<
p>Personal opinions are tolerated. If Carrie Prejean doesn’t think women should marry other women, then by God she shouldn’t marry other women. Simple. However, what can’t and shouldn’t be tolerated by society is people who try to take away rights from others. Church doctrine ends at their doors; if people speak to suppress others based on it, or vote to do so, then they should be roundly taken to task. Legislate in the pews all you want, but the worst church folk should be able to do is boot someone from their flock.
— US Senator John Kerry.
<
p>
— Barack Obama
The CIVIL ritual conveys very specific rights and we’re only talking about those. In MA those are finally fully equal.
<
p>Religious marriage has nothing to do with it. You take up whether or not the religious ritual means anything with those whose church prohibit it for same sex couples.
<
p>2. It is NOT a respectable position to be opposed to granting someone equal rights. If you are, then you’re a bigot. Period. She was ‘running’ for a public position and thus is in the public spotlight by her own choice. If she can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.
<
p>3. Old-fashioned women bashing? Puh-leaze. A) Girl got a boob job paid for by the committee. That’s an actual issue and the entire beauty pageant industry should be ashamed at the message that it sends that a beautiful woman like this gal needs a boob job. B) She then went off and tried to use her own downfall — assuming this cost her the victory, as opposed to the talent of whoever beat her — to further her own career. She went and did a commercial with fringe-right hate group NOM and went all moral-police on everyone… meanwhile, turns out, she’s done nude photos. I don’t care about ANY of that stuff, but I do care about hypocrisy.
<
p>So, the bottom line is that Prejean put herself in a public spotlight, tried to use the situation to further her own gains.. and made herself look like a bigoted fool in the process. Even the fringe right wingers are starting to run from her now.
Is the irony-loaded title. Other than that, count me as agreeing with most of what Ryan’s been saying.
All the diary says is “next posting soon by Kevin Sowyrda” and no link. From the responses it seems like there’s a flap about the merits of demographic diversity, but otherwise I can’t tell what the comments are responding to. Did the diary get deleted, and if so why?
The poster sowyrda courageously deleted the content of the post. Apparently, sowyrda was satisfied that the waters were sufficiently chummed, and that the ensuing “debate” would proceed, even without having the post content extant.
Certain other folks are spewing bigotry in sowydra’s place. You can get the gist from them.
Just like Barack Obigot apparently. Gosh, not even so. I support gay marriage and I’m STILL a bigot because I don’t apparently hate people who don’t support it enough.
A celebrity gadfly/pageant judge asked a would-be beauty queen about marriage equality. She replied that she didn’t favor equality, closely matching her state’s recent referendum. The gadfly attempted to get more headlines by being hysterical about this person’s answer. She didn’t win the tiara.
<
p>This could and should have died a quick death, but on a slow news this was featured during early time on a daily cable show. People reacted to that. The failed beauty queen, meanwhile, is being held up as a moral beacon (inappropriate photos, silicon enhancements, and all) by a group of professional victims. Others reacted to that.
<
p>As per this thread, anti-equality people are proclaiming their right to be against equality, and anyone who rejects their bigotry is intolerant — layers of rich irony in there.
No longer want to stand behind your idiotic post?
<
p>If you’re going to put up a post, either leave it there or take down the entire thing. This bullshit of editing out the content and leaving the comments dangling, as it were, is not cool.
If I have time I will write a letter to BW’s to rip on pretty much every point. Here in short, Sowyrda’s opinion to me is, and I hate to appear cliche, but it is self loathing.
<
p>One certainly can say that an activist, which
Perez Hilton is, did the wrong thing by using the “b” and suggesting the “c” word when verbally going at Prejean. It was sexist and crass, but then again in my opinion so is the Miss America Pageant–one can’t get any more sexist than that.
<
p>However, what Perez did, to ask a question which we at KnowThyNeighbor.org refer to as “shaking the bushes” was an incredible piece of activism. Prejean when she said we live in a country where we can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage, she was really saying we live in country where we can choose to vote or influence peddle to take away others rights. Make no mistake about this. It was a nasty, nasty answer. Her vapid nature made it seem that she was a scatterhead, but I suspect that was all an act as we all learned that she was prepped and prepared for that question.
<
p>Thank you Perez Hilton and Donald Trump for the forum to have opened up this dialogue in such a grand way.