ABCNews.com Ignores Prop 8 Vote in Story on Beauty Pageant Gay Marriage Question

Photo of Ken Shepherd.

Let's get this straight [pardon the pun]: A beauty contest contestant with a conservative view on same-sex marriage upsets an openly gay blogger with her answer to his question about her thoughts on the issue. Yet in reporting the story, ABCNews.com paints her as the bad guy for offending the celebrity judge, while failing to mention that a majority of said beauty queen's fellow Californians agree with her views.

Welcome to the saga of Carrie Prejean, Miss California, whom ABCNews.com describes as having "floored" gossip blogger Perez Hilton, who went on to "skewer" the Miss USA runner-up for her honest answer in an angry video blog entry.

What caused celebrity judge Hilton to seethe so? Only Prejean's honest, politely-delivered answer. Quotes ABCNews.com's Luchina Fisher:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

"I think it's great Americans are able to choose one or the other," she said. "We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. 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. No offense to anybody there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman."

While Prejean's answer was hardly the most articulate defense of traditional marriage, Hilton's angry rant -- calling her a "dumb bitch" -- on his blog was highly unprofessional for a public figure chosen to judge the competition.

What's more, Prejean's answer about Americans being "able to choose one or the other" could arguably be construed to mean that she thinks it's great that the gay marriage issue is left up to individual states to decide, regardless of her personal convictions.

While Fisher noted in her April 20 story that an angry Hilton insisted that he would have been happy with Prejean saying that gay marriage is "a question that each state should decide for themselves," Fisher left out of her article that a majority of Californians at the polls last November did just that, agreeing with Prejean by voting 52% in favor of Proposition 8.

Despite representing the majority of her state and answering in a gracious manner, Miss Prejean was not only trashed by Hilton, but by a pagaent official who made clear Prejean's conservative views were unwelcome on the platform, at least as far as the state pagaent organization was concerned:

Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, released a statement to the media in response to Prejean's answer last night.

"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics [sic] in the Miss California family."

That a Miss USA pagaent judge and a Miss California USA official ganged up on a pagaent contestant for expressing a conservative political belief during the interview portion of a contest could have and arguably should have been the lede to Fisher's article.

Unfortunately Fisher and her editors opted for making an innocuous, ditzy answer from a beauty queen the perfect excuse for hyping the rant of a notorious gay drama queen.

—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

→ Well, at least

Well, at least a homosexual got his digs in.


LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

The very contest should have upset the homosexual

Miss California was attacked.  At a female only beauty
pageant we recognize the difference between the sexes.  Marriage also recognizes
the difference, and should be protected to allow this recognition.

-------------------------------------------

IOWA shall not be taken over by high priests of redefined marriage(liberal judges).  We must fight!  Good men want freedom, Evil men want license 

First, if I was Paris Hilton

First, if I was Paris Hilton I would slap this reverse-homophobe "Perez Hilton" with an appropriation of likeness lawsuit so fast it would make is panties wad up.  Second, marriage has nothing to do with homosexuality and that is why homosexuals have no business getting married.  Two men or two women (gay or lesbian) does NOT equal a childbearing nuclear family.  No matter how far they fantasize about it, it is not "normal" and is not in the best interest of society as a whole.  I pray that more and more conservatives keep standing up for what's right and not give into this ridiculous power grab by gay community.  

~"First, if I was Paris Hilton"

There are so many entertaining endings I could slap on to that subject line........

 

Touche :) LOL

Touche :) LOL

~You kept it clean

I salute you, sir. Admirable self-restraint. :-)

 

Interesting choice of

Interesting choice of words, "power grab by the gay community". What power are they trying to grab and does it take away any power you now have? Just asking.

Power-saw to the people - Dexter

For thousands of years,

For thousands of years, marriage has meant one thing: man and woman.  In many cases, it also means the the beginning of a healthy environment to create a family.  

Now, suppose I lose my wife and am left with my four children.  Then, my sister wants to help me raise the children and moves in.  Is that a "family"? YES.  Should I be able to "marry" my sister? NO!  Gays can adopt, gays can have family's but marriage means one thing and one thing only. 

Huh, not sure that has

Huh, not sure that has anything to do with the 'power grab' question?

You can go on creating families for another several thousand years without bothering with gays..no?

Because marriage means a lot

Because marriage means a lot to many people.  To homosexuals, it is nothing more than a political agenda.  Plus, the line has to be drawn somewhere.  Otherwise, why can't I marry 6 women?  Isn't it possible to love more than one person?  Does that mean we should recognize it as marriage?  Just because YOU think marrying six women is disgusting doesn't mean someone else does; therefore, I should be able to marry 6 women and you can stick it.

"why can't I marry 6 women"?

"why can't I marry 6 women"? Now that is an entirely different question. That is polyigamy (sp). Which has ethical and legal problems. Not a good idea. Also I found in my long lifes experience that it is impossible to be in love with more than one person at a time. Something to do with brain chemistry. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just faking it :)

good evening Mandeake

Actually that would be pigamy.

If you become a muslim, blowyourself up along with some Christians and you can have SEVENTY TWO.

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

Sigh, you'd think after all

Sigh, you'd think after all the time I've been on this site I'd know better..but I never learn. Sometimes I just feel I should stand up for a few gay friends I know..but here is not the place to do it :-(

Power-saw to the people - Dexter

My cousin's gay, I love him.

My cousin's gay, I love him.  Four of my best male friends are gay, I love them.  An employee of mine, one of my favorite, is bi-sexual.  Most gay people are not the problem Mandrake.  It is the politicizing of marriage that irritates me.  Maybe gays should just call it something else, like a "gay union". Personally, I have NO problem with that.  Just keep the "marriage" thing out of it.  I would even be for granting benefits to "gay unions" with ONE condition: a person should be able to create a union with anyone including family members, friends, employees etc. for benefits.  In fact, we could set up a website where people could get a "union" and not even have to meet each other for the sole purpose of getting government benefits.  See how much easier it is to just stay traditional on this marriage thing?

→ Hooray for Hilton

All he did was demonstrate that it's OK to discriminate according to personal beliefs.

Perhaps heterosexuals should continue to be as bigoted as he is.


LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

Not just heterosexuals, but

Not just heterosexuals, but conservatives in general better start adamantly standing up for what they think is right, regardless of political correctness.  

amen MM

This isn't an attack on gay people in general, and most gay people quietly live their lives without throwing lawsuits at churches who offend them.

But as usual, a loud minority take it upon themselves to crusade for something and they end up hurting everyone.

Exactly!  Just as most

Exactly!  Just as most straight people could care less what somebody's sexual preference is or who somebody is sleeping with or in love with.  It's the constant reminder of militant homosexuality that upsets the masses.  It's the constant reminder of militant liberalism in general that makes us uncomfortable.  Just look at this week alone:

1. J. Garofolo calling conservatives "redneck racists"

2. Perez Hilton calling a young lady a "stupid b1tSh" because she disagrees with him.

3. B. Obama blaming America for the World's problems

4. B. Obama shaking hands with one of America's big enemies: Chavez

5. Sticking Republican's with that "trojan horse" Meghan McCain. 

6. Calling the Tea Party activists terrorists 

...liberalism is out of control.   

I partially agree...


It is the politicizing of marriage that irritates me.

 

I would take it a step further.  First, at least to me and many others, marriage is a religious institution.  It is a covenant between me, my spouse and my God.  Since homosexuality is against my religion, that makes gay marriage an abomination.  I'm not saying that gay people are an abomination, but gay marriage is.  Gay marriage in a Christian church to me is like eating ham and bacon in a synagogue or mosque. 

Also, marriage has nothing to do with the government.  As such, government should have nothing to do with marriage.  Government wants out of religion, marriage is religious... government has no business dictating who and how people get married. 

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD ABOLISH ALL MARRIAGES!

Of course, there are certain legal ramifications of doing so, so all current marriages should be converted to civil unions.  Set civil unions to have all the rights, priveleges and responsibilities of current marriages.  Next, allow any two people to enter into a civil union, as it should be viewed in the eyes of the government as any other contract.

Marriages can still be performed, of course, by a preacher, priest, rabbi, sheik, witch-doctor... whoever you want to perform you marriage, who cares?  It's all up to you as marriage will no longer have any legal recognition.  Also, getting married by whoever you like does NOT mean you have a civil union.  They are completely separate.

 

 

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."

--Ernesto "Che" Guevara

I am not a lawyer

but it seems to me that if you change the meaning of marriage from one man and one woman to men and women it would open it up to poligmy and anything else that people can imagine. How can the law favor homosexuals above others? If a Morman wants to have five wives, who is Perez Hilton to say no? 

"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever."~David St. Hubbins

 

 

 

 

 

 

listen mandrake

The ultimate goal with gay marriage is indeed to get the government to decide upon the definition of a religious concept. A civil union is a legal marriage. The real fight is for religious marriage.

Churches, pastors, and religious dating services are already being bullied through lawsuits or protests. A student in California was verbally abused by his professor for disagreeing with gay marriage. A Catholic adoption program in Boston was told that new state laws would force them to serve gay clients, and they ended up shutting down the program as a last resort.

Meanwhile in the UK it is now literally a hate crime to criticize homosexuality.

 

A goverment should be in the

A goverment should be in the business of protecting human rights. If you want a religious marriage then by all means join a religion.

It's not about human rights.

It's not about human rights.  You are free to do whatever you want to your boyfriend or girlfriend.  You are even free to live and love happily ever after.  Just don't expect the citizens to accept it as a "marriage" if they choose not to, like in California.  

protecting human rights

But not protecting the right of a pastor to offer marriage counseling as he sees fit. Not guaranteeing the right of a church to believe (and preach) whatever they want.

If you want religious marriage you should join a religion? Take a few more steps in that direction and you will finally catch up with me. Gay activists can't get religious leaders to accomodate them, so they are trying to hijack religion through censorship and legal bullying. They are basically using the government to tell religions, "these folks are joining and you have to expand your tent to make room for them."

re: candance

Well said.

And in addition, those who use the argument that this only affects civil marriage and religious people will still be able to define religious marriage according to their beliefs are either not dealing with reality or being intentionally dishonest.

Once there is a federalized form of gay "marriage," and one of Perez Hilton's buddies decides he and his boyfriend really, really want to get married in St. Patrick's Cathedral, and the Archbishop of New York says, "Terribly sorry, but the Catholic Church doesn't accept the union of two men as 'marriage'; we suggest you try the Metropolitan Community Church down the street," expect this to be the next cause celebre for the gay activists and their allies in the mainstream media and government. 

Then we will really see them "hijack religion through censorship and legal bullying," as you rightly described it. The ultimate goal for what I personally think of as the "Gay Nazi Movement" will be all churches coerced into holding gay "marriages" in their sanctuaries, having their clergies officiate (or lose their tax exempt status and possibly other rights due to 'discriminating' against government-certified 'legal marriages'), repudiating Biblical passages in Leviticus and Romans against homosexuality (or face similar threats re: tax exemption and so forth), and any other acts of fealty to gay-dom demanded by activists. 

The censorship of all other views but the official "Gay Nazi" view that gay "marriage" is inevitable so everyone needs to embrace it is only the first step. Today it's only Perez having a hissy-fit and saying he would have "snatched that tiara off her head and run out the door" if Miss California had won. Tomorrow he and his allies will probably be sending her to a Mao-like "re-education" camp to ensure that her "incorrect" thoughts are fully purged and she gets with the progressive program. 

"Power grab"

Interesting choice of words, "power grab by the gay community".  What power are they trying to grab and does it take away any power you now have? Just asking.

First and foremost, the power of the First Amendment.  The reaction by Perez Hilton, and a vocal segement of the gay rights movement, in the wake of this answer and Prop 8, as well as any person who professes a view in the traditional man/woman definition of marriage is automatically labeled a "homophobe" or a "bigot", etc.  It is clear that our right to speak freely on the issue is being usurped by a smaller segment of society.

If you want a foretaste of our future, look to Canada, where many who've spoken in defense of the Judeo-Christian teaching on sexuality have been sued or persecuted under the law.  Rev. Stephen Boission (I think that's the correct spelling) was ordered by a court to NEVER write/speak/preach or engage in worship again on the basis that he wrote an editorial defending traditional marriage.

So this issue, for many, extends beyond just defending the traditional view of marriage and to the very core of our freedoms: the freedom to speak or worship freely.

If we can't speak our minds because it "offends" the gay community, that's a power grab. They are taking away our power to use the First Amendment to express our views and beliefs in the public sphere.

Additionally, in California and elsewhere, government is deriding textbooks, paperwork, and other references that are gender-specific.  That too is a power-grab, an attempt to androgynize the world to make "equal" men and women - when we aren't.  There's also an implied and obvious disdain for traditional gender roles - the notion that male/female are merely "social constructs", but that homosexuality (and any other sexual preference) is not, but perfectly natural and immutable.

When a group attempts to forcibly remake the world in its image, despite the fact that many have voted in favor of defending traditional marriage, and while attempting to deny the actual, written Constitutional rights of  those who object to certain behaviors, it is a "power grab."

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

The Real Meaning of Prop8 Victory

Very few people see the failure of Prop. 8 for what it is: ironically, it is the death knell of white political power in California. For decades liberal whites have cheered the coming white minority, hugely by undermining the enforcement of Props 187 and 209, thinking that liberal whites would be left in control of the rainbow coalition. Not so. Try as they might, lesbian school teachers couldn't convince all those hispanic and black kids that gays were fellow travellers in the civil rights and diversity movement. Their parents look upon gays with nothing but contempt, and gave Prop 8 the thumbs up. And the white California courts know it: it's one thing to nullify white votes to prevent Prop 187 from being enforced. It's another thing to nullify sacred votes by people of color who told the Gay mafia to get stuffed.

All those Subarus and Volvos with rainbow stickers heading north on I5 are gays moving to Oregon and Washington. Goodbye and good riddance. I wonder if they learned anything.

exactly

The will of the people was expressed more than once, but instead of accepting it these activists are using every legal tactic they can find to change the law anyway. Thus instead of democratic votes on an issue, a loud minority will shape the law to their own liking through activist courts.

Whether or not you agree with gay marriage, that should give you pause. In any other context that is antiAmerican.

I never understood the whole

I never understood the whole argument about "nuclear child bearing" families. What if two hetero people who can't procreate want to get married? Should they not be allowed? Or if they don't intend to have kids at all?

Doesn't matter if they can't

Doesn't matter if they can't have children.  They could adopt.  I for one never thought homosexuals should have been able to adopt unless it was from another family member or a friend.  In other words, I don't think homosexuals should be able to just go down to the adoption clinic and adopt this poor child that is not going to have a mother and a father.

Yes, but, what if they don't

Yes, but, what if they don't want to? What if the hetero couple doesn't plan on having / adopting any children? Does that mean, according to the "nuclear child bearing family" argument, that they shouldn't get married? 

~Red herring

And a dead one at that.

 

"Two men or two women (gay

"Two men or two women (gay or lesbian) does NOT equal a childbearing nuclear family."

I'm just clarifying because a man and a woman not interested or capable of reproducing or adopting doesn't equal a childbearing nuclear family either.

Amen

This is a topic that will never finish to the satisifaction to both parties.

Ah, but it could happen.

Ah, but it could happen.  They could change their mind, the woman could seek fertility therapy, the man could reverse his impotency, etc.  That's all society ever really wanted: the remote possibility that a couple would procreate and expand into another generation.  Sorry balboa, I could argue with you forever; however, it does me no good.  Face it, some liberals want to change EVERYTHING that should be written in stone.  Suppose we gave in on this homo-marriage thing, what next?  Should a 25 year old boy have sex and marry a 16 year old because they are passionately in love?  Should we reduce the age of consent to 16? 17? 12??  Why does it have to be "18" in every situation when we KNOW all people mature at different levels?  I'll tell you why: it keeps society as a whole in check.  Just like laws do.

The problem with liberals is that they are so eager to dismantle religion that they also end up dismantling common sense and decency in the process. 

Really? The slippery

Really? The slippery slope?

I don't want to change everything. But I don't have any objections to gay people wanting to marry.  

If we are willing to change

If we are willing to change "Man & Woman", "Husband & Wife" to "Man & Man" or "Woman and Woman" then I see no reason not change it entirely to "Group Marriage".  That way, I can order 25 women from overseas, marry them all, bed them all down, have babies with them all and collect the tax advantages.  Really, because that is the road we are heading if we don't uphold traditional values to some extent.

Sure, then we could change

Sure, then we could change it to Man & socket wrench, woman & swiffer...

Then lets do it!  Because

Then lets do it!  Because to be quite honest with you, a lot of those Asian and Russian women look very good to me and I make enough money to support at least 9 of them.  I could fire my housekeepers, my dry cleaner, my chef and I could have a different women every nite!!!  Disgusting? Maybe to some but as liberals like to argue, "DON'T DISCRIMINATE!  I WANT IT THEREFORE I AM ENTITLED AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO BACK ME UP! 

I dont know about 9

But I could deal with 3, and a divorce lawyer one speed dial.

 

My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

you only think you make enough money ;)

get that prenup - This reminds me of when my friend told her husband many, many years ago that he might be rich one day and he might be single one day, but he'll never be both. (They are still very happily married and are looking forward to granchild #2.)

                  ~~save your tea, dump congress~~

Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice

balboa: "What if two hetero people who can't procreate want to get married?"

Bal and others, why are you limiting the definition of marriage to two people? Why is it that the gender is the issue and not the number. This is discrimination against polygamists.

If we're going to allow two women or two men to marry each other, why can't adults marry multiple partners? (Well, this does get a bit tricky because Bob wants to marry Carol and Ted and Alice, but Alice only wants to marry Carol and Ted; but I'm sure this is workable somehow.)

                  ~~save your tea, dump congress~~

Nice try mom

But I think they would prefer it to be Bob & Ted and Carol & Alice.

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

exactly, coco

They claim that the 'one man/one woman' definition is discrimination of homosexuals, but the promotion of gay marriage discriminates against bisexuals and polygamists.

                  ~~save your tea, dump congress~~

Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice

Well, Alice shouldn't be forced to marry Bob if she doesn't want to.  How about two condos side by side with a connecting door; Bob on one side and Alice on the other.  Then Carol and Ted can come and go as they please; but there should be a schedule so no one gets too much time than the others.  But what would their last names be....jeez, forms are going to be a lot longer... ;?)

Children in marriage

First, if a heterosexual couple can't have children for biological reasons, that's not a choice they make.  Fertility is the sign of a healthy person; infertility is a health problem.

Second, if they choose not to have children, the difference comes in in that men and women are complimentary beings by nature, making the marriage more likely to better benefit both.

The tendency of men - gay or straight - is often to screw around and run away.  Women, on the other hand, are more emotionally grounded.  So the purpose of marriage - before it was also hijacked by "no fault divorce" and other such stupidity - was to encourage men to settle down and provide both men and women with a support system, etc.

Al Rantel, an openly gay talk show host, sums up the arguments against gay marraige in a column succinctly:

First and foremost of those questions is who said gays want to get
married in the first place? Lets look at the numbers. The highest
number of same sex households in America is ironically in
Massachusetts, however even then it is under 2 per cent of all
households. If gays make up five to ten per cent of the population as
is often claimed, one would expect this number to be five times larger.

As distressing as the state of the American family is today with the
high rate of divorce and adultery, the situation is far less stable
among gays
. This is not a slur against gays as individuals, but rather
the reality of what occurs when you have what I call the all gas and no
brake environment of male/male sexuality
. I should know. I am a gay
male.

To say that unfortunately the gay world is in a general state of
hyper-sexuality that is not conducive to relationships which marriage
was intended to foster is to put it mildly
. Further, almost all of the
issues the gay left claims it is justifiably concerned about like
property, health, and financial partnership issues have already been
dealt with by many states and can be dealt with through further
legislation as needed
. Such legal changes would encounter far less
political opposition.

Why then the seeming obsession by the gay left and their activist
judicial allies like the Massachusetts justices to force gay marriage
on an unwilling public?

There is an answer.

Forcing a change to an institution as fundamental and established by
civilization as marriage is deemed by gay activists and other cultural
liberals as the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval
for homosexuality itself
. The reasoning goes that if someone can marry
someone of the same sex then being gay is as acceptable and normal as
being short or tall.

While I certainly do not think people should be judged by who they
choose to love or how they choose to live their lives, the cultural
liberals in America are after more than that
. They want to force others
to accept their social view
, and declare all those who might have an
objection to their social agenda to be bigots, racists, and homophobes
to be scorned and forced into silence.

The gay left has still not matured into a position of self-empowerment,
but is still committed by and large to the idea that the rest of
society must bless being gay in every way imaginable. This includes
public parades in all major cities to remind everyone else of what some
people like to do in their private bedrooms while in the same breath
demanding to be left alone.

What more certifiable blessing than state sanctioned marriage of two
men or two women, even for a group that has offered no indication that
most even desire to enter into the kind of commitments that marriage
ideally entails, or that serves the real purpose of marriage. Marriage
exists in order to create a stable and structured environment for
couples to reproduce and raise their offspring
.

And so we have come to yet another chapter in the story of those who
would portray themselves as victims in need of another sanction from
the state. This time the price of social acceptance of gays is the
redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a
cornerstone of society
. Does that really seem like a wise and prudent
choice for America to make at the wish of a handful of judges, and at
the behest of those whose real goals are more political than anything
else? 

 

 

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

It is bigotry

Pure and simple.Because she was honest with her beliefs.She was discriminated against.Where is the ACLU?Those champions of civil liberties./sarc off

 

well99... Not only the ACLU

well99...

Not only the ACLU where are the oh so lovely gals from NOW defending her?

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

BT

Your right BT. They should change their name to NSOW. National Socialist Organization of Women.You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig.Opps I better behave myself. 

My thoughts, bt - isn't it amazing how the NOW

gang supports women who have been attacked/demeaned/whatever ONLY if they are followers of ALL RULES LIBERAL!   Conservative beliefs, forget it!

It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams

Yep CC... We all know if it

Yep CC...

We all know if it had been a repub Prez that got away with all that Clintoon did...they would have had marches on the WH daily until he resigned...their mouths everywhere on all the msm...

I am glad they have become basically irrelevant for the most part anymore..

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Until conservative voice in

Until conservative voice in the political world start speaking out loud and clear about issues like this...let alone the name calling of this woman by a hate-filled screeching gay....this will continue to dominate.

As a young girl and woman I used to look forward to these contests...now I wouldn't give it the time of day...and to see it denigrated down even more by this piece of work is maddening.

WE have no voices speaking for us that can use the msm, at least give it a try...

Oh never-mind...I am about worn out of caring anymore at times.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

statement

 

" Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics [sic] in the Miss California family."   

 

 This part scares me...... if Lewis believes that all religions should do as they see fit in a marriage, then why is Ms. California religious beliefs wrong?  Does Mr. Lewis believe that if gay marriage is allowed  by LAW that all religions are going to embrace it?  Or are “they” hoping that by law they can force ALL religions to perform this service against their religious beliefs?  Isn't his statement that he doesn't want the government to discriminate in any religion very hypocritical for he wants Ms. California religious beliefs removed?

 

As for the Drama Queen, he is worthless to his cause!

 

HI jg.... Drama Queen

HI jg....

Drama Queen indeed.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Hi there........  hope life

Hi there........  hope life is treating you well.......As for the Drama , he doesn't make his case for acceptance well!

 

re: jgarcia

"Does Mr. Lewis believe that if gay marriage is allowed  by LAW that all
religions are going to embrace it?  Or are 'they' hoping that by law
they can force ALL religions to perform this service against their
religious beliefs?"

jgarcia, I think that last sentence encapsulates exactly what "they" are not only hoping but planning. 

We have already seen a Christian photographer fined by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission after refusing to photograph a gay committment ceremony, and a Georgia psychologist fired for refusing to counsel a lesbian regarding the latter's relationship. These are just appetizers to the main course once (as they hope) gay "marriage" gets implemented. Then you can expect to see the Archbishop of New York, the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, and the Mormon hierarchy compelled to perform these ceremonies under penalty of law.

I don't like to be an alarmist, but I think the 'table is already being set,' so to speak.

A Bigger Question

"...religious beliefs have no politics [sic] in the Miss California family." 

If this is indeed the case, then the bigger question would have to be, "why was Perez Hilton allowed to pose his question?" An even bigger than bigger question - now that's stetching the language :o) - would be, "why was Perez Hilton even allowed to be a judge, since the entire competition is so antithetical to his views?"

Perhaps a few e-mails to The Donald about selecting proper judges and rules concerning said judging are in order.

V/R
Clyde

"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC

Let's be clear on one thing ...

"Hilton's angry rant -- calling her a "dumb bitch" -- on his blog was
highly unprofessional for a public figure chosen to judge the
competition."

 You're talking about an untalented bag of pus named Perez Hilton. The fact this insipid little gossip monger is judged a "public figure" and asked to judge the Miss USA competition (he must really be into retro, or perhaps dreams of being one of the contestants, with Andrew Sullivan filling in the old Bert Parks role) is, to use an old cliche, a sad commentary on pop culture. 

If only one answer to the

If only one answer to the question was allowed, the state should have provided it to our comrade prior to it being asked.  Would have avoided embarrassment of ignorant peasant answering incorrectly.

 

Obama:  "The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers." -Ed Mahmoud

Humans and Animals

When humans found their selves on planet Earth one thing became apparent that little nature gives one is suited for survival and must be transformed to meet their needs.

Survival meant learning to gather, hunt, clothe, make shelter, fire - and procreate.

Homosexuals would not and could not survive 'Naturally', because of the lack of procreation.

Homosexuals by nature are doomed to destruction and are in a constant war with nature and natural selection.

Homosexuals are an aberration of nature and natural law and genetic codes.

What separates humans from animals?

Humans are able to make choices, based on facts, logic and reason, animals cannot.

Homosexuals and their apologists, replace that ability, with chemical predestination or genetics.

This is a doctrine of animal husbandry that is appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Homosexuals believe their ability to choose, their convictions, values and character are determined before they are born, by physical forces beyond their control.  

This is nothing more than an ignorant version of the doctrine of innate ideas - or of inherited knowledge or lack of knowledge - which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science.

Humans can 'Choose' to have sex with the opposite sex, Homosexuals claim they cannot.

Are Homosexuals the 'Missing Link' between humans and animals?

Where is Donald Trump in this matter?????

He usually doesn't hesitate to express his opinion - I'd like to hear from him NOW!  Hopefully 'the Donald' will never allow this piece of human excrement to judge another of his pageants.

I agree with other posters - the time for these pageants has passed, sad to say.  In this politically-correct world, nothing is ever ENOUGH to satisfy those with a liberal agenda...and they have permeated every corner of American life.

It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams

I'm ticked off the most at

I'm ticked off the most at Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss CA pagent, for being ticked off.

If he's mad at her answer, shouldn't he also be ticked off at the very question? If there is only one "right" answer to a question, why ask it at a beauty pagent?

It's like Mike Huckabee complaining during the debates that he thought there was supposed to be a "wall of church and state, so why am I getting all these questions about the bible?"  In other words....the question is a set up to make you fail, regardless of what your answer is.

Excellent point!

More hypocrisy from elites.

I'm surprised they didn't

I'm surprised they didn't just ask her: "Do you think God exists?"  If she said yes, would they mock and humiliate her?  Hell, why not just stone her!!!!

Wow.....

what a sad state of affairs when a young woman cannot offer her answer to a question without worrying about whom she offends... especially with such a highly charged topic.... she answered according to her conscience...

What a hell of a position to be placed in and what an unfair question to be asked of Carrie...... I would falter in my answer as well... 

And then to be ripped up by some POS self-important 'judge' who disagrees with her.....well, he can just kiss off..... which, I am sure he has done before....

 

 

Why didn't they just come

Why didn't they just come out and ask, "Did you vote for Obama?"

don't hate me because I'm not PC

Gee, were the topics of capital punishment and late-term abortions already taken?

The sanctimonious and judgmental comments by the Miss California USA co-director, Keith Lewis, bother me a lot more than Perez Hilton's. (I expect shallow thoughts from Hilton.)

(edit: corrected my freudian misspelling of capitol/capital)

                  ~~save your tea, dump congress~~

I think we're missing a very low hanging fruit - pun intended

Keith Lewis is an incredibly large hypocrit and not very smart for the following:

 "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics [sic] in the Miss California family."

 

Religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family?  Isn't your opinion based on your belief Mr. Lewis?

What he is saying is; her opinion does not matter, mine does.  This is despite the fact that she was asked her opinion, while he was volunteering his.

Why the heck is that d-bag Hilton involved in anything? 

 

As co-director of the Miss

As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics [sic] in the Miss California family."

1. Carrie Prejean didn't say anything about "religious beliefs"

2. Lewis says "religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family" right after he stated: "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit"

 

What Perez Hilton, Keith Lewis and ABCnews.com's Luchina Fisher are all saying is no one's opionion matters, but their own. Typical BIAS.

 

 

How could you miss this from the ABC article

"upsets an openly gay blogger" - I notice you knew about his sexual orientation, but not once did ABC inform it's readers about this fact on Mr. Hilton in the article. He is only referred to as a blogger and judget.

→ Jeff

Or "judgette"?


LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

Questions the Miss America

Questions the Miss America Pageant should steer clear of:

1. Do you believe in God

2. Did you vote Republican or Democrat

3. How do you feel about abortion

4. How do you feel about illegal immigration

5. Capital Punishment?

6. Israel / Palestine conflict

Yea, this is odd

Why the heck would they ask this young lady a question like this. Now they brutalize this poor woman for being honest. Sick puppies over there.

 

My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

What an idiot

Perez Hilton is a hetrophobe.

 

"When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat."

- Ronald Reagan

You have to frame it in away libs can understand it.

 Instead of telling people that I am against gay marriage, I tell people that I oppose sex discrimination in marriage and demand that both genders must be represented in every state sanctioned marriage.  

Its really no different than saying you want to start your own preschool but you will not allow any women to work there.

 

If it weren't for double standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.

How does this heterophobic,

How does this heterophobic, misogynistic prick stay famous?  Better yet, how the hell does he (?) end up judging beautiful women in a pageant?

At one time wasn't something like talent, curing diseases or flying solo across an ocean a prerequisite for ongoing fame and notoriety?

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).

Homosexuals and marriage...

what an abomination!!  What has our society descended to even discussing such a vile idea??  God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and John.  We're doomed.  What would Our Lord say if He were living with us today?

To paraphrase the critics of the Tea Partiers

You lost a vote, get over it.

Your whining and protesting about homosexual marriage is unhealthy.

Let's be honest about this, Perez Hilton is just a teabagging pinkneck who is angry that Miss California is a straight beauty contestant.

Perez Hilton's limbic is so full of showtunes and Sex and The City reruns that it is pushing against his skull and making him hate.

Prop 8 Read about it.

In prop 8 the message was sent. 

Why did they allow this bigot and intolerant paraphiliac on the panel?

 

 

Remember, on The View...

when everyone thought that Elizabeth Hasselbeck should denounce anyone and everyone who said something against Rosie?  Nevermind that Joy could spew any amount of bile against conservatives.

Memo to Hollyweird: We don't tune in to you to listen to your "look-at-me" speeches and using entertainment venues as platforms.

You can bet if it was a conservative using the pageant to ask about pro-life issues the media would be howling.

Gene Therapy

With the advance of in vitro gene therapy, all this will shortly be completely irrelevant. Parents will be able to choose sex, eye color, hair color,etc. Along with this will be the ability to choose a child that is heterosexual. Given a choice, who wants to have a gay kid? Perez Hilton, whether he/she realizes it or not is an endangered species. That's Progressivism I can live with. A world with no queers....By the way, Perez Hilton doesn't have to worry about getting married. He's like a stupid ten year old girl. At least Rock Hudson was a man...............

Gay Marriage and the Child's Temper Tantrum

Back in the 1960's marriage was passe. It represented an old tired value system. So why gay marriage.

Well its something gay's can't have so they want it. It reminds me of the temper tantrum of the three year old. They will scream and badger until they have it. 

It is a way of exerting power over other.  Just as the abortion lovers want to force medical personal to perform abortions, these people activists will soon want to force priests and rabbi's to pefrom same sex marraiges. It is all anger and power.

What will they do with this new found marriage. Nothing.

I'm willing to wager not a single married gay couple will produce a child whose parents are the partners in that marriage.

Now, when do I get the right to use women's rest rooms?

It's the same with religion

They can just as well go start their own churches with their own doctrines, but, no, they have to insinuate themselves in a conservative church and try to force them to change their doctrine.

They want to destroy anything that excludes them.

Brains to go with ....

Personally, I liked her answer. Hopefully Miss Prejean has the brains to go with her other FINE attributes. If that is the case, than I look forward to seeing her join Fox's line-up of smart, talented, articulate, and attractive women.

"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"