Miss California's Gay Marriage Fuss

[Jingthing]

Look buster?

No need to get surly, Jing.

Can't we be civil?

That is civil. Stop trying your troll bait tactics, not here, on the gay forum, OK?

[PeaceBlondie]

TheTVisa pet form is pet-friendly; The Ladies forum, lady friendly. And so forth.

[Jingthing]

She thinks she's a latter day Anita Bryant. The sad thing is she is bound to get very wealthy and become very famous based on a foundation of hatred against a minority group. That is something the republican party used to have success with, and has now failed miserably, but there is still a vein of gold for a vicious opportunist like this Little Miss Cali to exploit.

Sometimes I wonder why such a lovely lady is so virulently anti-gay. Perhaps it really annoys her that not EVERY member of the male sex is salivating over her.

Looks like one of the numbers at Tiffany's, chai mai?

BTW, Fox News just did a major hit piece on Perez Hilton who is vocally fighting Miss Cali. It was nauseating.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Jingthing

[mc2]

the real problem is religious fundamentalism , that is what has cause her view and the views of countless others on this issue.

and yes, ^ she does look a bit that way.

Edited May 2, 2009 by mc2

[Jingthing]

Check the Adam's Apple!

[Texpat]

TheTVisa pet form is pet-friendly; The Ladies forum, lady friendly. And so forth.

Point taken, PB. but not, I would assume, at the expense of honest debate and candid expression -- much like Perez Hilton espouses.

[Scott]

I can't quite muster enough energy to hate her--she's really not quite worth that much energy. She has the right to express her opinion--and probably lose a beauty contest over it. Which makes her a loser. Many of the people in beauty pageants are gay--hairdressers, designers (sorry to stereotype). I'd be interested to know what other silly ideas she has--things like a black man shouldn't be president!

Jingthing and the rest of us have the right to express our opinion as well. Anita Bryant lost her big Orange Juice commercial because of her anti-gay remarks, as I recall. It seems in some areas, like commerce, they prefer to sell a product rather than a political opinion. Anita Bryant is now a nobody.

I would like to have equal rights and equal protection and I do what I can for it (not enough, but what I can). She is going against what I, and the Constitution of the USA, guarantee for everyone.

[Jingthing]

I can't quite muster enough energy to hate her--she's really not quite worth that much energy.

You are probably right. I will have to call on my better self ...

Should this contestant be lambasted for being open and honest?

To repeat, for the slow Texans.

No, it is OK to be open and honest.

However, you can't expect to make a STUPID performance and win a major contest. Watch the clip of her answer. She is very ignorant. It was not just her political position, it was the entire package of a failed performance. She loses because of HER bad performance, and she blames it on gays, and now she is out for REVENGE, and that is NASTY.

Her quote: We live in a land where you can CHOOSE same sex marriage or opposite sex marriage.

That is not true. In fact, the question was framed in such a way to explain to her that is not the case, but she blew it anyway. She went up to be judged, she was judged.

The lambasting? That is for volunteering for that hate group that puts out fear mongering tv commercials expressing designed to repress the equal civil rights of gay Americans.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Jingthing

[popshirt]

Oppressed. Wow. That must suck.

Do you expect her to change her mind, her spiritual and religious views, to acommodate your lifestyle?

I wouldn't put too much stock into what a beauty pagent contestant believes.

Whoa dude, it's not a lifestyle, it's a LIFE

[Jingthing]

Yeah, calling homosexuality a lifestyle is so condescending, not to mention so 1970's. What's Tex doing on the gay forum anyhows. He seems to have issues. Maybe he is questioning/curious.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Jingthing

[Ijustwannateach]

I think before anyone goes and gets himself suspended, this would be an opportune time to quote from our local subforum guidelines:

However, having said that, please take note everyone, offensive words, provoking, flaming, name-calling and bigoted posts will not be tolerated here. It's VERY possible to have a in-depth and heated discussion without becoming intolerant or extremely personal.

While I'm all in favour of reasonable free speech, this is not the forum in which to champion the rights of homophobic bigots any more than the Ladies' forum is the place to champion the rights of chauvinists. The purpose of this forum is to provide a (small) safe space for gay members to feel relaxed and comfortable espousing their views, not to be challenged or marginilised by bigots or their defenders- that happens far too often elsewhere.

A word to the wise is sufficient.

[Svenn]

Jingthing and the rest of us have the right to express our opinion as well.

Guys why are you conceding that your viewpoints are just 'opinions'? They're the truth! just because some given issue is controversial in a vast uninformed society doesn't automatically mean that either side just has 'opinions' and no one knows the truth. The TRUTH is evident 90% of the time in dilemmas facing the human organism. Look, gays are a minority in a huge collection of self-interested and uneducated organisms we call society- on top of that the conduct they engage in is 'repulsive' to most members of said society- it's only natural then that their rights would be attacked ESPECIALLY in a 'democratic' society where apparently joe dirt's musings are given just as much credence as a lifelong scholar on the subject.

I'm sick of this moral relativism everybody attaches to 'controversial' issues, ...controversiality only has and only ever will mean that parochial persons are attacking the knowleadable... nothing else. Humans are stupid creatures, everyone agrees with that, there's no magical 'issue' out there that somehow suspends this uniform lack of thoughtfulness and then all of a sudden both humans on both sides of the issue are as 'thoughtful' as the other. Conservatives have been proven wrong for as long as time, from the stubborn ape that refused to take a risk and look for water in the great drought, to the braindead idealouge who attacks gays from his chair.

[Tyke]

Had she used her head, she could have easily and diplomatically been less offensive

How was she being offensive? I thought she was being very inoffensive in the way she answered the question, even though i disagree with her.

[Tyke]

No, you don't get it, she volunteered now to do a specific anti-gay tv commercial with a notorious organization that exists to stir up hatred and fear of homosexuals. I can't hate back my oppressors? Sorry, I am not a believer of any turn the other cheek religion. I don't care if she marries or whether she marries or the sex of the person she marries, and I certainly wouldn't lift one finger to stop heterosexuals from having equal rights. Yet she does, against gays.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...commercial.html

These radical right wing American fundamentalist Christians, people like her, openly talk about being in a culture WAR against people like me. So we can't hate them? I agree it is not spiritually advanced to have any hate, but what about against your ENEMIES who ACTIVELY work to hurt you?

Don't get mad, get even.

Don't hate, win the debate!

Edited May 3, 2009 by Tyke

[zaphodbeeblebrox]

The Constitution doesn't guarantee any rights to marriage...my god, don't you liberals ever actually read the thing? You probably believe the Constituion comments on the seperation of church and state...NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution does it state that there is to be a seperation of the church and state. Why should we all be mindless robots and believe like you in the fear that if we don't we will be labeled racist, ignorant, homophobic.. My friend, think about it, your ideas are the new facist state.

Oh my! It looks like someone needs a lesson in constitutional law. The Constitution does guarantee the right to marriage. It is one of the fundamental rights (like the ownership of private property) guaranteed to the citizens under the 5th amendment and which cannot be deprived or infringed upon, without due process of law. The 14th amendment (equal protection act) subjects any state law which sets up categories of people based on race, color, nationality, religion or gender to varying degrees of judicial scrutiny. For race, color, nationality and religious designations, the state law is subject to strict scrutiny which means the state must demonstrate a compelling interest in setting up the suspect category, and that the law is narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means to achieve the state's compelling interest. Accordingly, a ban against mixed marriages was struck down. Loving v. Virginia (1967).

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

For no good reason, the Supremes subject gender-based classifications to intermediate scrutiny. In this test, the state must demonstrate an important state interest furthered by a law which is substantially related to that interest. The Court has begun to recognize that there is no good reason for treating a suspect category of gender differently than race or religion, and now requires "exceedingly persuasive justification" for any law which treats genders differently.

State laws which only permit marriages between a man and woman do set up a "suspect category" based on gender of the spouse. No court has held otherwise. Where courts have differed is whether the arguments advanced against same-sex marriage are exceedingly persuasive to justify a law which treats the genders differently. The three arguments that I've seen advanced (religion, tradition and procreation), don't justify treating the genders differently, IMHO.

It is important to consider that state constitutions can offer more rights than the feds to their citizens. That is why California had to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, California's state constitution would certainly prohibit a same-sex marriage ban, without the amendment.

Over time, I think the Court will bring the same-sex marriage bans in line with Loving v. Virginia. Funny, conservatives like to think jurists like Antonin Scalia are strict constructionists of the constitution and Earl Warren was not. In fact, just the opposite is true. Warren properly interpreted the constitution, whereas Scalia often advances his own ideology, as opposed to strict constitutional interpretation.

Edited May 3, 2009 by zaphodbeeblebrox

[Tyke]

I believe she said that gays have the choice to have same sex marriage in America.They do not have that choice, so she is is an idiot, and should have lost for being a total ditz, not her political opinions.

i would give her a few extra points for being honest.

but subtract more points for having a dumb reason. she said "thats the way i was brought up" .... well it would be better if she formed an opinion by herself.

Amen. There is a hel_l of a deference between a legitimate opinion and an offensive knee jerk musing. Miss California's statements and subsequent utter lack of justification or reasons for her "opinion" you other posters so dearly defend, clearly fall into the latter category. Conversely, if another contestant said something like "gays should be able to marry just because it's fair and that's what I believe in" then I'd just as quickly knock off just as many points- Miss USA's are supposed to be thoughtful and uniting... if you don't have the intelligence to avoid a sensitive issue, give any credence to the opposing side, and just blurt out a spew of tired, partisan mantras then you don't deserve to be taken seriously.

So tell us what answer would have been acceptable to you, given that she disagreed with gay marriage? What would be a thoughtful and 'uniting' justification for not agreeing with gay marriage? And how could she have avoided this sensitive issue when she had been asked for her opinion on it?

[Texpat]

It's a personal question.

Like, "What is your favorite color?"

Unfortunately for this contestant, it seems there was a right and wrong answer to this one.

[Ijustwannateach]

It is not as value-neutral as 'what is your favourite colour.'

It is about as value neutral as 'should Asians, African-Americans, and Caucasians all be allowed to intermarry?', which would have been an equally charged question about 20-30 years ago (when it was still illegal in some US states) or more- and which today has an equally 'correct' answer, morally and socially.

I agree that given the kind of contest, it was probably an inappropriately controversy-prone question to ask- and to that extent I think the questioner laid a kind of evil trap for the candidate- but there certainly is a right/wrong aspect to the answer- at least on THIS forum there is, as we do not do threads where our gay members have to 'defend' the moral legitimacy of their sexuality or accept the bigoted 'personal opinions' of others as valid comments on our sexuality on the basis of some sort of pusillanimous 'free speech' argument. I do hope it is not necessary to underline that point further- this is emphatically not a space where the 'free speech' of either bigots or trolls is protected.

[Naam]

She is now doing anti-gay television commercials. Sore loser! Frankly, I hate her.

if that is the case i'd call her a winner. tit for tat!

[PeaceBlondie]

Personal opinion questions are fair game in modern beauty contests. She should have been prepared to answer such questions on a world stage, and to give a politically correct answer. Yes, it is necessary nowadays not to speak in polite company using words like ass-f**kers and slanty-eyed gooks.

[Texpat]

In you opinion, PB, is it possible to be against gay marriage and not be a bigot or troll?

Why should she be forced to give a PC answer if its disingenous? Wouldn't that make her a hypocrite?

Bigot -- a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.

I wouldn't say she's a bigot based on her answer.

[patklang]

Do you expect her to change her mind, her spiritual and religious views, to acommodate your lifestyle?

No. But I expect equal rights under the law and support the fight against bigots like her who wish to perpetuate treating American homosexuals as second class citizens. We will win and in future the history books will teach that people like her were the moral equivalent of Gov. George Wallace blocking blacks from entering white segregated schools. How do you like them apples, Texy? Church and state: SEPARATE.

Homosexuals or even bi sexuals should not be second class citizens,and with not living in the usa i am surprised this is happening in the land of the free.However because someone disagrees with how you live your life does not always make them a bigot.somebody posted on here suggesting that any hetros that came on this board should not be here as it says its a gay board.Does this apply to gays not coming on other boards then,should we say make some hetro boards ????

Me personaly have no problems with gays and i find some very nice, inteligent,respectful human beings,but sometimes you have to accept not all people like you for your sexuality or views.My football club is renowned for hooligans but i am not an hooligan,even when people accuse me of it,but i dont bleat about it. 

[patklang]

She is now doing anti-gay television commercials. Sore loser! Frankly, I hate her.

if that is the case i'd call her a winner. tit for tat!

Maybe she is getting back at gays for calling her a bigot,ever thought of that.

[PeaceBlondie]

In you opinion, PB, is it possible to be against gay marriage and not be a bigot or troll?

Why should she be forced to give a PC answer if its disingenous? Wouldn't that make her a hypocrite?

.....

I wouldn't say she's a bigot based on her answer.

Did I call her a bigot? No. Am I against gay marriage? No. Neither am I a fan of any form of discriminatory system of state-mandated unions with special legal benefits for straights only. I think it is overdue for states to permit gays, bi's, and polygamists to marry and divorce and re-marry ten partners freely, or get out of the marrying business completely. .

I think she should have known a better answer,

[Jingthing]

As a gross generality, there are two classes of people who ACTIVELY oppose equal civil rights for gay people:

religious fanatics

bigots

They are sometimes, but not always, the same people, so no, you can oppose legal gay marriage and not be a bigot.

The exact same thing when interracial marriage was illegal in the US. Both bigots and religious fanatics opposed it. It is the same struggle and the result will be the same. Expansion of civil rights is the American way.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Jingthing

[Ijustwannateach]

Basically, anyone who's against gay marriage for any other reason except that it would be bad for gays (marriage comes with the divorce monster, after all) is a bigot or fanatic as described by Jingthing for the purposes of this forum. Further questions of this type should be directed by PM to a moderator. Any further public agitation on the issue will result in penalties.

Who was it that said that gays should be allowed to be married because they should suffer along with everyone else?

[sbk]

My father, I think

[Jingthing]

It is true that some gays are against legal gay marriage. The usual reason given is that we don't need to be the same as heterosexuals, that we should celebrate our differences. However, I have yet to hear of a gay, anti-gay marriage ACTIVIST, have you?

Edited May 7, 2009 by Jingthing

[scorecard]

I think there's another point.

If she was a candidate for election to a house or senate seat then yes it would be an appropriate question.

But was it appropriate or fair to ask a person in a beauty contest to give her personal opinion on such a controversial subject and then use her answer as part of assessing her to be a beauty queen?

Gay marriage doesn't personally worry me, but whether you like it or don't like it, it is a contraversial topic.

[Jingthing]

You don't get it. It wasn't her position, it was the extremely poor presentation in her answer. It lacked coherence, accuracy and poise. The winning position requires intelligence as she is a public figure who appears at many events. She lost and she deserved to lose. The real shame is this ditz is still representing California.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Jingthing