Monday, April 20, 2009

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, on Gay Marriage

CarriePrejean_HeadShot
So Miss California got baited and reeled in at the Miss USA Pageant.  And, of course, now she’s being fried by the oh-so-neutral mainstream media we’ve all come to know and love.  I am so proud to be a Californian right now!  First, We the People speak our minds and establish that in California, marriage is between one man and one woman.  Then, our “little Miss,” responds to a loaded question posed by gay blogger, Perez Hilton, with a very diplomatic, but firm response, “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.”

It makes me laugh that she’s receiving heat over this as if she wasn’t asked the question in the first place.  What was she supposed to do, tell a lie?  Or not respond?  Or apologize for her opinion?  Yeah that’s tolerance for you.  And gays in the audience responded so vehemently as if to suggest that by supporting the show they have some sort of dibs over all the opinions expressed by contestants, “I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are.”

How much do you want to bet Carrie Prejean gets impeached due to pressure from seething, gay activist mobs before the year is out?  I wouldn’t be surprised.

GO MISS CALIFORNIA!

[Read more . . . .]

~Pearl

[Hat tip: A Banner is Unfurled]

20 comments:

Meg said...

Wow; it's also the position of more than 50% of Californians that marriage is between A MAN and A WOMAN. ;)

Thanks for posting this, and thank you Carrie Prejean!

John said...

I don't know the details off the top of my head, but wasn't there something on California's ballot in the last election concerning gay marriages? If I'm remembering this correctly, the results of that vote make the gay activists in California the vocal minority.

Delirious said...

She is an honor to her state. This is the kind of person I want as Miss America, someone who has integrity even in the line of fire. And someone who doesn't give up their values because of political correctness.

Euripides said...

Miss California will be vilified by the press and drug over the coals for expressing her opinion. What a bunch of hypocrites the gay activists have turned into over the question of civil rights and free speech.

Renee' Jordan said...

Carrie,
You are Miss America in so many people's eye's. Due to your honestly and morals...You did not falter your integrity just to win!!! So many are sooooooo PROUD of you! God Bless you for being REAL!!! Finally!!!!!!!! :)

ado said...

She answered the question in a very honest, but kind and respectful way. I think it's sad that she is getting attacked because her opinion differs from that of the hippies.

Teena said...

I think Freedom of Speech is more important that redefining marriage. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, there is no reason to change that defination. If Gays/Lesbians want to live together, call it something else. No one is taking away their right to live the way they want. Pretty soon the Gay community and their followers will want to redefine what God is, Jesus is, sin is, etc.

saz2k said...

Miss California's comment was her honest feels about marriage. What is the problem!!!!! Why can't she state her values and be honest? Is this America??? Is she suppose to lie to be politically correct? Is it ok that this dirty mouthed, gossip columnist, Perez Hilton can make all these rude judgemental comments about her?
I'm tired of having to be politically correnct when it's only one way!! Others can tant the "RELIGIOUS" sanctification of what marraige was constituted for. Man and Women, not the same sex. That is against our Christian values and I wish others would honor it and stop trying to CHANGE it for their liking.
The same goes for plitics. I'm conservative and have Christian values,which means I would vote Republician. I voted for McCain....so for some reason I am viewed as Prejudice!!!! What happen to freedom of speach and choices? It seems to only work for liberals.
It's time to take back our lives and country to something to be proud of. Old fashioned values, moral and respect. It's so not about being politically correct and doing what you want without thinking of the consiquences or maybe offending someone.
I think Miss California is brave, honest and true to her beliefs. That who should be Miss America and that's what it stands for.
Don't ask the question if you don't want the answer. Stop forcing YOUR beliefs and lifestyles down our throats!!!

saz2k said...

So, Miss California answered a question honestly as she should. So.....What is the problem???
I think and agree with her comment and I am tired of others not excepting one's opinion if it's not "politically correct". What is politically correct? I voted for McCain because I am conservative on my views and beliefs. But!!! for some reason this makes me prejudice. What happened to freedom of speach and choices?
Why is it that liberals get to make all these comments to disrepect conservatives and it's ok but, if a conservative states their beliefs, it's an outrage. How can this seedy gossip columnist Perez Hilton cut down and try to disgrace Miss California because she has her beliefs and stated them to a question she was asked? Why is it that these liberal want to tant and corrupt our religion and values by changing the sactification of marriage. Marriage was created under GOD between a man and women. It's that simple but, gay couples want to change and invade our faith. I find if offensive also that this is happening and people won't stand up for their beliefs becuase it's not politically correct....what a bunch on ONE-SIDED garbage.
I think Miss America was honest to the extrememly sensitive question, that shouldn't of been asked if it was going to be judged so harshly if she did'nt answer it to Mr Hiltons liking. She was true to her values and morals and had the courage to state it.
That's what America stands for and that's the kind of women that deserves to be MISS AMERICA.
God bless you Carrie and thank you for your beliefs;)

carlos said...

Perez Hilton must be disqualified as a judge because he wants to use his ( her) position to accomplish his agenda to impose Gays/and Lesbians’ will in our society. Marriage between man and woman has been, is and will be the only legal and moral form to rise a family. The family is the “backbone” in our society. We can not allow that 3% of our population that decided to live different want to impose their lifestyle and mentality on us.

According to Hilton‘s “theory” , he has the right to speak whatever he feels on Gay marriage, however, Miss California has not right to express her believes?. That is not only outrages, but it is a wake up call for those Californians that support Gay marriages. If you allow them success in any attempt to “legalize” their ideas, then you are condemning your children and grand children to live in a word dominated by people with not moral values.

So, Congratulations Miss. California for being proud of your roots, for being honest and stand up for what you believe.YOU ARE THE REAL MISS AMERICA!!!!!!

eutychus said...

Teena- You are right. No one is taking anything away from them. but the days of "live and let live" are past us now by the activist's choice.

"Pretty soon the Gay community and their followers will want to redefine what God is, Jesus is, sin is, etc."

They already have. Or are at least trying to.

jscottsarrio said...

Let's go back 50 years ago... If I say to the TV audience: "Marriage is only between a white woman and a white man; and black man and black woman but never white man and black woman."

I am also expressing free speech. But we all know it is offensive and wrong. But 50 years ago, a black man and a white woman marrying is ILLEGAL.

Chairm said...

The racist analogy backfires on SSMers.

The identify filter of racism was repudiated. It had brought selective sex segregation under the auspices of marriage. It had affronted the principles of responsible procreation. It used marriage for as shield for embedding identity politics into the law of the land and into the culture.

The gay identity filter is closely analogous with the racist identity filter. It too would bring selective sex segregation under the umbrella of a foundational social institution that unites the sexes. It too would affront the integration of fatherhood and motherhood. The SSM campaign would use marriage as a means to innoculate gay identity politics against opposition and dissent.

The behavior of Perez Hilton, and the defense of his actions by SSMers far and wide, exemplify the vulgarity that identity politics brings to public discourse and, if pressed into the law, the injustice it foists on jurisprudence and, yes, the bigotry it seeps into the culture.

Fifty years ago where the anti-miscegenation system existed (for this was not universal) there was no flaw in marriage. The flaw was the identity politics that trumped the core meaning of marriage in the law and social policy. Today there is no flaw in marriage but identity politics of the gaycentric kind is presented as a trump card against sex integration and provision for responsible procreation.

The imposition of SSM may seem more benign in the eyes of the proponents of SSM, but it would be no less unjust than the anti-miscegenation system was.

Euripides said...

jscottsarrio:

Interracial marriage laws were repealed because of race, not sex. Their repeal didn't try to redefine the institution of marriage as something it was not - it remained the union between a man and a woman. The laws were repealed on the grounds that they applied unequally to men and women because of race.

Gay activists now are trying to equate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (written to establish equal protection regardless of race) to a whole new class of individuals - homosexuals. This application is not based on any fundamental "gayness" but rather, on the outward expression of homosexuality. In other words, gay activists want to define a protected class status based on actions.

Gays, however, are not disfranchised from marriage as interracial couples were. Gays can get married according to both religious and civil law. No rights are infringed, only a perceived "unfairness" that gays cannot marry each other. Several other classes of people cannot marry each other: siblings, cousins, underage children, or more than two people.

Are these classes then not granted their civil rights? Of course not. And neither are gays.

Fitz said...

Totally inept comparison. On multiple levels. The interracial marriage is still a marriage. If you asked people fifty years ago if it interracial marriages should be legal – that would be a quite different response on if it they personally apposed. Today a lot of Black women oppose interracial marriage on the basis of solidarity between black men & women – and a lack of desirable black male mates (An opinion I don’t consider either bigoted or racist)

Interestingly enough a lot of the anti-miscegenation laws were passed in the 1930’s and were not part of Jim Crow. Rather they were passed as part of the Eugenics movement a very “progressive” cause championed by the educated elites and judicial elites at the time. This is evidenced buy their popularity outside the South in places like California that had no segregation & the fact that they included other “races” like Asians and the like.

shank said...

Newsflash...You want to "protect marriage"? How about doing something about the divorce rate, domestic abuse, and promoting family counseling instead of harboring your homophobia behind the false package labeling of "protecting marriage".

Pearl said...

Shank,

I agree, let's do something about divorce and abuse! Let's get people into counseling! AND let's protect against needless redefinition. Why must one crusade exclude the other? Marriage is worth protecting on all fronts.

Euripides said...

How easily the gay activists label anyone with a different opinion than theirs about the nature of marriage as homophobic. Their vanity shows if they think the protection of marriage is all about them. I haven't and wouldn't give a second's thought about homosexuals, yet, when the current attack on marriage comes almost entirely from gay activists, that is where marriage defenders will focus attention.

Also, why is it that gay activists always seem to be the ones who drop by a posting, drop a few pejorative remarks, call the writer a homophobe or bigot (or worse), and move on to the next post? Those actions only enforce a stereotype and convince the rest of the world that it's the gay activists who are bigots.

ceragirl67 said...

I agree with Shank! Why don't we make divorce illegal, there are clearly more biblical references in the bible against divorce (a.k.a adultery) and it is even in the 10 commandments. I mean if you are going to back something like this up at least don't be a hypocrite about it. I guess it is just further proof that fear and hate is truly behind these "beliefs" and "good intentions". I am sure all the former slave owners, sexist men who thought women didn't deserve rights, and overall lover's of freedom for only some would agree with you. We live in a country where anyone can practice their chosen faith but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to put your faith on others, this would take away the whole right of choice from the start. No one is telling you to marry someone of your same sex, they just want the same rights that others in this country have. Simple as that.

Euripides said...

ceragirl67:

What right's are you talking about that you want that would be solved by neutering marriage?

Adoption? There are no serious barriers there. Equal pay for equal work? Not really an issue with gays, is it? Sitting at the front of the bus? Gays didn't have to suffer through that. Love? Nope, not prevented from doing that. Companionship? Millions of people live together without marriage and seem to make that work just fine. Tax breaks? Let's change the tax codes to favor gay couples. Insurance? Let's change insurance company policies in favor of gay couples.

But don't define marriage as something it is not just to satisfy your idea of bruised civil rights.