Video: Perez Hilton at the Miss USA contest?
posted at 1:35 pm on April 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Mix an almost-anachronistic beauty contest with an outspoken gay liberal blogger, and you get … a classically awkward moment. I’ve gotten a lot of e-mail about Miss California’s response to Perez Hilton about her stance on gay marriage, all of it cheering her defense of traditional values:
According to the person who clipped and uploaded the video, Miss California got booed, but if so, not by many. Perez himself shakes his head in annoyance, but what did he expect? These beauty contests are celebrations of kitschy Americana — of bathing suits and evening gowns, of “world peace” and apple pie.
In fact, one has to wonder why the organizers invited Perez to be a judge at all. Surely Perez’ readership doesn’t represent their core audience, and his celebrity-dish-loving readers could care less about Gracie Lou from North Dakota anyway. It’s a very strange choice. And Perez proves it by calling Miss California a “dumb b****” for not agreeing with him:
Stay classy, Perez. And I think you need something much stronger than a cocktail. (Thanks to my co-blogger Allahpundit for the second vid)
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next »
Now?
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 3:48 PM
I can’t unconfuse you, as I too am confused about that.
I’m even more confused about someone who is quick to defend a group from being stigmatized with derogatory slurs, and rightly so. But then, only seems to do so when it’s his own group, and seems willing for slurs to be used against those with whom he disagrees.
I am confused and even more, I’m disappointed.
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 3:51 PM
NBC
marklmail on April 20, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Can someone sum up what the comment section is debating
The topic was Miss california right to say she beleives
marriage is exclusively for men and women
The people in claifornia had the chance to vote on the subject and they agreed with her
So what are the people who support gay mariage saying should be done in this case ?
What is your point?
kangjie on April 20, 2009 at 3:52 PM
That’s just silly. What would you suggest we call a fag? Is there a non-”derogatory” name that doesn’t slur them?
Homosexual?
Fag?
Queer?
Homo?
Same-sex lover?
Thou who prefers like bodies?
Man-made disaster?
Hooligan?
Please. Enough of the political correctness. It’s not helping and it’s speeding up the downfall of this country.
Are you referring to hate speech laws? THAT would be an accurate statement, but unfortunately I believe you had it reversed.
Gregor on April 20, 2009 at 3:54 PM
cognitive dissonance/ in-group/out-group homogeneity.
It happens. Often simultaneously.
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 3:54 PM
I haven’t read every single comment here, but I have some questions:
1; Did the other contestants get these same kind of “hot button issue” questions?
2; Did Perez Hilton have a bio of all contestants, and did Miss California’s bio state that she was a Christian?
3; Did Perez Hilton already know how Miss CA would answer?
4; How would Perez Hilton benefit from asking this question?
5; How would Perez Hilton benefit from calling Miss CA a “dumb b**ch”?
6: Is Miss California running for political office?
7; Will Perez Hilton be held accountable in any way if it’s found out the question asked had nothing to do with the pageant?
8; Will the Perez Hilton branch of the Ministry of Truth send agents to all media attempting to stamp down Miss CA?
9; Will those in opposition to all branches of the Ministry of Truth argue and grumble with each other for a substantial period of time, allowing the Ministry of Truth agents to successfully persuade people the Miss CA is really a Neanderthal (i.e. “Palinized”)?
10: wtf?
cranbone on April 20, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Initially, gays swore they had no sexual agenda in their volunteer work with children, and then in their right to adopt children. Then, the homosexual right to raise children as gays gained sway. So, of all children being raised by gays, where is the Federal survey tracking the well being of these adopted and artificially created children? Were such a study to be accurately recorded, note well the results. Then compare those results with all other children. Evidently, today, half of all adolescents are or have dabbled in being gay. (Reference the Kennedy government health agency surveys.)
maverick muse on April 20, 2009 at 3:56 PM
I’m not arguing this side, but I think the argument is that the right to marry one other person, irrespective of his/her gender, is a fundamental one we all share. In other words, gay marriage is based on the principle of equality. Thus, like denying rights based on race, denying marriage rights to same sex couples is inherently wrong and not something that should be left up to popular votes at the state level.
As I said, that’s not an argument that I find compelling, but I think that’s the gist of why domestic partnerships are not satisfactory — they’re not “equal.”
Y-not on April 20, 2009 at 3:57 PM
I police my own behavior. I wish you would too.
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Now megs, are you being a hypocrite again? It appears, from this thread, you initiated trolling at 2:04PM.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Oh wait, you’re just being dishonest, aren’t you megs?
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Gregor on April 20, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Kindly grow up on your own dime.
Homosexual is accurate and hence suffices.
maverick muse on April 20, 2009 at 3:59 PM
One of my friends was state-raised(when he wasn’t with foster parents for a few months before they dumped him).
He’s often told me that most like him would much rather be raised by a pair of gay parents than deal with the system all their life.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Wish I could answer you better, Madison, but I have a car appointment. I’ll pick up later on in this thread.
Vanceone on April 20, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Perez Hilton is a superficial bigoted belligerent obnoxious ill-mannered twit. I would describe him the same way no matter the argument.
DeathB4Tyranny on April 20, 2009 at 4:01 PM
What an excellent argument. “I had a friend who”
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Why not even buck PC some more and go down the street calling black people “negroes”? See how far that gets you.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Megs, quit acting like you have street creds.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 4:03 PM
yes, this was the last segment. They were down to 5. They each stepped up and picked a question out of a bowl from one of the judges. They were all political in nature. This was the only one that had anything to do with gayness.
But the scoring up to then showed NC #1 and California #1 very consistently, and that’s how it ended up. This answer did not keep Cali from winning. And Cali did NOT get booed.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Cali #2. I guess everyone is used to my typos by now.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Yes, and there inmisexcusable!
hawkdriver on April 20, 2009 at 4:05 PM
I’m not “against” some Christians, just against man-made Christianity and private interpretation of scripture, as per my Catholic beliefs.
It’s Catholic doctrine to refuse the Eucharist to any non-Catholic. It’s not my decision.
But I highly doubt you would want to risk a priest’s excommunication simply because you feel slighted being denied the Eucharist in a church you don’t belong to.
JetBoy on April 20, 2009 at 4:06 PM
مع السلامة
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 4:06 PM
I spent my K-8 years in Catholic school, and was given the Eucharist for the first couple of years. I was the only non-baptized kid in class, and wasn’t a practicing Catholic. Nor were my parents. They only told me not to go up after the rest of the kids took their First Communion.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Jetboy, when we’re all held accountable before God one day, you won’t be able to rely on your priest, what your church told you, or even what made sense to you. Hebrews says it’s appointed unto a man to die once, then comes the judgment. You’re going to be held accountable for rejecting His word in the same way everyone else, regardless of their lifestyle, who rejected His word will be held accountable. No amount of name calling is going to fix that. It’s not a popularity contest.
Out
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 4:08 PM
bye!
blatantblue on April 20, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Here is a comment from another blog not my own but I agree with basically
But, gay activists say their civil rights are violated because homosexuals can’t marry whom they want. This argument is flawed because heterosexuals can’t marry whomever they want, either. If a man fell in love with his sister, his daughter or his female first cousin, society would prohibit him from marrying her. And, society would also prohibit a woman from marrying her brother, son or male first cousin even if she fell in love with him. There are moral laws in our society against this.
In our society, marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. A man can marry a woman of his choice and a woman can marry a man of her choice as long as that person is not already married and is distant in terms of blood relationship. This is held as morally acceptable by the majority of Americans and should not be changed. As proof, over 25 states have already passed marriage amendments defining valid marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman by an overall margin of 2 to 1.
The argument against gay marriage is not based on prejudice, hate or shoving one’s morals down another’s throat. It is based on societal moral convictions on what is natural and normal. And these moral convictions have been held for centuries. No, gay marriage is not about civil rights, it is about approval. It is about a small percentage of the population working to have their behavior, which the majority of Americans find morally wrong, accepted as normal by society.
kangjie on April 20, 2009 at 4:11 PM
ma’salaam! تحب غوغل المترجم؟
blatantblue on April 20, 2009 at 4:12 PM
She suddenly got a lot hotter!
LOL
jeffn21 on April 20, 2009 at 4:13 PM
FIFY
JetBoy on April 20, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Yes it does. And there’s that other activity that seems to be sweeping the nation: hypocrisy.
As I have said in a previous thread on this subject, I have known many kind, honest, trustworthy, and friendly people who are homosexual. And, I have never discriminated against a homosexual or used any derogatory terms against them. Yet, because I don’t agree that a homosexual couple should be treated exactly the same as a heterosexual couple, I have been verbally harassed, shunned, and punished, in some cases with extreme viciousness.
I know this approach is not true of all homosexuals, so I don’t hold have generalized animosity. However, I confess that I really do hate it that when I’m happy, I can no longer say I’m feeling gay. I don’t know if I can ever forgive that.
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Some more serious red meat on why gay marriage is not a civil right
http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conservativeopinion/2009/04/11/gay-marriage-is-not-a-civil-right/
Excerpt below
All of that has changed. Leftists have launched a systematic campaign against the traditional model of the family. They will use whatever tactic is convenient for them, when they no longer need homosexuals, they’ll be discarded. First they told women they didn’t need a husband to raise children, and they told men they didn’t need to take responsibility for the children they fathered. The state could step in and do their job. We’ve seen the results. Over 40% of all American children are now born out of wedlock, and for minority children the rate is much higher.
kangjie on April 20, 2009 at 4:13 PM
You split hairs for your argument. Some dogma is good?
hawkdriver on April 20, 2009 at 4:14 PM
I didn’t know that marriage was a “right.” I thought it was a privilege. If you are a man and a woman who want to get a license to get married you can. We give licences for lots of things and they are privileges. If you are a man who wants to marry a man, you don’t get a license for that. That’s a privilege defined by the state as a man and a woman. Each state can and is deciding if that definition should be changed or not.
I’m not unsympathetic to the gay argument. I believe they love eachother the same as I love my husband. That is not the question here though. I believe domestic partnerships/civil unions should be awarded equality w/marriage, except in the instance of state adoption. That is the only sticking point for me.
JAM on April 20, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Can someone explain to me why it’s ok for him to call a young woman a dumb b*tch yet I’m not allowed to call him a dumb f*g? When did the latter become some kind of hate speech and the former is excusable because it comes from a lisp laden dough boy?
CarolynM on April 20, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Yes, and there inmisexcusable!hawkdriver on April 20, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Skeep for your shelf!
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM
perez hilton is a joke. Why in the hell was he in the Miss USA judging box? This is the man, woman, whatever that draws bodily fluids dripping from pictures of peoples mouths
Why doesn’t he put his money where his mouth is and sponsor a Miss gay pageant So much easier and cheaper to trash someone else’s party.
Donald if you had any guts you would have let rosie be a judge.
lexa on April 20, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Perez Hilton should stick to his photoshopping of pictures.
AP should do some too!
blatantblue on April 20, 2009 at 4:19 PM
kangjie on April 20, 2009 at 4:13 PM
I agree w/the argument you are making as well. There is a moral basis for the argument against and it is not based on prejudice.
JAM on April 20, 2009 at 4:22 PM
I think Mommypundit put her finger on the core of the issue by pointing out that there is no equality to be gained by conferring marriage rights on homosexual unions because the two types of relationships are inherently different. It does not take a value judgement to recognize that fact.
In this country people of different races enjoy equal rights under the law, but I think most of us would agree that does not mean we do not “discriminate” between the races. By that I mean that if a crime has been committed and the police are trying to catch the criminal it is appropriate to include that person’s race as part of the description they disseminate.
It seems to me that homosexuals should be able to enter into legally binding relationships to ensure that their individual rights are protected, but I have yet to see a good argument for what is inadequate (in a state like California) with the currently available mechanisms for doing just that.
Y-not on April 20, 2009 at 4:24 PM
It is what it is.
Unlike politics, which should go through changes, the Catholic Church is known for it’s unchanging dogma, if you will.
Honestly, if you don’t like the Catholic Church, don’t go to one.
JetBoy on April 20, 2009 at 4:28 PM
It’s not.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 4:28 PM
I got curious about the Miss USA/Miss Universe pageants. It’s my understanding that the Miss America organization is a non-profit (which should restrict the sort of overt politicization of their activities, I think), so I wondered if the same was true of Miss USA/Miss Universe. It’s not — it’s a for-profit organization owned by NBC and Trump. If you look at their philanthropic partnerships you’ll see that they are all AIDS organizations. So, although I find these political questions completely out of line, I guess there’s no rule against it… unless there is some way in which NBC’s involvement raises a conflict of interest because of its standing as a news media organization.
Y-not on April 20, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Great, Up untill 10 minutes ago, I didn’t know who or what the hell a Perez Hilton was.
Now I do, and no Perez, you’re not pissed at Miss California’s answer. You ARE pissed cause she looks so much more like a Woman in sequins than you ever will.
/Ghey Fhey
/wretching
44Magnum on April 20, 2009 at 4:30 PM
As a Catholic do you view marriage as sacrament?
clarifides on April 20, 2009 at 4:30 PM
I got your intolerance…dangling…
I couldn’t give a lusty crap what a sodomite wants. Keep to yourselves and out of my space and we’ll get along just fine.
Why is it called homophobe?
No fear here, just disdain.
paulsmos on April 20, 2009 at 4:31 PM
The bottom line is if at some point in the future most americans want gay marriage then it can happen, perhaps just giving civil unions the same rights and status as marriage is today is the way it will happen.
The problem is they can not get there way right now by democratic means and therefore something must be wrong so they threaten and intimadate people and use the judicary to get there way
kangjie on April 20, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Good point. I believe you’re the first to bring that up. Kudos.
Yes…marriage (spiritual and actual) is a sacrament. My beef with gay marriage is not with the Church, it’s with the state.
JetBoy on April 20, 2009 at 4:34 PM
You know what? I agree. Maybe in a few years heterosexual, white, Christians will be a protected group and haters will get persecuted for putting us down.
anniekc on April 20, 2009 at 4:38 PM
The political question was inappropriate.
That pageant management then criticized the answer, and the political views and religious beliefs of a contestant crosses the line.
Perez Hilton’s misogynistic video is outrageously over the line. It is indefensible under any circumstances. He should be immediately removed from any association with the pageant, never be allowed any association again, and publicly rebuked.
So, I suggest letters to NBC, and all sponsors of the show, and perhaps all sponsors of NBC in general.
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 4:40 PM
A good article about this whole gay marriage thing from Dinesh Dsouza
btw check out his debate with Chris hitchins on christianity
one the few people to even break even with Mr athiest
http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/05/19/gay_rights_vs_democracy
Here is an excerpt
In issuing its ruling the California court appealed to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The basic logic is that gays have a right to be treated like everyone else. But just like everyone else, gays do have the right to marry. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex! What gay activists want is something else: the right to marry members of the same sex. This is not a right currently enjoyed by anyone. What these gay activists seek is not equal treatment but rather to change the definition of marriage.
But states have a legitimate right to define marriage. State legislatures, drawing on tradition and appealing to the values of their constituents, have defined marriage in a very particular way. Marriage requires a) two people who are b) of legal age and c) not closely related to each other who are d) one male and one female.
kangjie on April 20, 2009 at 4:41 PM
You know what? I agree. Maybe in a few years heterosexual, white, Christians will be a protected group and haters will get persecuted for putting us down.
You’de think after all this time I’d be better at this.
anniekc on April 20, 2009 at 4:41 PM
I am sure that you are familiar with the saying “we don’t need a piece of paper to be married”. Well that is all they will have is a piece of paper. For as Catholics we know that it is not the priest who marries us, but God. So in the true sense of “being married” it won’t happen.
clarifides on April 20, 2009 at 4:41 PM
I asked you in a thread a while back to quote anything in Matthew that required a “Transubstantiation” or even a priest to oversee the practice. He simply said, “This do in remembrance of me.” You never answered. You might not have seen it.
So truth be known, I respect the Holy Catholic Church. In Balad, Iraq three years ago, that hurt my feelings a bit and put an edge on my faith. But, I respect their practices. And I would no more try to horn in on their Communion than I would demand my Jewish friends give me a Bar Mitzvah. The point is the religious significance of the term.
I get non-believers demanding something out of an ignorance of faith. I just find it surprising that other people of the Christian conviction don’t have a similar tolerance of those that hold the strict definition of marriage as sacred.
Am I not saved to you because I can’t participant in your Lord’s Supper?
hawkdriver on April 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Thanks. Please take good care of yourself.
And for goodness sake, stop wearing jeans.
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Nice to see the producers picked judges wisely…….
Speedwagon82 on April 20, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Jigga wha…? Perez Hilton is advocating for Amendment X and states’ rights? Welcome to the club, Mario!
Government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether.
For one, because systematic discrimination is wrong (as is moral socialism), and two, because everything the government touches turns to crap.
Rae on April 20, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Are you kidding? I properly wear a smoking jacket and silk pajama bottoms while I busy myself with Fallout 3.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 5:00 PM
You didn’t mention it, but after I posted my response to your last post, I might have seemed a bit harsh. That wasn’t my intent…it doesn’t seem you took it that way, but in any case my apologies if it did sound harsh.
And no…of course you don’t need to receive the Eucharist to be “saved”. Even as Catholic belief goes, you don’t need to be Catholic at all. There most certainly is salvation outside the Catholic Church.
A good vid to watch re: the Holy Eucharist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ4tEFPuhYI
And of course my all time fav, Why Am I Catholic?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0nSjxDKJEo
Yes, marriage within the Church IS sacred. But again, I’m not protesting the Catholic Church to perform or acknowledge gay marriage. Just the state.
JetBoy on April 20, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Jetboy – everything you just wrote there is complete nonsense.
For starters, you’re ascribing to that line of reasoning a logical fallacy that doesn’t apply.
For another, it doesn’t matter what YOU are a proponent of… if the history of social and judicial activism have taught us anything, it is that there are two triusms:
1. Where one group demands and succeeds in getting new “rights,” there is always another one waiting in line behind them.
2. There will always be some activist judge who will find, in a precedent gained for a previous group, the “rights” being demanded by the current group.
The polygamist-rights lobby is real, is present, and is growing in their boldness and willingness to be vocal about being denied their “rights.”
There are two defining attributes of marriage: It is hetero-normative (opposite-sex), and it duo-normative (two people only). Neither attribute takes precedence over the other. They are co-equal.
What gay-marriage activists are proposing to do is eliminate the hetero-normative attribute of marriage, on the grounds that it is discriminatory against those with same-sex attractions.
The fact is, though, there is no argument for eliminating this attribute, which can’t also be used for eliminating the duo-normative attribute. If gay marriage “takes root” and spreads across other states, there will come a point where polygamists WILL insist that they are being discriminated against, where they WILL demand that they be given equal “right,” and where some activist judge, acting against the will of the people, WILL grant it to them, pointing to gay “marriage” as a precedent.
There are also plenty of folks out there who advocate for incest, and are consenting adults. There is no argument for opening marriage to gays, or to polygamist groups, that can’t also be used in favor of incestuous marriages. None.
So JetBoy, it doesn’t matter that YOU aren’t advocating for polygamy or incest; to the extent that you say those people shouldn’t enjoy the same “rights” to marriage as gays do, you’re just a simple-minded bigot like the rest of us, and I have every confidence that you’ll be told so by those whose “rights” you presume to violate.
greggriffith on April 20, 2009 at 5:03 PM
I would argue this is more a product of a permissive society than normative behavior of children.
What ages? What would you define as “homosexual” behavior?
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Subjective. Some parishes or churches do not follow the letter or practice admonishing the church before taking communion. Non christians and unrepentant, active sinners are not to partake. This says nothing about Holy scripture. Just because your pope or priests might say something is ok doesn’t make it biblical. Try a comprehensive worldview study sometime.
The Truth Project is good for starters.
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Yeah. I know what you mean. We have the luxury of being a bit more upfront about our beliefs on a forum like this. In reality, I would develop a relationship based on common ground and go from there. I do try to separate the individual from the movement. An individual HURTS…they have distinct stories and pasts and hopes. I do too. But, my hopes and heart have led me into some seriously bad places and I though I had the “right” to do that as an individual, those things were not a social good nor a positive thing for my future…beyond that, what a violation of God’s beautiful order!!! I mean, I was the worst offender.
So, in my personal life, I will say the same things, just try to be a bit more sensitive to the individual rather as opposed to the movement. it’s the “collective” which turns decent people into rabid bigots against those with principled disagreement.
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 5:15 PM
You are also aware of the Church’s position against gay marriages ?
clarifides on April 20, 2009 at 5:15 PM
ditto. but it will get a pass and he will get invited back to places. I wish old Donald would repudiate it. He is semi republican. eh.
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Spats.
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 5:17 PM
You’re catholic church will eventually have to relent. Look at the conscience laws. Do not think the catholics have these standards for nothing.
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Why would I choose to ridicule a person for being a particular color? Are you a complete moron? Oh wait. That second one was a rhetorical question.
Nice try though Sharpton.
Good for you. Now, if only we could convince the “homosexuals” to police their “behavior.”
“Deviant sex fiend” works just as well.
Gregor on April 20, 2009 at 5:18 PM
No I don’t believe they will relent though I believe that they will eventually be challenged and an attempt made to hurt them financially when the Church refuses.
clarifides on April 20, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Yes, obviously. Need I repeat….my beef is NOT with the Church. It’s with the state.
I’m able to discern between the two.
I will check out that “Truth Project”…thanks. But when it comes to religion, I’m a Roman Catholic. Period. Not a generalized “Christian”.
ALL I am advocating is the same rights and privileges for same-sex marriage afforded by the state to traditional marriage. Nothing more.
JetBoy on April 20, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Funny, I thought all followers of Christ were Christians.
hawkdriver on April 20, 2009 at 5:24 PM
I truly question your priorities in choosing this story. There are such juicy ones today!
AnninCA on April 20, 2009 at 5:25 PM
How does one improperly wear a smoking jacket?
Sir Corky on April 20, 2009 at 5:29 PM
I don’t believe I’ve said otherwise.
JetBoy on April 20, 2009 at 5:32 PM
However in the process, what you are advocating will diminish what we as Catholics hold as created by God to be both sacred and holy. Marriage involves very personal feelings, but this does not mean that it is merely a private matter. Whether it succeeds or fails, a marriage has a huge impact on the couple, their children, those around them, and the entire society. Gay marriages would be adding more confusion to an already battered institution.
I recommend Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II
clarifides on April 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Well, that figures. That “Truth Project” is nothing more than more slop from “Focus on the Family”, a bigoted anti-gay group. Thanks for nothing, mommypundit.
Again, I’m only concerned with the secular marriage recognition by the state. NOT the Church. As for “adding more confusion”, then we’ll just have to deal with it.
JetBoy on April 20, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Maybe it’s just me, or maybe it has already been said, but does anybody else see the incongruity in Perez Hilton being a judge of gorgeous females? How about making Andrew Dice Clay and Rush Limbaugh judges at the next “Mr. Gay America” pagent?
Star20 on April 20, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Aren’t you from Connecticut? Don’t they have gay marriage there? So you have what you want. What are you complaining about?
Personally, I think that laws that encourage gays to be a little less promiscuous(sp?) are a good idea. I just don’t see two people of the same sex who are living together as being “married”, because marriage is a relationship between two people of the opposite sex. That makes me a bigot and a hater and a homophobe.
Oh, and I’m “lame”.
I also refer to my 7 year old as my “son”, because he is a male. Does that mean I hate women?
Bobbertsan on April 20, 2009 at 5:42 PM
I poked around on perezhilton.com. THIS jackass is EVERYTHING that’s wrong with America. What a disgraceful piece of garbage.
marklmail on April 20, 2009 at 5:44 PM
You every right to advocate for it.
I have every right to oppose it.
So did the people in California. They said no
The Miss California contestant said she was opposed to it
What is your point ?
kangjie on April 20, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Should the federal government be able to override a state’s decision on what constitutes a marriage?
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Careful. The thought and word police will attack you for using illegal terms and phrases.
You’re being waaaaaaaaaaaay too mean to point out the truth.
Gregor on April 20, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Such a charmer.
Do you have your garlic and holy water ready? THEY’RE COMING!
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 5:49 PM
I agree with you. It is likely that Miss CA would have won but Perez Hilton’s need to use this Miss USA pageant, as a vehicle to promote his homosexual agenda, snatched her victory away from her. His inappropriate question put her between a rock and hard place.
Hilton gave her two clear options, in his “Why or Why Not” question and she chose the one that represented her morals, standards, values and principles.
Miss CA lost the pageant because this homosexual man hated her for her beliefs and convictions. His hate for her is clearly demonstrated, in his own video. I hope it will be his undoing.
sinsing on April 20, 2009 at 5:49 PM
He’s a clown but he gets attention. In a highly fragmented media environment Perez probably made sense for Trump.
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 5:50 PM
I am tired of holding my thoughts in fear of offending some limp-wristed pole smoker. But the object I find most perplexing, is the targeted demographic. More precisely; who actually watches this sh-t? And does the gay-blogger, Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr., aka Perez Hilton, actually have half a brain?
Andy in Agoura Hills on April 20, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Perez is just jealous that s/he isn’t Miss California.
Oh, and if anyone was boo’ing, I think they were boo’ing you, Ms. Perez.
CatsGodot on April 20, 2009 at 5:55 PM
If the courts cite “Loving v Virginia” in allowing gay marriage does it mean that allowing inter-racial marriage was, therefore, a mistake. Based on a slippery slope fear it would have to. Was it the responsibility of inter-racial couples not ask for the right to marriage since it might lead to something else down the road?
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Fallout 3?? *ears perk up**
SnarkVader on April 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Bigoted? Dude, you just lost any creds with me forever. Nice exchanging with you.
hawkdriver on April 20, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Three words mean heaven to me: Oblivion with guns.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Anyone who releases a video entitled: “Dogs aren’t born mooing, and people aren’t born gay” is bigoted. Either that, or they’re just lacking brain cells.
Not born gay…c’mon now…
JetBoy on April 20, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Hey, when I was growing up in the 50′s and 60′s, referring to a black person as anything other than ‘Negro’ was not acceptable.
We didn’t know about, and didn’t have to learn about, people like Pervertz Hilton.
maryo on April 20, 2009 at 6:02 PM
He’s made a ton of money just typing gossip and snark into a website. His revenue is a few million a year and his overhead has consisted of little more than a couple of family members on payroll.
He’s probably not that bright, but he’s generated more in earnings from his business than many companies with a hundred or more employees.
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Now this girl is saying that the question cost her “her” crown — as if it was ever her’s to lose! That kind of arrogance is very offputting. I’m sure it was just her clumsy answer to the question that made her a loser — not her oompa loompa skin tone or silicon chesticles. Or the fact that Miss NC was 100x’s hotter. No, clearly Hilton took “her” crown away.
dcwvu on April 20, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Love, love, love me some Fallout 3. Best game soundtrack EVER.
SnarkVader on April 20, 2009 at 6:10 PM
I know plenty of straight guys who would consider that a compliment.
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next »