Video: Miss California’s ad against gay marriage

posted at 4:29 pm on April 30, 2009 by Allahpundit

In which the new “queen of the GOP” becomes the new face of traditional values. When the National Organization for Marriage said she was coming on board, I thought they meant she was going to cut a spot for them. Nope: This is just pageant footage, although she did show up at their presser today to promote the cause. Watch Greg Hengler’s video of her comments. Interestingly, both there and in the ad itself, the focus is less on making the case against gay marriage than on highlighting the shrillness and nastiness of its proponents. Whether that’s because the former is a losing battle or because they’ve gained some sympathy even among gay-marriage supporters after the way she’s been treated, I don’t know. What she says in Hengler’s clip about government making it unacceptable to even espouse such views isn’t terribly far-fetched, though: Britain’s well down the road towards granting this subject thoughtcrime status.

Click the image to watch the ad. Below that you’ll find her appearance this morning on “Today” to promote it, which ends with a question about Palin — and a surprisingly tepid answer, given what we know about Miss Cali. Note well the statement from the pageant committee scolding her for taking a stand on such a “divisive” topic, which of course they never would have done had she taken the opposite, politically correc view of it. Remind me again about this very divisive topic — whose side of the debate does the majority of the state she represents take?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

Perhaps you should read what Kelly McGillis has to say. Its not that uncommon. The pressure to be straight even today is enormous.

SC.Charlie on April 30, 2009 at 8:24 PM

+1

After two failed marriages and some kids she has chosen to live a homosexual lifestyle. Sounds more like an old actress trying to jump-start a career with a little publicity.

Bubba Redneck on April 30, 2009 at 8:37 PM

This is exactly the nonsense we need to overcome. Dear gawd, get into the 21st century already.

JetBoy on April 30, 2009 at 8:45 PM

and gays themselves call it a lifestyle…that makes it a choice.

Conservative Voice on April 30, 2009 at 7:12 PM

Having a family is also a lifestyle. Some people don’t consider it a choice, but rather a fundamental desire.

dedalus on April 30, 2009 at 7:15 PM

Procreation is instinctual. Marriage was instituted to guide that instinct so we do not have men going around fathering bastard kids everywhere and leaving single mothers around trying to raise them and make a living at the same time. It leads to mothers trying to be both wage earner, mother and father and what you get is societal breakdown. Take a look a any inner city in this country.

Bubba Redneck on April 30, 2009 at 8:45 PM

As for homosexuality being genetic: in short no.
There is no genetic disposition for a species to self destruct biologically.
It has been, is, and will always be, a choice.

Bubba Redneck on April 30, 2009 at 8:29 PM

What if it was biochemical rather than genetic? Do all members of a species have to reproduce in order to help the species survive? What about species that are social?

dedalus on April 30, 2009 at 8:47 PM

Perhaps you should read what Kelly McGillis has to say. Its not that uncommon. The pressure to be straight even today is enormous.

SC.Charlie on April 30, 2009 at 8:24 PM

+1

After two failed marriages and some kids she has chosen to live a homosexual lifestyle. Sounds more like an old actress trying to jump-start a career with a little publicity.

Bubba Redneck on April 30, 2009 at 8:37 PM

This is exactly the nonsense we need to overcome. Dear gawd, get into the 21st century already.

JetBoy on April 30, 2009 at 8:45 PM

I do live in the 21st century.
Physical laws and moral truths are timeless and unchangeable. Sorry, but that’s life.

Bubba Redneck on April 30, 2009 at 8:49 PM

It leads to mothers trying to be both wage earner, mother and father and what you get is societal breakdown. Take a look a any inner city in this country.

Bubba Redneck on April 30, 2009 at 8:45 PM

Or take a look at a elementary classroom in an affluent suburb. What percentage of the kids are living with both biological parents, with siblings who share those parents? It is probably below 50%. Forty years ago it was probably close to 90%.

Yes marriage is important, and has been neglected for decades. A serious attempt at addressing the disintegration of the family wouldn’t have gay marriage very high on the list. In fact if gay people want to raise children it is better that they are married.

dedalus on April 30, 2009 at 8:53 PM

I do live in the 21st century.
Physical laws and moral truths are timeless and unchangeable. Sorry, but that’s life.

Bubba Redneck on April 30, 2009 at 8:49 PM

So…your “gay is a choice” thing applies to what exactly?

If you’re unfamiliar, I’m gay. And brother, believe what you want…I didn’t choose to be.

JetBoy on April 30, 2009 at 8:55 PM

As for homosexuality being genetic: in short no.
There is no genetic disposition for a species to self destruct biologically.
It has been, is, and will always be, a choice.

Bubba Redneck on April 30, 2009 at 8:29 PM

What if it was biochemical rather than genetic? Do all members of a species have to reproduce in order to help the species survive? What about species that are social?

?
Organic chemistry governs biochemistry.
Genetics is the biochemistry of DNA.

Not all humans reproduce yet we have survived.
Two men can never reproduce nor can two women.

Bubba Redneck on April 30, 2009 at 9:00 PM

I do live in the 21st century.
Physical laws and moral truths are timeless and
If you’re unfamiliar, I’m gay. And brother, believe what you want…I didn’t choose to be.

JetBoy on April 30, 2009 at 8:55 PM

How you live your life is your choice and yours alone.
Changing the definition of marriage to incorporate your lifestyle is not something I, and most folks, are for.

Bubba Redneck on April 30, 2009 at 9:06 PM

It leads to mothers trying to be both wage earner, mother and father and what you get is societal breakdown. Take a look a any inner city in this country.

Bubba Redneck on April 30, 2009 at 8:45 PM

Or take a look at a elementary classroom in an affluent suburb. What percentage of the kids are living with both biological parents, with siblings who share those parents? It is probably below 50%. Forty years ago it was probably close to 90%.

Yes marriage is important, and has been neglected for decades. A serious attempt at addressing the disintegration of the family wouldn’t have gay marriage very high on the list. In fact if gay people want to raise children it is better that they are married.

dedalus on April 30, 2009 at 8:53 PM

I agree as long as the definition of marriage is not altered to include same-sex couples.

We are all free – homosexuals as well – to marry whom we choose provided:
a) they are single.
b) they are not closely related.
c) they are of the opposite sex.
d) they are of legal age.
e) they agree to it.

If you change any one of those requirements, why not change the others? Every argument put forth to change (c) above will be used to change a, b, d, and e as well.

Bubba Redneck on April 30, 2009 at 9:15 PM

JetBoy on April 30, 2009 at 8:55 PM

Jet, so do you find the opposite repulsive? Are you saying it is impossible to be aroused with the opposite sex?

Here is where I come from. I don’t think its hormonal, because there are people who commit gay acts who have “normal” hormone levels, and hormone treatment doesn’t ungay a person. We also know that “gay” people can have sex with the opposite sex, and even be turned on during the act. We also know that people live their whole life, as virgins. So given all of this data, we can conclude that sex is a choice.
Now as far as getting turned on…marriage isn’t about getting turned on 24/7. There is an attraction and mutual respect ( in most cases ). And as long as this attraction and mutual respect is cultivated and encouraged by both partners, the marriage succeeds. It isn’t love, it isn’t because she is hot…people who stay married, for the their entire married life, do so out of commitment. Choice.
Now it may be found later that there is this pesky gene…I don’t believe there is, but for the sake of argument…should we hold alcoholics for their choice of buying and consuming alcohol accountable? What about those with the obese gene? Or are we robots, incapable of real thought and choice…that we are all run on instinct and biology?
It has been my experience, and I don’t know your circumstances to claim anything, but is been my experience with some people who call themselves gay…they were either sexually abused as a kid, did drugs, or had feminine characteristics – and so everyone considered them to be gay, so they accepted that label as their own. But this I do know, there was a point in your life where you decided you were gay….and you don’t like that decision, because even though its the popular thing in hollywood, for the most part it isn’t considered normal or accepted. I don’t know why that was more comfortable for you to be gay…but given that people learn to love people who are strangers, it is possible to be married to the opposite sex.

Conservative Voice on April 30, 2009 at 9:16 PM

Organic chemistry governs biochemistry.
Genetics is the biochemistry of DNA.

Not all humans reproduce yet we have survived.
Two men can never reproduce nor can two women.

Bubba Redneck on April 30, 2009 at 9:00 PM

Some think there are biochemical developments while the child is in the womb that may contribute to sexuality, or perhaps it happens at a young age based on environmental factors. It can happen naturally without it requiring a a reproductive benefit.

However, it seems evident that it is natural. Most guys I know prefer women–a lot. Some do ridiculous things for women. Maybe they are desperate, but I haven’t met any who think “if that chick turns me down, that dude over there might be OK.”

dedalus on April 30, 2009 at 9:18 PM

dedalus on April 30, 2009 at 9:18 PM

no, but I have known plenty of ladies who play both sides. And there are plenty of men who have sex with men, but don’t consider themselves to be gay…I know, weird.

Sex is a difficult thing to pin down, because it doesn’t take a whole lot for a guy to get turned on and finish…when a hand can do the job, then the opposite sex can certainly do the job as well.

Conservative Voice on April 30, 2009 at 9:23 PM

If you change any one of those requirements, why not change the others? Every argument put forth to change (c) above will be used to change a, b, d, and e as well.

Bubba Redneck on April 30, 2009 at 9:15 PM

Because gays aren’t married to people of the opposite sex. They continue to have kids with or without the state’s recognition.

I’m conservative enough to believe that the law should follow culture and not drive it. Gay people can legally have a relationship and legally have children. They are accepted and excel in the workplace. I think the culture has accepted them, and will always accept their children. I favor a federalist approach and hope that it is decided by voters not judges. I also think it makes sense to call it something different.

dedalus on April 30, 2009 at 9:24 PM

Sorry JetBoy, but I’m with Redneck on this one. It is a choice. What is another person of the same sex but a mirror image of ourself? Desires of the flesh are in conflict with our spiritual desires. Homosexuality is a form of worshipping our own (same-sex) flesh. It is essentially a denial of God’s design. It is un-natural both spiritually and scientifically.
As a Christian, I wonder, If samesex marriage is made legal, will the church be violating the law by refusing to marry homosexuals? If so, could this be used to prosecute the Church for following the tenants of the God it is designed to worship? This is a legal slippery slope no matter what you think about whether or not it’s “natural”.
On a closing note: My wife and I together make a whole. She meets certian needs in our family and I meet others. Two men or Two women is still just a half. I see this in the everyday needs of my children.

MichiganMatt on April 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM

Conservative Voice on April 30, 2009 at 9:23 PM

I agree with your observations. Homosexuality is much more acceptable for women than for men. Also, it seems more natural for lesbians to have children together–because of the greater contribution a woman makes to child birth than a man does.

dedalus on April 30, 2009 at 9:29 PM

MichiganMatt on April 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM

Yes, male and female together make better parents than same sex parents. My wife and I counter-balance each other’s flaws (Though I’m told all the flaws are mine).

Christian churches don’t have to married divorced people or perform interfaith marriages. They aren’t legally forced to have female ministers–despite NOW’s wishes.

dedalus on April 30, 2009 at 9:33 PM

Jet, so do you find the opposite repulsive? Are you saying it is impossible to be aroused with the opposite sex?

Of course not. I know a hot chick when I see one, much the same you know a good looking dude when you see one.

I dated girls, and yes…even “did the deed” with them…through high school and college. All I was doing was hiding who I was. It wasn’t until right after college that I starting hitting the clubs and bars…and realized THIS is me!

I did “choose” to act straight. But all along, I never was.

And so I refused to live my life as a lie.

JetBoy on April 30, 2009 at 9:50 PM

Oh, and:

Conservative Voice on April 30, 2009 at 9:16 PM

Y’all need to stop putting “gay” in with “alcoholic”, etc…and people who put “gay marriage will lead to polygamy and bestiality too” out there need to stop as well.

This is ONLY about gay marriage, as that issue is. Nothing else.

And “gay” in general isn’t a mental disorder. Is there a “gay gene”? Who knows…I’m here, I’m gay, I knew it all my life. So I’m saying “yes”.

To say “gay” is a choice is like saying someone “chose” to be a specific race…or “chose” to be born handicapped. Or anything else you can think of.

“Gay” just is. Period.

JetBoy on April 30, 2009 at 9:55 PM

This is ONLY about gay marriage, as that issue is. Nothing else.

All you have to do is look at the progression of lawsuits in the last 30 years on any kind of social issue to realize that nothing is ever “it.” With each ruling there is a next case to push the limits even further.

Like it or not, changing the definition of marriage from what it has historically been will not be enough for some. If you don’t think there are people waiting to change the definitions of “consenting” and “adult” then you’re not facing the world as it is today.

And no, I didn’t just equate homosexuals and pedophiles.

TugboatPhil on April 30, 2009 at 10:17 PM

The Miss America. or Miss USA council is ruining itself.
That note that Lauer wrote is crap.
They’re idiots, hateful idiots

ToddonCapeCod on April 30, 2009 at 10:41 PM

JetBoy on April 30, 2009 at 9:55 PM

I equated gay with alcoholism because of the argument of a gene made me do it.

As far as Gay Marriage leading the way for other non-standard marriages…it isn’t much of a logical leap…though personally I don’t have a problem with plural marriage, as that has Biblical roots. But marrying your sister, daughter, dog…why draw the line there and not with two ladies or dudes? Why do you judge these poor people born that way?

For the record, I don’t really care who is gay or what not…as long as it doesn’t involve kids ( I know, even that is subjective…when does adulthood begin? for now we will say 18…but I’m a hate monger ) and as long as you don’t try and force me to accept it, ( tolerate it sure, I can do that…accept it, not so much, I don’t make the rules ). I am set against hate crimes, all crimes are “hateful” and I am against gay marriage. But if you want to the rest of your days with a guy, more power to ya, I don’t care. Just don’t try to adopt kids, as I think there are plenty of households with a man and a woman in the parental role that are willing to adopt, and kids need a father and a mother….once kids get involved, its no longer an issue of two consenting adults doing the funky monkey when it suites them.
And for the record, I don’t think straight people take marriage seriously enough either….I mean come on people…50% divorce rate? Sure some of those are repeaters, but still.

Conservative Voice on April 30, 2009 at 11:00 PM

To say “gay” is a choice is like saying someone “chose” to be a specific race…or “chose” to be born handicapped. Or anything else you can think of.

People don’t chose to be alcoholics…people don’t chose to be lactose intolerant ( imho worse than being an alcoholic…I mean, everything good and tasty has milk involved…well ok 90% everything good and tasty )

As far as equating it to being a handicap, let the record show that you compared being gay to having a defect…call the hate police!
As far as it being the same as skin color? Come on…like I said, sexual attraction is a weak argument when given the fact that the hand can turn on certain parts. Marriage isn’t about sex, it is about the family. You want to have sex with the guys…go ahead, I won’t stop you, stone you, or hate you. Just know that with every relationship you choose to go to the next level, and have sex, that is a choice…much like that alcoholic who is so attracted to that beverage on ice.

Conservative Voice on April 30, 2009 at 11:10 PM

It wasn’t until right after college that I starting hitting the clubs and bars…and realized THIS is me!

Wow an appeal to base desires. How 21st century. /s

daesleeper on April 30, 2009 at 11:12 PM

she is a great person to be a spokeswoman for the movement

ousoonerfan15 on April 30, 2009 at 11:16 PM

Conservatives have got to change their message on this.

We are not communicating well, mainly because people are not hearing what we say. We say one thing but they hear “We hate gays”- mainly because of gay propaganda, but crying to the ump that it’s not fair ain’t gonna help us.

I find this is the best way to break though and get people to actually listen to me on the subject:

“We don’t disagree on gay marriage because I think gays are bad people, while you think they aren’t. We disagree because you think marriage is primarily about love, and I don’t think it is.”

At that point they finally start listening instead of just hearing “I hate gays” when I try to present my arguments.

That way I can finally get through to them and explain that I think love is important in marriage, but that the primary purpose of marriage is to get men to commit to the raising of children with their female mate. In other words the purpose of marriage is to protect the interests of children and women. That means gender is intrinsic to marriage.

Protecting these interests are beneficial to society which is why the government has any business interfering in the marriage business. If marriage is merely about love, then why does the government have any business being involved at all? Who is the government to tell us who we can and can not love legitimately?

My objection isn’t that the idea of two men being married is “squick”. My objection is that marriage isn’t marriage if it doesn’t involve a husband committing himself to a wife.

While I rarely convert anybody, it does make people stop and think. And usually they agree afterward that opposing gay marriage doesn’t make you a bigot- which is a big step in the right direction.

Sackett on April 30, 2009 at 11:53 PM

What she says in Hengler’s clip about government making it unacceptable to even espouse such views isn’t terribly far-fetched, though: Britain’s well down the road towards granting this subject thoughtcrime status.

What? And you think America isn’t?

saint on May 1, 2009 at 5:53 AM

As most Americans do not support “Gay Marriage”, the most effective way to counter it is by reminding people over and over that a tyranny by 1% of the population over the 99% who are not gay is not acceptable. Even fools can understand that concept. “Gay Marriage” is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of. Let them be happy entering Civil Unions, which I think most Conservatives don’t have a problem with, but leave Marriage alone. Just because 1% say the sky is plaid doesn’t make it real……

adamsmith on May 1, 2009 at 7:49 AM

The Lord God Does not create something, cause it to be a certain way and then condemn it for being that way.
=CHOICE

DougDavis on May 1, 2009 at 9:27 AM

She stated being gay is a choice. After she said that, I lost all respect for her.

Christina_M on April 30, 2009 at 5:30 PM

Ah yes, THIS again. Another useful idiot who thinks that you’re born as a ‘sex zombie’ with no choice whom you screw.

Dark-Star on May 1, 2009 at 9:47 AM

Ah yes, THIS again. Another useful idiot who thinks that you’re born as a ’sex zombie’ with no choice whom you screw.

Dark-Star on May 1, 2009 at 9:47 AM

Someone who is homosexual can remain celibate and lie about his or her sexuality to everyone that asks in order to make you feel better. But, then that would be quite a sad and sorry life.

SC.Charlie on May 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Christina_M on April 30, 2009 at 5:30 PM

Even if BEING gay is not a choice, ACTING gay is. Seeing as sexual activity as a phenomenon is practically assumed for couples of all preferences these days, this important distinction is often overlooked. I think we can attach this meaning to Ms. Prejean’s words or anyone else’s similar statement.

flutejpl on May 1, 2009 at 10:59 AM

It’s really not that complicated to understand. It is technically not genetic nor is it a choice. Medical fact, EVERYONE starts out construction as a girl! The ovaries drop, then turn into testicles and begin producing testosterone. The testosterone changes everything over to male construction from that point. And there in lies the rub. “From that point” is a very critical bit of timing. The bricks used in boy brains are a different size and shape than the bricks in girl brains, hence the difference between boys and girls. So if the transition is delayed, you will have far too much girl brain onto which you then start stacking boy bricks. What could go wrong there? Something as simple as a poor diet can interrupt the production of testosterone during gestation. This can lead to a hodge-podge of girl, boy, girl, boy layers in the brain all wrapped up neatly in a boys body. However, none of this is any excuse for being a jerk Perez.

Pole-Cat on May 1, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Bubba Redneck on April 30, 2009 at 8:45 PM

It looks like you get it. To me, gay marrage is rediculous. If gays want to live together in a union, thats fine. But homosextuals getting married is really creepy. It looks and feels wrong to transform marrage into some perverted sharade. Its like wanting to refer to a duck calling champion as a musician.

saiga on May 1, 2009 at 11:09 AM

The duck calling champion insists he is a musician because his duck call is an instrument. Now he demands to be enrolled in the musicians union.

If you don’t let him in, you are a biggot.

saiga on May 1, 2009 at 11:16 AM

DougDavis on May 1, 2009 at 9:27 AM

That’s an incredibly weak argument used by you and even many churches today. It fails a simple test of theology, even though it’s probably even taught at some seminaries today.

If you believe the words of the Bible, you believe that you are created in God’s image. You also believe that, when Adam sinned, all of mankind sinned, and even creation itself got altered to be disposed toward sin. (Read Romans 1 through Romans 5). As such, it’s perfectly reasonable to believe science when it says that we are hardwired to want to behave against the laws of nature (sin, for Christian context) in various ways.

It is thereby easy to argue against the gay marriage supporters who use the Bible to argue exactly the way you have. I am by no means comparing behaviors here in my next argument (so please don’t go there!), but it’s also been genetically proven that some people are particularly predisposed to alcoholism.

You don’t seriously believe that it is okay to be addicted to alcohol because God made some people predisposed to be that way, right? Society has a right to control alcoholic behavior, especially as it impacts public life. Similarly, as an act of the public, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for society to insist that equal rights toward gays regarding marriage means that all people, gay, or straight, have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Given the vagaries of our legal system and the seeming inevitability of this issue, the only real way out of this mess that I see is to separate terminology. Society will be in the business of joining people by civil union for tax purposes, and religious institutions will be in the business of marriage. There is supposedly that “wall of separation between church and state,” after all, so what business does the state have in “marrying” people, a traditionally religious act? Everyone would have to go through the state process, but the state, honoring such separation, would be forbidden from using the word “marriage” as a part of its process… for ANY couple.

flutejpl on May 1, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Bubba Redneck on April 30, 2009 at 9:15 PM

I like the way you think.

flutejpl on May 1, 2009 at 11:18 AM

This bikini contestant’s breast implants were paid for by the pageant.

Quick – someone make her a spokesperson for self-esteem for young girls.

Dave Rywall on May 1, 2009 at 12:45 PM

This bikini contestant’s breast implants were paid for by the pageant. – Dave Rywall on May 1, 2009 at 12:45 PM

I heard that while watching O’Rielly last night. Before then I thought it was a bad joke. The commentator also said that she may have violated her contract with the Miss California organization by making this commercial.

SC.Charlie on May 1, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2