It’s even worse when you’re told that only one opinion is acceptable. Perez Hilton wasn’t asking Carrie Prejean a question – he was demanding submission.

Hilton was explicit on that point later, with a statement something along the lines of “Of course I want my beauty pageant contestants to be PC.”

Obviously because it was an incorrect “answer.” Not resolved until the population heartily agrees.

Mommypundit on May 8, 2009 at 1:57 PM

They don’t care if people heartily agree as long as they surrender. Prop 8 should have settled it because the people of the state followed the law and the amendment process. That just wasn’t good enough for gay-tivist.

I remember a time when all they wanted was declare themselves and not loose their jobs. Now they get people fired or take their businesses from them if they even voice a disagreement about the lifestyle.

The only people that have not flinched from them are the churches. That’s what this is about – going after the churches. Once gay marriage is the law of the land they can start suing and closing down the churches.

This isn’t crazy raving, this is their goal.

It was once thought crazy that gays would go after marriage.

Both attacks amount to publicly raping and attempting to publicly destroy two women who just happen to disagree with leftist party line. The pure sick zeal contained in Hilton’s bullying attacks and that of his and Sullivan’s sycophants should be cause for grave concern in a society that calls itself civilized.

These attacks exceed the limits of even the roughest acceptable political discourse and serve to erode our society.

The media savor the attacks, egging on some of the sickest members of our society to ever greater acts of degradation against these women.

That the sickest of these kinds of attacks are against heterosexual, conservative women is not an accident, rather a psychosis.

Humankind as we know it hasn’t existed for thousands of generations. More to the point, the genealogy of the modern civil and legal institution of marriage is complex. I point this out not because I’m anything but in total sympathy with your viewpoint, but because I don’t believe it serves our side well when its most articulate spokespeople, such as yourself, resort to exaggeration or oversimplification. We’re already accused too often of opposing the re-definition of marriage out of blind belief and ignorance.

I hope to be putting up my own observations on this topic when the time feels right, and I expect taht I’ll be referring (and tracking back) to your insights.

CK MacLeod on May 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Are you saying “Stargate: Atlantis” has led me wrong? Okay, maybe not thousands of generations, then. But lots. Possibly even scads. That is a good point about avoiding exaggerations.

The question from 1:21 PM that I was responding to was hypothetically directed at a POTUS candidate. It is a bit of a dodge, but appropriate for the marriage question–much better than answering that the federal government should take regulation of marriage away from the states and make a uniform national decision.

dedalus on May 8, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Didn’t mean that to sound like I was bashing you… but I’d really like to hear any number of congressmen or the President answer that question about federalism. Come to think of it, I’d like to hear them answer the three questions you were responding to. I’d kick over Obama’s teleprompter right after I asked them. (I guess my odds of moderating the next presidential debate just went down…)

“Are those who passionately believe in global warming expected to begin statements of their faith with cheerful salutes to the validity of their opponents’ choices, and end with an apology to anyone who doesn’t share their fanatical beliefs?”

……….. that would be a good start.

Marriage is not something that can be redefined without “taking it away” from the people that have held it sacred for thousands of generations

Humankind as we know it hasn’t existed for thousands of generations. More to the point, the genealogy of the modern civil and legal institution of marriage is complex. I point this out not because I’m anything but in total sympathy with your viewpoint, but because I don’t believe it serves our side well when its most articulate spokespeople, such as yourself, resort to exaggeration or oversimplification. We’re already accused too often of opposing the re-definition of marriage out of blind belief and ignorance.

I hope to be putting up my own observations on this topic when the time feels right, and I expect taht I’ll be referring (and tracking back) to your insights.

Especially when said beauracracy is a miserable failure, and every attempt to escape from it is ground under the iron-heeled boot of someone like Barack Obama? Is there nowhere else we could initially direct our resurgent love of federalism?

Doctor Zero on May 8, 2009 at 3:05 PM

I think vouchers are a very good idea and Obama is wrong. Education is an area where a students can benefit from a federalist approach that allows for experimentation in areas that have have different needs.

We’d probably be better off as a country if abortion was decided, not buy SCOTUS, but by state law.

The question from 1:21 PM that I was responding to was hypothetically directed at a POTUS candidate. It is a bit of a dodge, but appropriate for the marriage question–much better than answering that the federal government should take regulation of marriage away from the states and make a uniform national decision.

In the paragraph you cited, I went out of my way to state I was referring to the leaders of the gay marriage movement. You don’t sound like you have all that much in common with them. You don’t seem eager to beat Carrie Prejean into the ground, for one thing. That puts a fair bit of daylight between you and the leadership I was talking about. Let’s not be coy and pretend they don’t exist.

One more tactic of tyranny is the presumption that the loud, well-funded, self-appointed leadership of a designated interest group speaks for every member of that group, and you can’t object to anything they say without insulting everyone they claim to represent. I reject that concept utterly and without apology.

Fair enough. Perhaps I did read it somewhat too broadly.

Frankly, while I support gay marriage, I support individual liberty and capitalism more. I really wish the marriage argument would go away (obviously with my side winning) so people would start to realize that we’re all socialists now.

So why didn’t the Proposition 8 vote settle the matter in California?

SailorDave on May 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Because liberals only love democracy and representative government and freedom and equality …

… when it does what they think its supposed to do.

The rest of the time, they’d prefer Stalinist totalitarianism. Just ask Carrie Prejean.

There is no such thing as a liberal who actually holds to liberal principles. They don’t even exist anymore.

The “people” don’t matter to liberals – unless the “people” are doing what they want them to do.

No reason too relevant to a POTUS contender.

CA is bouncing the issue between the 3 branches of its government along with a popular vote. Each state operates a little differently and the President should avoid the mess and stick with a principled federalist position that marriage laws are within the realm of the state not the federal government.

dedalus on May 8, 2009 at 2:08 PM

I’m all in favor of federalism myself, but why is it a principle applied solely to arguments the Left can’t win conclusively at the national level? Why are we supposed to let fifty state legislatures decide what they think “marriage” means, but meekly allow a huge beauracracy in Washington decide how the children born to those marriages should be educated? Especially when said beauracracy is a miserable failure, and every attempt to escape from it is ground under the iron-heeled boot of someone like Barack Obama? Is there nowhere else we could initially direct our resurgent love of federalism?

I agree. So why didn’t the Proposition 8 vote settle the matter in California?

SailorDave on May 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Because the gays in California know what all good libs everywhere know, that when you have a very liberal judicial branch, they legislate from the bench, and that each time the citizens vote for or against an amendment placed on their ballot, all they have to do is challenge it in the courts, and it will be struck down as unconstitutional, regardless of what the majority wants.

Doc … do you write for a living? Your stuff is always so well put together.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Not yet, although I’ve always dreamed of being able to write professionally. I did win a local newspaper Halloween Horror Story contest once. Other than that, Hot Air is the only place I’ve published anything to date. It’s really great that they gave me this opportunity!

While I think the attention focused on Carrie Prejean is stupid, I can’t agree with your generalized assignment of motives behind it.

I support gay marriage (mainly because I’m gay, and married), but I don’t recognize in myself any of the motivations you have listed.

I got married, not because I saw it as an opportunity to take something away from people. I did it because first and foremost – I am in love. Secondly, I want the financial and contractual protections marriage offers.

To the leaders of the gay marriage movement – the people with microphones and cameras pointed at them – the battle to redefine marriage is not about gaining something, it’s about taking something away from those who don’t deserve it.

That’s just wrong. I could care less if you were married or not. And my being married takes nothing away from you.

As long as we are generalizing motives, it appears to me the opposition to gay marriage is strictly a result of religious beliefs. I understand that. And as a formerly devout Catholic, I can appreciate it. But I don’t expect to be forced to accept the religious principles of another. I want a civil marriage, not a religious one.

grahsco on May 8, 2009 at 1:03 PM

In the paragraph you cited, I went out of my way to state I was referring to the leaders of the gay marriage movement. You don’t sound like you have all that much in common with them. You don’t seem eager to beat Carrie Prejean into the ground, for one thing. That puts a fair bit of daylight between you and the leadership I was talking about. Let’s not be coy and pretend they don’t exist.

One more tactic of tyranny is the presumption that the loud, well-funded, self-appointed leadership of a designated interest group speaks for every member of that group, and you can’t object to anything they say without insulting everyone they claim to represent. I reject that concept utterly and without apology.

Marriage is not something that can be redefined without “taking it away” from the people that have held it sacred for thousands of generations. I believe it is worth defending in its current form, and I plan to offer that defense, if you’d care to consider it. (The post I put up today started as the preamble to that discussion, but it got a little too big for that…) I can see why you would take the defense of marriage to be born entirely of religious belief, because there is great overlap between the religious community and the defenders of marriage. My own argument for marriage is not based in religion, but I’m glad to have the religious community on my side. They’re feisty and tenacious!

if she’s such a naughty little minx in every other respect, she can’t have any logical reason for refusing to get on board with the gay agenda.

as we were just treated to pictures that as far as I can tell everyone finds as shocking and offensive as a Victoria’s Secret Catalog. On Que, the Homotrolls were trying to stir up HA, then dumbfounded that they were not getting outrage from the “Christians”.

Can we not see that those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman are the ones who’s beliefs are being oppressed?

ConDem on May 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM

There was a tremendous amount of violence in the 1960′s in black areas of major cities. MLK preached non-violence but not everyone followed.

Do divorced people oppress the beliefs of those who think marriage should be for life?

I agree. So why didn’t the Proposition 8 vote settle the matter in California?

SailorDave on May 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM

No reason too relevant to a POTUS contender.

CA is bouncing the issue between the 3 branches of its government along with a popular vote. Each state operates a little differently and the President should avoid the mess and stick with a principled federalist position that marriage laws are within the realm of the state not the federal government.

I agree. So why didn’t the Proposition 8 vote settle the matter in California?

SailorDave on May 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Obviously because it was an incorrect “answer.” Not resolved until the population heartily agrees.

3.) Up to the states.

dedalus on May 8, 2009 at 1:25 PM

I agree. So why didn’t the Proposition 8 vote settle the matter in California?

When black people wanted equal rights, violence was used to put them down. That was wrong and fortunately the civil rights movement was successful.

Activist gays use violence and character defamation to further their cause. This is wrong.

Can we not see that those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman are the ones who’s beliefs are being oppressed?

ynot4tony2 on May 8, 2009 at 1:21 PM

A candidate from either party should be able to answer:

1.) The President has to represent people from all faiths.
2.) The slavery part.
3.) Up to the states.

Because they cannot have legitimately before God what God ordained for a man and a woman from the beginning of time. It’s funny that they don’t think of it, but even Jesus Himself reaffirmed it – yeah, the same one they swear up and down He speaks nothing of the topic.

But they don’t want to hear it. They want what they want right now – just like the two-year-old who wants that I-gotta-have-it! toy and will scream child abuse if that’s what it takes to get it. That’s why they act like the Taliban towards people who remind them of what they cannot have because of those reasons. Yep, they act like the Taliban – whom they accuse us of being.

newton on May 8, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Using the government to define marriage for others based on the scriptural accounts of Jesus isn’t going to be supported by people who hold other beliefs or who think that church and state should not interfere with each other.

FWIW Jesus spoke more clearly on divorce as a sin than homosexuality.

1) Do you think accepting Jesus is the only way to get to Heaven?

2) What do you hate most about the U.S. Constitution?

and, of course:

3) Should gays be allowed to get married?

Advocates of this gay marriage movement do not only want the rest of us to give in to their lifestyle, they want us to say that it is morally acceptable in the eyes of God and the world. What they choose to do with their lives is their own business, but when they tell me what I have to believe and what is and isn’t moral, that’s when I draw the line. If God had intended men to marry men, and women to marry women, he would have made us all homogeneous, so we could all procreate with whomever we pleased.

I support gay marriage (mainly because I’m gay, and married), but I don’t recognize in myself any of the motivations you have listed.

I got married, not because I saw it as an opportunity to take something away from people. I did it because first and foremost – I am in love. Secondly, I want the financial and contractual protections marriage offers.

To the leaders of the gay marriage movement – the people with microphones and cameras pointed at them – the battle to redefine marriage is not about gaining something, it’s about taking something away from those who don’t deserve it.

That’s just wrong. I could care less if you were married or not. And my being married takes nothing away from you.

As long as we are generalizing motives, it appears to me the opposition to gay marriage is strictly a result of religious beliefs. I understand that. And as a formerly devout Catholic, I can appreciate it. But I don’t expect to be forced to accept the religious principles of another. I want a civil marriage, not a religious one.

But they don’t want to hear it. They want what they want right now – just like the two-year-old who wants that I-gotta-have-it! toy and will scream child abuse if that’s what it takes to get it. That’s why they act like the Taliban towards people who remind them of what they cannot have because of those reasons. Yep, they act like the Taliban – whom they accuse us of being.

But they better be warned. We can only be pushed too far for too long. Because when our patience finally runs dry…

In essence, it will cease to have any traditional meaning whatsoever. On the bright side, I’ll be free to marry the old pair of blue jeans that I am so fond of.

Do you suppose they’ll have an equally militant pro-life activist hosting the pageant next year, asking “gotcha” questions about partial-birth abortion?

Uh…. and I may be going way out on a limb here… but, no.

Russian history offers a clue as to where the progressives want to ultimately take this. Stalin’s Terror purges of his own country were dedicated to destroying family ties as counterproductive to the collectivist State.

In Obama’s progressive America, marriage would ultimately be banned as a primitive religious concept. You would be either a breeder or a non-breeder.

It’s even worse when you’re told that only one opinion is acceptable. Perez Hilton wasn’t asking Carrie Prejean a question – he was demanding submission.

Excellent.

I have been trying to return the argument to this every time. The question is not whether Carrie had any credibility to answer the way she did (as if the left and Perez were natural arbiters of sincerity or moral standing). The question is, why was this even asked in the first place? It was a loaded question with, evidently, only one answer. What is remarkable is the faux astonishment the pageant directors are exhibiting over her answer which further confirms that there is only one acceptable point of view. Telling.

Would gays (and lesbians) still push for “marriage” if there were no tax advantages to being married? At the Federal level, as of now, that is an advantage married couples enjoy that civil unionized couples don’t. There are other benefits as well: S…