New Evidence for Liberal Scuminess

Miss California 2009

I've never in my life paid any attention at all to beauty pageants. It just doesn't interest me. But in the Miss USA pageant a few weeks ago, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, made headlines by daring to say - in public - that she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. Think about that. In 2009, this is ACTUALLY a controversial subject. Where has this country gone in the last generation?

What happened was that (video here) she was leading the competition and entered a phase where you have to answer a question on your feet while the whole world watches. Now, when I grew up this was a big joke because the stereotypical question was something like "What do you wish for in the world" and the answer was something along the lines of "world peace." This is a famously ridiculous Q & A.

But this time, for some reason, the process went differently. Somehow, this gay activist, Perez Hilton (why name yourself after an amateur porno star? Doesn't that just make you look like a loser to start with?) got to be a judge, and was drawn to ask Miss Prejean her question, and it was, roughly, since Vermont is the 4th state to legalize gay marriage, do you think all the other states should follow suit? Without missing a beat (I've done this kind of Q&A before as an exercise, and I usually stall a few seconds at least), Miss Prejean answered that she was happy to live in such a wonderful country where we can actually HAVE such a choice and, no offense to anyone else, the way she was raised she believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

That was about it. Tough question, very impressive answer. Whether you agree with her position or not is (should be) irrelevant. What is important here is that she gave a substantive answer to a difficult question and she did so quickly and thoughtfully, and was pretty articulate, too. She deserved high marks for her answer.

Wrong Answer

Of course, this was not how it went for her. She went on to get second place in the competition overall. Before even leaving the building, Hilton posted a video on YouTube where he ranted about her answer and basically what a low-life idiot she was. He called her "a dumb bitch" and said she deserved to lose because of her answer. Days later, he reportedly filed another video wherein he referred to her as a "c--t."

A few more days later, Keith Olbermann "interviewed" another gay columnist (video here) by the name of Musto on his nationally televised MSNBC show. The two of them played off of one another, going back and forth to see who could toss out the meanest insult at Miss Prejean. They sounded like two junior-high kids. Olbermann made several crude remarks about Miss Prejean's breasts, and then Musto said things like this: "This is the kind of girl who sits on the TV and watches the sofa. She thinks 'innuendo' is an Italian suppository." This banter went on, and on, and on. Again, on national television. It was absolutely disgusting.

The left went on a crusade, as they often do, to destroy this poor woman publicly. Another of the pageant judges said that she would have ranked Miss Prejean 51st specifically because of the answer she gave to that question. Leftists got on talk shows and mouthed off similarly about how vile she was. Someone posted some risque pictures she had taken several years ago and the Miss California pageant announced they would be investigating and may strip her of her title.

The Left Now Does This Regularly

These tactics are familiar to those who remember, during last year's presidential campaign, the similarly brutal attacks on Sarah Palin (and her family), and against Joe "the Plumber." These people stood up and said what their values were, and because they weren't leftist values, they were publicly humiliated by Leftist wingnuts and their compliant mass media. Governor Palin was ridiculed by reporters and anchorpeople as being stupid, and hordes of operatives were sent to Alaska to try and dig up personal dirt on her. Pictures of her in a swimsuit, during a long-ago beauty pageant, were circulated and made fun of. Her daughter was called "a tramp" and the maternity of her newborn son was questioned. As though any of those things was anyone's business or had a shred of relevance to her campaign.

Joe the Plumber was investigated and the fact that he owed some back taxes, and that he was not properly licensed as a plumber, were put out on the air. They tried to ruin the man's life, and he had never run for a single thing. He just happened to be at the wrong place (in his front yard) at the wrong time (when Obama came into the neighborhood for a visit) and asked Obama a challenging question, to which Obama gave a truthful answer supporting socialism. For this the left tried hard to destroy him.

The Prejean Saga Continues

During all this time, interviews with Miss Prejean showed her to be the kind of upstanding young person we dream about being raised in this country: Beautiful; devout Christian; server of the poor and downtrodden; polite; hard working; focused. She never wished ill to any of her critics, just expressed that she shouldn't have lost or been persecuted for expressing her opinion. Which is absolutely correct. She took the high road, despite being mercilessly bashed in the media for weeks.

Ultimately the pageant, led by Donald Trump, announced that "the pictures are fine" and that she would keep her title. Miss Prejean choked up a bit when defiantly - and rightly - pointing out that, in this free country, she ought to have the ability to speak her mind without fear of public persecution or of losing a beauty contest.

White House Leftist Piles On

This horrible saga should be over by now; it's been 3 weeks. But just when you thought it would be, none other than Barack Obama's right-hand man, David Axelrod, who ran his successful presidential campaign, referred to Miss Prejean as a dog during a quiz show on National Public Radio (audio here). Talking about helping pick the new dog that the Obama family just acquired at the White House, Axelrod joked that he'd been consulted on "the final three. And one was Miss California." This is the guy who got Obama elected, one of the president's closest confidants. How sick is this country that we are taking seriously and electing people like this to high office?

Axelrod's rude comment comes, of course, on the heels of an absolutely despicable performance at last week's annual White House Correspondents' Dinner, an event that the president himself attends and where he is typically made fun of - in a good-natured way - by the correspondents or by people they invite. The group this year invited an obscure black comedienne named Wanda Sykes to do a few minutes of standup at the lectern, mere feet away from the president. During her performance she somehow never got around to making fun of the Messiah, the president, but dished it out hard on his critics. Discussing Rush Limbaugh, Sykes mis-interpreted something Limbaugh famously said about hoping Obama fails, using it to liken Limbaugh to Osama bin Laden and then to say that she believed Rush was the 20th hijacker but had missed his flight because he was strung out on painkillers. She went on to say she hoped his kidneys failed (i.e. "I hope you die"). Throughout all this mess, President Obama sat there and laughed at every joke. Our president, laughing at a 9/11 joke and at wishing one of his toughest critics - an honorable man - dead.

And the media, by the way, reported nothing about the disgusting routine until word of it leaked out from the British press and conservative bloggers and talk show hosts began talking about it. We used to make fun of the old Soviet newspaper, "Pravda" and how they only reported what the government wanted people to hear. How is this situation with our American media much different? As Obama himself said in his speech at the dinner, "Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me." God forbid they ask him a tough question at a press conference, or make fun of him in any way, even at a dinner that is known particularly for such things.

---

This is the world we live in. How we got here in such a short time I have no idea, but the left, which has hypocritically complained about partisan politics and about the country's divisions, is by far the worst offender in this regard. With the left, you either agree with them or they try to ruin your life. They hate you; despise you; might like to kill you. It is not enough to even tolerate their views as Carrie Prejean stated she did. You must accept them outright or you will be destroyed personally.

The only thing I wonder at this point is whether there will be any kind of backlash against these people. What has happened to the good and decent country I grew up in and love so much? How do such hateful people get to be in such lofty positions, put there by my fellow citizens?? When will I wake up from this nightmare?

Gay Marriage: BAD for Society

An op-ed in Friday's Wall Street Journal, by Jonathan Rauch, entitled, "Gay Marriage is Good for America," makes a blatant and unapologetic argument for gay marriage in America. It's an interesting piece, though I didn't find it persuasive. Rauch relies largely on emotional arguments like, "imagine your life without marriage."

Rauch's entire argument is founded on the assertion that homosexual relationships - and all that goes with them - are equivalent in every way to heterosexual ones. No society on the planet has EVER believed this to be true, but Rauch ignores this. It's an important point, because if they ARE equivalent, then of course his points are probably correct. But if they are NOT, and history indicates that most people understand that they are not, then his points are ridiculous.

People throughout history, regardless of religion, have always understood that homosexuality is immoral. In the western world, in recent years, the homosexual community has demanded tolerance for their lifestyles, and good people of differing opinions have said, "okay, I don't agree with your lifestyle, but I will tolerate it." This is not the same as "accepting" the lifestyle, which is what gay activists are demanding today, having received the tolerance they demanded. Gay marriage is the latest salvo in that fight.

But people, and society in general, still understand that homosexuality is sinful, or immoral. That it is not something that ought to be promoted in our society (i.e. accepted). Tolerance is fine, but that's as far as we go. A few years ago, 11 separate states had homosexual marriage propositions on the ballots, and not a single one even came close to passing.

"In 2008, denying gay Americans the opportunity to marry is not
only inhumane, it is unsustainable. History has turned a corner: Gay couples –
including gay parents – live openly and for the most part comfortably in
mainstream life. This will not change, ever."

While I will agree that gays living openly and comfortably in our society will probably not ever change, the idea that "denying them the right" to marry each other is inhumane is just plain stupid. As has been pointed out, "marriage" has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Period. What gays are asking for, by definition, is not marriage. They are not being denied anything at all. There is not a gay person in the country with less rights than you or I have.

"Conservatives often say same-sex marriage should be prohibited
because it does not exemplify the ideal form of family. They should consider how
much less ideal an example gay couples will set by building families and raising
children out of wedlock."

I see, so because gays are somehow going to create and raise children anyway, offering them two fathers or two mothers instead of one of each, rather than stand up and say, "that is wrong," we should instead change the definition of marriage to say that two fathers or two mothers is the equivalent ideal. That's like saying, "since teenagers are going to have sex anyway, rather than keep saying that is bad behavior, we should instead call it 'normal' and move on." Liberals are all about avoiding moral judgement. They don't believe in God, which leads to "who are you to say what is right and wrong?"

"Opponents of same-sex marriage…worry about the possible
secondary effects it could have as it ramifies through law and society. What if
gay marriage becomes a vehicle for polygamists who want to marry multiple
partners, egalitarians who want to radically rewrite family law, or secularists
who want to suppress religious objections to homosexuality? …same-sex marriage
no more leads logically to polygamy than giving women one vote leads to giving
men two; that gay marriage requires only few and modest changes to existing
family law; and that the Constitution provides robust protections for religious
freedom."

This argument by Rauch amazed me, because legalized gay marriage so obviously leads to polygamy, bestiality, marriage to children, etc., that anyone who claims not to be able to see that is either lying or just plain dense. The reason is that the argument gays use to advance their cause is the exact same argument, practically word-for-word, that the polygamists will be using within a year of gays getting the right to marry. The argument is that they are being treated unfairly; being denied rights that others have: To marry the love of their choosing. They are saying that the society has no right to prevent them from marrying, just because society disagrees with their lifestyle. Polygamists will do the exact same thing. They will argue that they're in love, that this is their lifestyle, which should not be "judged" by others as sinful or immoral, and that, as an equivalent on these grounds, the state has no right to prevent them from marrying multiple partners. And liberal judges will, at some point, decide a case in their favor, etc., etc.

As to "robust protections for religious freedom," this is already under attack in Canada and in the U.S. In Canada, a pastor of a church cannot give a sermon on the sinful nature of homosexuality, lest he be arrested and thrown in jail for "hate speech." Activists in the U.S. are already trying the same techniques, and there is real concern among prominent radio talk show hosts and church leaders about where this could lead. Again, these cases are not coming about because of new laws on the books. They are coming about because of lawsuits once considered frivolous being decided by high courts in favor of plaintiffs.

This raises yet another serious concern that Rauch never even acknowledges is out there: That gay marriage in America has come about entirely due to activist judges deciding cases against the will of the people, based on their own personal biases; rather than through the traditional democratic process. It happened in Massachusetts a few years ago, and now it has happened here in California. This is how liberals get their agenda into our society. When they cannot win at the polls, they go through the courts, because it's a lot easier, and when you win, it's a lot harder for the opposition to change it back. The best example of this is abortion, which was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 to be a constitutional right, even though no one had ever thought so prior to that. 36 years later, it is still the most contentious issue in public debate, and one of the biggest factors in presidential races.

Gay activists have tried and failed many times to get their agenda put into law through public referendums. They have lost, by wide margins, time after time because America does not want this. So instead, they file a lawsuit in a liberal area like the Bay Area, where they are likely to find sympathetic judges. The judges rule that they are being discriminated against, and voila! You have a law even more powerful than if the public referendum that failed miserably just months earlier had passed. Now the only way to get rid of this new law is to pass a constitutional amendment. And in California's case this year, the court would not even issue a "stay" that would put enforcement of the new law on-hold until the voters speak in November. This, despite widespread outcry and anger from Californians at the decision of the activist justices. Which brings me to Rauch's next bad point:

"It's wise to guard against unintended consequences by trying
gay marriage in one or two states and seeing what happens, which is exactly what
the country is doing."

In the first place, "the country" is not trying anything, at least not willingly. Activist judges have foisted these ridiculous new laws on an unwilling public that has voted this exact thing down over and over and over again. No, the country is being dragged into trying this, kicking and screaming. To characterize it as some sort of focus group is dishonest. Secondly, there is real concern as to how other states are going to handle "married" gay couples when they come to, or move to, those states. By law they are obligated to recognize as valid a marriage from another state. If I travel to Nevada, my California marriage is just as binding there as it is here. So what happens when a gay "married" couple moves to Nevada, as will happen shortly, and are not given the same rights a real married couple would have there? Such as, for example, the right to file a joint tax return? A lawsuit will no doubt be right around the corner, and then who knows what will happen.

There are other "unintended consequences." In countries where same-sex "marriage" has been legalized, marriage rates have dwindled. The speculation is that there is a connection: That once you "water down" the meaning of marriage by expanding it to include virtually anything, being married becomes less meaningful, and fewer young people get interested in pursuing it.

"America needs more marriages, not fewer, and the best way to
encourage marriage is to encourage marriage, which is what society does by
bringing gay couples inside the tent. A good way to discourage marriage, on the
other hand, is to tarnish it as discriminatory in the minds of millions of young
Americans. Conservatives who object to redefining marriage risk redefining it
themselves, as a civil-rights violation."

I agree that the best way to encourage marriage is to encourage marriage (who could disagree with such brilliance?), but I disagree that the way to encourage more marriage is by changing its definition to include homosexual relationships, which I believe are immoral. I have also read statistics about homosexual relationships that would make your hair stand on-end when compared with traditional heterosexual ones. The rates of disease are far higher; and the incidence of "cheating" even in "committed" homosexual relationships is many times higher. Add to that the unnaturalness of the entire idea, and the lack of naturally-produced children as fruit of the relationship, and you have a truly radical redefinition of marriage and family that no country should be loony enough to attempt. There certainly is no compelling reason to try, as far as I can tell.

In addition, this cultural experiment – complete with all-to-real consequences – is being done to satisfy a vocal but tiny minority of our population. It's estimated that 1-3% of people in this country are homosexual, and that if gay "marriage" were created, about 3% of gays would take advantage of it and get hitched. So 3% of 3% of the population is what, about 9/10000 of the population? We're willing to take this huge risk because of that tiny element of our society? What ever happened to "majority rule?" Today we're getting "minority rule" instead.

In November, Californians will again get to go to the polls to vote on this redefinition of marriage; this time, it will be a vote on a constitutional amendment, since Prop 22, the one we passed a few years ago that stated in no uncertain terms the definition of marriage, was ruled as unconstitutional by an activist California Supreme Court. One can only hope that we will continue to do the sane (and moral) thing by restating what marriage is and always has been: A sacred bond between one man and one woman.