[Heretic]

This controversy brings to light a common response by bigots who insist on publicly expressing themselves.

Time and again, I hear racists, homophobes, misogynists, and other bigots defend ignorant statements like the one uttered by Miss Califirnia as their "God-given right to free speech" (that right is outlined in the Constitution, not the Bible, but that's neither here nor there). They climb up on a high horse and proclaim that to object to their bile is to restrict their freedoms and violate their rights.

I call bullshit.

The Constitution does not automatically grant unlimited freedom of speech. There are restrictions built into it related to the violations of the rights of others, as well as protections in the Constitution for the rights of all citizens. That document represents not only a guarantee of freedoms, but a balance of freedoms that keeps the exercise of one freedom by a group or individual from infringing upon the freedom of another group or individual. This balance is highlighted by the restriction on the "majority rules" aspect of the Constitution: the line in the sand to this concept is drawn right at the point at which the majority would deprive anyone of the same constitutional rights they themselves enjoy.

According to the The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Marriage is one of those concepts that span both religion and government. If a religion wants the government to recognize their concept of marriage, it can only do so if the government recognizes every religion's (and non-religions's) concept of marriage. We are not a Christian nation; we a majority Christian nation. And while majority rules, it does not rule absolutely. The beliefs of Christians has had a large impact on the development of our society, but that particular system of belief is not the law of the land. If we are to hold true to the foundation this country was built on, we need to resist turning a secular government created to protect the freedoms of ALL citizens into a Theocracy bent on forcing every citizen of this country to live according to the narrow views of a single system of belief.

This isn't a matter of faith, folks; it's a matter of Constitutional law. In this country, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but you cannot force others to live by those beliefs.


- Heretic


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Miss California: Gay marriage answer cost me Miss USA crown

Miss California says candor cost her the crown in Sunday's Miss USA competition

BY ROBERT KAHN | robert.kahn@newsday.com
April 21, 2009

Carrie Prejean, 21, probably knew she was in trouble when she acknowledged her opposition to same-sex marriages in response to a question from openly gay judge Perez Hilton, the celebrity blogger.

"In my country, and in my family, I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," Prejean replied. Later, she lost to Miss North Carolina.

"It did cost me my crown," Prejean said of her response, on Monday's " Billy Bush Show." "I wouldn't have had it any other way. I said what I feel. I stated an opinion that was true to myself and that's all I can do."

In an appearance Monday on MSNBC, Hilton said he was absolutely "shocked and incredibly frustrated and disappointed" with Prejean's stance.

"That's not the kind of woman I want to be Miss USA," he said. "Miss USA should represent all Americans and, with her answer, she instantly alienated millions of gays and lesbians and their friends."

Earlier, Hilton had said on his video blog he would have run onstage and ripped the tiara off Prejean's head had she won the title.

And the blogger would not have been the only member of the Miss USA family to go apoplectic had Prejean advanced in the competition. Keith Lewis, executive director of California's Miss USA operations, said in a statement released to Hilton that "religious beliefs have no place in politics in the Miss CA family."

Prejean Monday said she was raised in a way that you can never compromise your beliefs and your opinions for anything.

"It is a very touchy subject and [Hilton] is a homosexual and I see where he was coming from and I see the audience would've wanted me to be more politically correct," she added.

Prejean said she has received 2,000 friend requests on Facebook since the weekend controversy began unfolding.

[cybele13]

Marriage is a social and economic construct. It has no place in a Constitutional argument.

Legislating social interactions is abhorrent to me. If you have two, consenting adults and they want to get married, they should be able to.

All of the arguments against gay marriage smack of religious intolerance. Religion has no place in the courts, in the legislating bodies of this country, or in the Constitution.

As far as I'm concerned, this non-issue has been made into a big issue by people who want to turn our attention away from the truly important things going on in this world, like an illegal war, for example.

[Johnny_C]

Is she certain she would have won if she didn't respond the way she did? I think she's just bitter about losing. Most people are.

[DarkFae]

I agree that you can believe whatever you want to believe, but you cannot force others to live by those beliefs. But I do commend her for standing by what she believes in and not changing it for fear of losing the crown. Now...whether or not she lost the crown because of it I don't know.

[cybele13]

People are entitled to their opinions. This, to me, is just like the abortion issue - full of emotion and well-defined feelings.

You're not going to be able to change people on these issues overnight. Look how long it took for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution to be enforced. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated how long ago? And we're still facing race issues every day. Ignorance needs to be educated out of people, and that takes a few generations.

Pejean didn't say anything hateful. She just said she doesn't agree with same-sex marriage. And she's allowed to hold that opinion. She's even allowed to express it. Should it have cost her the crown? No, actually I don't think it should have, particularly if the issue isn't covered in the pageant by-laws.

Just because it's politically correct to agree with same-sex marriage, doesn't mean everyone has to support it. And asking her to lie about her feelings on the subject is the same as asking a gay person to stay in the closet. If that's not who a person is, why insist that they behave in a way that is contrary to their nature?

[petey]

Heretic can I quote what you said. I may want to use it in a argument/debate one day. I don't think I could say it better myself.

However, I don't agree with your first two paragraphs. Even through i disagree with Miss Prejean she has every right to her opinion. I have friends e that have gay friends, , but don't agree with gay marriage. They however agree with the idea behind civil unions. They are not necessarily homophobes, they just have a different religious point of view.

Should the government use this as a reason to ban gay marriage? Hell no. Do people have the right to say that its wrong? Yes.

Has much we hate it, no one is ever going to agree with every thing we think. Everyone has different opinions on different things. Do I agree with any thing the KKK says? No, but I will still defend their right to say it. Because in my opinion everyone has, or should have, a right to think and say whatever they want. They don't have the right to do whatever they want, but they can think about it.

Personally, I think her voicing an opinion one of the judges disagreed with probably cost her a few points with that judge.

As for my opinion on gay marriage. If I can marry whoever I want, why shouldn't they gay kid down the street from be able to do the same.

[psychokinetic]

She's entitled to her answer, and the judges are entitled to their opinions on her answer. That's why they're the judges.

[Kuroi_shi]

.. I'd actually be kinda bothered if the reason she didn't win was for her answer.. She gave an oppinion, and she was not hateful about it .. I may not agree with it, but I respect the fact that she was honest..
It's wrong to deny someone something, just because of a certain oppinion... Those who denied her the crown for being against gay marriage are really no better than those who deny rights to gay couples.

[Twizted Kitten]

I suppose the question here would be... was it really the question that cost her?

I mean... Did the judges come out and say "Yeah, that answer is just too neo-liberal for us, you lose.", or did she just use that as an excuse because she stood outside of the box and didn't get any brownie points for it?

[psychokinetic]

If it was for the answer, i wouldn't agree with the reasoning, but if they didn't want other people's opinions, they wouldn't ask them.

[Heretic]

petey, on Apr 21 2009, 02:05 PM, said:

Heretic can I quote what you said. I may want to use it in a argument/debate one day. I don't think I could say it better myself.

Be my guest. I'm always up for contributing to people thinking and discussing.

Quote

However, I don't agree with your first two paragraphs. Even through i disagree with Miss Prejean she has every right to her opinion.

When I posted that, I guess I was including the defense she gave for her statement. She is claiming, in effect, that her rights were violated because of her views on gay marriage. While she has a right to express herself, I feel she is overstepping the bounds of reason to claim persecution.

Expressing an unpopular or controversial view is protected under the law. Unfortunately for her, being controversial is a big no-no in the job she was auditioning for. I agree with several news outlets that have published the opinion that she blew her chances to win by stomping down on a landmine she could have easily avoided. There are certain things expected of any Miss America, none of which include using their position to draw attention to controversies. One could say, for example, that having nude photos appear in Penthouse magazine should not have cost Vanessa Williams her Miss American crown in 1984 but she at least was not looking for or stumbling into a hot-button controversy. Ms. Prejean simply made a stupid mistake, shot herself in the foot, and is even now using the title of Miss America for further her personal views, proving in effect that the judges would have been justified if her losing really did hinge upon her answer to the question of gay marriage.

Quote

I have friends e that have gay friends, , but don't agree with gay marriage. They however agree with the idea behind civil unions. They are not necessarily homophoabes, they just have a different religious point of view.

Personally, I never understood what the hell the difference was supposed to be between a "marriage" and a "civil union". My wife and I were married in a courthouse rather than a church. Does that mean we have a "civil union" instead of a "marriage"?

*shakes head*

Anyway, I don't believe that this issue is about everyone else's ideas of how two people express how they feel about each other. The idea of marriage is about a decision two people make, not about what people who aren't involved want to believe.

Quote

Should the government use this as a reason to ban gay marriage? Hell no. Do people have the right to say that its wrong? Yes.

Has much we hate it, no one is ever going to agree with every thing we think. Everyone has different opinions on different things. Do I agree with any thing the KKK says? No, but I will still defend their right to say it. Because in my opinion everyone has, or should have, a right to think and say whatever they want. They don't have the right to do whatever they want, but they can think about it.

While I agree that people have the right to say what they feel, I also believe that saying something doesn't make it right, or even acceptable. Further, a group or company who feels that this sort of behavior would be detrimental to their image or operations has every right to hold troubling actions or statements against someone seeking to work for them. The fact of the matter is that this woman decided to stand up and advocate for the denial of Constitutionally protected rights to a specific group. THAT is the line she crossed and I can't see too many employers being happy about having an employee who is suppose to represent the company to a world-wide audience who has a penchant for alienating large segments of their consumer base.

What would have been said if it had been a professional baseball player being interviewed during the World Series, stating that he believed women should never have been given the right to vote? While he would be entitled to his opinion, bigoted statements on a national forum unrelated to law or politics, in which an individual expresses their desire to see the elimination or denial of the rights of others, is not only stupid but bad for business. His Constitutional rights do not extend to a right to be employed by a company that feels he is a detriment to their image and their business.

Quote

Personally, I think her voicing an opinion one of the judges disagreed with probably cost her a few points with that judge.

As well it should. Regardless of whether or not they agreed with her sentiment, she should have been more diplomatic. The points should come off for stupidity in not considering the negative impact of her choice of words, not personal sentiment over what she had to say.

Quote

As for my opinion on gay marriage. If I can marry whoever I want, why shouldn't they gay kid down the street from be able to do the same.

My sentiments exactly.


- Heretic

[Twizted Kitten]

Heretic, on Apr 22 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

Personally, I never understood what the hell the difference was supposed to be between a "marriage" and a "civil union". My wife and I were married in a courthouse rather than a church. Does that mean we have a "civil union" instead of a "marriage"?

In Canada, anyway, the difference comes down to each others rights. I believe it has something to do with taxes, who is entitled to things after death, family custody rights and so on. Whereas Marriage comes with everything, civil unions are regarded as a lower tier. Apparently, my roommate says it's harder to get divorced from a civil union...

[Lord Aceback]

Heretic, on Apr 21 2009, 10:09 AM, said:

This isn't a matter of faith, folks; it's a matter of Constitutional law. In this country, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but you cannot force others to live by those beliefs.
- Heretic

I agree, I hoped my country's goverment was not nazi enough to belong to the catholic church. In fact, you can't assume as a president if you're not formally declared a catholic. (Totalitarism not dead)

[Heretic]

Lord Aceback, on Apr 22 2009, 11:27 AM, said:

I agree, I hoped my country's goverment was not nazi enough to belong to the catholic church. In fact, you can't assume as a president if you're not formally declared a catholic.

When some despot is trying to control the population, one system of belief is as good as any other. You don't even have to use religion to control your population, as China is proving to everyone right now.

Quote

(Totalitarism not dead)

Which brings to mind American-style totalitarianism. Tell me folks: how does the traditional definition of Totalitarianism differ from Consumerism?

from Wikipedia:

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems whereby a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of:

• An official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media
  
• A single party that controls the state
  
• Personality cults
  
• Control over the economy
  
• Regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism
  
• The use of mass surveillance
  
• Widespread use of state terrorism

In economics, consumerism refers to economic policies placing emphasis on consumption. In an abstract sense, it is the belief that the free choice of consumers should dictate the economic structure of a society. (cf. Producerism, especially in the British sense of the term)

In modern America, economic ideologies have been substituted for the overtly political ideologies to produce a kind of neo-Totalitarianism. Don't believe it?

• An official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media - In America, we call this "advertising" disseminated through privately held mass media
  
• A single party that controls the state - In America, we call this "Big Business" controlling the economy
  
• Personality cults - In America, we call these "Brands" used by lifestyle marketing as a means of meeting the artificially created interests, needs, desires, and values of the consumer population
  
• Control over the economy - In America, this falls under the realm of our financial institutions. Our recent bubble economy was driven by the business and consumer credit controlled by various financial entities
  
• Regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism - In America, we call this the "chilling effect"
  
• The use of mass surveillance - In America, we call this "Market Research"
  
• Widespread use of state terrorism - In America, this last piece of the Totalitarian puzzle is supplied by the culture of fear necessary to sustain economic bubbles. The artificial desires created through lifestyle marketing have at their core the individual need for identity and the fear generated by the gap between perception and reality. Just as our foreign policy under the last administration was based on fear of the "other", lifestyle marketing exploits the need most people have to pursue the vision of who they would like to be, while distancing themselves from who they feel they are not. In a Consumerist Totalitarian system, who needs religious or political dogma? When you can sell an illusion for a fraction of the cost of the reality, you've struck gold.

- Heretic

[Lord Aceback]

By far much more than I thought it was. Not to mention also the loads of censorship cases all around many conservative southern states, like As I Lay Dying, banned in Kentucky for denoting "offensive language and for being anti-christian".

[psychokinetic]

Quote

Personally, I never understood what the hell the difference was supposed to be between a "marriage" and a "civil union". My wife and I were married in a courthouse rather than a church. Does that mean we have a "civil union" instead of a "marriage"?

Yeah, here in NZ marriage and civil union have the same rights, it's just a separate name to shut Brian Tamaki up.

[Neochick]

Brian Tamaki is made of so much fail. Stupid destiny church and their stupid bullshit.

The Destiny Church in New Zealand is a pain in the arse. They take the concept of spreading the word of christ and changed it to clamp open your mouth so we can shove this as far down your throat as we possibly can.

Thats an entirely different discussion though

[Heretic]

I think this might be called compound stupidity:

The text of Bill HR727, recently introduced in the Alabama State Legislature:

COMMENDING CARRIE PREJEAN, MISS CALIFORNIA USA, FOR STANDING TRUE TO HER BELIEFS AND FAITH.

WHEREAS, highest commendations are herein extended to Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA, for standing true to her beliefs and her faith while representing her state in the Miss USA Pageant; and

WHEREAS, in addition to her acclaim as a model and cover girl, Miss Prejean has earned widespread respect for her dedicated work on behalf of children with disabilities, the homeless, and others who are disadvantaged; she is a volunteer for Special Olympics and is actively involved in the Best Buddies nonprofit organization, among other worthy causes; and

WHEREAS, prior to her selection as Miss California USA, she was crowned Miss San Diego 2007; she is a junior at San Diego Christian College, where she is studying to become a Special Education Teacher for elementary school children; Miss Prejean believes in living each day in accordance with the faith that inspires her, and she does not hesitate to affirm her religious beliefs candidly and publicly; now therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA, That Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA, is honored for affirming her faith and standing true to her beliefs during the Miss USA Pageant, and this resolution is offered to her in tribute and with admiration, along with best wishes for success in all future endeavors.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that this bill passed, considering the state in which this took place. I mean, really? Praising a bigot? Coming from a man representing Montgomery, Alabama, that's just sad on so many levels. Isn't this one tradition they could have let die?

BTW, For those of you who aren't up on how local government works in the US, a legislative body can pass resolutions that are simply statements of opinions, in much the same way you might hear about the legislative body of any government passing a resolution condemning a terrorist act or recognizing individual achievement.

As this resolution demonstrates, a bunch of people wearing suits and making a declaration can have a lot in common with the aroma of a public toilet.


- Heretic

[psychokinetic]

It's a silly 'law' but what's wrong with it?

[Heretic]

psychokinetic, on Apr 23 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

It's a silly 'law' but what's wrong with it?

Nothing, if you're all for official recognition of bigots who advocate the restriction or elimination of someone else's rights.
The Alabama State Legislature can pass whatever resolution they wish, just as Miss California is free to express her opinions. But giving voice to stupidity and bigotry doesn't make them any more justifiable.


- Heretic