Miss California Prefers “Opposite Marriage”

misspixie
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 06:54 am: [report]

Oh geez, how dumb. Did California secede when no one was looking?

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 07:04 am: [report]

@misspixie: She fell out of the idiot tree and hit every branch on the way down. I was trying to make this point last week, the US is full of vapid tramps.

DancerNinja
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 07:34 am: [report]

How fitting that Miss California should get that question. And it makes me sad that she is representing my state. I mean, My Country.

retro chic
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 07:46 am: [report]

As a Californian, I can spot others by county of origin almost by that “Stepford” stare she had. She comes from “a land” called El Cajon which is over 74% affluent white, very married and conservative. I think that’s why she stumbled on “MY country,” when she meant to say “GOD’s Country,” forcibly deleting the “God’s.”

lalaland
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 07:48 am: [report]

Hum… must have missed the memo that California was now its own country. Thanks for the heads up Miss Cali!

misspixie
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 07:49 am: [report]

@Cheese - I know your feelings on the subject honey. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of vapid girls all over the place - believe me. There are lots in London, too.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 08:12 am: [report]

@misspixie: Thanks for the correction

Alex V
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 08:36 am: [report]

She was probably setting herself up for an audition in the next NOM ad.

Ted
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 10:38 am: [report]

Of course Perez didn’t like the answer.  Miss California isn’t pro gay like he is.
Hilton, please remember the MISS USA Pageant wasn’t created for homosexual reasons.  You used the wrong forum to advance your homosexual agenda.

joyy
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 10:42 am: [report]

@Ted - The rage isn’t over which side of the fence she’s on with this issue, but over how remarkably stupid she sounds as she puts her opinion out there. 

There are ways to answer a question from the unpopular side of the field without sounding like an moron of epic proportions, but this girl doesn’t seem capable of doing that.

stephoney22
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 11:31 am: [report]

As an NC born & bred, I’m so annoyed that Miss Cali is taking our spotlight (that is, if Miss NC really is an intelligent woman).  I don’t know what good this contest really is (is it?) but it seems like it should be a good thing for my state to win.  To anyone and everyone who supports these events:  quit allowing stupid girls to reach the highest levels!

misspixie
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 11:36 am: [report]

@stephoney - wonder if they should introduce an IQ exam for the entrants. You have to be beautiful AND smart…

retro chic
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 11:48 am: [report]

What is so remarkable about true-believer, “[God’s…I mean] uh, MY country” conservatives (I noted above), who do what they do naturally—parroting their anti-gay dogma—not subject to opinion? You don’t care how stupid you look when you’re doing god’s work, intelligence not part of the equation. She came in #2, so it didn’t hurt her and may have helped her, unfortunately.
Also, only the contestants’ answers count, not a “guest” judge’s questions.
ps: Don’t worry, stephoney22, the buzz will fade and Miss NC will come thru with her message.

resullins
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 01:31 pm: [report]

Did anyone catch that she said she loves the fact that people can choose same or “opposite” marraige, but she’s totally fine taking away people’s choice?

Stupidity sucks, hyprocasy blows. I really didn’t know it was possible to suck and blow at the same time, but Miss Valley Girl over there proved me wrong!

Morwen
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 02:46 pm: [report]

A few years ago, here in Spain, a contestant of Miss Spain was asked what did she know about Russia.
She knew it was full of wonderful people. And there was something about politic changes, right?

It was way worse tan opposite marriages.

retro chic
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 03:24 pm: [report]

haha… resullins and Morwen, stupid AND hypocrite, both mean “bubblehead” to me, and is apparently pandemic in these pageants… maybe even required! Btw, they’ve been showing “Miss Congeniality” (both) on the tube a lot lately… now I know why. As far as I can see from these clips not much has changed over the years, except now they allow plastic surgery and former substance abuse. Wouldn’t have much of a pageant otherwise.

Nice Eyes
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 03:53 pm: [report]

just an fyi…Miss USA is all about looks as to Miss America is actually on your intelligence….something to think about.

But to know that SHE said that regardless only proves she is narrow minded.

ChoJinn
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 12:00 am: [report]

@Joy: No no, the rage IS over the fact that she answered contrary to what what idiot Perez assumed she would.  If she had answered otherwise, there would be 1/100th of the press coverage she has gotten, and nobody would care at all that she supported gay marriage.  Only because she disagreed do people get up in arms.

I cannot think of a more loaded question, and thus cannot think of a better answer.  The fact that Perez was so angry proves he assumed she would be a sycophant, and he is an a$$hat for asking such a predictable question.

While I do not agree with her, I think the fact that she refused to pander - as did 52.2% of Californians who voted on Prop 8 - in the face of television and pseudo-celebrity judges is simply wonderful.

And of course, she’s gorgeous <3

Fast Eddie
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 06:47 am: [report]

California, the new nation, I like it.  Should have been done a years ago.  Then we could have 2 states.  Northern and Southern Cal.  Perfect solution to a lot of problems.

On the larger scale, she’s blond, who cares what she says.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 06:58 am: [report]

@Fast Eddie: If it was 2 nations So Cal would die and turn into a desert…where does all the water come from?

resullins
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 07:38 am: [report]

@Joy: Perez himself had nothing to do with this. She told a Gay man, to his face, that she didn’t believe he should have the same rights as she does. It would be the same if she told Jesse Jackson that segregation was a good idea.

Second, I find it amusing that you say you don’t agree with her, but you find it ok that a SMALL majority can take away ALL the rights of the minority. If that were ok, we’d still have slavery in the south, women would still be the property of men, and there would be NO Jews, Gypsies, or left-handed people.

If you truly believe that ALL types of people are equal (races, sexes, ethnicities) then nothing she said or believes is anything short of blatant bigotry.

resullins
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 07:41 am: [report]

Sorry, that last one should be @Cho… not Joy, my fault!

retro chic
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 07:49 am: [report]

Flash! There you have it! God was at the core. On the Today show in NY, she said her answer was from her heart and “for her god,” and stands by her “biblical beliefs” informing her response. She stands by her response.
ps: haha, the California jokes are funny since the people you think your poking at came from where you live. As a third gen Californian, we laugh at all the imports.

Lioness73
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 07:57 am: [report]

The whole Miss California controversy thing is a JOKE, “Miss California Controversy, It’s FAKE!”, http://bit.ly/YLOc8.

40yrolddad
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 08:15 am: [report]

retro chic said:  “She comes from “a land” called El Cajon which is over 74% affluent white, very married and conservative.”

FWIW, the reigning NASCAR champion (Jimmie Johnson) is not from North Carolina (or anywhere in the south) but (you guessed it) El Cajon, CA!  today’s meaningless trivia from likely the only racing fan on this board…

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 08:20 am: [report]

@40ryolddad: I watch Formula 1.

joyy
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 08:27 am: [report]

@resullins & ChoJinn - Ok, I don’t have a tv so I can’t vouch for every person who’s whining publically about her response.  But if you listen to her answer, it’s rife with stupidity and misinformation - ASIDE from the blatant oppression it represents - and that’s why *I* think it’s so stupid and worthy of ridicule.

resullins
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 08:40 am: [report]

@joyy… that was my fault, I was talking to Cho, not you. I agree with you!

retro chic
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 09:13 am: [report]

40yrolddad, I’ve had only 1/4 cup of coffee, so there are two synapses that are not shaking hands right now on the trivia subject of NASCAR or JJ comment for this post—help me out a little. Is he religiously vapid, too, besides fitting the res profile? But, I think you may be onto something—the pageant should include doing laps for the winner’s round—qualitative and final. No more bumbling, no more politics/religion debacles. Win-win. cheers

@NiceEyes, that’s true. And the Miss A pageant is more openly religious/conservative, aside from the strains of Larry Parks’ (rip) signature serenade. Miss Cal should have entered that pageant to spout her beliefs, except she wouldn’t have gotten past the intel-qualifier round to do it.

ps: Btw, Miss Cal’s “condition” is not limited to El Cajon, or California for that matter. That demographic is pocketed everywhere, as we’ve seen.

40yrolddad
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 10:28 am: [report]

it was just a random comment since you described El Cajon as white & conservative (hey, what’s whiter & more conservative than NASCAR?).  I have no idea what JJ’s political views are (though I know his dad operated construction equip & mom drove a bus, certainly NOT “affluent”) but I suspect he’s probably a lot saner than his sport allows him to show (FWIW he’s currently doing PSAs for Susan G Komen).  there are some of us (though admittedly in the minority) who like the racing but have no use for the rebel flag crowd…

trust me, I doubt there are many more gay-friendly straight men than me:  my best man was gay & I photographed for a gay wedding in Whistler, BC a couple of yrs ago (wife’s coworker & partner decided to while we were there).  I’ll put my “tolerance” credentials up against anyone (references available upon request)!

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 10:33 am: [report]

@40yrolddad: “What’s whiter and more conservative than NASCAR?” Easy, the KKK and Neo-Nazi get-togethers.

retro chic
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 10:38 am: [report]

Haha… gotcha, 40yrolddad. It *was* pretty funny. And I agree with your “credentials.” Thanks!

ChoJinn
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 08:02 pm: [report]

@res: you obviously missed my point.

“She told a Gay man, to his face, that she didn’t believe he should have the same rights as she does. It would be the same if she told Jesse Jackson that segregation was a good idea.”

No, it’s not.  The con law class distinctions aside, her opinion, though you may not agree with it, was validated by the voters of California.  Period.

“Second, I find it amusing that you say you don’t agree with her, but you find it ok that a SMALL majority can take away ALL the rights of the minority. If that were ok, we’d still have slavery in the south, women would still be the property of men, and there would be NO Jews, Gypsies, or left-handed people.”

Majority rules, and that “majority,” whether in the form of voters, legislators, or Supreme Court justices, is why there is no slavery in the south, women are not the property of men, and why left-handed gypsy Jews are free to do as they please.

“If you truly believe that ALL types of people are equal (races, sexes, ethnicities) then nothing she said or believes is anything short of blatant bigotry.”

This is a much more fundamental question, but she can believe whatever the hell she wants to.  It is perfectly legal to be a bigot, though as we have seen it will cost you the Miss America trophy/sash.  My point, which you successfully avoided, was that the reason she receives the vast amount of attention she has is because she came out against gay marriage, and that Hilton is foolish to have asked such a question.  Her linguistic failings - a common characteristic of pageant contestants - are simply icing on the cake for riled up armchair website posters, nothing more.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 08:14 pm: [report]

@ChoJinn: Rabble Rabble Rabble!

resullins
wrote on April 22 2009 @ 09:32 am: [report]

@Cho:

I did not avoid your point, as you still seem to be contradicting yourself as opposed to actually making a point. You are still arguing that you think her answer is fine. While I agree that she is perfectly allowed to have whatever opinion she likes, vocalising prejudice is ALWAYS going to have backlash.

“No, it’s not.  The con law class distinctions aside, her opinion, though you may not agree with it, was validated by the voters of California.  Period. “

And how exactly IS that different than me walking up to a black woman, calling her a porch monkey, a N——, and telling her that she’s no better than a dog? She’s saying “What you are is unnatural and not as good as what I am.” I really don’t understand how anyone can defend such a narrow-minded opinion.

The argument of gay-marraige is fundementaly religious. There is NO OTHER argument against it… and if we’re going to eat from the Bible-buffet, then we may as well sell our daughters into slavery, have a town stoning for all the gas station workers that work on the sabbath, smite anyone that touches a football.

The separation of church and state was initially invented to protect the church, but should it not also protect the state? How can she think it’s ok to push her beliefs, her religion, her agenda on so many people?

ChoJinn
wrote on April 22 2009 @ 10:17 am: [report]

There’s a fundamental difference between agreeing with what she said, and being perfectly fine with her saying it.  I am sorry you cannot comprehend why that is.

“The argument of gay-marraige is fundementaly religious. There is NO OTHER argument against it… and if we’re going to eat from the Bible-buffet, then we may as well sell our daughters into slavery, have a town stoning for all the gas station workers that work on the sabbath, smite anyone that touches a football.”

Wow.  Are you talking to me?

“The separation of church and state was initially invented to protect the church, but should it not also protect the state? “

I thought you are advocating for the protection of minorities FROM the majority, vis a vie the state?  Not sure what you’re trying to say. 

“How can she think it’s ok to push her beliefs, her religion, her agenda on so many people?”

She wasn’t pushing her beliefs.  She was asked a question, and she answered it.  Part of my original point was that it was a foolish question for Perez to ask because of that potential answer.  Would you rather she have lied?  If so, I pity you.

This was beaten to death a few days ago so I’ll stop.

resullins
wrote on April 22 2009 @ 10:27 am: [report]

It was a perfectly valid question, it’s a hot topic, and something that people are interested in, especially if you’re a gay man that wants the same rights as everyone around him. It’s no more volitale than asking one’s opinion on world peace. But if the answer is “Bomb ‘em all,” sorry, not my fault that she’s gonna get raked over the coals.

And the next time an advocate for any cause, whether it be Jesse Jackson or Susan B. Anthony (and yes, I know she died in 1906, you seem to be far too obtuse to realize that I’m making a point, not actually saying that Susan B. Anthony might come talk to me) tries to fight for a a cause, we can just tell them that I’m fully allowed to have an opinion on anyone, and voice it wherever I please. Or we’ll just send them all your way, as you seem to like to stick up for people’s opinionative rights… I feel you would change your mind if someone was taking away YOUR rights.

fallonthecity
wrote on April 22 2009 @ 12:13 pm: [report]

The woman is entitled to her opinion.  She’s suffering the consequences of vocalizing it now.  If she can handle it, all is good in the world - 1st amendment rights for her, Perez Hilton, and everyone at The Frisky!

Mildly related: the obvious problem is that “marriage” is a religious practice to so many - and if it’s a religious practice, the government has no friggin’ part in it.  States should provide civil unions to all couples (gay or straight) and let the religious institutions work out the “marriage” part.  Then there would be no political discussion to be had, Miss USA could just talk about world peace, and Perez Hilton could stick to blogging about celebrities.

HarlemGirl
wrote on April 22 2009 @ 12:22 pm: [report]

@ resullins,

You seem to be personally offended that this particular person is against gay marriage, incidentally, a person that was asked her opinion about the topic. Why is she not allowed to have an opinion, albeit prejudiced?  Jesse Jackson is allowed to speak because David Duke was allowed to speak.  You don’t have to like it, but it is a fundamental American right.

Further, it is really starting to aggravate me that you have so many allusions to racial prejudice in your answers as though being a black person and the issue of gay marriage is at ALL related.  Saying Black people are porch monkeys is in no way akin to saying I disagree with gay marriage.  AT ALL. Your argument would be better suited to compare it to the former laws against interracial marriages, not to the race that someone was born into.

resullins
wrote on April 22 2009 @ 01:00 pm: [report]

@Harlem: Sorry for the tendency towards racial comparisons… nothing behind it, it’s just what most people know the best, and one that is still an issue in today’s societies.

Now… I am personally offended that there are people that believe it is ever ok to withhold rights based on their religious beliefs. I am not gay… I’m engaged to a man, so I don’t have an agenda, just an opinion (however controversial it may be). But I did watch my uncle die of AIDS, and his partner had NO legal rights to visit, care for, I am equally offended and outspoken at the Taliban/Muslim laws that have governed so much of our world for so long… but she didn’t say that she believed wearing a burka and being treated like a dog was ok, she was was handed gay marraige (figured I’d throw in another relevant comparison that may speak to more of The Frisky demographic… being mostly women and all). She was given the oppurtunity to speak out about giving a group of people that she personally doesn’t approve of the rights that she herself takes for granted.

I respect everyone’s right to an opinion… I obviously have lots of my own. I just don’t believe church doctrine has any place in civil rights legislation.  I think she was wrong in her opinion, that’s all. I believe that compassion and humanity should always win over archaic religious regulation. I don’t wish to offend anyone here… though that bridge may have already turned to ash.

Muttface
wrote on April 22 2009 @ 03:49 pm: [report]

@resullens- You comparison of racial oppression and gay marriage is an incongruent argument. Rome, Carthage, and many ancient civilizations all had a form of racial intermarriage that were both legal and recognized. These precedents, although well known, were blatantly ignored by much of the west for years. Gay marriage is an entirely different species altogether.
As for church doctrine and civil rights, religious people have often been at the forefront of racial equality, starting with the Semites (Abraham himself was married to Sarah, a African woman),the Franciscan monks in New Spain, and the Abolitionists fighting against slavery (the majority of whom were extremly pious). Church docrine has been involved in civil rights throughout history.

ChoJinn is much more informed then you are in this argument. Although it is true that there is no constitutional grounds to not allow gay marriage, I recommend you stop using flawed arguments and any personal bias you have against those practicing some sort of faith.

PinkRanger
wrote on April 22 2009 @ 04:03 pm: [report]

hehe, I’m not angry at her so much as I think its hilarious how she looked like such a dear in the headlights after being asked that question. To be fair, I have no idea what it must feel like to be opposed to gay marriage, and have a gay guy want your honest answer about it. Was a bit loaded.  But man did she blow it…..“opposite marriage”...hehehehe.

timmack
wrote on April 22 2009 @ 07:16 pm: [report]

No, California isn’t really another state. But, rather, it’s more like some distant planet that is being probed for signs of intelligent life forms. But if someone puts a proposition on the ballot to allow marriages to space aliens, I’m sure it will easily pass.

I also suspect that the main culprit in this equation is the lack of universal health care in the US, and that when that comes to fruitation, opposition will abide.

resullins
wrote on April 22 2009 @ 08:53 pm: [report]

@Muttface: Sorry, your argument is fundamentally flawed. You’re arguing against my point that the union of church and state is behind this.

“Rome, Carthage, and many ancient civilizations all had a form of racial intermarriage that were both legal and recognized.”

The keyword there is ANCIENT (before the fall of the Western Roman Empire), the Bible wasn’t completed until around the 4th century AD. It couldn’t have been a factor in those laws. In fact, it was the Bible that caused those laws to become unrecognized in the western world. Invalid argument. Actually, you just helped to make my point for me.

“the majority of whom were extremly pious”

Sorry, so were the Southerners and the Nazis… you can’t take that cake!

“I recommend you stop using flawed arguments and any personal bias you have against those practicing some sort of faith”

I never once said the word faith. I do not know if there is a God, I am not so presumptuous to believe that I could understand him if he did exist. I do believe, however, that he would not treat his children any differently because of who they choose to love. If God himself is that kind of God, then I want nothing to do with him anyway.

I have no problem with faith, it’s a great thing. I have a serious problem with man’s perversion of God’s laws. The bias against gay marraige is nothing more than man taking a perfect being and using him for their own agenda. Having the right to an opinion does not give validity nor merit to the opinion itself. 

Now, I will resign myself from this heated debate that seems to be going nowhere… Muttface and Cho will be very happy without me while they’re hiding behind their Bibles and 1st ammendment rights, I’m sure… I won’t be missed in this forum.

Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them.  ~Mark Twain

Muttface
wrote on April 22 2009 @ 09:19 pm: [report]

@resullens- Great argument. To bad you don’t believe in it enough to bother to back it up. I’m not going to go into details as to how wrongly you misread the point I was driving home, but no worries. You clearly don’t like your point of view being challenged and run at the first sign of danger. Are you related to Sarah Palin?

“Age wrinkles the body. Quitting wrinkles the soul.”        Douglas Macarther

PinkRanger
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 08:14 am: [report]

@resullens: did you just compare southerners to nazis?! superior much?

resullins
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 08:21 am: [report]

@Ranger… #1, I like your name! Cute.

#2, not at all! I was just saying that many people are devout Bible thumpers, and they still do bad things. Muff was saying that because people were devout Christians, they were fighting against slavery, I was merely saying that there are Christians on all sides of historical conflicts. Look at the Crusades. I just don’t believe that’s a valid argument.

And P.S.: Not only am I a southerner, I’m an Appalachain southerner from a town that doesn’t exist on most maps. I’m superior to no one, and love where I come from.

PinkRanger
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 09:34 am: [report]

@resullens: I’m an Appalachian southerner as well! born and raised, and missing it now. I just get sensitive because people have many misconceptions about the south.

resullins
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 09:49 am: [report]

I completley understand! I get called an inbred honky all the time… amusing though that I’m the one defending going against the Bible… I some times amuse myself in my own contradictions…. Always good to find fellow enlighted hillbillies!

cougiex
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 05:00 pm: [report]

I thought I posted on here before.  Maybe I got censored because it was too conservative and/or radical for this site???.... 

...complaining that I feel as if sleeping around before marriage makes marriage worth somewhat less anyway so I don’t really care if the government recognizes two homosexuals’ commitment as “marriage”.  I’d rather see two truly committed lesbians or homosexuals stay together for life than so much casual sex.  I see both as wrong.  So are lying and murder; there are degrees of how wrong something is!

but at any rate:

@resullins: What passages in the Bible are you referring to?  Sodom and Gomorrah?  That’s about non-hospitality, rape, not really against homosexuality.  (You know, Lot is not a very nice guy, offering up his own daughters to be violated for the safety of his visitors!)  The sexual sins outlined in Leviticus… well if you have sex while on your period you’re also committing one listed there!

I have a problem with people having a problem with gay marriage but have no problem with heterosexuals sleeping around - and by that I don’t necessarily mean many at once, but that sex isn’t saved for marriage.  Those easy to forgive the girl who got pregnant and chose to keep the baby, but then condemns someone for merely being homosexual….. Gah!

amylou
wrote on April 24 2009 @ 11:52 am: [report]

Listen, I am all for gay marriage, but I think this is totally blown out of proportion. I mean, I think we all know what she meant by “opposite” marriage, as in, the opposite of straight marriage, and I truly believe she was nervous, but in no way disrespectful of gay marriage.

What I DO find disrespectful is several judges’ responses. I think the greater issue here is respect for peoples’ opinions, even if they conflict with yours (*cough* Perez Hilton). She said that it was fine if some people wanted to support gay marriage, but her personal opinion is that she supports straight marriage.  It was how she was raised and how she believes the country should be.

Why was everyone so shocked by this? Over half of the country only supports straight marriage, why is she being penalized for solely stating her opinion (very respectfully I might add)? When did this become about pleasing the judges instead of giving a valid personal opinion?

#&@$% people who only value their own opinions.  The way Perez Hilton treated her was childish and beyond rude, and he was the only one acting like a “b*$@h” and a “c*#t”.

Like I said, I do fully support gay marriage.  What I do not support is a lack of respect for other people’s opinions.

mikeyellenlee
wrote on April 24 2009 @ 03:59 pm: [report]

@Amylou I’m all for other people’s opinions, just as long as you don’t sound like a f*cking idiot while saying it.

resullins
wrote on April 24 2009 @ 04:09 pm: [report]

As am I… but since are personal opinions a valid basis for taking away fundamental rights to any person? That’s my only belief. It’s not just an opinion, it’s the oppurtunity for some people to take away others rights based on an opinion that has no constitutional basis…

Oh dear, I hope I didn’t just start THIS up again.

jolene
wrote on April 25 2009 @ 03:49 pm: [report]

When did it get to be OK to ask a values question and then beat up the person for her answer? BTW, her answer is not mine.

An even better question is why do we continue this archaic and ridiculous contest judging young women on their appearance in bathing suits and alleged intelligence?