Althouse: "I am a Christian, and I am a model. Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos."

May 6, 2009

"I am a Christian, and I am a model. Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos."

Carrie Prejean, cultural monument of the moment.

132 comments:

Rialby said...: Lesson learned. Don't cross the Left or they will hunt you down and destroy you. How many spittle-flecked keyboards have been clicking for the last 3 weeks in an effort to dig up something on this young woman.

Remind me again how it was a junior State Senator from Illinois ended up becoming the junior US Senator from Illinois?; 5/6/09, 8:22 AM
KCFleming said...: Clearly, she does not deserve to exist on the same planet as Perez.

Will no one rid the left of this troublesome woman?; 5/6/09, 8:25 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Althouse has been targeted by the same kind of PC police.

My local news station carried this story last night on its 11PM telecast. Why? Because I am sure its story idiotors are far left libs of course.; 5/6/09, 8:30 AM
rhhardin said...: You need nipple to be topless.

Jesus says.; 5/6/09, 8:37 AM
Rialby said...: Maybe Perez and his minions can create another map that shows all of the people in America who don't support gay marriage AND who could be accused of some form of hypocrisy.; 5/6/09, 8:40 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: Not sure what fuss is about. These pics don't seem any racier than the Miss America swimsuit competition...she's certainly not in Vanessa Williams territory.

Anyway, this could be good for her career. Maybe Roger Simon will hire her to replace Joe the Plumber on PJTV.; 5/6/09, 8:42 AM
KCFleming said...: Perez asks: "What would Jesus say about this"?

"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."; 5/6/09, 8:42 AM
jayne_cobb said...: I just wonder whether the people who are pushing this actually think this will hurt her popularity or standing amongst social conservatives (look your spokeswoman posed partially nude).

Or is this simply an example of a group pushing a non-story to affirm its own prejudices (look a social con is a hypocrite)?; 5/6/09, 8:51 AM
Big Mike said...: The contract, which all contestants are required to sign, contains a clause asking participants whether they have ever been photographed nude or partially nude...

So does the contract forbid her from competing for Miss USA if she had been photographed nude? Or does providing false information in response to that question grounds for having her crown lifted? And does being photographed with her breast covered only with her arm (and maybe a pasty) qualify as being partially nude?

I smell lawyers getting rich arguing about what the meaning of "is" is.; 5/6/09, 8:55 AM
Ernesto Ariel Suárez said...: Professor, can we drop it?

Thanks

Good day to all.; 5/6/09, 9:00 AM
Big Mike said...: Do left-wing loonie types in general and Perez Hilton in particular understand that from the perspective of an ordinary person on the street they come out of this looking vastly worse than she does?

I suppose next Andrew Sullivan will demand documentary proof that Carrie Prejean wasn't Trig Palin's surrogate mother.

Do gay men really feel that their thuggery, including the rampages following passage of California's Proposition 8, actually help their cause?; 5/6/09, 9:09 AM
KCFleming said...: Actually, Obama is demonstrating that thuggery does in fact help your cause, quite a bit.; 5/6/09, 9:11 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Pogo & Attys here:

Did the pageant officials violate HIPPA laws when they disclosed she had breast implant surgery?; 5/6/09, 9:12 AM
Ernesto Ariel Suárez said...: Great generalization Big Mike...; 5/6/09, 9:12 AM
Bissage said...: I think she's pretty good looking.

I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?; 5/6/09, 9:17 AM
KCFleming said...: Did the pageant officials violate HIPAA laws?

Good question; I know I would be fired for the same thing.; 5/6/09, 9:19 AM
Daryl said...: Do left-wing loonie types in general and Perez Hilton in particular understand that from the perspective of an ordinary person on the street they come out of this looking vastly worse than she does?They don't care. It's not a contest to see who looks better. A beauty queen will always win that.

It's not a contest. It's a warning: anyone else dares to cross the left, they will be attacked, just like Ms. Prejean.

They can get away with it, and we can't because they control the mainstream media. If Republicans did this to a liberal woman, the media would run stories about how mean the Republicans are, and how the Republicans dug up the information, and profiles on the Republicans who spread the rumors/facts. But since this is a Democrat attack, the media runs the story given to them by the attackers, with no questions.; 5/6/09, 9:21 AM
Peter Hoh said...: I know it's popular here to assume that only liberals get upset when someone speaks her mind and says something that runs counter to the approved set of beliefs.

Recently, OneMillionMoms urged their readers to "Send Miley Cyrus a letter stating that you do not approve of her comments."

OMM continued: "Clearly she is confused and does not understand the Bible."

Sounds like the Right has its own thought police.

Prejean is free to be a model, and free to chose what kind of photos to pose for. Prejean is even free to say that she doesn't approve of same-sex marriage.

I wish that some who favor same-sex marriage had not made a big deal out of her comments, but I'm not the same-sex marriage debate pope, so what am I supposed to do?

Prejean wants to use the Bible to support her position in a political debate. If you're going to argue that the Bible or traditional morality says that X is wrong, you open yourself to be judged by the same standards.

People who live in glass houses. . . .

Though I don't know the backstory about these photos, I don't think that her detractors have entered the private realm. They have not made assertions about her sexual history, for instance. They certainly didn't make her pose for these photos.

Maybe it's all about the past tense. Gay people want to keep being gay, so their sin is different than something that was done in the past. Maybe that's why Gingrich, McCain, and Giuliani get passes for divorcing their wives and marrying their affair partners, but two gays getting married is the end of marriage.; 5/6/09, 9:22 AM
traditionalguy said...: It won't work. The only reason to smear her as a trashy girl is to win points with legalists who like to use any hint of sex to smeer people, They are small in number compared to the Americans who admire her female beauty and her guts. The Radical Gays war room cannot think their way past immorality smears. Sad.They lose again.; 5/6/09, 9:22 AM
Salamandyr said...: I say, as someone who is more supportive of gay rights and gay marriage than the President of the United States, that Perez Hilton is a douchebag.

Gauche cretins like him make me yearn for a return of the code duello.; 5/6/09, 9:22 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Looks like OneMillionMoms buried (or removed) their post about Miley Cyrus.

Here's the text:

Miley Cyrus said what?

"Hannah Montana" star Miley Cyrus recently made statements supporting gay marriage.

Her comments were in response to a question posed to Miss California Carrie Prejean in the April 19 Miss USA Pageant. Homosexual celeblogger Perez Hilton was the pageant judge who asked Prejean her opinion of same-sex marriage, to which she responded that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Outraged by her response, Hilton began blasting the beauty queen and asked for celebrities to share their thoughts on gay marriage.

Miley Cyrus responded to Hilton through her Twitter.com account with the following comments:

* "Everyone deserves to love and be loved and most importantly smile."
* "Jesus loves you and your partner and wants you to know how much he cares! That's like a daddy not loving his lil boy cuz he's gay and that is wrong and very sad!
* "Like I said everyone deserves to be happy."
* "God’s greatest commandment is to love. And judging is not loving."
* "I am a Christian and I love you - gay or not - because you are no different than anyone else! We are all God's children."

Such statements will send the wrong message to our children who are influenced by this teenage megastar. Parents need to realize that Cyrus is not the positive role model she was once thought to be.

Take Action

Send Miley Cyrus a letter stating that you do not approve of her comments.

Clearly she is confused and does not understand the Bible. Please pray for the Lord to open her eyes to the truth.; 5/6/09, 9:26 AM
Salamandyr said...: Looks like Cyrus learned her lesson. She gave a bullshit reply that could be interpreted pretty much any way you want it to.; 5/6/09, 9:28 AM
Zachary Sire said...: Do gay men really feel that their thuggery, including the rampages following passage of California's Proposition 8, actually help their cause?
Rampages? Spare me. The only thugs are the ones who pushed for Prop 8's passage...and they deserve every bit of public humiliation they've been receiving. You preach hate, you better be prepared to be called out.; 5/6/09, 9:29 AM
garage mahal said...: Liberals are vicious thugs. And pussies!; 5/6/09, 9:35 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Prejean's answer to Perez was about the same caliber as Cyrus's tweets.

Had the gays emphasized the first part of Prejean's answer, the whole thing would have played differently.

She said, "Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage."

Yeah, that's the great thing about America. We have choices. Well, at least the people in a handful of states have this choice that she seems to think applies across the land.

And yeah, you can support the right of people to make choices you disagree with personally.; 5/6/09, 9:37 AM
traditionalguy said...: Peter hoh... Thanks for the Cyrus quote. She pretty well summed it up for most Christian's viewpoint. The problem for Gay Marriage recognition is not so great as you seem to think. Just avoid attacking people for respecting their own 4000 year old traditions that only provided for two sexes. Right now you need allies and not new enemies.; 5/6/09, 9:43 AM
Diamondhead said...: "You preach hate, you better be prepared to be called out."

The only person who demonstrated hatred in this episode was the gossip blogger.; 5/6/09, 9:51 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Yes, Diamondhead, Perez Hilton is about as helpful to his side as Fred Phelps is to the other side of this debate.; 5/6/09, 9:54 AM
Dark Eden said...: I am shocked and scandalized that a beauty contestant and model would pose for lingerie pictures and get breast implants, while being a christian!

Every Christian hating Left Wing Bigot knows that Christians hate anything to do with sex and modernity of any kind! This makes her an evil hypocrite based on nothing other than my own vast and seething hatred of all things Christian.

...

Seriously this is the best you've got, haters? How sad for you.; 5/6/09, 9:55 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Peter;

I hope you are not suggesting Miss California is on the same side as Fred Phelps?; 5/6/09, 10:09 AM
Christopher in MA said...: "You preach hate, you better be prepared to be called out."

CARRIE PREJEAN: ". . .I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be - between a man and a woman."

BARACK OBAMA: "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Now for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix."

So, Zachary - when do you start marching against the preacher of hate in the Oval Office?

Oh, he's no preacher of hate, you say? He just had to say that to get the homophobe knuckle-draggers to vote for him? He doesn't really believe marriage is between a man and a woman? Why, he'll shout his support of SSM and the repeal of DADT any day now, right? Just as soon as 2010 is past and the Democrats have an overwhelming legislative advantage.

Or perhaps after 2012 is past and Teleprompter Jesus has won a second term?

Or perhaps after 2014, when those close midterm elections are over?

Or perhaps. . .?; 5/6/09, 10:11 AM
Dark Eden said...: Zachary Paul Sire said...

"Rampages? Spare me. The only thugs are the ones who pushed for Prop 8's passage...and they deserve every bit of public humiliation they've been receiving. You preach hate, you better be prepared to be called out."

Well Zachary, you're preaching hate, and you're being called out.; 5/6/09, 10:13 AM
Big Mike said...: @Zachery, I call bullshit.; 5/6/09, 10:15 AM
Diamondhead said...: AJ, I'm sure that Carrie Prejean would be utterly revolted by Fred Phelps just as I am...moderately (by comparison) revolted by Perez Hilton. FTR, I don't think Hilton is nearly as bad as Fred Phelps because Hilton at least doesn't claim to speak for God.; 5/6/09, 10:20 AM
Peter Hoh said...: No, I don't think that Fred Phelps and Prejean are in the same league or on the same side.

Fred Phelps preaches hate. It would help Zach to distinguish between preaching hate and advocating against Same-sex marriage.

Fred Phelps has helped increase tolerance towards gay people by being such an outrageous caricature of intolerance.

Actions like Perez Hilton calling Prejean names hurts the cause Hilton purports to support.; 5/6/09, 10:25 AM
Dark Eden said...: Maybe some on the Prejean haters can help me out here. Having breast implants and modeling underwear for the JC Penny Catalogue (or whatever it was) makes Carrie PRejean a dirty scummy eviler than evil hypocrite because she's Christian or because she's against gay marriage or both? S

Are Christians supposed to not model undies for department stores? ... I am seriously at a loss for any sort of legitimate non drummed up outrage at either of these things.; 5/6/09, 10:29 AM
Jeremy said...: Bob Sacamano said..."Lesson learned. Don't cross the Left or they will hunt you down and destroy you."

So the USA Pageant judges and the administrators who write the rules...are all "leftists?"

Alicia Jacobs, a judge at the April 19 Miss USA pageant during which Prejean made her highly publicized statement opposing same-sex marriage, said the pictures go beyond what the Miss California pageant says are appropriate.

NBC News’ Miguel Almaguer, who reported that Prejean’s contract with the pageant prohibits her from being photographed “in a state of partial or total nudity.”

She certainly shouldn't be abused because of what she said, but it was rather disingenuous and hypocritical considering her actions.

Of course the homophobes here would never agree with something like that.; 5/6/09, 10:35 AM
Jeremy said...: Daryl said..."It's not a contest. It's a warning: anyone else dares to cross the left, they will be attacked, just like Ms. Prejean."

Right.

Kind of like the way the Clintons were treated via Starr.

Sure.; 5/6/09, 10:39 AM
Joe said...: The contract they are referring to should be called a "gotcha" contract since few signers aren't in violation of it by the strictest, most moralistic, reading.

As for the photo, it's beautiful. The real tragedy here is that Prejean felt it necessary to get implants.

And why is a flaming homosexual judging a female beauty contest anyway?; 5/6/09, 10:42 AM
jayne_cobb said...: Jeremy,

How exactly is it hypocritical? How does taking semi-risque pictures make it hypocritical to oppose gay marriage?

Having previously married a woman would make her a hypocrite. Having previously supported gay marriage in a different venue would make her a hypocrite. Posing for a photo that wouldn't even be racy enough to make Sports Illustrated does not.

Do you labor under the belief that socially conservative women must behave like nuns? Or is "hypocrisy" becoming the new "racism"? Where it's mostly just used as an accusation to smear an opponent and avoid debate.; 5/6/09, 10:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Miss California and her church have stated that "Pedophilia has even been called central to the gaylifestyle".

http://www.americablog.com/2009/04/miss-californias-church-says-pedophilia.html

She is a hateful person.

And now the whole world knows that she's a slut.

And suddenly its the fault of the gays that Miss California takes nude pictures. No - its the fault of Miss California.

It's disgusting that immoral sluts like her are the ones who assault gays and take our rights away.; 5/6/09, 11:00 AM
Jeremy said...: "The only thugs are the ones who pushed for Prop 8's passage"
Was the thuggery in the peaceable voting? Or maybe the way they thuggishly stuck campaign signs in their yards? Or the terror they reigned down with thuggish Letters to the Editor?

-The Other Jeremy; 5/6/09, 11:00 AM
William said...: Who wants Perez Hilton and Carrie Prejean to be the spokesman for their respective position? Perez Hilton and Carrie Prejean.....The periphery of this issue is matched only by the superficiality of those most passionately advocating or opposing it.....Despite the dwindling numbers of whales, the Japanese continue to eat whale blubber. And yet we discuss the pros and cons of gay marriage while this barbarous practice continues. History will judge us harshly. I can only hope that our contestant in the Miss Universe contest will give this issue the attention it deserves. And I hope that George Takei, if he happens to be a judge, will take a broad minded stance to her principled opposition to blubber eating. If Takei takes the opportunity to explain the centrality of blubber eating to the Japanese that would be fine. But I would take it amiss if the debate devolved into ad hominem attacks.; 5/6/09, 11:03 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Jayne, people who have seen all of the photos say that they reveal much more than was in the one photo that's been released.

I expect that the other photos will be released eventually, but if the gay army is out to destroy her, why haven't they released the other photos already?

Prejean is claiming that they photos were taken when she was 17. She may have made that claim in an effort to suppress them, as anyone who disseminated them could be charged with kiddie porn. Whether the claim is true or not, it may be effective.

FWIW, I don't think Andrew Sullivan has weighed in on this yet. He must have finally gotten that editor I've been urging him to get.; 5/6/09, 11:08 AM
Diamondhead said...: "She is a hateful person.

And now the whole world knows that she's a slut.

And suddenly its the fault of the gays that Miss California takes nude pictures. No - its the fault of Miss California.

It's disgusting that immoral sluts like her are the ones who assault gays and take our rights away."

It's like you don't believe anyone will notice the irony in calling her "hateful" and then immediately following it by calling her a "slut."; 5/6/09, 11:10 AM
Big Mike said...: @William, I don't think Carrie ever set out to be a spokesperson. She was asked a "gotcha" question and she chose to answer honestly.

That said, I'd rather have her on my side than Perez Hilton. He's kind of a jerk, isn't he?; 5/6/09, 11:11 AM
Anonymous said...: She is a slut. Anyone woman who takes nude photos is a slut.

And yes - I hate the bigots. i have zero tolerance for intolerance. This cunt is intolerant, and therefore I hate her. And yes - any woman who votes to take away my rights is a cunt. Any man who votes to take away my rights is a dick.; 5/6/09, 11:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Peter Hoh doesn't think that gays have a right to defend themselves.

Peter thinks that when sluts like Miss California claim that all gays are pedophiles (as she has) that gay people are not allowed to point out the immorality of hateful people like Miss California.

I call bullshit. I'm a citizen of the United States (albeit a second class citizen since I'm gay), but I still have a first amendment right to speak my mind, no matter how much Peter Hoh wants to silence gay people.; 5/6/09, 11:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Miss California is also one of those liars who claims to have lots and lots of gay friends.

Name one.; 5/6/09, 11:19 AM
Peter Hoh said...: DT, what are you trying to accomplish?

Marriage equity is winning. Your raging hurts your cause.; 5/6/09, 11:22 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't give a shit. There won't be gay marriage in my lifetime. It's going to take 100 years for those Constitutional Amendments to be repealed.

I'm allowed to vent.; 5/6/09, 11:26 AM
Dark Eden said...: downtownlad said...

"She is a slut. Anyone woman who takes nude photos is a slut."

Its a department store underwear ad. This is silly hyperbole and completely fabricated outrage.; 5/6/09, 11:27 AM
Anonymous said...: And marriage equality is not winning. We all know that straight people lie to pollsters when it comes to gay rights.; 5/6/09, 11:28 AM
Peter Hoh said...: DT, defending yourself and being an asshole are two different things. Figure it out.

When the only way to defend yourself was to be outrageous, ACT UP did it. And they did it well.

The fight for equity has shifted.

You want to give haters a straw man, go ahead, but it doesn't help.

I think more is accomplished by announcements like this one from David Ogden Stiers than from your rantings.; 5/6/09, 11:29 AM
Salamandyr said...: downtownlad said...

"She is a slut. Anyone woman who takes nude photos is a slut."

You had me going for a long time, DTL. I thought you were some kind of gay aspberger's kid, but this was too far for even gullible ol' me to buy.

You're a straight homophobe trying to make the other side look bad. You have to be.; 5/6/09, 11:29 AM
Anonymous said...: No Dark Eden - there are photos that are much much worse that are out there. They haven't been published, because she claims she was 17.

She's a slut.

Now I personally have nothing wrong with sluts. I don't think there's anything wrong with it. If someone called me a slut, my response would probably be "I wish".

But the religious right has a problem with sluts . . .; 5/6/09, 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Peter - I speak for myself, not the gay community. I can say whatever the hell I want.

I have the right to my opinion. You seem to believe I don't.; 5/6/09, 11:31 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "It's going to take 100 years for those Constitutional Amendments to be repealed."

Oh, bullshit. If the SCt says Equal Protection requires same-sex marriage -- which it will probably say if Obama gets a few more appointments -- then all those state constitutional amendments are voided.; 5/6/09, 11:31 AM
Peter Hoh said...: DT, never in your lifetime? How long are you planning to live?

I'd say there's a damned good chance that full federal marriage equity happens within the next 20 years. Federal civil unions may be sooner.

Marriage Equity is winning, and the anti-side is on its heels. Check out this news about the effort to repeal the Washington state’s domestic partnership bill.; 5/6/09, 11:36 AM
Anonymous said...: I am trying to figure out why she needed breast implants...; 5/6/09, 11:36 AM
Peter Hoh said...: lacegrl, implants have more to do with what's between the ears than with what's on the chest.; 5/6/09, 11:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Ann - what are you smoking. Obama will only get to replace liberals. None of the conservatives are retiring anytime soon. And the pendulum swings. We will have a Republican President again.

In fact, I think it is EXTRMELY likely that the current conservative court will hear a case on gay marriage very very soon. And they'll establish precedent against gay marriage. And in the current climate, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the "liberals" like Breyer joined them.

Personally, I wouldn't even be upset by such a ruling either. It's probably a stretch to say that the constitution requires gay marriage. It's pretty silent on the matter.

What upsets me are those who continue to vote in support of these bigoted laws and bigoted amendments.

I'll take a bet with you that gay marriage will be illegal in Mississippi through the end of this century. DOMA itself will be law through at least 2025.; 5/6/09, 11:39 AM
Jason said...: You know, downtownlad, if you crossed my path, I'd backhand you on a point of honor.

I've been a fence-sitter on gay marriage all this time. Actually, I even voted to allow gay marriage on a recent ballot initiative.

Never again. Why? Just to stick it to pathetic, hateful little turds like you and Perez Hilton.

You're not fit to lick the glitter off of her heaving, pendulous breasts.; 5/6/09, 11:44 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm 40, so I plan on living for 20 more years. After 60, who cares anyway, I'll be old.

Even New York can't pass gay marriage, because bigoted Democrats (yes - Democrats) are blocking it from coming to a vote.

And all you need is one Senator to fillibuster DOMA repeal - which is not too hard.; 5/6/09, 11:46 AM
Diamondhead said...: "i have zero tolerance for intolerance."

Thanks for giving the perspective of a bumper sticker.; 5/6/09, 11:47 AM
KCFleming said...: Perez Hilton is merely applying Rule 12 by Saul Alinsky: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Demonize, polarize, and destroy the enemy. What wonderful people are Perez, downtownlad, and Zachary. What a bright shining future they foretell.; 5/6/09, 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...: So you're admitting that you're a bigot Jason.

Yawn.

We already knew that.; 5/6/09, 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Well Pogo - next thing you know we'll start having inter-racial marriage.

We can't have that, right. It's disgusting and against the Bible. Can't have that jungle love.; 5/6/09, 11:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Number of conservative blogs that criticized Joe the Plumber yesterday.

Zero.; 5/6/09, 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Nighty-nite everyone. It's bedtime here in non-bigoted land.; 5/6/09, 11:55 AM
theobromophile said...: Did the pageant officials violate HIPPA laws when they disclosed she had breast implant surgery?No. HIPAA only applies to medical professionals (and those who do things like work in medical offices or in insurance billing).

My question to everyone who thinks that Miss Prejean is a hypocrite or a slut: 1) would you use the latter term to describe a lot of women - most of whom are far more sexually experienced than Miss Prejean? and 2) are you among those people who think that Christians, when they dress modestly or behave in a manner totally consistent with Christianity, are stuck up, boring, or repressed?

'Cuz, apparently, there's no way to win.; 5/6/09, 11:59 AM
Diamondhead said...: There, there. That's it. Lean against those nice padded walls...; 5/6/09, 12:00 PM
A.W. said...: Gotta say this is the worst thing since when Joe the Plumber came out.

Remember when the left claimed that the right was bullying them, Al Gore was complaining about digital brownshirts. You know how those same people are trying to stop people from destroying this young woman? oh, wait, THEY AREN'T. hypocrites.

But guys lets not confuse standing up against these destroyers and suddenly pretending she is our spokesperson. She expressed an opinion and everyone should back the hell off, but i haven't heard her say anything to make me think she is a uniquely gifted thinker, either.

Btw, side question. Okay, seriously, why are we allowing judges in female beauty pageants that aren't, you know, attracted to women? i mean if a woman comes out in a swimsuit and the guy goes "ew, boobies!" then maybe we should say, "you know what? liking girls is a bfoq to be our judge." And yes, ditto for straight women. Really, lesbians and straight men should be the only judges. which is not to say i want judges' sexuallity investigated, etc. but how about a simple question: do you like women? And if you say no, then excort them over to the Mr. Universe competition where they are better suited. Sheesh.

And why does it matter? Because let's remember what this is, which is a beauty competition. if you are not attracted to women you are destined to focus on everything but the beauty and guess, what? Stupid crap like that happens.

Btw, between Perez and Paris, we have definitive proof that being rich and having class have nothing to do with each other. i know poor people who have a sense of class and dignity; and we have the hilton siblings.; 5/6/09, 12:11 PM
KCFleming said...: HIPAA: Who Is Not Required to Follow This Law"Many organizations that have health information about you do not have to follow this law.

Examples of organizations that do not have to follow the Privacy Rule include:
life insurers,
employers,
workers compensation carriers,
many schools and school districts,
many state agencies like child protective service agencies,
many law enforcement agencies,
many municipal offices."

Ha ha ha.
Your local governments can say anything they want about your health records!; 5/6/09, 12:18 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Aaron, Perez and Paris are not related.; 5/6/09, 12:19 PM
lawprof2 said...: @DTL,

Pendulums swing both ways. We are now seeing the inevitable backlash from the ridiculous anti-gay bigotry--and yes, we should call it what it was-- and starting to move back to a more reasoned approach. For the first time, several states have gay marriage, other states--including Wisconsin--are about to have domestic partnership protections, and progress is being made. We shall soon see Scalia's defense of federalism in a challenge to DOMA lodged by legally wed same-sex couples.

We should fight like hell for equal rights and obligations, but calling names diminishes the fight and demeans yourself. We have elevated a throw away statement by a bimbo into some sort of cultural position statement. Yeesh, let it go.

ASnd to whomever asked why a gay man is a judge in a beauty pageant: have you ever seen a beauty pageant before? Probably 95%of men involved are gay. Samne with dog shows. No idea why...; 5/6/09, 12:26 PM
Big Mike said...: "i [sic] have zero tolerance for intolerance"

Me too, DTL, and after reading your intolerant rants, now you know why I utterly despise you.

Have a nice day!; 5/6/09, 12:28 PM
Sigivald said...: Peter Hoh: Sure looks like Miley's not a Bible scholar, yep. The idea that gay marriage is fine with Jesus because "love is what's important and judging is wrong" demonstrates an immense lack of theological thought and the most facile sort of facile "Christianity" available today*.

Did you have a point there, exactly? Is sending her letters asking her to rethink somehow equivalent to demanding she be stripped of a lucrative position?

Can you also clarify exactly which inherent and critical part of Christian belief you believe is supposedly being violated by Prejean's conduct?

(* Full disclosure: I'm a life-long atheist, so I don't have a dog in the "is it Christian or what?" fight... but that also means I can analyze from a distance, and from where I sit it sure looks like the Moms have the edge over the teenage girl on the religious interpretation front.); 5/6/09, 12:52 PM
Mike H said...: Please explain to me why there is such a harsh reaction to this picture. There are more revealing pictures on the cover of each Maxim, GQ, or Esquire - let alone SI Swimsuit editions or Cosmopolitan.

How does posing for this picture constitute being a slut? How does it make her a hypocrite? When she poses for Playboy, or Penthouse then we'll talk about hypocrisy.

To attack a person, who is a professional model, for taking a picture like this is idiotic. Those who do come off looking cheap and petty. It's not like she was photographed making out with another woman - that would be hypocritical. That would be fair game.

Oh, and the whole "there are worse pictures" argument? Also silly. Until you have personally seen them, don't say anything. I doubt very much that she has actual nude pictures somewhere out there. Unless of course we're just waiting on a really convincing photoshop...; 5/6/09, 1:22 PM
A.W. said...: Peter,

You mean that he is as asinine as Paris without being related to her?

Who knew?; 5/6/09, 1:28 PM
Cedarford said...: Just brilliant!

Now we have ideologues not only wanting to assign jobs to actors in accordance with their political views, and ban them from entertainment venues "not consonant with their political philosophies" - the radical morons want to apply the same standard to models...

No more liberal models allowed to work modelling hunting gear or appear on TV hawking a product made by noble oppressed brown peoples overseas!
Black models forbidden to wear cotton cloths unless the adveriser includes an apology to all past exploited or enslaved black cotton pickers.
No Mormon models allowed on coffee or alcoholic beverage shoots.
No feminists allowed on porn shoots except girl-on-girl action intended for a female audience. (Meaning porn where there is 5% of time devoted to action, and 95% of the time the models are on screen is devoted to discussion of lesbian feelings and thoughts.)

And maybe a ban on any gay model appearing to be straight in any shoot, and any straight model asked to model fashion or other items intended for gay consumers..; 5/6/09, 1:36 PM
Dark Eden said...: Downtown Lad said...

"No Dark Eden - there are photos that are much much worse that are out there. They haven't been published, because she claims she was 17."

Links Plz. Oh you don't have one? What a surprise.

He also said,

"But the religious right has a problem with sluts . . ."

You know, I'm not a Christian, and I'm not a Christian-hater, so I don't have a horse in this race. I think it gives me some good perspective.

One of the things Christian Haters seem to forget is that to Christians, everyone other than Jesus is a sinner, its just a matter of degrees.

Christians are far less judgmental and far more forgiving than they will ever get credit for from the anti Christian bigots. Its a shame.; 5/6/09, 1:44 PM
Big Mike said...: @Aaron, there's a video floating around that strongly suggests Paris is hetero. Or so I've been told.

Not that I'd look, even if I am a dirty old man.; 5/6/09, 1:45 PM
lawprof2 said...: Pendulum:

Maine governorn just signed a bill to become the 5th state to grant gay marriage.; 5/6/09, 1:47 PM
Big Mike said...: @Dark Eden, I'm with you. Like you, I'm not a Christian myself (nor do I play one on TV), but the left-wing ranters have built up this picture of Christians that is wildly at variance with reality.

It would be bad for the US if Christians were really as bad as they are painted by the NYT, by left-wing academics, and by the ranters in the gay community. Fortunately, they aren't.

It would be good for the US if the NYT, left-wing academics, and the gay community were not as intolerant of other people's views as they are. But intolerance is their hallmark and there's not much anybody can do about it.; 5/6/09, 2:03 PM
Joan said...: Today, I'm definitely a sinner. I read an entire reply by Cedarford, and I thought it was funny.; 5/6/09, 2:43 PM
Jeremy said...: Big Mike said..."...the left-wing ranters have built up this picture of Christians that is wildly at variance with reality."

Not true.

Far right Christians and Fundamentalist Christians maybe, but not Christians in general.

There's a world of difference and you know it, too.

I'd like for you to provide any link or objective information to support such a claim.; 5/6/09, 5:27 PM
Methadras said...: Well, it looks like the homosexual mafia has initiated another witch-hunt. Hey, this could be billed as The Good Witch of the North vs. The Wicked Witches of the West and their flying monkeys.; 5/6/09, 5:30 PM
Jeremy said...: lacegrl130 said..."I am trying to figure out why she needed breast implants..."

Her tits were too small.; 5/6/09, 5:31 PM
Big Mike said...: @Jeremy, why should I bother? You know it's true. Left-wingers hate Christians. You hate Catholics, you hate evangelicals, you hate Fundamentalists -- and I don't think you can tell evangelicals from Fundamentalists. You probably hate Unitarians just to keep in practice.

You are an ecumenical hater.

Now go slither back under your bridge.; 5/6/09, 5:33 PM
Methadras said...: "downtownlad said...

So you're admitting that you're a bigot Jason.

Yawn.

We already knew that."

Uh oh. DTL is all aflutter again because he got to call someone a bigot or a homophobe. Again. Hey, DTL, you must be a regular over at your proctologist and your Ergonomist. One is help you get that back-filled stick out of your ass, much to your dissatisfaction and the other is to help you with the repetitive stress injuries your incur everytime you go flapping your wrists in another display of faux indignation and outrage. It must be very tiring maintaining this level of posturing for the rest of your velvet mafia to give you the affirmation you so richly crave, huh?; 5/6/09, 5:35 PM
Jeremy said...: Methadras said..."Well, it looks like the homosexual mafia has initiated another witch-hunt."

I don't think this is only being driven by the gay community (Mafia?).

It's being driven by those who think it's disingenuous to say gay marriage is something unsavory or less than Christian, while at the same time posing nude.

Most conservative Christians would consider that to be unsavory behavior...wouldn't you think?

Personally I could care less if she wants to pose nude, she's a gorgeous woman...I just think that when people in her position open their mouths and express political or lifestyle opinions...they end up looking silly.

I also realize she was asked a question, but she probably should have sidestepped by just saying that her opinion was private...period.; 5/6/09, 5:36 PM
Jeremy said...: Big Mike- Provide any evidence that liberals "hate" Christians.

You're just throwing out whatever you think will solidify your standing among the wingnuts here.

Gutless and silly comments based on nothing more than your personal, political opinions are just that.; 5/6/09, 5:39 PM
Jeremy said...: Big Dolt - "You are an ecumenical hater."

Yeah, that's it.

I literally hate all Christians.

What a dummy.; 5/6/09, 5:41 PM
Dark Eden said...: Jeremy said...

"Far right Christians and Fundamentalist Christians maybe, but not Christians in general."

Well considering that the majority of Democrats, including Barack Obama, agree with Ms. Prejean, I don't think she is particularly far right for a Christian. We only have one data point... she doesn't support gay marriage. Most people don't. I do but I don't slime anyone who disagrees with me as Eville.; 5/6/09, 6:04 PM
Brooklyn Redneck said...: What a sad commentary on America. This freakshow fag is paid attention to and an all american beauty is ostracized for defending 3000 years of human history and mores. God help us all.; 5/6/09, 6:11 PM
Jeremy said...: Dark Eden said..."Well considering that the majority of Democrats, including Barack Obama, agree with Ms. Prejean, I don't think she is particularly far right for a Christian."

I don't get your point.

I never said anything about hating this woman or any Christian for that matter.

As for Obama and others in the Democratic Party, most are in favor of gays being able to marry, but that doesn't mean he or others will fight the fight right now in Congress.; 5/6/09, 6:32 PM
Jeremy said...: Brooklyn Redneck said..."What a sad commentary on America. This freakshow fag..."

Gee, could you nake yourself look any more homophobic, bigoted or just plain stupid?; 5/6/09, 6:33 PM
Jeremy said...: Notice how big mouth Mike hasn't provided a shred of evidence to support his inane opinion that liberals "hate" Christians?

That's the standard here: Throw out a ridiculous charge, then retreat.

Gutless.; 5/6/09, 6:34 PM
Methadras said...: "Jeremy said...

I also realize she was asked a question, but she probably should have sidestepped by just saying that her opinion was private...period."

Hmm. So in this case you are saying it's better to sidestep your principals as a matter of privacy as a function to squelch any overt or perceived disagreement with homosexual marriage rather than directly confront the question with an honest display of ones beliefs as a function of their character. Especially where character is on display and beautifully so.

So it's much better to say that your views on homosexual marriage are private as a backhanded means to silence opposition to it by raising the specter that such proclaimed privacy is really an opposition to homosexual marriage and having that silence raise even more questions or suspicions to whether or not Ms. Prejean is for or against it. Whether you intended it to be that way or not, the implication is sinister enough as to strain credulity.; 5/6/09, 6:45 PM
Jeremy said...: Blogger Methadras said..."Hmm. So in this case you are saying it's better to sidestep your principals..."

No, numbnut.

It would have allowed her to avoid this situation.

It was a stupid question, relating to something that had nothing to do with the pageant, and she's entitled to believe whatever she feels is right.; 5/6/09, 6:57 PM
Methadras said...: "Jeremy said...

Notice how big mouth Mike hasn't provided a shred of evidence to support his inane opinion that liberals "hate" Christians?

That's the standard here: Throw out a ridiculous charge, then retreat.

Gutless."

There are entire screeds from the left against Christians and Christianity. Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion is one that comes to immediate mind. Another book that comes to mind is The Resilience of Conservative Religion by Joseph Tamney is just another example of leftists that sneer and deride Christianity and Christians as a force for evil due to their faith. Right down to John Dewey nearly starting it all.

I doubt you are a Christian basher, but for the sake of argument don't try and honestly defend and ideology and one that you subscribe to as one that is tolerant. It isn't and you know it. Even more so against people of faith. Leftist and liberals constantly and continuously despise and ridicule in the most heinous ways, Christians and other people of faith.; 5/6/09, 6:58 PM
vnjagvet said...: My guess is Ms. Prejean wins the national audience contest hands down against either Perez Hilton or his compatriots who send out her pictures to demonize her.

DTL in his diatribes fails to recognize the five states that permit gay marriage. It is now official. He can get married any time he wants too, as can his gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.; 5/6/09, 7:11 PM
Dark Eden said...: Jeremy said, "As for Obama and others in the Democratic Party, most are in favor of gays being able to marry, but that doesn't mean he or others will fight the fight right now in Congress."

Actually Obama has repeatedly said he is against gay marriage, as have most elected Democrats. So Ms. Prejean and Mr. Obama are in agreement. As are most Democrats officials.

As to hating Ms. Prejean, I don't know how to otherwise describe the vicious and venomous assaults on a woman whose crime was answering a question honestly. As to hating Christians... come on now. If the lefty posters on this very thread talked about any other religion the way they talked about Christianity, it would be considered a hate crime.; 5/6/09, 7:18 PM
Dale said...: I for one would pay someone to castrate Perez Hilton.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Or that it would even be seen by him as a negative.; 5/6/09, 7:28 PM
Methadras said...: "Jeremy said...

No, numbnut."

Way to go ad hom right off the top. How anyone takes you seriously is a mystery. So let's try to dissect your pathetic attempt at reasonable discourse shall we.

"It would have allowed her to avoid this situation."

Really? So in not answering or in your fantasy world view, she must now be a psychic of some kind that can perceive her own future events in avoiding the negative unintended consequences of her future actions by answering a question put forward to her by a parasitic starfucker like Perez Hilton by saying that it is private? Yeah, I can totally see how she could have avoided this situation altogether by having that type of omniscient wherewithal to avoid such a politically correct landmine.

"It was a stupid question,"

put forth by a very stupid faux man.

"relating to something that had nothing to do with the pageant,"

Well, then I guess the onus was on him not to have asked it, right?

"and she's entitled to believe whatever she feels is right."

She is, but the real problem here that you are not remotely addressing is the character assassination squad that is now after her for being entitled to believe what she feels is right and in having the courage in front of a national audience to put it forth without the fear of retribution. Your stupidity and willful ignorance are stunning in their scope and breadth.; 5/6/09, 8:20 PM
hdhouse said...: Ahh when bra size and IQ collide....; 5/6/09, 8:30 PM
Leland said...: So a woman who competes in a beauty pageant is a hypocrit when she models lingerie? I think some people don't get the point of a beauty pageant.

Oh, and calling Prejean a slut? Sounds like something a Puritan would do, in 17th Century America. The reason people, who would otherwise support gay marriage, are repelled by actions like Perez and DTL is that we managed just fine as a nation without Puritans, we don't need new ones the likes of them.; 5/6/09, 9:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Progressive.; 5/6/09, 9:33 PM
Big Mike said...: @Jeremy, sorry to have been away from this thread for so long. I had work to do.

I think the best way to respond to your remarks is to ask any of my fellow Republicans on this thread a question. Have you ever had a liberal Democrat dump a rant on you about how Republicans have to get out of their (meaning the Democrats') bedrooms and how we have to stop getting our marching orders from those evil, right-wing Christians? And if you didn't, is that possibly because you don't know any liberal Democrats? (Or perhaps you keep your head down and your mouth shut at work and at parties for fear of the ad hominem attacks?)

I've heard this characterization from Jewish friends and co-workers. I have heard it from atheist friends and co-workers. I have even heard it from allegedly Christian friends and co-workers. Hardly any of these individuals know each other socially. What they have in common is their liberal politics. Consequently I make the reasonable inference from these various rants that blaming Republican policies on our being captive of those evil Christians is a major liberal talking point.

But, BTW, didn't your mother ever teach you that trying to engage other people via temper tantrums that would disgrace a 2-year old is just plain wrong? I infer that your mother must have had extremely poor parenting skills. Such a pity. Perhaps if you had had a Christian parent, you would have learned some manners.

Before I go, can I correct one misconception? In your 5:36 comment you write "Most conservative Christians would consider that (meaning posing nude) to be unsavory behavior...wouldn't you think?." Actually, I don't think most Christians, conservative, or otherwise, would regard Carrie Prejean as being "unsavory." Some would, almost certainly, but among the major religions only conservative Muslims (the kind that beat women for exposing too much ankle under their burkas) would go bird shit. I also note for the record that based on what I've seen so far, apparently Ms. Prejean did not pose nude, only partially undressed. And she is, after all, a model.

I'll go back to what I wrote that started your tirades: you don't know much about Christians.; 5/6/09, 9:33 PM
Anonymous said...: BIg Mike: 'Jeremy' does not warrant an answer, despite your good effort.

He (or more properly, "they") is a provocateur and troll, who appears under various guises, and whose purpose is to insult commenters and ruin any possibility of rational or engaged conversation.

Several of us have observed his actions under various names for years, and have come to similar conclusions about his identity and motives. He is not the idiot you see, but an academic psychologist who has his own reasons for pretending to be a mental defective and several other obnoxious people.; 5/6/09, 9:45 PM
Ernesto Ariel Suárez said...: What will Perez Hilton say about this?; 5/6/09, 9:56 PM
Ernesto Ariel Suárez said...: Big Mike, just for the record, my reply this morning had to do with your statement that made it look as every single gay man out there was throwing a temper tantrum, and terrorizing those who passed Prop 8. There are many of us out there who are appaled by such childish behavior. We are not all DTL or ZPS.; 5/6/09, 10:01 PM
Big Mike said...: @Theo,thanks for the advice. OTOH, though, he (she? it?) gave me an opportunity to write my second and third paragraphs and get that off my chest.

I'm pretty open about being an atheist, but I'm not proud of the company I keep. It's one thing to dismiss the existence of God, as application of Occam's razor compels me to do. It's quite another to drip venom on Christians just because they're Christian. Good people, mostly, with higher tolerance for others' opinions than they get credit for -- not to mention higher tolerance than all but a tiny handful of my liberal acquaintances exhibit. The last 6 of the 10 commandments and the Golden Rule are not a bad framework to live by.; 5/6/09, 10:09 PM
Big Mike said...: @ElcubanitoKC, you're gay???

Just yanking your chain, friend.

But, here's the deal. The point of my 9:09 post is that as long as you allow Perez Hilton and DTL and Zachary and Andrew Sullivan to be your spokespeople, and as long as the rest of us see gangs of self-identified gay men ranting outside of churches and knocking little old ladies to the ground and people like you say or do nothing, then the obvious conclusion is that you agree with those tactics.

If you and your partner are in a long term, stable, relationship then yours is the first gay male couple I know of (well, second after that guy who writes "The Final Word" for USA Today) that meets those criteria. Only two. Every lesbian couple I know of is in a long-term, stable relationship that certainly has the look and feel of an ideal heterosexual marriage (and probably more stable than most real heterosexual marriages these days) but on the men's side...

Andrew Sullivan wants to be able marry his partner while he's openly advertising for sex with strangers? Ah, pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but that's not how it's supposed to work.

That's one problem. The other is the word "marriage" itself. As I understand it, to a devout Christian marriage is a sacrament, something sacred. If you must have the word, instead of the legal status, then your side has a problem because I perceive that many, perhaps most, Christians will fight hard over the word. And I don't blame them, despite my status as an atheist.

I think things can be worked out, but it's going to take some work from your side, notably including gay men and women standing up to the likes of Andrew Sullivan and Perez Hilton and DTL and Zachary and the roaming gangs of thugs.

Meanwhile I'm going be watching the five states who've agreed to be test cases with some interest to see how it works out.; 5/6/09, 10:35 PM
Anonymous said...: One of the TOP!! news stories on my Verizon email page -

Joe the Plumber calls gays 'queer'; 5/7/09, 1:41 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Big Mike, gangs of gay thugs knocking over little old ladies -- I think that was a one time event that you are trying to magnify into something larger.

IIRC, that incident involved people who were aggressively proselytizing in Castro when the bars closed -- the night that Prop 8 passed. While I don't condone the behavior (on either side) it needs to be seen in context. It does not describe an ongoing set of behaviors on the part of gay activists.

There were a few more instances of activists agitating outside of certain churches in the month after Prop 8 passed, but that is not continuing to happen, either.

You wrote: "Andrew Sullivan wants to be able marry his partner while he's openly advertising for sex with strangers? Ah, pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but that's not how it's supposed to work."

Yes, Andrew Sullivan got outed for trolling for quickies -- before he got married, not after.

I can name several prominent Republicans who divorced their wives to marry their affair partners. That's not how it's supposed to work, either, but that hasn't stopped the state (and church, for that matter) from recognizing their marriages. Not to be partisan about this, but I have yet to find a prominent Democrat who has done the full Gingrich.

You wrote: "As I understand it, to a devout Christian marriage is a sacrament, something sacred."

That rests on a loose definition of sacrament. Though it is true that Catholics regard marriage as a Sacrament, not all Christian churches regard marriage as a sacrament. What's more, marriage exists in the civil realm as well. The state does not get in the business of regulating baptisms, for instance.

Catholics have rules about remarriage after divorce that are at odds with civil marriage. This does not seem to have generated any conflict.; 5/7/09, 9:10 AM
Leland said...: Peter Hoh wrote:
Big Mike, gangs of gay thugs knocking over little old ladies -- I think that was a one time event that you are trying to magnify into something larger. So, in this particular event that sparked the thread, it was a single gay man trying to ruin the career of a young lady. What was your point again?; 5/7/09, 9:37 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Leland, I was unaware of the rule that threads must remain focused on the particular incident that sparked the thread.

Why don't you take that up with Big Mike, as he brought up the little old ladies getting knocked to the ground.

As I said earlier, I thought Perez Hilton's remarks were stupid, inappropriate, and counter-productive.

Maggie Gallagher has been promoting the idea that SSM means that Christians will become victims, and Hilton gave her what she wanted.

I know plenty of Christians who are quite happy about SSM, and I will challenge any argument that attempts to ignore them.; 5/7/09, 10:48 AM
Leland said...: Surely you not that obtuse, peter. Your argument to Big Mike, was that his point was annecdotal and a singular event.

My point was it didn't seem to singular to me, as this particular thread follows a similar story line.

I'm not holding you back from expanding your argument to other irrelevant concepts. Go right ahead. And while at it, make odd allegations that others are trying to limit your debate whenever they make their own points. I'm sure it will go over well.; 5/7/09, 11:57 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Leland, yes, I can be that obtuse.

I see Hilton's words and actions as distinct from the behavior of a group of antagonized drunks on a bad night. I didn't realize that you were trying to suggest that they were similar actions.; 5/7/09, 12:36 PM
Big Mike said...: @peter hoh, thank you for your thoughtful comment from last night. Sorry, Leland, but Peter's right -- I posted what I posted and he took the time to respond and he deserves his say. And I deserve my rebuttal.

Peter, your description of the "little old lady being knocked down" as a one-time event leaves me unmoved, for several reasons. First, because it should never have happened in the first place. Hitting someone who can't fight back? There are times when it might be called for, but this was clearly not one of them. Apparently that thug's mother had poor parenting skills, if he never learned not to hit old ladies.

Second, because your unfortunate wording seems to imply that somehow the lady was "asking for it" through her aggressive proselytizing. Do you not get that she has an absolute right to be there and an absolute freedom to speak? Period. The anti-hate speech campaign in Canada seems to be collapsing of its own weight, and campus speech codes have collapsed wherever exposed to the light of day by FIRE. Castro doesn't get a speech code, either.

Third, because the fact that I don't see gay thuggery reported in the MSM doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have your word for it, but the fact that it isn't generally reported by the 21st century MSM does not mean it isn't happening. They didn't particularly report those events at the time, so the absence of their reporting them now is meaningless. As I said, I have your word that gay activists no longer engage in such tactics, but, pardon me, how am I supposed to be certain?

Fourth, even you don't really apologize for what happened. No important Democrat, not Obama, not Biden, not HRC, neither of the California senators, not Reid, not Pelosi, not even Barbara Mikulski (who is widely thought to be gay herself) spoke up and denounced the actions. Can you give me links that show otherwise? Can you give me links to leading gay spokespeople who apologized to the lady in question and denounced the picketing of the churches?

So, fifth, I'll stand on what I wrote. When "people like you say or do nothing, then the obvious conclusion is that you agree with those tactics." Nothing you wrote suggests that I should change that by so much as a comma.

As far as Sullivan is concerned, please go back and read what I wrote. I said "that's not how it's supposed to work." And it isn't. I don't know that he isn't in fact cheating on his partner -- as I said above, no one from the 21st century MSM would tell us if he was.

Pointing to heterosexual marriages, particularly of Republicans, that didn't work out is a red herring. Before I stopped bothering to read him, Sullivan repeatedly pointed to well-known heterosexual celebrities whose notion of marriage was pretty pathological. He -- and apparently you -- don't get that this is not a reason to place more pathological relationships under the marriage umbrella.

I was married almost 35 years ago in the mainstream Protestant church I grew up in, and I vividly remember the minister making the point that marriage is holy estate in the eyes of God. (I also vividly remember that he forgot to tell me "you may now kiss the bride" so I had to do it on the way back down the aisle. But I'm digressing.) Anyway, I support civil unions, and nearly everybody I know does too. Even some devout Catholics seem prepared to separate the marriage sacrament from the civil rights and obligations. If you're ready to risk everything for the M-word, then that's your call. But it isn't helping you.; 5/7/09, 12:44 PM
Big Mike said...: @Peter and @Leland, you both posted after I started pounding the keyboard (and I'd best finish up lunch and start pounding it on company business if I know what's good for me).

Peter, I'm agreeing with Leland. I see the verbal assault on Ms. Prejean, by Mr. "Hilton" and by Keith Olbermann on a national TV show, and the posting of pictures of her modeling a skimpy pair of panties posted every which where as a form of gay thuggery and I mean to assure you and DTL and ElcubanitoKC that it does not help your cause.; 5/7/09, 12:53 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Big Mike,

You and I agree that thuggery does not help. I've called DTL out on his tactics, and he's tried to argue that I want to silence him. I'm not neutral on the issue of same-sex amrriage, but I am trying to refrain from impugning those who disagree with me. If you catch me doing it, let me know.

FWIW, I am opposed to speech codes and laws against hate speech.

The Castro incident is a lot like waving a sign about how great the Yankees are just after they defeated the BoSox in the ALCS, right outside a Boston sports bar at closing time. That explains it, but doesn't excuse it. It was wrong.

The Hilton attack on Prejean is inexcusable, too, but Hilton wasn't drunk or provoked. The only explanation is that Hilton is an asshole and an idiot.

What Hilton did is far more common than what happened that night in Castro. Again, no excuses -- I'm just explaining why I see them as separate things.

Yes, leading gay advocates did not do enough to denounce the picketing of churches after Prop 8 passed. Again, it was a counter-productive protest.

Even though they followed sequentially, I didn't mean to use the transgressions of Newt, et al, to excuse Sulivan's trolling. Those who flout our traditional understanding of marriage and then claim to defend traditional marriage against the "threat" of same-sex marriage are the most egregious hypocrites, but they don't provide a slam-dunk for the proponents of SSM.

As a culture, we have accepted divorce. It represents a change in how we think about marriage, and I think that it helped set in motion the change in attitudes that have led many to accept the idea of same-sex marriage.

Maggie Gallagher and others scholarly opponents of SSM like to argue that SSM would have the state declaring that marriage is just about the public affirmation of adult feelings. I say that we are already there.

You wrote: "He -- and apparently you -- don't get that this is not a reason to place more pathological relationships under the marriage umbrella."

Did you really mean to imply that you view all same-sex relationships as pathological?

I used to think that civil unions were a viable compromise. If Congress had some cajones, perhaps a compromise could still be worked out, but I think the opportunity for a CU compromise has passed.

By the way, my remarks about sacraments were not intended to dispute the idea that Christians view marriage as holy. Different Christian traditions have different ideas about what counts as a sacrament. I know specifically that Lutherans count only baptism and communion as sacraments, and many Protestant denominations take a similar position.; 5/7/09, 2:53 PM
Big Mike said...: @Peter, a very thoughtful post. I do want to clear up one small point. You asked "Did you really mean to imply that you view all same-sex relationships as pathological?"

Short answer: "no." In my post of 10:35 last night I wrote "Every lesbian couple I know of is in a long-term, stable relationship that certainly has the look and feel of an ideal heterosexual marriage (and probably more stable than most real heterosexual marriages these days)." My problem with male same sex marriages is that (1) the only one that I'm aware of that seems like a stable, loving, monogamous long-term relationship is Craig Wilson, who writes for USA Today (perhaps some of the gay commenters on this thread are in stable, monogamous relationships, but I have only their word for it), while (2) gay commenters -- notably Sullivan but I recollect reading others -- keep arguing that we heteros tolerate heterosexual marriages that are pathological (can I coin the acronym MINO for "marriage in name only"?) so we ought to be able to tolerate same sex marriages.

Needless to say, point #2 leaves us heteros cold. We're already concerned about 50% divorce rates, 30% of the children are being raised in single-parent households, and now Andrew Sullivan wants to add to our ration of shit. Any wonder why the push-back is so strong?

As to what constitutes a sacrament, I already warned you that I'm an atheist. But I don't think Christians are fighting so hard over fine points in theology. At least I hope not -- I think the nasty wars over fine points in theology ended in the 17th century.; 5/7/09, 3:26 PM
Peter Hoh said...: I've proposed CRAP, Convenient Remarriage of Affair Partners -- with "convenient" said in the style of Mike Myer's Church Lady.

Going back to the 90s, the gay couples I know who got married in a church -- even if it didn't count in the eyes of the law -- involved at least one pastor's kid.

It's people like them who have been pushing for marriage the longest. For a while, many high-profile gay activists were actually opposed to same-sex marriage.; 5/7/09, 3:59 PM
Big Mike said...: @Peter, I'm not sure where you're going with your last post.; 5/7/09, 5:22 PM
Peter Hoh said...: I'm not really trying to push an argument anymore, just saying where I'm coming from.; 5/7/09, 8:39 PM
Methadras said...: Peter, Dana Carvey did the Church Lady. Just letting you know and I think you meant to say that and got the comedians crossed.; 5/8/09, 3:39 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Oy. How soon the brain cells fade.

Thanks for the correction.; 5/8/09, 9:37 PM
kentuckyliz said...: Re Carrie's racy pix:

"I'm a Christian and I've been blessed by God, and I am just sharing the blessing."

LOL; 5/10/09, 3:19 PM
kentuckyliz said...: Perez Hilton is an ugly hateful fag and he's just envious of that cute breeder...enough to want to tear her down.

All the hateful libtards piling on are ugly and envious too.; 5/10/09, 3:21 PM