April 23, 2009


Unliberaled Woman posted again on Miss California. You know, this story has really been bugging me. Unliberaled Woman is right that it's a huge double standard for Perez Hilton to say that she should've "left her politics out" when he asked her such a question. What did he expect? A majority of Californians recently voted to ban gay marriage, but he somehow assumed that she was not one of those people. And then got mad at her for not being what he wanted her to be. Unliberaled Woman said:

It’s unfortunate that liberals continue to play from the standard persuasive tactic of “your viewpoint must cater to mine despite your individualism because your perspective might be offensive to me despite the fact my perspective could be offensive to you.”

I think that is a great way of phrasing this type of behavior. Don't ask a controversial question if you're not ready for a controversial answer. (And remind me again what's so controversial about the majority position in this country! Again, see The Occult Meaning of "Controversial" at Powerline.)

And honestly, when I heard Hilton's question for the first time, I thought of a way more radical answer. Let's see how well I play Miss America:

Perez Hilton: Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit, why or why not?"

[Big vaseline smile] "Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage." [Oy, that was a bit stumbly, Miss California. But I'm right with you up to here. Now here's where I'd diverge.]

I, however, am a firm believer in states' rights. As Connie du Toit said:

California can be whatever the people in the state want it to be. They can have universal health care, high taxes and wealth redistribution, environmentally restrictive building codes, labor laws that favor the laborer over the employer, and cliques and factions that support this or that version of political correctness. They can do that, and (as IÂ’ve said before) I would fight to the death their right to make those decisions.

I support the right of any state to legalize gay marriage by a statewide vote. If it passes, it is the law of the land. But I also support the right of states to ban the practice. And I firmly support the right of every American to "vote with his feet" and move to the state which best represents his principles and values.

So, no, I don't think that every state should follow Vermont's example of legalizing same-sex marriage...only the states which put the issue to a vote and decide through the ballot box to legalize it. And I would respect the vote of the American people no matter which option they chose in their states. That's what our country is all about.

Thank you.

(Yeah, I don't think I'd end up Miss America either.)

Posted by: Sarah at 05:41 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Good answer!

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at April 23, 2009 07:43 AM (KoNtx)

2 Heh - I'd LOVE it if someone started in on a real live soapbox like that, just for a change!!! :-)

Posted by: kannie at April 23, 2009 09:07 AM (iT8dn)

3 I wish you WOULD be Miss America though! And I agree with everything you've said. Most especially regarding Perez Hilton. I can't believe he said that she should keep politics out of it. That was a poilitcal question! And a quite controversial one at that! For Pete's sake. My only remark would be that it is an unfair generalization to say that all liberals expect people to feel the same way they do and get offended when they don't. Perhaps this is again my opinion based out of my region of the country, but I see just as many republicans behave the same way. To me, it's an issue of whether the person is an intelligent and respectful person or not, regardless of political affiliation. I personally don't care what a person believes as long as they think carefully, respond intelligently and try not to be as offensive as possible along the way. To clarify the last point: people's emotions are they're own responsibility. However, many times people make stupid remarks that are meant to insult those different than themselves. So I am not referring to the easily offended.

Posted by: Sara V. at April 23, 2009 09:24 AM (+ji5f)

4 first off who gives 2 shits about Perez....seriously. second great answer, very WWLD.

Posted by: AWTM at April 23, 2009 01:56 PM (8lhB1)

5 I take umbrage with the fact that he asked her opinion and then judged her based on her opinion--not by its content, well-reasoned logic, or even her ability to express it, but simply because he didn't agree with it. And Chucks answer would've been even easier: Personally, I can't understand how anyone could enjoy taking it up the ass, or look at another man's hairy ass and say, "oh, I gotta have that". As far as marriage goes, what the hell, homos have as much right to be miserable as the rest of us. The simple fact is that I am not gay, so "supporting gay anything" isn't in my self-interest. I could care less if you can marry or not. A power not given to the federal government in the constitution is left to the states, or the people. I support that you have as much right as any other to change or petition for redress of grievances, but marriage or "civil union" is a contract no different than any other contract between two people, and the government shouldn't have any authority over that contract than they do over a contract between me and someone who rents a room in my house. Having said all that, ewww... queerbait!

Posted by: Chuck at April 23, 2009 04:44 PM (meX2d)

6 OK, just wanted to let you know that I love your lengthy political pieces but I'm almost always handicapped by two different things to prevent me from commenting: 1. the overtaxed brain can never think properly to form the right intelligent comments and 2. Fluffy the Spamhound says I can't! I'm just giving you the FYI ... cause I love your blog.

Posted by: Darla at April 23, 2009 05:56 PM (QXKMC)

7 Hi, i've been reading your blog for awhile but have never commented.. Was just hoping you could help me understand a little better... I live in Australia, therefore, whilst I have some knowledge of American goings on, I find it sadly lacking. So, just to clarify; I understand California voted no to Prop 8. My question is, what happens to all the marriages that occurred between its introduction and its exclusion? Are they annulled? Or deemed illegal once again? What are the rights concerning those parties involved in relation to powers of attorney and such? Also, in relation to the recession we're all finding ourselves involved with, what is the timeframe that America is expecting it to last? How effective has it been upon small businesses and those of the working class? I don't expect figures or statistics or anything, just an opinion on how long it's expected to continue.. Ta much, Justine

Posted by: Justine at April 25, 2009 10:45 PM (eBntH)

8 Great site. Keep doing.

Posted by: can you get high off tramadol at July 22, 2009 06:21 PM (BYXzm)

9 Beautiful site!

Posted by: tramadol and flushed feeling at July 23, 2009 01:57 AM (Z4E67)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
49kb generated in CPU 0.0096, elapsed 0.1132 seconds.
48 queries taking 0.1078 seconds, 176 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.