Perez Hilton Is Yelling at the Wrong Person

At the Miss USA Pageant, blogging hotshot Perez Hilton asked Miss California what she thought of gay marriage. She stated that although she was pleased that various states had endorsed gay marriage, she and her family believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Hilton has turned this into a platform to lambaste her repeatedly on his blog.

I say this as a liberal Democrat who firmly supports gay marriage:

Perez Hilton is acting like a jerk.

He asked her a question. It was a loaded and no-win question because no matter which way she responds, she’s going to pìšš øff somebody. She gave a straightforward and coherent response which is, as we know from experience, something you don’t always get from a beauty contestant. It was a gøddámņ beauty pageant, not the SATs. Perez Hilton doesn’t get to determine what the right answer was and excoriate her for the “wrong” one, especially–ESPECIALLY–since he was the one asking it. If he was simply commenting on a response she gave to a question posed by someone else, I wouldn’t care. But he was the one who asked a woman with a strict Christian upbringing, representing a state that went out of its way to vote in the majority against gay marriage, what she thought of same sex couples. What the hëll answer did he THINK she was going to give? There hasn’t been such unconvincing outrage since Captain Renault declared that he was shocked–SHOCKED–to learn there was gambling going on in Rick’s Place. To me, it comes across as if Hilton set her up to fail so that he could then milk the ensuing controversy and grab some headlines.

Miss California was espousing not only the philosophy of the majority of Californians who voted on Prop 8, but the stated philosophy of the President and Vice President of the United States (which is relevant since it’s the Miss USA contest). If Perez Hilton wants to do something constructive, let him yell at the Californians who endeavored to circumvent the mandated procedure for amending the state constitution by voting for formalizing bigotry. Let him yell at Barack Obama, whose parents wouldn’t have been allowed to marry fifty years ago in many of those same states that would now forbid marriage to same-sex couples. But it’s unseemly for him to continue excoriating and belittling this woman whose hopes for a beauty crown he himself may have destroyed simply because she didn’t say what he wanted her to say.

PAD

87 comments on “Perez Hilton Is Yelling at the Wrong Person

  1. The McCain/Palin cam complained of “ambush journalism” when reporters asked her relevant questions that exposed her ignorance on important issues.
    .
    That wasn’t “ambush journalism” – it was “asking-relevant-questions-that-I-can’t-answer journalism”.
    .
    This is “ambush journalism”.
    .
    And it’s as genuinely nasty as the exposure of Palin’s lack of preparation/legitimacy as a candidate wasn’t.
    .
    As a question to a Miss America candidate or a Vice-Presidential candidate, it’s at least semi-legitimate.
    .
    As a club to beat on the respondent, it’s legitimate in the case of the VP candidate; it’s beyong the pale with the Miss America hopeful, in my opinion.

    1. I would argue that this is not ambush journalism, on the basis that Perez Hilton is not a journalist.

      1. Exactly, he’s an over-rated douchebag who makes money drawing man-goo on people’s faces. Is that journalism?

  2. To me, it comes across as if Hilton set her up to fail so that he could then milk the ensuing controversy and grab some headlines.
    .
    The more I see about this ‘story’, and the more headlines I see, as well as photos attached to the stories, the more I believe what you say is accurate.

  3. Isn’t Perez Hilton a jerk in the “ser” sense, not just acting like one in the “estar” sense? (The division of meanings in the verbs “to be” is a useful feature of the Spanish language.)

    1. …and one english speaker take ages to understand, that if they ever do.

      Anyway, in this particular example, the form “estar” is misguiding. You can be/estar in a place (estoy en el baño), you can be/estar a certain mood or condition (estoy cansado), but you can’t be/estar a jerk. In this case you still need the “ser” form of the verb along “estar”:

      Es un cabrón***He is a jerk
      Esta siendo un cabrón***He is beign a jerk

      But I kind of agree with the point you made… not really fon of gossip “journalists”.

    1. I knew it.

      Somebody had to be responsible for destroying the fabric of america.

      I knew it was the gays or the redheads.

  4. Unbelievable…and unfortunate…that a blogger with no true journalistic credentials (or any other meaningful ones, for that matter)can have so much “pull” that he could remotely sway the results of a contest like the Mis USA pagent.

  5. Hilton asked her an opinion question that, apparently, only had one right answer. When he was pressed by Matt Lauer on the Today show this morning about what she ‘should’ have said, Hilton suggested that she should have given a politically-neutral non-answer. That just left me wondering that if you wanted a non-answer then why bother asking the question. He’s acting like she said that gay people should be rounded up into camps or something.

  6. She gave a straightforward and coherent response

    It didn’t seem straightforward and coherent to me. She rambled on about the greatness of the right to choose in America, which is irrelevant because gay marriage is only a legal choice in 4 state. I think a lot of what she said was stalling while she tried to think of the answer that would get her in the least trouble.

    I agree that she was ambushed and it wasn’t her fault that she wasn’t able to for a terrific answer off the top of her head. I doubt I could have said anything better if I’d been put on the spot like that.

    1. Let’s see what she actually said:
      .
      “We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”
      .
      Well…she’s right, if one interprets the “you” to be individual states (and since it’s Miss USA, that’s not unreasonable.) Everything from Prop 8 to State Legislatures to State Supreme courts has to do with choosing. Of course, if one interprets “you” in her statement to mean individuals making choice about their own lives (as opposed to Prop 8 which involved bigots making choices on behalf of others’ lives) then obviously she’s wrong. So basically Miss California’s problem was best summarized by Daffy Duck: “Pronoun trouble.”
      .
      PAD

      1. Yeah, some pronoun trouble. She was muddled in general. She had a bit of the deer-in-the-headlights look that the “like, such as” Miss Teen South Carolina had a couple years ago. She said, “In my country,” which is a weird phrase and implies she’s from a different country than the presenter. I’m sure she meant, “in our country,” and was just stumbling.

        My favorite bit is “opposite marriage” referring to straight marriage. I haven’t heard that before and I don’t think many people would use that phrase. They should, it’s great.

        Overall, she just got flustered.

  7. Hilton is an awful guy. His awfulness has been on display since day one. Even for a gossip columnist, a profession that has had more than its share of mean spirited jerks, he stands out. If Jerry fallwell wanted to come up with a parody of a vindictive raging queen he could have come up with a bigger characature than Hilton.
    .
    Nothing could be worse for the cause of marriage freedom in this country than to have this ridiculous clown become in any way shape or form a spokes man for the cause. this would be a GREAT time for some people with some pull in the community to take a stand–what if George Takei (to pull just one name from the very long list of Gay People Who are better Human beings Than Perez Hilton, I’m not saying it has to be him or that he has to be the one) came out and said that while he disagreed with her position, we condemn this sort of bullying, etc etc. Look like the good guys here. The fact is that a lot of people think as she does and simply attacking them and gloating over having successfully done so will only harden their hearts and maybe turn off some of those who are on the fence. people may be afraid to speak their minds but you can’t control them in the voting booth.

  8. As a guy who also believes in the right for gay men and women to marry, I think you’ve hit it dead on. I might find her views repugnant, but there’s nothing good to be gained by arguing societal ethics at a beauty pageant.

    And Perez Hilton is a jerk for money. That’s his job- pick on celebrities’ foibles for internet ratings. He’s as useful to society as Rush Limbaugh, and less fun to watch. (Admit it- Rush has one of the best carnival acts going, repulsive as he may be.)

  9. People actually care about either the Miss USA pageant or Perez Hilton?

    (as a side note, the main story about Hilton here in Vegas where the pageant took place is that Criss Angel called him out from the audience at Angel’s Believe show and called him a douchebag. Given that Believe has gotten horrible reviews (it’s considered the first Cirque du Soleil failure hereabouts), and Angel’s own rep is pretty bad, the standard comments are about “taking one to know one” and “you know it’s bad when Criss Angel calls you such”.)

    1. Well, if anyone would know about someone being a douchebag, it’s Criss Angel. There was an entire episode of “Supernatural” entitled, “Criss Angel is a Douchebag.”
      .
      If you don’t follow the series and think I’m kidding…I’m totally serious.
      .
      PAD

      1. Great episode title. And Criss Angel seems to be as much of a douchebag as John Edwards or David Blaine.

  10. i direct your attention to another HuffPost blog post, by Charles Karel Bouley, entitled Dear Perez: Miss California Gave The Right Answer For The Moment:

    I am an openly gay man and a supporter of same sex marriage and I wish Perez Hilton would shut up. This is a person who is famous for smearing snarky and crude things over celebrity photos and following Brittney’s every move. He lives for controversy and is only famous for it: not his overwhelming political activism, not his witty insights into the psyche of America or even the gay community, not even thought provoking conversations; no, he’s a fame whørë and he does it very, very well.

    … and continues:

    {snip}

    It’s a question with no right answer for a pageant contestant and one that also insults every person out there that is gay or lesbian — not her answer, the question.

    {snip}

    … And, well, we see what happened when she answered [as she did]: she loses, is denounced and called a “bìŧçh” and the “c” word by the blogger on national TV and print.

    {snip}

    No, she wouldn’t be asked if two people of different races should be able to marry, or of two different faiths, both of which were illegal at one time. It is true the only group on which it is still fully acceptable to unload is the gay community (in the name of morals or God) but oh well, that’s the sad fact. And no, it’s not pleasant. But stop throwing a hissy fit. In the time since the incident she’s come off as a classy and charming mannequin with an uninformed bigot underneath and you a loud angry hissy fit homo who again misses the point.

    (([Full post here]
    As a straight male who can’t understand what homophobia is all about, i applaud this man’s argument and his post.
    .
    And i have some suggestions for Perez Hilton, but i won’t post them here, where people might be offended…

  11. I fall into the conservative Republican camp and have a Christian upbringing (thought of becoming a priest frequently) so my views on gay marraige are pretty obvious.

    That said, Perez Hilton abuses gay people. He forces people in the closet to come out regardless of their situation. In doing so, he forces his lifestyle upon others and quite possibly endangers their jobs or very lives. The criticism against anti-gay marraige laws is that they force one lifestyle upon another. Hilton’s hypocrisy is evident.

    1. Honestly, my first instinct was to say that you were wrong, but the more I think about it, the more I think you have a valid point.
      .
      I do not for an instant buy into the notion that gay marriage somehow forces the gay lifestyle upon others. The idea that making gay marriage legal in New York, for instance, is going to endanger straight marriages is preposterous. Conservatives are upset being forced to contemplate gay marriage because thinking about gays bothers them? Then Conservatives need to get over themselves. Display some of that Christian charity I hear so much about.
      .
      On the other hand, Hilton’s actions and attitudes play to the worst stereotypical beliefs of gays and fosters the entire notion of a “gay agenda” that’s been so hurtful. Hilton genuinely does have an agenda in that he wants to force closeted gays out. He refuses to understand why they wouldn’t want to be like him, and tries to force his lifestyle–that of an openly gay male–on others. He was quoted as saying, “It upsets me that people think what I’m doing is a bad thing. I don’t think it’s a bad thing. If you know something to be a fact, why not report it? Why is that still taboo?”
      .
      The answer is obvious to a journalist and incomprehensible to him: A newsman reports news. A person being gay is no more newsworthy than a person being straight except in very specific circumstances. Example: I could see the news value in writing about a stridently anti-gay Evangelist, married with eight kids, who it turns out cruises gay bars and picks up hot eighteen year old guys. But in that instance the story isn’t simply that he’s gay, but that he’s a highly-placed hypocrite.
      .
      But this is Journalism 101. If something falls under the public’s right to know, then you write about it. If not, then you don’t. In the old days when you had trained editors to make that distinction, crap like this never made it anywhere near the news. But now that everyone has direct and unfiltered access to the public consciousness, fundamental journalistic standards fall by the wayside.
      .
      Someone’s specific gay sexual preferences in their private lives is no more part of the public’s right to know than a straight individual’s sexual preference. If some actor wants to have sex with people of the same gender, or is straight but likes his wife to wear a saucy French maid outfit, it’s nobody’s business but their own.
      .
      PAD

      1. You’re right, PAD, and, to take it further, Hilton plays the role of the bìŧçhÿ queen to get away with his vulgarity–he plays to the ugliest of stereotypes because it furthers his career.
        .
        Most people would be afraid to, say, attack the children of celebrities on their looks, or make snarky innuendo about the sexuality of others (based on no stated evidence at all) but Hilton gets a pass because he plays the fool. He’s like a gay version of a minstrel character.
        .
        But hey, he gets hits, his site is popular. I don’t see any evidence of charm or talent from him so he’s managed to get far on very little.

      2. Most people would be afraid to, say, attack the children of celebrities on their looks, or make snarky innuendo about the sexuality of others (based on no stated evidence at all) but Hilton gets a pass because he plays the fool. He’s like a gay version of a minstrel character.

        ITYM: “Most people other than Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and their crew…”

  12. I am a staunch supporter of gay rights, but yeah, unfortunately she’s entitled to her opinion. And Perez is entitled to give his reaction to her opinion.

    1. Completely agree. I do wonder, would there be all this fuss if the Pageant girl, who does seem like a nice person, wasn’t a beautiful woman?

    2. I’m not saying he doesn’t have the right to do so. I’m saying he’s a dìçk for doing so, particularly since not only was he the one who put her in this position, but he did so in specific violation of pageant rules that forbade judges from asking politically-charged questions.
      .
      PAD

      1. Agreed, and it’s an important distinction that should be made more.

        There’s a huge difference between saying, “This person should be arrested for acting like this” and “This person is a douchebag for acting like this.”

        Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn’t make it commendable or immune to criticism.

      2. Against the rules? Who wants to bet that Perez is back next year and just as charged. In my opinion this is about attention. If people would stop talking about it Perez would run out of steam. As for the pagent, their ratings are in the gutter, they are probably lapping up the controversy. The CA division certainly is.

      3. I remember back in 78, when Bob Barker was still hosting Miss Universe, he playfully asked the contestant from some asian country what her opinion was on Proposition 13 (a topical anti-property tax initiative in California), and quickly explained he was only kidding. He got a good laugh from the audience, and explained it was an they were voting on in the US, since obviously few foreign viewers would have gotten the joke.

        An inordinate number of political activists (on both sides, he hastily added) turn more people off of their issues than convince to follow them with their hammer-handed tactics and strident tones. Ask any New Yorker who got snarled in traffic during one of Al Sharpton’s walkathons or sit-down stirkes – he could have been trying to raise water to put out babies who were on fire, people would have come out against it just because it was messing up their groove.

        There’s a time and place to discuss everything, and to watch people try to cram their political agenda into places it simply should not be usually just eye-rolls and head-shakes from the general populace.

    3. am a staunch supporter of gay rights, but yeah, unfortunately she’s entitled to her opinion. And Perez is entitled to give his reaction to her opinion.

      Why is it “unfortunate” that she’s entitled to her opinion? Personally, I’m glad she’s entitled to her because that’s the only way I’m entitled to mine.

  13. Plus, Hilton played right into the meta-narrative that the right is trying to write right now. (wow, too many rights in that sentence.)

    Their theme is that if someone says they prefer heterosexual marriage to homosexual marriage then they will be called a racist. I was listening to an NPR segment with a lady from the organization that made the anti-gay-agenda commercials and this was her rallying cry. My congregation (yes, I’m a pastor) here in Iowa is a bunch of people who are scared because they don’t know what this whole gay marriage thing looks like, they’re a little afraid of gays, and they’re worried about their future. They have people on the right telling them that the gays will come in and take away their rights and force their lifestyle upon them. Then they hear about Perez Hilton and this confirms their fears. And when I suggest that gays aren’t to be feared but loved, they aren’t going to hear my voice quite as loudly.

    Hilton plays into the narrative that the right is trying to create, and expands the fears of people who need to be edged a bit more slowly towards a future of equality.

  14. Oh man, I thought the exact same thing as I listened to Perez on Headline News just a few minutes ago. They discussed whether or not religions belongs in the pageant but how dumb can one be? When you ask a question like that, don’t be pìššëd when the person gives you an answer you don’t like and don’t question whether or not religion belongs in the forums when you know plenty of people are against gay marriage because of religious reasons.

    Granted, I don’t think her answer was very eloquent, but as far as the answer itself, what did he expect? Does he think every contestant on there agrees with him and would give an answer he liked? And why does anyone care what he thinks? How in the world did this guy get to be so famous? I wish I could be famous and make money doing nothing important…although I could never be a jerk to someone else, no matter how much fame and fortune I could make.

    Good for Miss California for sticking by her beliefs even though she had to have known it would cause her to be persecuted. I’m sickened by Perez going on and on about what she should have said. According to Perez, she should have just said, “In my Bible it teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman and I believe that, but I support civil unions” and he would have been fine with her answer. He actually said that! Like Dude, she didn’t say that because maybe she doesn’t believe in civil unions either! The fact that this guy has the nerve to sit there and discuss what the “right” answer should have been is really….wacky.

  15. I didn’t know who Perez Hilton was and looked him up in Google (wasn’t going to use the ‘googled’ verb, since “and I googled him” would give rise to bad gay jokes) after reading his entry and checking with other sources, I glad to say I’m happy I’m not current with this wannabe celebrity – slash – wannabe entertainment reporter – slash – ambush wannabe journalist. This guy is a @#%&bag.

    1. “since “and I googled him” would give rise to bad gay jokes”

      Is there some new definition of “google” of which I have remained blissfully unaware?

      Are you saying you’re against googling gay people?

      (see how easy it is to act offended?)

      1. Sounds like some sort of bizarre exclamation that Little Orphan Annie might say. “Great Googling Gay People, Sandy!” “Arf!”
        .
        Maybe to avoid excess alliteration, Googling gays should just be condensed to “gaygling.”
        .
        PAD

  16. Wow.

    As I’m not one who generally cares about beauty pagants, celebrity scandal, or whatever is passing as “the news” in general this is the first I’ve heard of any of this controversy. I wasn’t even sure who Perez Hilton was when I started reading this thing.

    If it has any effect on what anyone thinks of my opinion, Politically I’m a Carlinist – as in like George carlin i don’t belive politicians care about us. Sexually I’m strait and married 5 years to a wonderful girl and opiniatedly for gay marrage.

    What consenting people do in the bedroom is thier own business. That simple. Regardless of gender, race, religion, number of partners, costumes or toys. If they want to share their opinions, or pictures, with like minded people that’s cool too. And if you disagree, there’s plenty of forum for that too, as there should be.

    But sounds to me like just a mean man trying to make a little girl look bad because he thinks it makes him look good. he’s a bully.

    Can i ask tho –

    I’m guessing this is nothing new for this perez character.

    So is that the kind of person miss usa selects as a judge? It dosn’t make this kind of outcome suprising.

    Or am I making too big a leap here?

    1. I’ll bet that the Miss USA people are thrilled beyond words about this–the show hasn’t had this much attention in years–and we can expect many more examples of stunt casting for judges in the years to come.

  17. Firstly, calling Perez Hilton a journalist is like calling Ðìçk Cheney a marksman.
    Secondly, as to why Hilton is a judge in the first place, let’s remember who one of the owners of the Miss USA pageant is: Donald Trump.

    1. >Hmm. Must be Tuesday.

      Or Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday (Whoops party day for the drive by artist, maybe Saturday), Sunday (unless hung over by Saturday) and Monday…

  18. Huh…
    .
    I can honestly say I have no idea who this clown is and, judging by this incident, I’m quite happy moving on in my life with very little added knowledge of who this clown is. Maybe if we’re all really lucky and ignore him his 15 minutes of fame will seemingly evaporate that much faster.

  19. First, let me cite this gem from the Onion: “Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens to Gay Marry.” http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30475

    Second, I tend to agree with PAD here. I’m fully in support of gay marriage, gays in the military, and protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. (After that, let ’em slug it out with the rest of us.) That said, Perez Hilton’s question was pretty loaded, and the contestant was lambasted for offering her honest opinion. I certainly disagree with her, but her answer was coherent and neither condescending nor hate-filled.

    Third, here’s something no one has addressed: Why is this one answer assumed to be the reason she lost? She was competing against 49 other women, I believe there are numerous factors that go into picking a winner (I don’t watch these pageants, but I know there are several categories), and all we’re hearing about is that this answer cost her the crown. (It doesn’t even seem like that big a loss, considering she’s been on the news a *lot* more than the lady who, y’know, actually won.)

    1. “Third, here’s something no one has addressed: Why is this one answer assumed to be the reason she lost?”
      .
      I’m assuming it’s because the this nitwit judge is now out there doing interviews were he’s saying that she lost because she should have given a more politically correct or politically neutral answer.

      1. Sadly, you’re probably right. And the news channels and papers are running with that angle because “49 people lose the Miss America pageant” makes for a pretty boring story.

  20. PAD: What about the UN officials who were shocked — shocked! — that Durban 2 is turning out the way it is? 🙂

  21. Obviously the fault lies with Donald Trump for picking this loser to be a judge in the first place.

  22. What I don’t understand is why is this even a discussion point? Celeb or not, one person = one opinion. Just because they are – and I use the term loosely – famous doesn’t mean their opinion counts any more than mine. When I state mine, it doesn’t spark a media firestorm.

    IM-very-HO, we give too much credit to what high-profile entertainment people say. Not wishing to offend anybody, but whatever happened to listening to and learning about something before making up your OWN mind about how you feel about it?

    1. But…but…but if we don’t have celebrities telling us what to think, how CAN we make up our own minds?
      .
      PAD

    1. I assume you mean Hedda Hopper.
      .
      Well, let’s see: They’re both gossip columnists who are vicious towards people they don’t like and are determined to out people they believe are gay. On the other hand, Hopper remains a legend while, years from now, Perez Hilton will be consigned to the scrapheap of forgotten nothings, where he so richly deserves to be.
      .
      PAD

    2. I thought that was “Hedda” Hopper?
      .
      And Hilton can’t be really famous becaue he doesn’t wear neet-o hats, which, in the long run, seems to be Hopper’s biggest claim to fame (along with Bela Abzug).

  23. I was surprised that he asked a politically-oriented question, as I don’t recall ever hearing such a question asked in a pageant, and as someone who supports gay marriage, I was embarrassed to see her even asked that. I also didn’t know it was against the rules, but I wonder what the pageant will do now that he broke them, apart from not enlisting him again. Have they publicly condemned or distanced themselves from him? Obviously, Hilton is one of those self-absorbed, self-righteous types who don’t care about tempering their passionately-held beliefs with a modicum of recognition of the proper venue to voice them.

    But Peter, why is Criss Angel a douche? I’ve only seen one of his TV specials, so what am I missing?

    1. I’ve never actually seen him in action at all. But apparently he is not particularly well regarded within the world of magicians. As a matter of fact, when I learned that “Supernatural” was airing an episode entitled, “Criss Angel is a Douche Bag,” I called some magician friends of mine and said, “Out of curiosity, what do you think of Criss Angel?” And they responded, “He’s a douche bag.”
      .
      Of course, there’s plenty of people on the internet who would be quick to say the same thing about me. Still, as near as I can tell, I’m not on Criss Angel’s level.
      .
      PAD

  24. Couple of thoughts:
    1) I heard on the radio that there are 12 questions submitted to be asked to the contestants. 6 are randomly chosen and used and andomly selected/assinged to the contestants. Soo, Perez did not pick the question and ambush her with it. If that radio report is correct, then, as much as it galls me to say it, Hilton may not be quite as bášŧárdlÿ as he sounded — still douchebaggy, of course, but it sounds like he didn’t just try to trap her b/c of her beliefs and upbringing. Did he thank his lucky stars when *that* question went to *that* contestant? Abso-fricking-lutely.
    2) Someone above mentioned something to the effect about her opinions beingn irrrelevant to the crown/title. I’m not so sure I agree. If she is going to “represent” America, then I have no real problem with the “judges” determining if she is “fit” to do so. (lot of air quotes there, I know, but I thing you get the gist). This is not to say that I think that her response was in any way un-american.
    3) A lot of the airplay I have heard have treated her quote like the second ammendment — they ignore the first clause and only quote the rest.

    1. That is at direct variance with what I had read elsewhere, which was that Perez not only came up with the question himself, but refused to divulge to other judges what he was going to ask.
      .
      I think it is simply way too much of a stretch to believe that Perez, an aggressive gay activist, Just So Happened to be randomly handed that question.

      PAD

      1. I am more than willing to believe that the “radio report” I heard (which, truth to tell, is better described as a morning talk show hosted by a bunch over over-sexed goobers) was incorrect.

    2. And not for nothin’, but the harsh reality is that her response DOES represent not only the majority of Americans, but the majority of states that have specifically addressed the issue. So if that’s the criteria that the judges were using–representing America–then they completely screwed up.
      .
      PAD

  25. PAD – Great post. Not to be flippant, but why the fuss over something a beauty contestant said? She has no where near the influence of a major movie star or the ability to impact things like a judge or politician.
    .
    I know this issue is controversial and that many (like yourself, PAD) see this as the same as racism. But where is the respect for those of us who do not? As with pro-choice vs. pro-life, things aren’t that simple. Yelling (from either side) doesn’t do much good.
    .
    Iowa Jim

    1. Except it is that simple. Allow me to quote Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
      .
      Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
      .
      So any state that never before had a law which prevented two of its citizens from getting married if they’re the same gender, and that now turns around and makes a law that specifically deprives its citizens of that right, is doing something unconstitutional. Passing a law that says two men or two women cannot marry is as arbitrary, unfair, and unAmerican as passing a law that says that a black man and a white woman cannot marry, or a Jewish man and a Catholic woman cannot marry.
      .
      Oh. Wait. There WERE laws forbidding that. And they were done away with because we, as a society, grew up. We recognized it as racist. We recognized as bigotry.
      .
      Just as, eventually, it will be realized that preventing gays from marrying is bigotry.
      .
      The reason you garner no respect on this issue, Jim…the reason you actually deserve none…is because years from now, the thinking of you and those like you will be considered nothing short of embarrassing. The opinions of society WILL pass you by. You can either get ahead of the curve or wave to it as it goes past you and leaves your views to the dust of history that they so richly deserve. Your choice.
      .
      PAD

      1. Yes, I know there were laws prohibiting whites from marrying blacks, or people from different religions marrying each other. I just reject that this is on the same level. You want to argue that the difference in genders is not important? Fine. But please don’t imply it is no different than a difference in the color of skin without dealing with the implications.
        .
        You ignore the fundamental issue of definition. I argue that marriage is the union of different genders. You may disagree with that definition, but don’t gloss over the fact that a fundamental change in definition is taking place.
        .
        The reality is, gáÿ šëx is an imitation of the real thing. When two men or two women have sex, they do not have a new way of “merging” and becoming one. They take the reproductive act a man and a woman do and simulate it. When I say “imitation,” I mean it literally, not in a derogatory way. Sex between a man and a woman (two different genders) came first and has been required for the continuation of the human race. So any sex between a same sex couple, by definition, is imitating the original act between a man and a woman.
        .
        Is that wrong? That is where religion comes in. I say yes, it is. But I acknowledge that is a religious perspective. Apart from God, I can understand someone saying there is no harm and nothing wrong with a same gender couple having sex.
        .
        But when it comes to the definition of marriage being between an individual of each gender (a male and female), not two of the same gender, it is quite possible to leave religion out of the equation.
        .
        Marriage is not just about a partnership or commitment to another person. It is a physical union of two genders that has at least the potential to lead to procreation. Redefining marriage to be between two men and two women removes that inherent, natural, potential. That doesn’t mean a couple incapable or uninterested in having a child was not truly married. But in the bigger picture of us as a species, marriage has played a role for thousands of years of providing a stable environment to bear and raise children — so yes, marriage is very important. And the best environment to raise a child is one with a parent of each gender. Yes, a gay couple can love a child. But there are plenty of studies that demonstrate the importance of a child being raised in a home with a father and a mother. Same sex parents face the same challenges as a single parent in making up for the lack of a role model of the opposite gender.
        .
        This is not about hating gay people. This is not about trying to deny them their rights. This is about rejecting a change that weakens the most fundamental structure in society — marriage. Not to be flippant, but gay marriage will always be in the minority in a thriving society since gay marriages cannot naturally bear children. Yes, there are other avenues (such as adoption or artificial insemination), but those cost money and are not as easy (and a child to a gay couple would never be an “accident”).
        .
        Whether the views of society pass me by or not is irrelevant. What is healthy and best for society will be abundantly clear for those who want to see it. Some of the things gay couples want (and hope to get through marriage) are understandable (such as not having to fight the partner’s biological family for the estate after a partner dies, visiting rights at the hospital, etc.). But redefining marriage only causes other problems.
        .

        Iowa Jim

      2. This is not about hating gay people. This is not about trying to deny them their rights.
        .
        Yes, Jim. That’s exactly what it’s about. At least have the nerve to admit that.
        .
        To say that it’s not about denying them their rights would come as news to all the gays whose rights are being denied. As for it’s not being about hating them? Sure it is. Because you view marriage as a religious sacrament, and you believe that homosexuality is sinful, and therefore two people engaging in sin should not be able to receive that sacrament. Simple as that. You want to argue that it’s about hating the sin and not the sinner? Go ahead. But it’s still hatred, it’s still gays, and the result remains the same.
        .
        PAD

    2. Iowa Jim, marriage has been redefined throughout time and across cultures. The Christian concept of marriage was a redefinition of the idea.

      As for gáÿ šëx being an “imitation,” instances of homosexual behavior in certain species of wild animals has been well-documented. I tend to doubt wild animals engaging in sodomy are “imitating” anything. The more rational explanation is that homosexual urges are as natural as heterosexual urges.

      As for the threat to society, you have made that argument more than once without ever offering a single shred of evidence to support it. Just as racists argued that allowing the races to mix would tear our society apart without ever offering a rational explanation.

      I’m afraid it is indeed relevant that society is passing you, and others like you, by. It is you and your views that are being proven irrelevant, day by day. Homosexuals are gradually becoming more accepted, and society isn’t falling apart as a result. Quite the opposite: it’s becoming stronger and better.

      I cannot in good conscience give your views any more respect than I would give to those of a racist. Because your views about homosexuality are no different.

      1. Well said Bill.
        I would add that there are two reasons why we accept gay marriage.

        semantically, we accept certain gay relationships as marriage not because the definition changed, but rather because we recognized that certain gay relationships are so similar to what we consider to be marriage, i.e. committment, love, sex, houshold, family. Whereas the aspects in which they are different, i.e. opposite genders and the hypothetical possibiilty of procreation, do not seem significant enough not to call that relationship marriage.

        Beside tha there is no objective criterion set in stone to what marriage is or is not, only different social attitudes.

        Humanistically, we recognize that people are entitled to define their own relationships, and we see no moral reasons to deny them the right to call their relationship arriage simplly because it does not fit the idea of marriage e’ve been used to until recently.

        Obviously, Iowa Jim (you should change your name under the circumstances) is entitled to think that opposite genders or procreation are the essential aspects of marriage, but that’s just his belief, just as his religion is, and it cannot be a justification to deny gays the right to call their relationship marriage.

        So basically it all hinges on the argument that gay marriages somehow threaten society. The truth is you could skip all the semantic games. But like Bill said, this argument is not very convincing.

      2. The tired mantra that marriage has been redefined over the years is getting pretty old. Where and when exactly has marriage been anything other than between a man and a woman? You have to dig pretty deep into some very obscure examples to find the exception.
        .
        There is a biological component to marriage — it is the sexual union between a man and a woman that creates children. This is unique. Let me give a very simple example. If same sex marriage is no different than heterosexual marriage, then everyone should be free to choose what they want, right? Well, what if every man decided to marry a man and every woman decided to marry a woman? What would happen? The human race would quickly face extinction. Yes, there are some ways we could get around that today using the wonders of artificial methods, but even that would be hard pressed to keep up with the birthrate needed to keep the human race around. (Why do you think China is suddenly having to rethink their one child policy? Because they are beginning to realize that they will implode in a generation due to a lack of kids to support and care for the parents!)
        .
        But, you might argue, this is about having the “option” to marry someone of the same gender. I know. But you have been missing my point. The scenario I suggest demonstrates graphically why same sex marriage is not the same as marriage of a man and a woman. It is incapable of doing what marriage has always done — produce the next generation in sufficient numbers to sustain itself.
        .
        Again, since my point seems to be missed, I am NOT saying most people will suddenly decide to marry the same gender and the world will end in a few generations. I am simply saying that the claim that the very definition of marriage is not being changed is patently absurd.
        .
        So what is the actual danger this poses today to society? Many of them are the same threats I feel divorce and broken homes have caused today. Namely, more crime and more troubled children. Not because gay parents are bad parents, but because biological parents are much more often better caretakers of their own flesh and blood (in spite of the exceptions to this rule). And children long for the connection with their true biological parents (of both genders) which would be difficult in many cases. To name just a few. You want more? Here is a list: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01
        .
        As regards animals in the wild, I would suggest that sexual urges are what are natural. Besides, my point remains the same: It doesn’t matter why they do this. The fact is, they don’t create a new sex. There is not a new gender. There is a sex drive hard wired into both us and animals — whatever the source — for the purpose of procreation. Not to downplay the pleasurable part of sex, but you cannot divorce the two. The sex act is by its nature an act of procreation. Whether it is how we evolved or how God made us, that is its primary function. Sex acts between the same gender fail to fulfill its primary function. As I stated above, that is not a moral statement and doesn’t prove it is a wrong thing to do. And without procreation, we will cease to exist as a species. So of course it is a pretty powerful drive.
        .
        Iowa Jim

      3. 1) “The tired mantra that marriage has been redefined over the years is getting pretty old. Where and when exactly has marriage been anything other than between a man and a woman? You have to dig pretty deep into some very obscure examples to find the exception.”

        The gender thung has been pretty steady, probably because heterosexuals are the majority. Other aspects of marriage and family vary depending on time, location, and economic status. The equality and lack therof between men and women. Working mothers + the kind of work fathers do. The attitude toward children and the role of family members in child rearing (the father’s role was much smaller, economic conditions might increase the role of nanny’s). Child-work. Polygamy vs. monogamy (polygamy existed in small places you might know as Africa, the Middle East and China). Commitment vs. divorce. Faithfullness (it used to be much more accepted for men to be unfaithful). Attitude to spousal abuse. Attitude toward the role of romantic love in marriage (it used to be nore of a busines transaction). In the midle ages marriage without sex used to be an ideal. Well, That’s it off the top of my head.

        2) “There is a biological component to marriage”

        Wrong. There is a biological component to attraction, sex and to procreationm as well as to the difference between genders. Marriage is a social institution that was created by different humans societies to address these biological phenomena. As societies changed so did marriage. For example, while there is no denying that men and women are different, this biological reality no longer is used to justify the inherent inequality that used to be a major part of the institution of marriage for centuries. This is quite a recent change that happened only in the west.

        3) ” — it is the sexual union between a man and a woman that creates children. This is unique.”

        Hardly, creating children doesn’t require marriage, nor all marriages create children.

        4) “Well, what if every man decided to marry a man and every woman decided to marry a woman? What would happen? The human race would quickly face extinction.”

        “It is incapable of doing what marriage has always done — produce the next generation in sufficient numbers to sustain itself.”

        “Again, since my point seems to be missed, I am NOT saying most people will suddenly decide to marry the same gender and the world will end in a few generations.”

        So why did you make this completely absurd suggestion in the first and second passages?

        The majority of the population are not gay, and will not become gay because of gay marriages, so whether they wil form families and have children has little to do with what gays do or do not do.

        At best you can claim is that a fraction of the gays who are only a small fraction of the entire population, who may have remained closeted and formed hetrosexual families with children, will now not do so. But if youor intention is to force gays to remain in hetrosexual families, preventing them from marrying gays is not nearly enough.

        5) “(Why do you think China is suddenly having to rethink their one child policy? Because they are beginning to realize that they will implode in a generation due to a lack of kids to support and care for the parents!)”

        “So what is the actual danger this poses today to society? Many of them are the same threats I feel divorce and broken homes have caused today. Namely, more crime and more troubled children.”

        It is interesting how you use facts that have nothing to do with gays in order to attack them.

        Fact: birth rates among heterosexuals have declined in Europe, in China and in Japan as a result of seperate societal reasons, (whereas in other parts of the world people have a lot of children for societal reasons, which creates a different set of problems).
        The result of that is that there are fewer members of the next generation to take care of the first.

        Fact: the institution of divorce has become both accepted and more common in western societies than it has in the past, including in Catholic countries where it was illegal.

        Fact: a combination of poverty and other societal reason results in a lot of poor single parents who have difficulty taking care of their children in an already hazardous environment, resulting in crime and drugs.

        Yet you would never consider denying individuals the right to divorce, to have as many chioldren as they want or not; you would never suggest trying to force deadbeat dads or moms to live with their families, nor do you support a kind of welfare state that would make it easier on single parents. Yet you are willing to use the coercive power of the state to prevent couples to form families and households and even rear children, simply because they are of the same gender. How does that promotes family values?

        6) “I am simply saying that the claim that the very definition of marriage is not being changed is patently absurd.”

        Again, if you made a list of things we today consider to be part of marriage: love, sex, commitment to one sexual partner, a life time commitment, joint household, security, equality, having children, rearing children, monogamy, seperate genders, you would have to admit that many marriages don’t have all of these components all the time. Yet you would not say that a faithless marriage, or a sexless marriage, or a marriage without children, or a marriage that ended in divorce, or even an abusive marriage, you would not say that it is NOT marriage. In some cases you might at best say that it is not a very good marriage, but it is marriage nonetheless. Yet if it is a marriage between two members of the same gender, even if they are committed, and faithful, and in love, and have children and bring them up, well that can never be marriage in your eyes, never. Why is that? Is there any other reason other than personal bias and/or religious objection?

        7) “Not because gay parents are bad parents, but because biological parents are much more often better caretakers of their own flesh and blood (in spite of the exceptions to this rule). And children long for the connection with their true biological parents (of both genders) which would be difficult in many cases.”

        Insert here irate reply by adopted children and adoptive parents.
        Would you consider the institute of adoption bad for family values or good for it?

        8) “To name just a few. You want more? Here is a list: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01

        I am wary of research which exists to support a certain political position, especially if it is done by the people who already support that position.

        9) “As regards animals in the wild, I would suggest that sexual urges are what are natural. Besides, my point remains the same: It doesn’t matter why they do this. The fact is, they don’t create a new sex. There is not a new gender.”

        Yes, there is nothing new or unnatural about homosexuality. It’s just one of those natural phenomena. The only question before us is how human institution should address that fact.

        10) “There is a sex drive hard wired into both us and animals — whatever the source — for the purpose of procreation. Not to downplay the pleasurable part of sex, but you cannot divorce the two. The sex act is by its nature an act of procreation. Whether it is how we evolved or how God made us, that is its primary function.”

        Wrong. You see, here is where humans try to bounce moral conclusions off of natural facts.

        Fact: Sexual instinct in species that have sex prods them to have sex, which in turn causes some of them to procreate. According to evolution species that procreate survive.

        Fact: Since the sexual instinct exhibits himself as pleasure, some species try to get the pleasure even when they are not actuallt procreating or even having sex.

        Fact: humans don’t have a special period of the year when their instincts cause them to seek sex in order to procreate. As a result humans have sex all the time (some more than others) and not only for the purpopse of procreation. + Added social fact, since human are smart enough to control procreation (although not all), many humans have sex with the specific intent of not procreating.

        Fact: As a result of some biological processes sometimes the sex drive and or other aspects of sexualilty shift, which resulits in people being sexualy (and emotionally) attracted to members of the same gender (as wel as many other things).

        Now you can take these facts and do with them what you wil on the societal and moral level. You can either respect the fact that some people have different sexual instincts than you, or you can define these instincts as bad. You can ascribe great moral value to the biological act of procreation while ascribing a negative moral value to sex. It’s all up to you. Don’t try to hang it on biology.

        10) “Sex acts between the same gender fail to fulfill its primary function.”

        That’s like saying that the wing on an ostrich fails to fullfill its primary purpose. Or a vestigal tail on a human for that matter (said Micha while trying desperatly to wag his tail).

        11) “As I stated above, that is not a moral statement and doesn’t prove it is a wrong thing to do.”

        Denying people the equal right to marry is a moral question. You have to have a very good reason to do so. So far you have given none.

        Denying this right to gays does not make families stronger, does not make it any more or less likely that the human species will survive, and the issue of definition is hollow semantics.

        Micha

      4. The tired mantra that marriage has been redefined over the years is getting pretty old.
        .
        And yet, it’s true. Marriage for love is a pretty recent thing in the evolution of marriage. For most of human history, it’s been for simply procreation, for politics, for land, for convenience. It’s been about arranged marriages and sealing alliances between clans/tribes.
        .
        But it isn’t any more for most of the world.
        .
        Why do you think China is suddenly having to rethink their one child policy? Because they are beginning to realize that they will implode in a generation due to a lack of kids to support and care for the parents!
        .
        That isn’t the reason at all. They’re reconsidering it is because they’ve finally noticed that they’re seeing a huge gap between the number of boys and girls that families are having. The family line is important to the Chinese, thus the desire for a male heir; since they cannot have more than one child, they have a boy.
        .
        So what is the actual danger this poses today to society?
        .
        None at all.

      5. I’m not convinced the 14th Amendment argument is sufficient to prove all laws against gay marriage are unconstitutional. While I think all adults should be permitted to marry whomever they want, the 14th Amendment may not really have anything to say about the existence or prohibition of gay marriage. It promises equal protection, yes – but what is to be considered “equal”? Crass as this may sound, laws outlawing gay marriage do not apply different standards based on sexuality. Suppose a homosexual man is not permitted to marry another man. That sounds unfair, but it is equally illegal for a heterosexual man to marry another man. The effect of this is not what it should be, I think, but it is not unequal protection under the 14th Amendment. Consider that gay marriage is illegal in most states (which it should not be, but still…). If a case were brought before the Supreme Court that a state violated the 14th or any other Amendment by prohibiting gay marriage, and the court found this to be true, that would be it. All such state laws would have to be overturned immediately. This has not happened. As of right now, there is no legal determination that states do not have the right to determine this issue for themselves. We can speak confidently about what should be, but much less so about what the U.S. Constitution requires.

  26. I’ve been hearing so much about this issue and I’ve tried to ignore it but after reading some of the comments here,

    I felt the need to offer my perspective as both a gay man and a person of color.

    There are so many issues with this situation that it’s hard to tackle one fault without defending the other.

    1. I have to wonder if gay marriage was replaced with interracial marriage and Prejean made the same comment, would people be so quick to defend her. She has the right to her opinion, but we also have the right to express outrage and call her on her bigotry. If this had been the sixties someone could’ve made the same argument that interracial marriage was a loaded question back then. Now by no means am I excusing Hilton or justifying his antics. Quite the contrary but I’ll get to him in a second.

    In any event, it’s simple. If you don’t agree with gay marriage, then don’t marry a homosexual.

    2. While I believe gay marriage is a significant issue, it sickens me how elitists in the gay community are pushing this to the media as the sole END-ALL-BE-ALL issue within the gay community. Rather than campaigning for multiple issues such as gay teen homelessness, police brutality against trans people, gay bashing, etc. equal rights in the work place, gay marriage is pushed as the only issue. Each time incidents like this or the Prop 8 Fallout (don’t even get me started on that) happen, it does more harm than good to the LGBT community.

    3. Peter, you are absolutely right. Perez Hilton does just as much damage (if not more) than Prejean or the right-wingers ever could.

    As you so accurately stated, “his actions and attitudes play to the worst stereotypical beliefs of gays and fosters the entire notion of a “gay agenda” that’s been so hurtful. Hilton genuinely does have an agenda in that he wants to force closeted gays out. He refuses to understand why they wouldn’t want to be like him, and tries to force his lifestyle–that of an openly gay male–on others.”

    Coming out of the closet is hands down one of the most frightening and painful ordeals a person can endure. Not only are you discovering something about your body and your identity but you’re also having to come to grips with the fact that you will possibly be reviled by your loved ones and society alike for something you didn’t ask for.

    As long as they aren’t hurting others, or working against LGBTs (like Ted Haggard), then gays are entitled to live their lives the best way they know how. It’s so easy to pass judgment on those who remain in the closet at work or on their jobs, but how conveniently we forget that the rest of this country isn’t West Hollywood, or Chelsea or Midtown. Not all of us live in large, diverse, metropolitan areas. Some of us would get fired for coming out of the closet. Some of us would get murdered. There’s a reason why so many teens are homeless.

    Unfortunately there are too many Hiltons out there dismantling and sabotaging the work genuine gay rights activists. And as long as they’re running around unchecked, we’re not going to see any progress anytime soon.

    1. Just so we’re clear: I don’t deny the rights of gays–or straights, for that matter–to express outrage over Prejean’s remarks. In fact, I specifically said that if someone else had asked her the question and Hilton were complaining about it, I’d say nothing. It’s that he asked her that loaded question and then goes around lambasting her because she didn’t give the “right”answer that I find objectionable.
      .
      As for interracial marriage: I don’t accept the premise of your hypothetical. Interracial marriage is simply not an issue. Well, it might be to the KKK, but permission to marry regardless of skin color is the law of the land. Granted, it would be interesting if she had been asked, “Do you think forbidding gays to marry is akin to forbidding blacks and whites to marry?” and she had replied, “Well, I don’t think blacks should be allowed to marry whites either,” THEN we’ve got a ballgame. But she didn’t, and I have no reason to think that she would, and even if she did believe that, I’d have to think she could have finessed it with, “I can see how some people might see it that way, but I consider it two very different things.”
      .
      PAD

  27. I don’t understand why Perez Hilton is taken so seriously — he’s a self-proclaimed media clown; he dances around in front of people hoping to get their attention

  28. I agree with Denny in that there is a lot more tolerance for negative comments regarding gays (and women too, for that matter) than there is regarding blacks. But that is just how things are. Gays are probably at the point blacks were 40 years ago.

    But I get what PAD is saying. This girl isn’t in any way a particularly nasty case of homophobia, and it’s silly to pick on her. Perez is a jerk. I’d rather criticize the religious leaders that preach intolerance and influence millions of girls like her.

    Denny, I’m with you, gay marriage shouldn’t be end-all-be-all, but I also think it’s not all that bad that it became such a symbol for gay rights. It’s perhaps inevitable in the current American climate that fixates so much on “family”.

  29. Yeah, he is being a Ðìçk about it. But what do expect from someone drawing pëņìš and cartoon cocaine on paparazzi photos, with catty little comments?

Comments are closed.