Miss California USA sparks controversy over gay marriage pageant question.

[AngraRULES]

I think everyone exaggerated a bit when it comes to this story. Maybe she's ignorant and stupid, and all. Maybe she's got valid reasons for being against it. Ok, so what? Is it worth creating this fuss over what a BEAUTY PAGEANT CONTESTANT says? I mean, just the fact they're on that type of event already says something about that person... Does it really matter what she says afterall, or her opinion? Not in my point of view. Now imagine if every single person that ever voiced their opinion against gay marriage would get this media/public reaction and massive retaliation... Phew, better get ready to find another planet to go live in.

Honestly, people should find better things to get all bent out of shape instead of what a beauty pageant contestant says. I find it so funny how the American media and public puts the spotlight at the wrong places.

 

[nailz]

Anything to get the issue to the forefront of america ;P

 

[booB]

This example is me. And I don't think it's the same.

It is exactly the same. She is morally opposed to gay marriage. She never said that it should never be legal in any way, shape, or form, and she did not say that other states should not start legalizing gay marriage. There is a huge difference between these things. I, personally, am a Libertarian. I don't do drugs -- you could call me "morally opposed" to them -- but you will never hear me say that they should be illegal.

And you, like Perez Hilton, are persecuting her for her beliefs. Obviously, your opinions don't have any effect on her life; however, she was passed over for a Miss USA title solely because of her beliefs and the way they clashed with those of the judges. It's no different than a potential employer asking you for your political opinions, and hiring or not hiring you based on those opinions.

I don't understand how you come to that conclusion. I was first attacking the system her values are based on because they're about as durable as a wet kleenex, and that people are making 'excuses' for her like she arrived at her idea through a well educated decision, which she obviously didn't.

No one is saying that she did. However, some people find it very important to extol the virtues instilled in them by their family. Perhaps she simply hasn't seen any reason to doubt her beliefs? Maybe she doesn't know any gay people? You don't truly know whether or not she has thought long and hard about the subject.

Then I went back over the video to see if you were correct in your assumption that she's OK with gay marriage being legal. I think, for the sake of being politically correct, she makes the case that democracy is wonderful, but morally, gay marriage shouldn't happen.

You're giving more weight to her misspeak ("In my country") than to her earlier declaration because you WANT to hate her, because her opinions are so strongly opposed to yours. You're not thinking rationally.

Not only is she educationally bankrupt on the issue (based only on this video, mind you), she has no balls to back it up. She doesn't even have a spine to stick up for her own beliefs.

BS. The question was loaded, and no matter what answer she gave, she was going to alienate some of the judges. She got fucked over. It's partly the pageant's fault for allowing such a controversial question into the mix, and partly Perez's fault for asking it. The pageant should be using RELEVANT people as judges -- not "bloggers", aka jackoffs who sit in their basement writing things on the internet instead of having real jobs. This is what happens; the pageant makes a mockery of itself.

In this case, she did the only thing she COULD do, and that was to stand up for herself and her own beliefs. Spineless, my ass.

 

[AngraRULES]

Anything to get the issue to the forefront of america ;P

I think there are better ways of doing that. Just my personal opinion.

The issue is already out there. It's not like there's a need for more awareness about same-sex marriage. If anything, same-sex marriage needs more people to "join the cause", more people to become PRO gay-marriage. And I doubt they will achieve that by saying everyone who's against it is ignorant.

Just my two cents.

 

[booB]

If you don't think same sex couples should find "Civil Unions" offensive, would you be willing to abolish the word "Marriage" from all government documents for heterosexual couples as well, so everyone is equal? Frankly, I like this idea. Government should get out of the business of marriage and allow 2 people to join in a civil union.

This is the most sensible thing you have said so far. The government has no place fucking with a religious institution such as marriage, and we as a "free" society have no right to legislate individuals' rights (or lack thereof) on such issues.

Is it worth creating this fuss over what a BEAUTY PAGEANT CONTESTANT says?

Normally, no. It's not worth creating all the fuss over what one person says. However, this is a clear-cut case of discrimination, and as such, it SHOULD be talked about.

 

[edgeofthorns]

Honestly, people should find better things to get all bent out of shape instead of what a beauty pageant contestant says. I find it so funny how the American media and public puts the spotlight at the wrong places.

QFT!

I mostly agree with Palabras and his comments for once! Joking aside, if her answer really did cost her the crown, then that's sad. If political correctness takes precedence over freedom of opinion, then our country truly is in a tailspin.

~Brian~

 

[J-Man]

QFT!

I mostly agree with Palabras and his comments for once! Joking aside, if her answer really did cost her the crown, then that's sad. If political correctness takes precedence over freedom of opinion, then our country truly is in a tailspin.

~Brian~

Best quote on this thread, way to go Brian. If you listen to her responce, it is from the heart, and not the usually "I want world Peace" answer. And if it did offend Perez Hilton then so be it he is not a likeable person anyway. So horray for Miss California.

 

[nailz]

It is exactly the same. She is morally opposed to gay marriage. She never said that it should never be legal in any way, shape, or form, and she did not say that other states should not start legalizing gay marriage. There is a huge difference between these things. I, personally, am a Libertarian. I don't do drugs -- you could call me "morally opposed" to them -- but you will never hear me say that they should be illegal.

See, you think her saying "My Country" was her misspeaking. I don't. She didn't say "or rather", "um", or "I mean". She said "and." which makes me believe it was a deliberate thing, which implies she doesn't want it to come to pass. I think you missed the part about my best friend being anti-gay marriage, and me being ok with it. If you did, please go back and look at it. It was very relevant to this.

And you, like Perez Hilton, are persecuting her for her beliefs.

*SIGH.* I'm persecuting her beliefs, not her. My opinion of her is that she's a tool (in this context). Easily remedied by showing she's made an educated decision.

Obviously, your opinions don't have any effect on her life; however, she was passed over for a Miss USA title solely because of her beliefs and the way they clashed with those of the judges.

A very real part of the judging of this pagent is based on these questions, right? I don't know what type of questions they get asked, or if this one belongs. I can't really comment on weather or not this was a bad decision. Unless you're familiar with Miss USA, I don't think you should be complaining either. If you are, please correct me. If a question like this should not have been asked, then it was wrong for her to get passed up totally because of this. Do you think she would've won if not for this?

No one is saying that she did. However, some people find it very important to extol the virtues instilled in them by their family. Perhaps she simply hasn't seen any reason to doubt her beliefs? Maybe she doesn't know any gay people? You don't truly know whether or not she has thought long and hard about the subject.

You're right, I don't know. Everything I say is based on this 1 minute clip. However, replace "Miss California" with any bigoted bible thumping hick (and no, I'm not lumping everyone who is religious into this mass of putrid flesh-wasting borg) and it's the same story. Religious Beliefs standing in the way of Civil Progress with no thought capacity.

You're giving more weight to her misspeak ("In my country") than to her earlier declaration because you WANT to hate her, because her opinions are so strongly opposed to yours. You're not thinking rationally.

I don't want to hate her. I want her to justify her beliefs with something better than the bullshit answer "oh it's what my parents taught me." Again, good for her for playing the politicaly correct steaming pile card.

BS. The question was loaded, and no matter what answer she gave, she was going to alienate some of the judges. She got fucked over. It's partly the pageant's fault for allowing such a controversial question into the mix, and partly Perez's fault for asking it. The pageant should be using RELEVANT people as judges -- not "bloggers", aka jackoffs who sit in their basement writing things on the internet instead of having real jobs. This is what happens; the pageant makes a mockery of itself.

The Pagent is a giant joke anyway. Why not have the most controversial judges possible?

In this case, she did the only thing she COULD do, and that was to stand up for herself and her own beliefs. Spineless, my ass.

Standing up for your beliefs does not include appologising before you state them.

 

[Prog_Please]

I'm not gonna go back and find the quotes corresponding to my post.

First, it was mentioned that marriage is a civil matter in the eyes of the state. This is not how I feel it should be since marriage is a religious term and the state should have no jurisdiction on the matter in the first place. As was mentioned, I 100% agree with the fact that all the documents should be change to a new word (I was using civil union cuz I know its be thrown around before) and leave the church to hand out marriage liscences as they feel fit. That way all couples (regardless of sex) will have the same legal rights, but the sanctity of marriage can be kept. My main concern is that the word "marriage" originally was meant as a religious term. Also, prior to the last 250 years or so, there wasn't a separation of church and state so there wasn't really a need to distinguish between civil union and marriage. Now there is, and it should be fixed. I'm not against gay people, I just don't feel comfortable with it being called marriage because in my religion, marriage is between a man and a woman. (Also, I don't think pagan's had the term "marriage". It was probably called something different).

 

[nailz]

Also, I don't think pagan's had the term "marriage". It was probably called something different.

Correct. It's called Handfasting. Thanks for making me look that up.

As was mentioned, I 100% agree with the fact that all the documents should be change to a new word (I was using civil union cuz I know its be thrown around before) and leave the church to hand out marriage liscences as they feel fit.

This is the best idea I've ever seen anywhere.

That way all couples (regardless of sex) will have the same legal rights, but the sanctity of marriage can be kept

Especially with the over 50% divorce rate.

My main concern is that the word "marriage" originally was meant as a religious term.

Depends on what history you're looking at.

For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential.[18] Historically, the perceived necessity of marriage has been stressed.[19]

In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage - only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly.[20] Men usually married when they were in their 20s or 30s [21] and expected their wives to be in their early teens.

Like with the Greeks, Roman marriage and divorce required no specific government or religious approval.[19] Both marriage and divorce could happen by simple mutual agreement.[19] There were several types of marriages in Roman society. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in 342 CE prohibited same-sex marriage, but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in ancient Rome exist.[25] <--(ah hah, they existed!)

From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[26][27] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.[28]

As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1545 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life."[31] This change did not extend to the regions affected by the Protestant Reformation, where marriage by consent continued to be the norm. As part of the Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state. By the 1600s many of the Protestant European countries had a state involvement in marriage.

Also, prior to the last 250 years or so, there wasn't a separation of church and state so there wasn't really a need to distinguish between civil union and marriage.

But this is why America was formed. This exact reason.

I'm not against gay people, I just don't feel comfortable with it being called marriage because in my religion, marriage is between a man and a woman.

Which is fine. But please know that (and I assume you're Christian or some variation thereof) Christianity does not have exclusive rights to the word. As you can see from the noted sources, a lot of people called it marriage long before it was treated as a religious ceremony. If your church does not want to recognize same sex marriages, how can anyone fault you for that? But you can't horde a word.

 

[sh0kr0k]

...if her answer really did cost her the crown, then that's sad. If political correctness takes precedence over freedom of opinion, then our country truly is in a tailspin.

~Brian~

QFT again.

 

[AngraRULES]

Interesting commentary by Roland Martin, from CNN on the matter:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/22/martin.miss.california/index.html

 

[OrbWeaver]

Interesting commentary by Roland Martin, from CNN on the matter:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/22/martin.miss.california/index.html

*applauds*

 

[Kaosaur]

But this is why America was formed. This exact reason.

Let's get our history straight here. The formation of the colonies and the formation of the United States are separate events about 155 years apart. Give or take.

While originally the colonists may have been trying to escape religious persecution in their home countries, by the time of the founding of this country, Enlightenment was all the rage. Most people identified as "Free-Thinkers" and total parish membership across ALL Christian faiths had dwindled to FIVE percent. The parish records from the time periods are extremely accurate.

Being a Christian, at the time, was something often mocked in higher social circles. I think religion was probably the furthest thing from anyone's mind at the time.


...Then you fast-forward to World War I and things change quite a bit. In fact, one could argue that no one benefited more from World War I and World War II than the Church.

 

[edgeofthorns]

Let's get our history straight here. The formation of the colonies and the formation of the United States are separate events about 155 years apart. Give or take.

While originally the colonists may have been trying to escape religious persecution in their home countries, by the time of the founding of this country, Enlightenment was all the rage. Most people identified as "Free-Thinkers" and total parish membership across ALL Christian faiths had dwindled to FIVE percent. The parish records from the time periods are extremely accurate.

Being a Christian, at the time, was something often mocked in higher social circles. I think religion was probably the furthest thing from anyone's mind at the time.


...Then you fast-forward to World War I and things change quite a bit. In fact, one could argue that no one benefited more from World War I and World War II than the Church.

Kaosaur, I'm not going to debate religion with you, because it will be neverending. With that said, there's no question that the founding fathers' set this country up on institutions based upon the creator, God. Whether you choose to believe that or not is your choice, but my friend, that's fact!

~Brian~

 

[freakchylde]

The Pagans allow Same Sex marriage, so please tell me how Christianity gets a trump in the eyes of the law, when this country was founded on the idea of religious freedom.

Pagans allow gay marriage, because it's a religious institution (BTW, this is a relatively 'new' development under the Pagan religious umbrella and tends to sway towards the non-traditional pagan religions - aka Wicca).

I can go into the political-side of things, particularly in the way that I wish the gay-rights activists had gone about this, but they allowed the wingnuts to get there first. That's their problem to fight.

 

[edgeofthorns]

Best quote on this thread, way to go Brian. If you listen to her responce, it is from the heart, and not the usually "I want world Peace" answer. And if it did offend Perez Hilton then so be it he is not a likeable person anyway. So horray for Miss California.

QFT again.

Thank you!

~Brian~

 

[Kaosaur]

Kaosaur, I'm not going to debate religion with you, because it will be neverending. With that said, there's no question that the founding fathers' set this country up on institutions based upon the creator, God. Whether you choose to believe that or not is your choice, but my friend, that's fact!

~Brian~

Most of the founding fathers were NOT Christian. If you look at their beliefs, the overwhelming majority were Deists, followed by Agnostics and then Christians. Being a Deist or Agnostic at the time was VERY fashionable. So yes, the institutions were based upon belief in God...but belief in God was VERY VERY VERY different from what we interpret it now. Like the other end of the spectrum different.

The only quirk about that was that at the time there were laws against being an Atheist because it was widely believed that if you did not believe God (of some kind) existed, you were an amoral human being. (Funny how some people still think that now.) Yes, people did believe the law should follow a sort-of Christian morality. Nobody thought that the Church should have input (political influence) though.

Christianity was NOT popular at this time in history. The Spanish Inquisition was actively going on until 1834. The idea that you could be a free people and be Christian was antithetical.
Thomas Paine had changed the world with "The Age of Reason". Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and George Washington had all written at length about their DISBELIEF in the Bible as the Word of God, their disbelief in the divinity of Jesus and disbelief in the Trinity.

Both secular and religious historians have had their say in this and will agree on the history here. I was, luckily, informed of as much in my religious education as well.

Edit: Just to point out, there were a few notable orthodox Christians among our founding fathers. Primarily: Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, John Hancock, John Witherspoon and Roger Sherman.

 

[nailz]

Kaosaur, I'm not going to debate religion with you, because it will be neverending. With that said, there's no question that the founding fathers' set this country up on institutions based upon the creator, God. Whether you choose to believe that or not is your choice, but my friend, that's fact!

~Brian~

You should probably take into consideration Thomas Jefferson, who did not believe Jesus to be divine. I'm not sure if you've heard of the Jefferson Bible, but you might want to look into it. In fact, Jefferson hated the church, and was the one who called for a specific seperation of religion and government.

It's also known that George Washington himself, while attending Protestant Churches, did not receive communion under Bishop William White. His wife did.

in FACT...

Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice....
​

I know that Gouverneur Morris [principal drafter of the constitution], who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed him self to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system [Christianity] than he did" (quoted in Remsberg, p. 123 from Jefferson's Works, Vol. 4, p. 57)

Further: 'nature's God' is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence may, in fact, be specifically avoiding the use of God in the christian sense, however Deistic it may have been.

Even Ben Franklin was an Atheist, and you have to know what a roll he played in creating America.

I'm not trying to be a prick about this. This issue simply fascinates me, and I love talking about it.

 

[nailz]

Here we go.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30329216/

Specifically, the video in this article, and it's an interview with Miss California. She explains her answer, which ends up being Religious in nature. Far from shocking, really. On the other hand, she says she was at least being honest. I feel like calling her an uneducated tool just a little less today.