Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Miss California "controversial" controversy
Click on the picture of the fetching Miss California for a thoughtful discussion of a moment in the culture wars.
No, really.
Troll vaccine: Friendly reminder that I support the legalization of gay marriage by the enactment of state statutes, but oppose it by judicial fiat.
15 Comments:
By 
Escort81, at
Tue Apr 21, 01:48:00 PM:
Whew. For a second there I thought that was a set-up to reveal that she used to be a man.
There is a certain level of irony that a pageant for women involving a swimsuit competition (or at least photographs) may have as a litmus test a question posed by a gay man about a controversial subject. As Kramer on Seinfeld would say: "poise, poise!"
I bet they don't ask stuff like that (or anything, for that matter) in the Miss Hooters contest.
By 
, at
Tue Apr 21, 02:56:00 PM:
Let's face it, most of the people who probably watch pageants are not likely gay, and appreciate women. I wonder then, how many were actually put off by this woman's answer?
Having an openly gay judge of the female form (I know, it's all about the talent competition) seems bizarre.
As the link points out ... California, which went strongly for Obama, also voted strongly against gay marriage. If this 'man' is insulted that Miss California falls into that 60+% of Californians, then he can go into the ladies room and untwist his panties.
By , at
Tue Apr 21, 03:52:00 PM:
"Let's face it, most of the people who probably watch pageants are not likely gay, and appreciate women"
I think you'd be surprised. Also, from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517277,00.html :
"2009’s three main official sponsors -- Hotel Zoso, Palm Springs Florist, and Studio 838 -- did not respond for comment"
I have a sneaking suspicion a check of the customer demographics of those businesses would go a long, long way towards explaining why the promoters freaked out like they did.
It'll be interesting to see what we get in the future, now that there'll be a political test for future contestants.
By , at
Tue Apr 21, 03:59:00 PM:
"I support the legalization of gay marriage by the enactment of state statutes, but oppose it by judicial fiat"
Another thing - having grown up in CA during the Prop 13/Rose Bird era, I think the Prop 8 vote was as much or more a giant middle finger to the state Supreme Court than a referendum on gay marriage.
Anon 3:52
By , at
Tue Apr 21, 04:05:00 PM:
I'm all for gay marriages so long as they are conducted midday in downtown Tehran.
By , at
Tue Apr 21, 04:06:00 PM:
I have no problem with your posting all these posts with of beautiful women in bathing suits as long as you post equal numbers of posts of yourself for your women readers. :)
a moderate
By , at
Tue Apr 21, 04:21:00 PM:
First, why was a political question posed to this lady in the first place, and second why was the scumbag Perez not immediately DQed as soon as he asked the question. Does anyone really believe that fag waste of space was able to judge here without bias after she spoke her mind and beliefs?
What I really want to know is why is it only the left and loudmouths like Perez allowed an opinion no matter what it is, yet when someone with a differing belief is put down and ridiculed.
I hope this young lady recieves a future filled with wealth and success from people and companies that respect a person for standing for what they believe no matter the cost even when it pisses off the radical fringe of our society. I and many others are sick and tired of the political correct bullshit that allows minority fragments of our society to have the only voice and a loud one at that. For way too long we have allowed them to usurp what the majority votes in by utilizing bias courts, are we now going to allow them even more control and power.......Not I. I for one have sent this young lady an invite to model for my company in a commercial and have sent out emails to all my friends and contacts that won businesses in hopes they will do the same.
Enough is enough from people Like that piece of horse dung Perez!
By , at
Tue Apr 21, 04:34:00 PM:
I just want to say that I think this blog is so good I've come back sixteen times today already.
By , at
Tue Apr 21, 07:32:00 PM:
I don't know where to start....
How on earth did Mr. Perez end up being a judge?????
And what happened to tolerance of the opinions of others?
This story illustrates the way our society has become: if you don't agree with me...I'll bring you down.
Very disappointed...but not at all surprised. Still, Ms. California did the right thing and stood by her convictions. Now if more people would do that...
Stu
By , at
Tue Apr 21, 08:12:00 PM:
First Anon ... I'll put forward my speculation that those sponsors won't comment because it's politically incorrect to actually voice an opinion on the gay thing, along with the illegal alien, black, etc. things. Unless of course it's how cool it is to be one of them, and how much you wish you could be a gay, illegal alien of mexican and black ancestry.
I think it's also telling that this contestant's handlers have given her the cold shoulder for her answer. We live in a time where it's just fine to have the queer thing forced upon us, but it's not ok to say "it's freaking unnatural, and frankly disgusting, to think about two guys packing the fudge, or whatever it is they do." And since this issue has come up in most of the states, and been voted down in at least 35 of them (fact check please), it would appear that a majority of voters aren't down with it. Some of us are tired of the bleating, would be just fine with a union, but believe there's more important things to worry about than this 'issue'.
Thus, while the sponsors might choose to keep tight lipped, I still think the average viewer is more than likely just fine with how she answered this question.
Lastly ... her handlers should've anticipated silly, loaded, political questions and preloaded an answer that this gal would be OK delivering ... such as my faith says it's between a M & W, and maybe some comment around civil unions or Christian tolerance or something.
I'd wager that while she'll have to live with being a runner-up, there are and will be plenty of opportunities for her to make money here from those far-right, fundamentalist types.
By , at
Tue Apr 21, 09:30:00 PM:
@ TH: It's controversial because gay marriage is one of the areas where one side will make points that are totally incomprehensible to the other. Notice how abortion, abstinence-only sex-ed, and (as a stretch) flag-burning also fall into this category and easily get the same label, whereas points can be made and recognized on both sides of the bailout issue. Regardless of the merits, one side of the gay marriage argument has become canonically associated with people perceived as f*&^ing hysterical, approaching the issue from not just the other side but another dimension. This causes a fair amount of alienation, and thus controversy.
I will go so far as to say substantive questions should either not be asked at all, (and ignore any possible intellectual side to Ms America,) or embrace that facet by asking for persuasive argumentation in a public-speaking style segment. The questions noted could have touched on such a thing if the contestants took some time and used the word "because", but were too open to fumbling (as illustrated.) As for the gay judge, the issue is stupid.
Finally, I feel compelled to comment on the political correctness side of things. Much maligned due to individual misuse, I perceive the philosophy behind political correctness to be "please don't say things that are in no way helpful yet destructive to the conversation." As an example, see TCash's comment on the "fag waste of space." Another side of it would be me saying, as an aside to TCash, "shut the fuck up you ignorant nigger." I think we can agree that such phrasing does no good for anyone, and thus should probably be left off the table.
Though I trust TH will leave such vile screed up for perusal, in the name of a consistent commenting policy.
By , at
Tue Apr 21, 09:31:00 PM:
PS: the link on "hyseterical" was supposed to be this one.
By , at
Tue Apr 21, 10:54:00 PM:
JT, I think you missed my point.
I don't know about Studio 838, though if you take a look at their address you can make a pretty accurate guess what the neighbors' attitude about gay marriage is. As for the other two sponsors, take a look here: www.palmspringsgaywedding.com/.
"I think a friend that was "planning for a ceremony is considering changing to a full blown ceremony," says Matt Hunter, Director of Catering at Hotel Zoso, a gay-friendly destination in Palm Springs, that has previously hosted civil ceremonies"
These are not merely supporters of gay marriage -- it's their business.
I don't think Ms Prejean will suffer at all for this, mainly because her opinion is, as you point out, quite normal. But if you look at the link, I think you'll agree this year's "main official sponsors" were probably at least a little annoyed with her answer.
By Pax Federatica, at
Wed Apr 22, 08:36:00 AM:
Here's what strikes me as odd about this whole thing: By the left's standards, Carrie Prejean already should have already been up on two counts of Gender Treason Against Womyn, for (1) being a devout Christian (2) participating in a type of event routinely decried as a bastion of sexism. Given the stereotype of devout Christians as sexual prudes, they could have thrown in an "aggravating factor" of hypocrisy for good measure. Yet Hilton chose to ignore all that and allowed Prejean to make it all the way to the finals, just so he could ding her there for her views on gay marriage? It's a wonder she lasted as long in the competition as the did.
By Viking Kaj, at
Thu Apr 23, 10:26:00 AM:
Hey, do those look like implants?
