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 whore and he does it very, very well.
That's why he asked Miss California a no-win question in the recent Miss USA Pageant which may or may not have cost her the win (since only women and gay men basically care about these things). That, and the enormous press he and his blog are getting; a blog whose popularity relies upon scandal and changing out a demographic that ages as the country's economy falls.
So he gets his shot on national TV to ask a finalist a question and he asks if she thinks or feels, in light of less than 1/10th of United States allowing it, if gay marriage should be legal in all states and if so, why or why not?
The root of her answer was no, marriage should be between a man and a woman "according to how she was raised."
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. If she answered the way the blogger wanted she would have had the religious right wanting her crown (given the answer allegedly cost her such) and moderates asking if politics is proper in the pageant. Remember, ever since Vanessa Williams showed the world real women can do hot photos no pageant wants controversy. And, well, we see what happened when she answered to the contrary of the question: she loses, is denounced and called a "bitch" and the "c" word by the blogger on national TV and print.
Well, there's a great representation of my community.
"Why did this guy feel a need to put this back on the national debate table in this way, in such a divisive and ridiculous way," Steve from Oakland called and asked on my Monday, April 20th broadcast of my syndicated radio show, The Karel Show. "I'm gay and I think what she said is wrong, but this is not a productive way to be discussing the issue. Also, he asked what she felt, not what she would make law, she's entitled to an opinion, even a wrong one..."
And there's the danger, blogger. You set her up to be the patron saint of those who are launching such campaigns as "The Storm" and 2 M4M (no lie, Two Million for Marriage); campaigns that paint those that do not agree with same sex marriage as victims. You just gave them a powder-puffed-coiffed-to-the-teeth statuesque martyr in the form of Miss California.
And as to the question, sorry, blogger, your state, the state you sit in and promote and pay tax dollars to, my state, has said "no" to same sex marriage by a majority vote and its State Supreme Court is about to uphold that ban. 11 states in 2004 after Gavin Newsom granted marriage licenses voted to outlaw same sex marriage and some domestic partnerships as well. There is still a Defense of Marriage Act allowing states to not recognize any same sex marriages performed in the few states that allow them. Barack Obama has said he "was against Propostion 8 but believes marriage is between a man and a woman" and no leading Democrat from Nancy Pelosi to Dianne Feinstein has made marriage equality for all a major platform or cause. Even openly gay Barney Frank said three weeks ago that he wishes the community would "wait" to wage this battle until the "homophobic" Scalia is off the U.S. Supreme Court.
In other words, if MIss California who wants to be Miss USA is to reflect the mood of her state and country, her answer was right on, blogger. The country, by law, statute and vote still believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. Now that is unpopular in the gay community, the younger demographics (30 and below) and with progressives or those that champion civil rights. It's unpopular with those that study state and federal constitutions that have equal protections clauses knowing they are going unapplied to millions. But it is the current law of most of this land, the land that she wanted to represent. If you don't like the law of your land move. If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out, as the delusional often say. Miss California said in four states you have the option to get married. You want to get married, go there. Otherwise, she, and the rest of the nation feel (by law alone) that discrimination is fine. Sadly, Regis Philbin would have to say to her, "Final answer? You're right!"
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.
Don't rail on her, rail on the policy. If you were so concerned about same-sex marriage, why aren't you using your website (and all its traffic) and TV appearances to sign a petition to repeal the amendment process in California, putting it back in legislative hands and out of voter's so blondes like her from the state (can you say Orange County?) can't vote on the topic in campaigns funded by this or that special interest or religion? In fact, stop asking people questions in public how they feel about equality, a fundamental civil right like it's up for debate, so more people can vote one side or the other on the topic. Civil rights are not up for debate. The Constitution guarantees that equal equals equal so I know one day marriage will be legal for all couples that want it. Fight that fight in a way that works and leave someone whose job it is to model dresses and be objectified by men alone, even if it's for your own advantage. Technically, she gave the POPULAR and CORRECT answer in her country like it or not. Change that and you make her look stupid and irrelevant. Attack the message, not the messenger.
I disagree with Miss California, whose name I do not use on purpose, but I support her right to have her opinions. I support her right to rally people to keep marriage between a man and a woman -- it's America. She is ill informed or brainwashed by religion or some other force. Don't ask a scorpion why it stung you, it's a scorpion, that's what it does, Ask why its sting hurts so much and why its attack is still condoned. The answer to those questions, and changing of those situations is how you, we, us, Americans that believe in equality win. Those that seek legal oppression should not have their voice codified in law, but the First Amendment gives them a voice.
And truthfully, who the hell cares what a pageant winner thinks about social policies? SHE'S A PAGEANT BEAUTY QUEEN, not running for public office. Her job will be to attend corporate events and speak all around the country. IF she won and IF she went on a anti-marriage campaign, then, in America it would be your right to launch some sort of campaign against her. Chances are, she would have stayed away from that topic for an entire year. Quickly, off the top of the head, name one political stance of one past MIss USA? War in Iraq? Abortion? Economy? The Bush Years?
Exactly.
The Founding Fathers drafted the only ammunition needed in the fight for marriage equality. Equal equals Equal. Shoot at those things that matter and don't waste that ammo on those that don't matter in the battle. Collateral damage. Miss California gave an answer from her heart that reflects the legal and prevalent political mood in the country; it's a shame, and it's fundamentally wrong, but for her, it was the absolute right answer.
To hear audio from The Karel Show on this topic, go here.The Karel Show
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I am a straight woman in my 50s who believes that marriage for same sex couples should be legal - mainly because I have a niece who is gay and wants to be married to her partner so they can have legal protections as they raise their children.
But, I think those who support same sex marriage make a mistake when they so harshly lambaste a young woman who was expressing her opinion. Disagree with her if you want.
Why does Perez Hilton call this woman names that for generations have been used to denigrate and defile women and nobody says a word? Not one word or blog about the misogynistic, sexist hate language Perez Hilton has thrown in this debate.
Talk about hate-speech!
Yes it is very sad the way he spoke. It used to be a crime to speak that way in public and especially around a women. My . . . how things have changed for the worst. I've met some really nice peple and some that were nice to me when I was younger . I still remember them. I'm sure Hilton doesn't speak for them. Maybe he holds some kind of deep hatred for beautiful women, something he wants to be. I just don't understand his hateful tone when all she's been is respectful with her opinions.
The gay marriage argument hinges on the idea of freedom of choice and equal rights under the law. But everyone seems blind to the obvious fact that civil marriage is inherently discriminatory: it is the state’s codified way of privileging couples over single people. That sucks for single people, who I’m sure wish they didn’t have to pay higher taxes and miss out on so many perks that married people get. Why should they be treated differently just because they weren’t lucky enough to find a life partner? It also sucks for an uncle who wants to marry his niece, or a brother who wants to marry his sister. They can’t help being born blood relatives, why are we preventing them from marrying the partner of their choice?
If we really wanted pure equality, we would get rid of privileges for married couples altogether, right? But no lawmaker or judge in their right mind would support this idea. So given the inherently ‘unequal’ and preferential treatment of married couples by the state, the question is not SIMPLY “should we extend those privileges to same sex couples?”, but rather, “WHERE do we draw the line in restricting the kinds of unions that we, as a society, want to enshrine in the institution of marriage to begin with?”
I think she had the option to decline to answer on the grounds that it's divisive and offer a reasoned response why as Miss California and Miss USA she would avoid political discussions and keep the focus on good works and good fun. She was asked to give her own opinion, but she didn't HAVE to.
Anything diplomatic would have done. What she said sounded thoughtless to me of the gay individuals and their friends and family who have to live with people like her ruling over them and keeping them from the same rights as others.
I think as Miss USA she is supposed to be kind and polite to all comers who support her work and the pageant, so she needed to be a grownup here and withhold her opinion.
Does anyone know if the contestants are told they can decline to answer any questions. Perhaps like plead the 5th on grounds it might ruin their chances of winning. If it's all for fun than why bother asking them questions at all. An abortion question might offend pro choice or pro life advocates. Maybe they should all just be allowed to secretly have their own opinions and just judged on their body and how they look and whatever talent they may possess.
Rrhain: "If it was a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?"
So, do you consider laws against incest and endogamy discriminatory as well? Because, following your line of argument, many states have “discriminatory” marriage laws that “infringe” on the civil rights of first cousins who want to get married. And actually, EVERY state’s marriage laws “discriminate” against siblings who want to get married.
How unfair! I mean, a brother and sister can’t help the fact that they’re related. They were born that way. Why should the law deny them of their fundamental right to marry the partner of their choice, just because of a silly accident of birth?
Now that we are finally fighting a battle to claim marriage rights for homosexual couples, we can’t just leave it at that; we must fight bigotry on ALL fronts. Because it’s not just the man-man or woman-woman unions that are being legally discriminated against under current marriage laws. It’s also all the man-man-woman, woman-woman-man, mother-son, father-daughter, uncle-niece, aunt-nephew, and brother-sister unions that are being blatantly treated as “inferior” and undeserving of the rights and protections afforded by marriage.
I say down with all these prejudicial restrictions… what’s the big deal about changing a little definition, right?
That was a good argument devil.
First of all, I don't think the government should be regulating marriage at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony. We should abolish civil marriage and institute civil unions.
Second, I am going to debunk your ridiculous comparison between gay marriage and polygamy. The strongest argument against polygamy is the following. If, for example, a husband has two wives and he is on life support, who decides if the machines are turned off? If the wives disagree you have a serious problem that could turn into a lengthy court battle. As far as the incest argument goes, you know the reason why that is illegal, birth defects.
Marriage was not always a religious ceremony. It was altogether a civil affair. In many cases the husband paid the bride price and took his bride from her father's home on the date agreed upon to her husband's home. No ceremony of any form was required and no priest or clergyman officiated or validated the marriage. The matter was publicly made known, acknowledged and recorded, and the marriage was binding.
Therefore, before religious ceremonies developed or centuries before the Mosaic Law was written and from the beginning of man's existence, only men and women married each other.
Also in the past, brothers and sisters married before the Mosaic law code was written. In one particular case a nephew married his aunt. The further man moved away from perfection, it became too dangerous for close relatives to marry and laws were instituted against it.
By bringing up birth defects, YOU ARE LINKING MARRIAGE AND PROCREATION!
My point is: the same EXACT arguments SSM advocates are using today could be used to legalize other marriage practices that we, by general social consensus, DON'T want to see in America.
Many states don’t allow first cousin marriages, but across the world, that's a common and valued social practice. Who says there won’t one day be a lobby fighting to marry their first cousins, or their nieces, or their nephews? They’ll have plenty of evidence from other cultures to show that it is statistically "safe" for them to reproduce. For instance, children of first cousins have FAR less risk of genetic defects than children of women over 40.
We don't put an age limit on marriage or do genetic testing on non-related couples, so it would be unfair to discriminate against related couples, right?
Using the same logic, gay marriage advocates claim we can't "discriminate" against them "just because" they can't have biological children, pointing out that we don't screen heterosexual couples for their fertility potential.
Polygamists could use similar arguments, lobbying to redefine marriage so that their rights and freedoms, are also protected by law. Your hypothetical scenario about life support is so exceptional that it wouldn't really affect lawmakers' decisions, if their main concern were simply to protect equal rights for all. Besides, don't you remember Terry Schiavo? You don't need to be in a polygamous marriage to be involved in a life support fiasco!
I am a supporter of civil unions, but I believe that Charles Karel Bouley has given by far the most intelligent article on the Perez Hilton / Carrie Prejean battle. Gay marriage advocates would be wise to do everything in their power to make sure that Perez isn't perceived as the 'poster child' of GM. He is the worst advocate imaginable. Carrie Prejean, on the other hand, is a Total Class Act.
Also, the larger picture: the fact that the corporate elite would rather the public be focused on issues which carry little risk for corporations, such as gay marriage, as opposed to issues which carry enormous risk for corporations, such as the Employee Free Choice Act.
Compared with the importance of getting EFCA passed into Law, gay marriage is a sideshow.
"If you don't like the law of your land move."
Of you can try to get the law to change.
Talk Show Host, Entertainer, Author, Reporter, Comic
and self loathing defender of bigotry..
No matter what your view on the issue of gay marriage, when is it EVER appropriate for a judge to participate in an event in which he/she has a conflict of interest? In this pageant, asking this particular question, Perez Hilton created a conflict of interest if ever there was one. This would not be allowed in a court of law if a judge had a conflict.and it should not have been allowed in this instance. Shame on Perez and shame on the pageant officials for allowing it.
What makes you think Hilton asked that question on his own? That was a scripted moment, friend. The question was vetted by the Miss USA pageant and most likely specifically handed to Hilton to ask of Miss California.
You will notice that all the contestants were asked political questions. Given the recent history of California regarding Prop 8, it is a very relevant question to ask the representative of California.
Sir, I dont think anyone has said it better or can, than you have..at the end of the day its America and she has the right to her opinion although I disagree..and like you said, she is a beauty pagent queen, she is not running for office so its different, OH WAIT, LOL
and who the HECK is this Parez bla bla, seriously, he is a hipocrite...he causes her to lose the pagent because of her views, sounds like the same sort of thing he has had to fight against as a gay man and now he is doing the same thing..
someone fire that man and get him a job at the Dairy Queen..LOl
Kym
I agree with you. haha
Let's be honest, it wasn't just what she said, it was how she said it and there are far more diplomatic ways to express an opinion. It's something that a "spokes model" for America like a Miss USA has to learn to do. They need to know how to answer difficult questions in a non-offensive manner. What she said might have been offensive to many but how she said was offensive to my intellect. I know there are plenty of young 20 something year old women who speaks like she does. But they aren't "beauty queens", some of them are just divas who think they are. The purpose of the question portion is to see if these women can "think on their feet". She could not. She does not deserve the crown, the scholarship and whatever other perks that go with it for being an airhead. It's not just an opinion, it's a badly worded opinion that makes me cringe not because I know that people think that way, but because she was too shallow to find a better way to state her opinion.
Look, she has every right to hold that belief, without getting punished for having it. I do think legal gay marriage will slowly spread throughout the country, but if what she said is her own personal moral belief, then good for her for paying enough attention to at least have an opinion. That's more than a lot of people can say.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
amg503, you are exactly correct, you know what, if you ask me my opinion on a matter and it does not agree with what your thinking is, it does not give you a right to go and slander my name on a blogg and call me names my parents did not give me, being loud and name slandering is not going to get it. America, is made up of people who don't look alike nor do we think alike. As a african american myself, there are people who still don't like blacks, (that's their problem). Dr. Martin Luther King,died and others for rights for all people, did that change everyone's thinking about prejudice, sure it did not, but it change the way that I think about myself. If I ask someone if they like black people and their answer is, no then I still don't have a right to name call them. That's their opinion, but it does not reflect on me. Mrs. California has a right to her opinion and Mr. Perez has a right to his. It is what it is.
Huh? Since when do we get to fob off the consequences of our actions? She has every right to hold her belief, but she does not have the right to demand nobody react to it. If she's going to put forward her opinion, she must accept the fact that she might not get everything she wants.
This is a lesson we were supposed to have learned as children.
The same replies to him, if your going to ask a question, and the person gives an answer, whether you agree with it or not, it gives you or me no right to turn right around and slander anyone's name for not agreeing with you are I,Period. I on a daily basis have to make choices on my job not everyone agrees with my choice but they don't turn around get on a blogg and call me names my mother and father did not name me. I'm done with this, I have given my opinion on the matter as well as you have they are our opinion, we can disagree and agree but I will not degrade you for disagreeing with me, I have a choice and I choose to believe that people can in america choose whatever way they want to think. I am not in control over you and you don't control my thinking. Done.
Thank You Mrs. California, for not stooping to a level of stupidity, by name slandering Mr. Pereze's name the way he did you on the blogg by calling you names your father and mother did not label their child. The one thing all Americans should want is respect I don't care who you are, are what choice of mate you choose respect goes a long way. I tell my son all the time people will treat you the way that you treat yourself so whatever comes out of your mouth whether good , bad, or ugly that is the way you'll be looked at. They may not tell you but you will know with their actions. Mrs. Californa does not speak for everybody neither does Mr. Perez, but we can diologue and agree and disagree but when you ask me a question and then I answer it, and you go and slander my name because of an answer you felt I should not have given then you should not have asked. It is what it is.
Not that I care about this pageant, but you know what? Good for Perez to expose her. I don't want someone to represent this country if they don't recognize basic human rights. They way you were raised is not a good excuse either. I was raised Christian too, and fortunately, I believe anyone should be married, and you should never deny someone that right. If you want to deny basic rights from human beings, than you should lose.
If she was smart, she would of used the Barack Obama stance. It's OK to believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. But if she would of said that it is not the gov't right to deny that, she and articulate that well, that could of been alot better.
How is marriage a human right? It is an inherently discriminatory institution that privileges couples over single people. Why should the state make life easier for a heterosexual OR homosexual couple that wants to have children than it does for a single woman/ man who just never found the right partner to share a family with?
Because the Supreme Court said so. Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"
You remember that case, right? That's the one where the Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage. Are you saying they were wrong to do so? States do have the right to restrict marriage on the basis of race?
If it's a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
Perez gets on my nerves, too. He has every right to act queeny, but he does not represent most gay men, and could have handled himself more decorously with Miss California.
She has her American right to stick to her ancient attitudes, which deny other's equal rights, but just happen to serve her orientation quite well, and he MIGHT have put her in her place better if he had DEVELOPED the maturity or fine-tuning of Gore Vidal, but he's been too busy camping on celebrities and making some niche for himself.
The real point is that she lost because her answer wasn't articulate. What, exactly, is "opposite marriage. " Maybe it wasn't the substance of her answer that cost her the title, but instead the way she expressed herself. She is in no way qualified to represent this country on a world stage with answers like that.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
