Miss USA and the B-Word

In Sunday night's Miss USA contest, Perez Hilton, celebrity blogger extraordinaire, asked Miss California what she thought about gay marriage. Her answer, supporting "opposite marriage," earned her both cheers and boos from the crowd and likely cost her the Miss USA crown.

It also spurred a video response from Hilton calling Miss California a dumb b****.

Hilton apologized for using the b-word, then retracted his apology and now even the BBC is covering the newest tensions surrounding gay marriage in America.

But no one is talking about the b-word that should be used to describe Miss California: bigot.

A bigot is one who is (according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary) "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

To take a state institution like marriage and quarantine it from same-sex couples despite the complete lack of evidence that such a restriction is rational or in the best interests of the citizens of the state is intolerance.

The basis for the marriage restriction that many put forward (although Miss California didn't even have the wherewithal to go this far) is that gay marriage constitutes a threat to religious freedom. However, no equal rights initiative has contemplated ordering religious institutions to recognize same-sex couples.

Unfortunately, Miss California is not the only bigot in America's public life.

We could list a large number of Republicans, Rudy Giuliani for one, and a number of Democrats.

Even President Obama holds the intolerant and bigoted view that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. Sure, he couches it with talk of equal rights under the law, but has, so far stood behind civil unions as an alternative to marriage - a plan that would create the same kind of separate but equal legal scheme rejected by Brown v. Board of Education.

Miss California, like many who share her take on the marriage issue, was careful to talk about her "opinion" and "beliefs" and the way she was raised as if this excused her intolerance. Barack Obama talks about tradition and belief as well in defense of his own position.

But the fight for equality is not just an exercise in name-calling. And it is not a polite exchange between friends about what to eat for dinner. There is no room for preference or belief when it comes to legally enforceable discrimination that is imposed on the entire population

The unequal treatment of LGBT Americans creates real casualties and ongoing disastrous effects for many citizens. We don't want to re-insert Perez Hilton's chosen b-word back into accepted public discourse, but we must begin to call the opposition to equality what it is: bigotry.

Follow Emma Ruby-Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EmmaRubySachs

Comments

[bowler]

I haven't quite figured this one out myself yet, but see some merit in the following argument by an "intelligent homophobe":

Consider that I am homophobic as naturally, genetically, and intrinsically as homosexuals are homesexual, if not more so. My homophobia is complementary to my deep rooted biological instinct to procreate heterosexually. I support individuals rights to make any partnerships they choose. I object, however, to being branded a bigot if I choose to express my biologically based (NOT religious, political, etc.) feelings, rather than voice the intellectually and politically correct doctrine that homosexual relationships are equally as valid as heterosexual ones.

Isn't intolerance of homophobia nearly the same as intolerance of homosexuality?

[DariaC]

Lots of heterosexuals have no fear at all of homosexuals. Fear is a thought and is not biologically based.

One is intolerance of fear and ignorance. It tends to go away with the more homosexual people you know. It is annoying

The other is intolerance of an entire people and their right to exist as you do. It is far more dangerous.

[MsYellowDog]

Quite obviously a RightWinge­r,obfuscat­ing and making excuses for instinctiv­e,knee-jer­k "reactions" to someone who is "other" than them. You use a lot of big words,but they don't say anything..except that you describe yourself as "homophobic," thereby marking yourself as an unreasoning reactionary.

[kristin1030]

As a homophobe, you are legally denied nothing. Intolerance of your biological feelings does not cost you anything. Furthermore, you require a homosexual possibility to exist for your homophobic feelings to be present. You can't be fearful of homosexuals if they don't exist, therefore, it is unlikely that your homophobic feelings are borne of your "deep rooted biological instinct to procreate heterosexually." Rather, they exist in relation to the presence of homosexuals in your environment.

Intolerance of homosexuality, however, leads to denial of equal and civil rights, borne of homophobia and bigotry.

[bowler]

I'm not advocating denial of equal or civil rights, just wondering if there is some room between Miss California's confused statement and bigotry? And that maybe her confusion (and a lot of others' confusion) results from an instinctive aversion to homosexuality that is difficult to reconcile with a more intellectual support of equal rights.

(MsYellowDog: please reread my posts and yours, then determine who is the unreasoning reactionary).

[ReedYoung]

No, it is not "nearly the same." Homosexuality is defined by the mode of pursuit of sexual happiness. As long as that pursuit involves only consenting adults, *nobody* else has any valid complaint. Homophobia is defined by the absence of the victims' consent and therefore can never be reconciled with the Constitution of the United States. Welcome your "intelligent homophobe" friend to relocate to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.

[bowler]

After a while...I think the answer is probably that lower-brain instincts don't justify higher-brain prejudices. Humans seem to have evolved to distrust those that don't look like them, but that doesn't make racism permissable in a civilized society. Similarly, the biological roots of homosexuality and homophobia don't make them right, that is determined by intellectual thought, philosophy, etc., by the individual and society. In a sense, we have evolved beyond our evolution.

This leads to a lot more questions, but I won't ask them here.

(No thanks to all those who attacked with manufactured reason in support of their predetermined view.)

[DariaC]

I don't like her "opinion" on this. These things always seem to be based on people who can never understand the saying about walking a mile in another person's shoes.
If there were any one reason I would want to keep her from being Miss USA, that would be it.
As for Obama, something tells me he said what he said in order to get elected.
I think if he's half as smart as i think he is, he will help Americans to restructure all domestic agreements under a new set of rules, one that covers everyone whether it's 2 cousins or friends who are not romantically involved but wish to engage in a partnership to care for a child or whoever it might be. Then he would formally separate church and state further by removing the word marriage from the law altogether. Problem solved.

[JohnBryansFontaine]

Because of his vulgar intolerance and PC, Perez Hilton is now the most Hated man in America. Ironically, he has done the cause of gay marriage harm, and he will forever regret asking what he did and then insulting this classy woman as he did. He is more of a pariah than the swine flu.

Just as ironically, Hilton might be the best thing that has happened to Carrie Prejean, for her career now has a rocket launcher under it.

[WolfLady]

What "career"? As NOM's surgically-enhanced pet spokesbigot?

~WolfLady~

[megalanzero]

Yeah, that's not really a career to speak of, but what do you think the odds are she would've been set up with NOM if it wasn't for Mr. Lavandeira's attacks on her? All attacking her has done is send her further down the wrong way. Rather than trying to talk about civil marriage versus the religious side of marriage, Lavandeira comes in, calls her a dumb for having an upbringing that taught her marriage is between a man and a woman, and now we wonder, why, oh why, is she with THOSE people? Vicious attacks on the exercise of free speech are polarizing. It's the same type of tactic that now has talk radio aligned either to the left or to the right.

[1will]

Miss California made a choice to state her opinion (an opinion most of CA evidently shares) during the pagent. I applaud her courage in saying what she believes and I have no doubt that she knew what the consequences would be. She could have given some meaningless PC answer but instead stayed true to her beliefs. Good for her.

[raker]

This sounds like a comment from someone whose life is not directly affected by issues of civil rights for gay people. People tend to think bold opinions like Miss California's are courageous when it's someone else's tribe taking the brunt of it.

[Jestor]

OH YA, the other great thing about the American Marriage is

the MONEY . Forget love and fidelity. Come on folks, it's

about the money and who gets it AFTER THE AMERICAN D I V O R C E ! ! !
.

[Jestor]

Face it, the young woman would NOT have been A GREAT SPOKES-PERSON

for the Miz America people.

REGARDING GAY MARRIAGE, the HET' s HAVEN'T DONE SUCH

A GREAT JOB. The average marriage lasts 7 YEARS or was it 5 ?

AND MARRIAGE IS NOT ALWAYS ABOUT SEX.

LOOK AT FOLKS THAT HAVE BEEN MARRIED FOR 50 YEARS . . . .

(now that there's Vi- A .... what do you call it ?.

[italianspaniard]

considering that 66% of marriages end up in divorce, 40% of women and 50% of men cheat on their spouses.

[LEVITICUS2013]

i have a question for LADYAURORA.... and this is serious and not in any way being derogatory....

you have my curiosity.... in your belief of polytheism (aka paganism).... if there are different god's governing different aspects of nature, then who do they answer to?

i am only asking because i have researched what you said and i have come up empty handed... many cultures were polytheists in history, such as the greeks, romans, and egyptians.... but all had different god's for the sun, moon, stars, etc..... but i could not find an agreement of these god's or who they answered to... i hope you take this as a serious question.... i really would like some enlightenment on this.... thanks

[violettefemme]

Since when does any kind of deity "answer to" anyone?

[CJ1]

lol! Yeah, and um, I have a serious question too, Levit. If a leprachaun and a fairie got in a fight, who would win??? I say fairie because of the wings, but my friend said leprachauns can use magic...

[LadyAurora]

Just for the record - I don't think you have said anything to or about me that I would consider derogatory. I will try to explain as best I can.

My 'sect' of Paganism (Please use the capital P, I use it for Christianity), is Wicca. I'm a Solitary practictioner, which means I don't belong to a coven, but might gather with other like minded Solitaries for some gatherings.

Let me start by saying that Paganism is an umbrella term, like Christianity, that encompasses many different sects, i.e. Dianic, Wicca, Heathanism, etc. I would start with wikipedia for a general view of all.

But as violettefemme aludes to below a deity doesn't really answer to anyone. Does your "God" answer to anyone?

(since my post is too long - see the next comment by me below)

[LadyAurora]

For me it's not that there is a separate god/goddess for the moon, sun, etc. but that in nature there are both male and female (which is how most life goes on). But that doesn't mean that all nature exists that way. There are plants that are both male and female; and if I remember my Jr High biology earthworms have both male and female sex organs. And from Jurassic Park - there are some speicies of frogs (and maybe other amphibians) that will change sex if there are too many of one sex. So nature will always adjust.

As this relates to same-sex marriage - since I believe that sexual orientation is more nature than nurture, nature will always make sure that there are plenty of males and females to procreate (not because their religion tells them to, but because it's a natural act), so even if gays are allowed to marry, there will be plenty of hetero's left. And just because gays can't procreate exactly like hetro's doesn't mean they can't procreate with a little help (sort of like those hetero couples who cannot conceive so they use IVF or Invetro or adopt).

I don't know if I really answered your question as much as you wanted, but try a little more searching with Wicca, maybe that will help. If not, try asking again.

[mydwyf]

It seems rather strange that a civil lawyer, who should know how words can come back to you, would use the label 'intolerant bigot' not only for Miss Cali but for our President. Obama in particular has no doubt experienced racial bigotry up close and personal, as he did on the campaign trail, and as he is a thoughtful person it seems logical to conclude that his stated position on same sex marriage is also well thought out. He may be many things, but 'intolerant bigot' is not one of them. The casual throwing around of the terms 'homophobe' and 'bigot' is really doing a disservice to every one and lawyers in particular should be more careful about their inconsidered use.

[LEVITICUS2013]

i totally agree, and until a person has experienced bigotry pointed at them then who are they to comment on the subject... that would be like einstein trying to teach you about farming.... (although he may have known more about this than physics...lol)...

i will give an example from my own experience.... when i was 18 in basic training for the army, a man pushed me against the wall with three of his friends, spit in my face, and called me a bigot.... i actually had never spoke to him or his friends before, but because of my physical features he assumed i was a racist bigot.... THAT is bigotry... plain and simple...

at the end of the training cycle he took me aside and personally apologized and said he had no right to judge me....

[LEVITICUS2013]

anyone who doesn't understand the connection between marriage and god doesn't know history both secular and biblical history... why is it that ALL of the most important PAGAN leader throughout history have acknowledged and even submitted to god time and time again... don't ever take my word or take anyone's that 'claims' to be a christian... research it... i came to a greater understanding of god's word through the love i have for world history.... time and time again our great historians have committed to record all (that's right ALL) of the events mentioned in the bible...

marriage was created by god in the book of genesis....

Gen 2:21 And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof:
Gen 2:22 and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen 2:23 And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

so why would a person who does not believe in god and has no faith in any word of his even desire to take on a union that was solely created by him?

[LadyAurora]

Which Pagan leaders are you talking about? You can't make a blanket statement and just say "look it up". Please provide some sort of example/proof.

If all you are speaking about is Constantine - he was a Pagan until his death bed conversion and he did reversed the persecutions of his predecessor, Diocletian, and issued (with his co-emperor Licinius) the Edict of Milan in 313, which proclaimed religious toleration throughout the empire. But that was 1,696 years ago.

As far as I remember, the world didn't begin 1,696 years ago and the majority of people on the earth were Pagan. And guess what - they got "married" fairly regularly. Granted it wasn't called marraige. For the Celts it was handfasting (look it up - at least I give you some place to start).

So to you all gays are Pagan!? While some might be Pagan or any other religion (or non whatsoever), but I do believe a lot are Christian.

And once again you are using religion to try and reconcile a secular decision.

[LEVITICUS2013]

that would greatly depend on what 'version' of the word pagan you subscribe to... and of course i have not said that all gays are pagan.. see, religion as i said before is "man's law".. created when god's law did not suit man for one reason or another (ironically, gays don't even stop to realize that the entire chapter of leviticus covers the ENTIRE definition of what god considers to be sexually immoral, and this torques a lot of people)....

so this is what happens when man has not been able to deal with god's law, he creates his own and that is called 'religion'... faith in god's law is what you and everyone esle is actually referring to when you say something like "you're religion... or according to religion.. or "it's not a religious matter"....

in regards to 'pagan' leaders... you are only clinging to the shallow definition and self-prescription of 'neo-paganism', and to that end you are quite correct...

but look further, consider leaders from much farther back, a very good example would be king Nebuchadnezzar of babylon, in fact the physical remnants of his palace are still in existence... a eunuch in his court that he took from the land of isreal named daniel, stayed on and served him and successive kings after him... daniel was the only man in his kingdom that could interpret the king's dreams, which were predictions regarding the future....

[italianspaniard]

WOW, so you believe everything in old testament as true?Do you believe the earth is 5000 years old? So you don't believe in the facts of evolution, proven facts? So you don't believe in the big bang fact? Even the pope agreed on that. So you don't believe that the earth is 4.567 billion years old(proven), the universe 14 billions years old? Do you know what the cocic, (not sure of the spelling)? It is what we have left of a tail.

[violettefemme]

If you read history books as much as the myths in the B.ible, you would have learned that any historical leaders who became religious, christ.i*n, etc, did so for Politic.al Expedi*ncy, no other reason, as they see themselves above all, including religion, is that not obvious from the way such leaders comported themselves with marriages and mistresses and torture and executions?

[Fugly]

It's sad that people still believe in the story of a god taking a rib from a man and fashioning a woman.

[CJ1]

You are WRONG. The Buddhists practice marriage--long before christianity--but don't believe in a god.

[gwyw]

I find it amusing as well as ironic that Perez Hilton asked Miss CA for her opinion, then once that was given, he responded to what he considered a "hate-filled" and "intolerant" answer with name-calling. What a showing of love and tolerance, Mr. Hilton!!! Perhaps he needs to read that Merriam-Webster definition of bigot. Or perhaps he's already decided that "bigot" should be redefined as "anyone who's opinion differs from my own."
What a relief that matters of morality and of legality are not decided by beauty queens or celebrity bloggers!

[gwyw]

I find it amusing as well as ironic that Perez Hilton asked Miss CA for her opinion, then when that was given, he responded to what he considered a "hate-filled" and "intolerant" answer with name-calling. What an example of love and tolerance, Mr. Hilton!!! I think perhaps he, as well as Ms. Ruby-Sachs, should once again read the Merriam-Webster definition of "bigot." Until we learn that every American citizen is entitled to their opinion and entitled to decide for themselves what is morally right or wrong, even if that opinion differs from our own, we will never be a tolerant, unbigoted society. As for what should be "legal" or "illegal," that is a different matter that is decided by lawmakers, not by beauty queens or celebrity bloggers. Our government cannot legislate morality.

[JohnButrus]

Some news media members and others mistakenly use the terms “gay marriage” and “same sex marriage” interchangeably. Moreover, the SSM issue has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Gay marriage is legal throughout the United States, same sex marriage, however, is not legal except in four (4) states. State marriage license applications do not inquire as to an applicant’s sexual orientation. In addition, state and federal statutes related to marriage contain no prohibition on marriage based on sexual orientation. As such, gay persons can legally obtain a marriage license and get married. (For example, a gay man can legally marry a woman.)

The Defense of Marriage Act (DMA) defines marriage as, “... a legal union between one man and one woman." Similarly, the Texas Family Code requires marriage to be between a man and woman, and specifically precludes issuance of a marriage license to persons of the same sex. As such, same sex persons, irrespective of their sexual orientation, cannot legally marry. In sum, gay persons can legally get married, however, same sex couples cannot (except in four (4) states).

The legal battle has nothing to do with sexual orientation; it has to do with the sex of those who apply for a marriage license.

[larryaz]

Perez Hilton is the wrong champion for the gay marriage movement. His childish name calling and pretending to care about anything but himself makes her sympathetic and opposed to ignorant. Sexist language perpetuates the stereotype that gay men hate women. You don't fight offensive behaviour with offensive behavior. You can not use the n word to attack african americans with whom you disagree and you can not use the c word to attack a woman.

[The Ghost]

Why do you think the MSM picked him?

[larryaz]

He picked himself.

[rollyb]

You can not logically respond to this story without mentioning how wrong Perez was to drop the c word. Her answer was silly but does not excuse such a sexist outburst. This case is an example of the problem believing you have to choose sides as opposed to realizing both sides are wrong. In this case she is wrong because her position is not logically defensible and he is wrong because the sexist personal attack was juvenile and counterproductive.

[Matthew Heminger]

Her answer was not 'silly' it was her opinion which is what she was asked for. She was not asked to define marriage but merely what her opinion was. Her opinion happens to be shared by a majority of Americans. Certainly not as clear a majoroty as 20 years ago or even 5 years ago but a clear majority. I wil nto argue the merits of gay marriage, frankly I could not care less about it. In the midst of the Great Recession with Pakistan about to become a Nuclear failed state and the United States still stuck in a Briar Patch called Iraqistan for the foreseeable future...who really gives one goddamned whether same sex couples can prance down the friggin' aisles. Let's make it easy. Call it civil unions and give them the same benefits and let non-gay couples do the church/marriage thing. Both of them can register at Nordstroms­/Saks/Macy­'s whatever. Oha nd one more thing...Perez Hilton is a douchb*g and always has been...is he related to Paris in any way? If not he should be.

[larryaz]

Her answer was silly. A defense of traditional marriage would not be silly. But the term opposite marriage as opposed to traditional marriage was silly. I respect people who support traditional marriage but her answer was at first an attempt to take both sides. Her opinion is fine but was incredibly badly given.

[LEVITICUS2013]

now... unlike hilton, i have posed a question, and i DO want the answer.... regardless of if it challenges my personal beliefs or not... i want to know the TRUTH... i am determined to get to the bottom of this issue and to understand fully what it all means.... i want to know what the whole doctrine of gay marriage means.... someone tell me why it important to pass a special law for a select group based on orientation that will not equally protect all peoples.... keep in mind that i do not have a constitutional right to marry in this country, i am straight, but i do not have this right that gay people want, and maybe i might want this right too...

[carrieanna]

In Texas they recently passed the law to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. So, as a straight person you *do* have a right/priviledge as a select group....a special law passed especially for your kind.

Before the law, the definitions of marriage were too vague, apparently.

But you might be happy at knowing the Supreme Court knocked down a "special" law aimed at only the gay crowd a few years ago: Lawrence v Texas.