First of all, I think that skank Perez Hilton was totally out of line with his rant, and his remark regarding "politically correct".  By whose standard?  I personally don't see how gay's rights are impeded by Prop 8 when they already can have every legal right awarded by marriage except "blessing".  The law already allows for gay couples to do for each other.  I know.  One of my family told me.

Miss California was very classy.  (And beautiful).

Sounds like this Hilton guy had an agenda.  Very inappropriate.  I think Miss California did a wonderful job replying to the question.  She articulated her position well.  What was Mr. Hilton's response?  He later called her a dumb b**ch in a video response to her reply.  Where's the tolerance?  Sounds hypocritical to me.  No matter what one's opinion on gay rights, it is beneficial to everyone to at least be respectful. 

I think the prop 8 thing was confusing in that people thought they were voting for gays to get married if they voted yes. . I think the old guard here in Bako are more toward a man and a woman marrige. were as the younger crowd might be more tolerant. ? tell me if I am wrong . I am not saying I am for or against .

  Why was Perez even there? They didn't ask you to be there Matt? They didn't ask me to be there. But they asked a  "blogger" to be there. Look he makes his bread and butter on  a thumbs up or down like some Roman  Rule back in the days of the gladiator. He's a hater of  anything he personally doesn't like. So why was a "blogger" even there?  Should Joe the plumber be there giving commentary?  How about Gloria Allred?  For that matter the Oct-Mom?

And why that question? Highly controversial  one at that.  Was the deck stacked ? Did the producers  want controversy? Did they want a reaction from the populace? sure they did. it  makes those that can't wait for the pageant to happen.  Who put this thing on anyway? Trump , like the last few times riddled with  controversy.  I think we as consumers will gulp down  anything and pretend it was good. Because that's the way we are "Supposed" to act and feel.

Prop 8 shouldn't have even went to the people. It should have went before the Supreme Courts to decided once again the government loves to see it's people battle against each other.

the "new voters" who voted for Obama voted Yes on Prop 8. and who was the majority of new voters? yes sir, Black people.

Its not racist, its the truth and if you ask most back people about their culture, they don't believe being gay is right. I'M DEAD SERIOUS too. and i don't want "YOU ARE RACIST" comments cause that's total B.S. If you wanna argue this FINE but dont give me the racist crap...

They are going to overturn the votes anyways, cause noones vote counts and government doesn't care.I personally don't care if gays marry, but don't teach it at school. which i don't think they would cause marriage isn't taught in school anyways.but sex is, and since gay sex doesn't scientifically do anything (like create a baby) it wont be taught.

(look at me i didn't cuss)

Miss California butchered her response. Whether you support or oppose gay marriage, it's pretty obvious that her response was delivered poorly.  Transcript:

Perez Hilton: “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”

Prejean: “Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, 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 and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

Opposite marriage. Hmmm. She gives no reason for her position at all. Watching the video is worse. She stumbles around like a drunk girl at a frat party.  It was horrible in terms of rhetorical skill which is largely what Miss USA is judged on. She wanted to be a spokesperson for the pageant, but it turned out that she couldn't speak well.

Perez Hilton hardly ambushed her. I feel bad for the poor girl who had to answer a question about taxpayer bailouts. Most of the questions were political. Miss Prejean got a relatively easy one and miffed it.

Opposing gay marriage is bigotry pure and simple. Sure, gays and lesbians have civil unions, but the point of excluding them from actual marriage is to mark them as second class citizens. Gays have been attacked for decades for being supposedly more promiscuous, but when they want to get married, we say no. There is no real reason other than bigotry to oppose it. Most quote the bible and traditional values, but they don't tell you that, in the bible, marriage was not the preferred option for god's elect. The new testement's position on mariage is clear. Refraining from sex altogether is the best option. Marriage is for those too weak to live the lives god wants for them. Furthermore, of the many ridiculous rules in the bible, opponents of gay marriage like to pick and choose to suit their needs. If you want to oppose gay marriage, you should also enforce the bits about not sitting in a chair that a woman has sat in because she might be menstrating and hence unclean or cutting off a woman's hand if, in the course of breaking up a fight, she accidently touches a man's penis.

Oh, Annie, we sorely need to teach kids about gay rights to keep them from growing up as little bigots. I see kids use gayness as a weapon to hurt each other all the time. This is a large part of the reason that gay teens have such a high suicide rate and are assaulted because of their inborn sexual orientation.

It is sad indeed that blacks turned out to vote against gay marriage. The only silver lining is that they'll eventually come around to the emerging majority opinion which rejects anti-gay sentiment.

Hopefully the courts will overturn prop eight. That doesn't make them activists. It means they are doing their job ensuring that the majority (shrinking every day) does not abuse minorities. That is why we have a constitutional democracy rather than a unfettered, absolute democracy.

Well I think if "being gay" is being taught in school then of course the counter part should be taught. Let's just say not teach little  kids that sex with anyone at their age is not appropriate.,  sound fair?  Everyone is different.. Not my place to judge, There will always be haters of every variety. You can oppose being  gay/straight and still love that person. I don't tell anyone what I do in my bed room and I don't feel anyone else should tell me what they do. If were stripped of any sexuality in ways of having sex with   one another  then we all would simply be friends. No need to push our sexuality on others. We can teach  our children what we feel is right, but at the same time not to hate other that are different.

Marriage is for those too weak to live the lives god wants for them.

Did you say you were married and divorced ascoper?  I heard it was better to marry than burn and it's fine if you want a "help-mate" in God's eyes.

So what do you think if  the whole country allows gay people to marry but the majority  of the people that are straight which is quite high doesn't accept that marriage. Meaning sure you have all the right but there is no real validity in the marriage in other peoples eyes.   On the premise , sure you can lead a horse to drink.  You can't make people accept something they don't want to. Sure you can have all the rights in the world. It's sort of like what Jesus said in the bible of Rendering what is Caesars and rendering what is God's. Sure go ahead and give Caesar his money , but your heart is mine so to speak.

To be honest you can  be married in the original Jewish sense. They didn't have any Justice of the Peace, No, nothing.  They consummated as the Best Man stood outside the door and waited to be told  they have consummated. Then they all went to a  post consummation party in their honor.  It's the act of the  marriage, not the actual paper, or how  the two feel about each other not how the government feels about the marriage.

I think what Miss California said was valid because it was her honest response and  that was fine. If someone wanted to rebut that, hey fine too(albeit a bit strange) .  But they asked her what she thought and she told them.  It would have been fine had Hilton be congenial and  opposed her. But he said  something to the effect, I wanted to go up there and "do some bodily harm"  that's hate in opposition. that makes a good case for him doesn't it? Because he's just a blog reporter. No better than myself.

As a foot note. Your whole  thing about sitting where women sat ? I suspect  was Mosaic Law.. Mosaic Law was tandem mount to OCD in religious circles. Not really found on God's word(or and over zealous way to please God). I think God said, eh OK.  If you want to  be confusing sure, we'll go with that. I think that's why Jesus was always irritated by the Pharisee's dealing in "Legalism". 

In closing I think everyone has the right  to do what they want.. If one man says "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" that's fine with me. And another man chooses not to. that's fine with me too.  I'm not going to judge them. Not my place. I let God and his word deal with it in my house.  

Well, the way I saw it, supporters used fear to drum up support. Oh no, Billy will have to learn how to treat gay people with the same respect as he treats everyone else.  We can't have that!  When the fact is that nothing would have changed.  California schools are already mandated to teach tolerance for alternative lifestyles.  Sooner or later it's going to become a federal issue, and because the only real argument against letting gays get married are the biblical ones, making it unconstitutional, gays will eventually have the right to get married, or marriage will no longer be a government institution (which I think it shouldn't).

On the other side I think opposers (to prop 8) should have less a militant attitude.  We all have strong feelings, but when people get all up in arms they end up looking like whackos. 

Ah, now this is a proper argument. Thank you an1ok1joe.

First, being gay isn't, and shouldn't be, taught in schools because being gay isn't a learned behavior. I might be able to teach a kid to act gay or to act straight, but teaching a kid to be gay or straight is something of an altogether order. I realize that some people are still clinging to the idea that our sexuality is something we choose. The science behind this claim is not as strong as it is for gravity or evolution, but it's close enough that I don't worry much about being proved wrong. Biology leaves wiggle room for some, but, speaking broadly, we are all born with our sexual preference. I believe that the state has a valid interest in teaching kids that gays and lesbians are no better and no worse than any other group regardless of the parent's religious belief. What happens in heaven, stays in heaven. In the mean time, the state is responsible for getting us to live together peacefully on earth. 

I was married and divorced. I have no regrets about the divorce part. For me, marriage was no more than an excuse to have our parents chip in for a trip to Vegas. As an atheist, marriage has absolutely no meaning besides a legal arrangement and a party. Love is a different story, but traditionally romantic love has no place in marriage. Romantic love is a relatively new value in human history.

Currently, a slight majority of Americans still reject gay marriage. But oppostion to gay marriage and to gay rights has been rapidly eroding and will probably continue to do so. I understand that changing the law will not instantly make everyone support gay marriage. That said, once a critical mass of states allow for gay marriage, I expect the opposition to crumble even more quickly as people see that gay marriage produces none of the negative effects that oppostion groups are fabricating. By the time my daughter reaches adulthood, I suspect that the overwhelming majority in this country will be gay-friendly.

Your position regarding traditional jewish marriage intrigues me. Mostly because it gets so close to my position on gay marriage. I think that the state should have no role in marriage at all. The state should provide civil unions to gay and straight couples. Marriage could return to being a religious phenomenon rather than a legal one. This would have the advantage of keeping the state from meddling in church affairs. Currently, churches that want to perform gay marriages are being told that those marriages are not valid. When gay marriage is legalized, churches that do not wish to perform gay marriages will be in violation of equal protection mandates if they try to marry only straight couples. Either way, the state is infringing on religious practice without any real need to. Leave marriage to churches! Leave legal protections to the state!  Problem solved.

I'm all for people being honest about their personal views. I don't think that Miss Prejean should have said something she didn't believe. My critiquie of her answer was more narrow in focus. She simply didn't say it eloquently. She starts by saying how great it is that in America we get to chose one or the other and then proceeds to tell us that, in her view, no one should have the choice to marry an individual of the same sex.  'Opposite marriage' is an awkward phrase to say the least. She also says, "I think that I believe..." Again, you may agree with the position she took, but her presentation of her opinion wouldn't earn a passing grade in speech 101.  Perez Hilton's response certainly could have been more diplomatic. However, if someone were telling me that I didn't deserve equal rights, I would probably get a little angry as well.

Now to mosaic law. If the teachings of jesus supercede mosaic law generally, then the condemnation of gays in sodom and gomorrah should be thrown out along with the rest of the tedious legalisms. Personally, I don't find much in the way of moral teaching when I read a story wherein a group of men want to have sex with a male angel and the protagonist, Lot, trys to appease them by saying, " Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof." If I were god, I think I would have struck down Lot before anyone else for offering his daughters to be gang raped. Furthermore, the concept of homosexuality was unknown to the authors of torah. Since marriages in that era were more about survival than love, most people who were born gay in the modern sense would have married a woman anyway. It was more about running a household rather than romantic interest. Homosexuality as a concept arose along with modern views on love. Until the issue of who one wanted to be with became a valid question, sexual preference wasn't part of the discussion. I suspect that god might have been trying to express disappointment with the tendency of men everywhere and throughout time to stick their penises in just about anything that can accomodate them. Really, men have proved over and over that they will put their dicks just about anywhere. In the original American colonies, there were far more punishments doled out to men for having sex with farm animals than each other even though both activities were illegal. Maybe instead of condemning homosexuals, god was trying to warn us not to insert our penises into vacuum cleaners and sheep.

I have to say I agree with you in a  lot of what you said  as much as i disagree in other areas.  These are way to numerous to mention but I will say in the case of Lot. I think God has allow "wicked" or bad people to  do things  in order to In a  around about way serve his purpose. One in particular in the   New Testament  one Judas Iscariot.. His greed over took him and allow  it to posses  him manifesting in  a entity coming into him and causing him to sell out the one he probably loved the most. When the entity was done doing the evil deed allowed him to feel shame and humiliation and hung himself. I think God can use bad people to bring about good things. I think in the long and short of it this is what happened in Lot's case.  Not to mention Fallen angels and mating with  human women (Nephilim) But that's a whole different discussion.