One Small Victory in Defense of Free Speech

Beauty pageants are not really my area but the Miss USA pageant became politicized thanks to the agendas of competing special interests in California.  The ever flamboyant and always outrageous Perez Hilton ignited this situation when he bated Carrie Prejean with a question on gay marriage.  Ms. Prejean’s answer was clearly qualified as her own personal opinion.

She answered,”I think it’s 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? I think 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.”  Not exactly a smooth answer but she was stating her opinion.  Hilton wasted no time launching a personal attack on her.  The same day he released a video blog declaring her a “dumb bitch.”  Pro-traditional marriage groups responded by co-opting Ms. Prejean for their cause.  What a mess.

Disagree with me and you’re a Nazi. Bitch.

How much more credible does it get?

How much more credible does it get?

Hilton’s comments offend me as an American.  Certainly he was offended that Prejean didn’t agree with his views but his attack was akin to a schoolyard brat, stomping his feet and yelling out vicious names.  Those who defended his temper tantrum or joined him in hurling personal insults, such as the anti-intellectual Michael Musto, who compared her to Nazi, Klaus Barbie, (who killed 4,000 people,) exhibited their lack of skill in debating the issue.  It has been my consistent position that name-callers do so because they lack logical ground from which to make their argument.  For example where is the moral equivalency between murdering 4,000 or more human beings and meekly admitting that while she respects that homosexuals can marry, she believes marriage is a traditional institution.  As I recall President Obama said much the same thing during the campaign and no one batted an eye.  Except maybe the candidate when he followed the comment with a knowing wink. (You didn’t see it?  Ok, I made it up but I’m sure it was there somewhere.)

What’s the issue?

For me, there are two points here, first, freedom of speech.  Do we have it or not?  Second, what is marriage?  Let’s begin with the latter.  I think gay activists don’t understand that marriage is.  It is a religious institution.  Certainly it has been co-opted by the government for legal reasons, but at its heart, marriage is a religious institution.  Religions, as a whole, take a natural law position on sex and family.  After all, marriage is essentially about sex, procreation, and child development.  Additionally, marriage bonds two people legally, creating complications and conflict if and when the contract is terminated.  I believe these legal bonds exist to ensure that children and dependent spouses are provided for in the event the bread-winner decides to hit the road.  (Anyone who is or has been married can attest that marriage is no wonderland fantasy life.  Do these people understand what they are asking for?  But I digress.)

Anyone not notice the religious aspect of marriage

Why is marriage so important to homosexuals?  I think, it’s because doing so, thrusts acceptance upon mainstream Americans.  Tolerance no longer appears to be the goal, rather the goal seems to have shifted to acceptance or perhaps even embracement (Is that a word?  If not I coin it here.) As a proponent of natural law I do not accept the idea that homosexuals are born predisposed to it.  I have been friends with several homosexuals both male and female.  Over the course of our friendly exchanges I have always become aware of intense hurt or other trauma in that person’s past.  I refuse to condemn gays and lesbians, I’ll let God deal with them.  I have my own sins to deal with, and I’ll not make deliberately alienating people away from faith one of them.

(In case you’re scratching your head, wondering where I stand on this issue…  I don’t support gay marriage under the argument that marriage is a religious institution for procreation .  Gays are biologically incapable of procreation, thus they do not fit the criteria of the institution.  If our society is bent on embracing the homosexual lifestyle then marriage needs to be divorced from its legal status.  In that case, I think it should be wholly replaced by civil unions and marriage should become a separate religious union between a male and a female partner.)

Is there is no right to debate?

Now, I have exercised my right to free speech as defined in the Bill of Rights.  However, people like Hilton, Musto, Jessica Yellin, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Giuliana Rancic, and Matt Lauer apparently don’t believe in free speech – at least other people’s right to free speech.  They attempt to make the argument that homosexuals are equivalent to ethnic and racial minorities.  I understand this argument but I cannot accept it as valid(Besides this raises another issue, is racism now illegal?  Certainly morally wrong but are thoughts now regulated under the law?)

Marriage has a very deep-rooted religious and emotional history.  Its application and definition are completely debatable and resisting its alteration is a justifiable exercise of free speech.  On the other hand, these detractors and name-callers also have their right to free speech.  If Perez Hilton wants to attack this young woman he has a right as long as he does not slander her.  However, I believe Mr. Musto did slander Ms. Prejean and thus his comments should be the real focus of condemnation.  However, calling conservatives “Hitler” has become a favorite of intellectually bankrupt liberals, so the mainstream media will embrace him for taking a strong stand.

Mr. Trump, I admire you.  You had a chance to cave in to liberal censorship but you resisted.  The photos that surfaced were a weak attempt to disqualify Ms. Prejean.  Sure she should have disclosed the pictures but clearly they are an embarassment to her.  Besides, I clearly recall liberals declaring it is alright to lie about sex.  You don’t remember that?  You must not have been of voting age in 1999, because I’ll never forget James Carville sitting in front of CNN cameras saying, “Everybody lies about sex.  What’s the big deal?”

    • reedkeys
    • May 13th, 2009

    Let’s do a little comparison shopping here. You have Miss California’s answer: articulate, pointed, honest. Then there’s Miss Arizona: None of the above. Whatever you think of the content of Ms. Prejean’s answer, it was her ability to convey a cohesive thought and put forth a reasonable argument that she was supposed to be judged on. If you’re going to ask someone’s opinion, you shouldn’t judge them for giving it.

    Now to the issue itself. You are right that marriage is a sacrament of the church. Back when we thought the Bible gave us the greatest example of how to govern, we allowed Biblical tenets to become intermingled with our government. I don’t want to remove marriage from our governmental jargon but it obviously has to be defined: one man, one woman, period. If states choose to have some other determination which legally joins some definable relationship, that’s no problem as long as other states aren’t bound by it if they don’t want to be. Also, any type of civil union should be as hard to dissolve as a marriage.

    I agree that Mr. Trump deserves a LOT of credit. He didn’t cave to the pressure and in fact, rose above it. He saw the spurious attacks for what they were and made a brave and correct decision. I doubt he thought when he bought the Miss USA pageant that he would have to solve such problems but he has never shied away from controversy and sees it as an opportunity to advance his product and image. Good for him. There’s little about what he said yesterday that can be argued with and his point that President Obama agrees with Ms. Prejean was sheer GENIUS!!!

  1. Пора переименовать блог, присвоив название связанное с доменами 🙂 может хватит про них?

    • Спасибо за комментарий. Мне пришлось использовать Google Translate понять замечание, но я по-прежнему нуждаются в помощи. Значит, вы говорите, моего блога имя пугает людей от посещения сайта или что там слишком много американских Идиоты? Меня интересует Ваше мнение. Спасибо еще раз.

  2. Пора переименовать блог, присвоив название связанное с доменами 🙂 может хватит про них?

  3. Давно искала эту информацию, спасибо.

    • Спасибо за комментарии. Не понимали, кто в Российской Федерации будет уход.

  4. Спасибо, хорошая статья. Подписался.

  5. Спасибо! Буду теперь заходить на этот блог каждый день!

    • unfrozencaveman
    • July 12th, 2009

    “It has been my consistent position that name-callers do so because they lack logical ground from which to make their argument.”

    Reason/logic is not the most affective means of influencing popular opinion. It only works on open-minded people who can think critically and dispassionately. I’m sure that’s less than 10% of the American adult population and far less than 1% of Perez Hilton’s audience.

    • Good point. Of course the irony of my position is that the entire blog is devoted to commenting on idiocy in politics and things that don’t make sense. Not unlike your own blog.

  6. Комплекс текстов неплохой, добавлю сайт в закладки.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply or add your opinion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: