Should Ms Cali have lost?

WaveCameCrashin

and what if some Churches like the catholic church decide that they wont marry you in a catholic church are you gonna go cry to ACLU

Prince Of Dorkness

jlew24asu wrote:

I think this incident hurts your cause however. had perez acted differently, you would have many more people who on the fence about the issue, come to your side. Perez just gave them more firepower by a) not allowing her to win based on her personal choice b) say the outrageous things on his blog about her.

its unfortunate.

I don't think so. Had Perez acted differently you would never have heard about this whole thing and nobody would have given a shit but they'd sure as hell find another reason to deny gay people rights. It's always something.. one gay person makes a spectacle of themselves and people looking for a reason to hate gay people have another reason.

When Chris Crocker did his "Leave Britney Alone" video, he was also held up as a reason to deny gay people marriage.. there's always some scapegoat.

I'm not saying YOU are doing that but I'm sure a lot of people are. It's easier for them if they have a reason to hate us, even if it isn't a good one.

Prince Of Dorkness

prfctlefts wrote:

so when gay marriage is legal in all 50 states then what ? Will you be happy ?

This isn't about making me happy. It's about treating my family equally under the law. I'm sure I'll always have a reason to be an asshole.

But it's not even the 50 states I care about as much as federal recognition. That's the rights my family needs to protect ourselves.

Prince Of Dorkness

prfctlefts wrote:

and what if some Churches like the catholic church decide that they wont marry you in a catholic church are you gonna go cry to ACLU

Oh no, you're confusing two issues.

We don't want religious marriage rights. We want civil marriage rights. The kind you get by marrying at city hall.

As it is now, the Catholic church doesn't have to marry anyone they don't want to marry even if they're straight and nobody is trying to change that. Nobody is trying to change religious beliefs or policy. Nobody is trying to force any churches to recognize my marriage... I don't care what the Pope thinks but I DO care who inherits my estate, who has legal power of attorney rights and who is my "next of kin."

WaveCameCrashin

I can understand that

Prince Of Dorkness

Geez... please tell me this doesn't mean I win Miss USA. :evil:

WaveCameCrashin

Donald Trump was on O'Reilly tonight and he said even if she would have given a different answer she still would have lost. So there you have it.

WaveCameCrashin

Jasunmark wrote:

Geez... please tell me this doesn't mean I win Miss USA. :evil:

what about Mr.USA Im only kidding

Prince Of Dorkness

edit.

too much info.

soulsinging

jlew24asu wrote:

was interracial marriage really against the law?

Is that a serious question? It was still against the campus code at Bob Jones just a few years ago.

soulsinging

prfctlefts wrote:

Seriously what's wrong with having civil unions with all the same things as traditional marriage :?

The same thing that was wrong with "separate but equal" schools, drinking fountains, swimming pools...

soulsinging

Jasunmark wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

and what if some Churches like the catholic church decide that they wont marry you in a catholic church are you gonna go cry to ACLU

Oh no, you're confusing two issues.

We don't want religious marriage rights. We want civil marriage rights. The kind you get by marrying at city hall.

As it is now, the Catholic church doesn't have to marry anyone they don't want to marry even if they're straight and nobody is trying to change that. Nobody is trying to change religious beliefs or policy. Nobody is trying to force any churches to recognize my marriage... I don't care what the Pope thinks but I DO care who inherits my estate, who has legal power of attorney rights and who is my "next of kin."

I really think there's a serious misconception out there among religious people about this. I think they truly believe the gay community wants to storm their church, edit their bibles, and force their pastors to marry gay people. That's just not true.

g under p

jlew24asu wrote:

was interracial marriage really against the law?

There was a time when black men were lynched for just looking at a white woman much less marry one. Yes, at one time it was against the law and today it is STILL looked down on especially in the south. I know this for a fact in Palm Beach Florida, it takes all my energy just stay out of confrontations.

Peace

jlew24asu

soulsinging wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

was interracial marriage really against the law?

Is that a serious question? It was still against the campus code at Bob Jones just a few years ago.

yea its a serious question. obviously its been socially illegal if you will for decades, even ever, but I didnt know actual LAWS were written against it.

and I have no idea what campus code at Bob Jones means. sorry I'm a stock market tech guy, your lawyer speak goes over my head :?: :shock:

soulsinging

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

was interracial marriage really against the law?

Is that a serious question? It was still against the campus code at Bob Jones just a few years ago.

yea its a serious question. obviously its been socially illegal if you will for decades, even ever, but I didnt know actual LAWS were written against it.

and I have no idea what campus code at Bob Jones means. sorry I'm a stock market tech guy, your lawyer speak goes over my head :?: :shock:

I thought you were messing with us Bob Jones is a university, until a few years ago you could be expelled for interracial dating. It's been law on the books of many states and cities since the Civil War.

decides2dream

prfctlefts wrote:

and what if some Churches like the catholic church decide that they wont marry you in a catholic church are you gonna go cry to ACLU

of course not.
are you purposely missing the point?
seperation of church and state. i don't think anyone is 'crying' over any religious insitituion denying them marriage rights...i think most sadly expect it. what they DON't expect, nor agree with - and nor do i - is LEGAL marriage being denied them solely on the basis of WHO they want to marry, another consenting adult, who happens to be of the same gender. it really is quite simple - a civil rights infringement.


the day the catholic church allows homosexuals to marry will be the day they also decide divorce is ok and you can still receive communion, that condom use is ok and doesn't actually 'help' spread AIDs, etc......meaning: never.


edit:

Jasunmark wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

and what if some Churches like the catholic church decide that they wont marry you in a catholic church are you gonna go cry to ACLU

Oh no, you're confusing two issues.

We don't want religious marriage rights. We want civil marriage rights. The kind you get by marrying at city hall.

As it is now, the Catholic church doesn't have to marry anyone they don't want to marry even if they're straight and nobody is trying to change that. Nobody is trying to change religious beliefs or policy. Nobody is trying to force any churches to recognize my marriage... I don't care what the Pope thinks but I DO care who inherits my estate, who has legal power of attorney rights and who is my "next of kin."

i see already addressed fully, and better.

know1

I don't know if she should have won or lost (her answer was kind of rambling and incoherent), but that Perez Hilton should never, ever, ever have been made a judge. He's a buffoon who obviously put his own political agenda above the task at hand. My statement has nothing to do with him being gay.

know1

jlew24asu wrote:

Jasunmark wrote:

Meh. Perez's job has always been to create a scene. It's why they brought him on board.

Yes, calling her a "dumb bitch" was probably out of line but that's his schtick. Not that I don't agree with him, mind you, but I'm not a judge (nor would I be).

People really have got to stop over-simplifying the whole issue. She lost not because she has an opinion but because the want title holders to be able to walk a thin line when giving answers. She failed that test.

but you cant walk a thin line with that question. its either you are for gay marriage or you aren't.

I can. I don't oppose it or support it.

My opinion is that the government shouldn't sanction marriage at all.

How's that for walking the line?

justam

jlew24asu wrote:

solely on her opinion of gay marriage?

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/perez-hilton- ... n/21528?nc

"The way miss California answered her question lost her the crown, without a doubt!" Perez told Access Hollywood after the pageant.

---

keep in mind, Perez was a judge.

I think it's wrong that she was penalized because she didn't give the answer the judges wanted. Shouldn't we all be entitled to our own opinions about things? Should she have been calculating and LIED instead?! How is that supposed to be better?! I don't know. But then again...

Perhaps it's the big picture that people are becoming aware that disapproval of gay marriage is a type of discrimination? Perhaps now it seems like everyone is supposed to approve of this because NOT approving it is viewed as withholding rights to people?!

I can kind of see both sides of this problem. :geek:

She obviously missed the class about "preparing answers to please others rather than expressing how you really feel to win pagents." :? :roll:

Anon

know1 wrote:

I don't know if she should have won or lost (her answer was kind of rambling and incoherent), but that Perez Hilton should never, ever, ever have been made a judge. He's a buffoon who obviously put his own political agenda above the task at hand. My statement has nothing to do with him being gay.

I agree. Not that I thought the Trump owned pageant had much credibility to begin with, what they did have they lost by hiring that buffoon.