Huh? No one need be important to have enemies. There is plenty of unwarranted hate going around don't you think? I mean, I can find examples of it daily in the news.
Now Nova, oh wise and very respected Nova - you can't REALLY believe there aren't those out there who have used strong language and said very hateful things about Ms. P. and would love nothing more than to see her go down in flames AND would be waiting for the opportunity to find the slightest "gotcha".
She's not a stellar speaker and she's let this "fame" go to her head imo. I'm not a fan for many reasons, but I also don't think the treatment of her has been fair when it comes to just letting her have her religeous opinion. It's the same opinion as many Muslims and I dare you to go around bashing their holy book.
The importance of Ms. P. in my opinion, is that she fired up a debate on a very controversial subject important to many Americans and I find it SO very interesting that our President says he's a Christian and has the same beliefs about marriage but he is spared the wrath. I just found THAT hipocritical, too. Is Obama lying? OK, if not, why aren't the same folks equally PO'd at him? Do they think he's just being a Christian poser?
So the irony continues, those who will call her a hypocrit might be thought of as one too ???
By the way, as an aside - did you read the CA Supreme Court Opinion? I thought so, but I was surprised to see that they claim the same rights are available to those in CA who wish to have a civil union relationship. Are they wrong?
Wow, zig, there's a lot here, some of which has nothing to do with me, I assume, since I didn't call her a hypocrite. Personally, I don't care what pictures were taken or whether she fulfills her contract. Just don't care.
I tried to make it clear I was NOT criticizing your use of the word "enemy." I might have used the word "critics," but your post, your choice. It just struck me that if there are people out there see themselves as "enemies" of Ms. Prejean, they should relax a little and try to get a little perspective. There are plenty of people who oppose gay marriage (including posters on this forum); they are not my enemies.
Obama has his critics within the gay community and elsewhere. I am sometimes among them. But a lot of people in the gay community understand why he didn't make "gay issues" his first priority and are waiting to see what develops. A lot of others just think he is so much better than his predecessor, we should give him a pass on this. Personally, I am wary.
But more alarming to me, your mention of Obama seems to imply that all "true Christians" must oppose gay marriage or be hypocrites. This is simply not true. As I've said before, NOBODY observes all the prohibitions in the Old or New Testaments. The burden of proof should be on those who claim a few mentions of gay sex between men (and one brief mention of lesbian sex) must be specially forced on everyone today, not on those who consider the few prohibitions to be mere reflections of the authors' biases.
Finally, you asked about the Court ruling. I haven't read all of it, but what the Supremes said is
technically true: California's domestic partnership statute specifically says that DPs are to have all the rights of married persons. HOWEVER, the same Court said last year that this wasn't good enough, since there are so many marriage rights, it's virtually impossible to insure that all will be afforded to DPs; moreoever, the Court said there were other problems in saying DPs are the same, but calling them by a different name. I guess this year, the justices didn't want to face recall votes initiated by those who are rabidly hateful in this area.