Miss California - Same Sex Marriage-Perez Hilton

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Nova said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey Nova, sorry I misunderstood about the enemies thing.

I didn't mean to insinuate that all true Christians need be anti-gay marriage, I was trying to point out that Obama's feelings about the subject are formed by his Christianity, same as Ms. P, but he's NEVER received even a bad mention from gay rights groups that I have seen and especially nothing main stream news. That's just weird.

With the supreme court, it really isn't that they were afraid to do anything, they are preserving our system. It's about separation of powers and because our constitution can be amended by the vote, it becomes constitutional law and they want to throw it back to the legislators because it's not the judges' job to overturn statutory law. I think they did the right thing to keep our checks and balances, however their opinion was interesting because if gay people really can have all the same benefits of marriage in another way, why are they using that excuse (that if one of them dies, yada yada yada) if they can have everything in place today to protect each other in their committed relationships? By "they" I mean, you know those people interviewed who are always out protesting when I'm at work :(
 
I watched her interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show this morning and found her to be argumentative, condescending, and downright rude. I can't believe that with that "tude" she got as far as she did. Her comment that she "beat out" whatever number of other girls made it sound like an arm wrestling match and not a pageant. BTW.....I am not big on pageants, but even I can tell this one went to the wrong girl.
 
sadyjade said:
I have always been both, intriuged and dissapointed with beauty pagents on the whole. It is my oppinion that too much is often given to "Beauty" ... Personally, she lost me when she accepted her gift of *advertiser censored*. I am using the word "gift" loosely.
Click to expand...

ooooooh Many people have and get the "gift" of *advertiser censored*........and lips......


You may have knocked out all of the contestants. :)
 
sleutherontheside said:
I watched her interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show this morning and found her to be argumentative, condescending, and downright rude. I can't believe that with that "tude" she got as far as she did. Her comment that she "beat out" whatever number of other girls made it sound like an arm wrestling match and not a pageant. BTW.....I am not big on pageants, but even I can tell this one went to the wrong girl.
Click to expand...

I just read the exchange between her and her boss. Unbelievable. I would never write "hahaha ur crazy" to my boss, not to mention fail to use a common punctuation mark such as the period. What a horrible representative.
 
Between her pageant comments on gay marriage, her whining that she was fired solely because of her comments, and her nasty email exchange with Keith Lewis, she personifies one of my favorite sayings:

A mind is like a parachute--it functions best when open.

Which leads me to one of my own sayings:

Never have a pi&&ing contest with a person who has a bigger bladder.

(Bet you thought I was going to name another body part!)

Thanks for playing Ms. Prejean. Here are your lovely parting gifts.
 
This little lady(I really do mean another word that rhymes with witch) needs to grow up.

With some "beauty" contests are exactly that, the "contestant" only concentrates on their looks and nothing else. Because they are told they are attractive, but that is where the package ends.

She "found" that her cause and the cause of speaking out against gay marriage more "fashionable" because of "her following" and the "church" people who think alike.

The more PR she gets the more "her mandate" is fulfilled.

Being Miss CA did not "further" her narrow mind and agenda of promoting "anti gay bias". She feels she has more mileage for "her cause" then "having" to fulfill a contract that she cannot spread "her word" and cause. She seems to be way too big for those britches. She thought she makes her own rules and can dictate to others.

There fore she knew that is she did not fulfill her contract, then she would be fired. She actually frustrated the contract. Then of course the reason is not her, no, of course not, it all about "those" terrible people who did not like her answer to the "question".

She has her own agenda and the "church" behind her.

Hopefully she will be finished with her 15 minutes soon, hopefully.

Not a person of good character. Even though she "is so religious".

But I did like the answer the NEW Miss CA gave to the same question. It is up to each state to decide what they would like to do.

That is of course an answer that will not "question" her character.
 
Trino said:
Wow. Did anyone read her texts? Her texts show real arrogance - no surprise she's gone. (Read from bottom.)

http://jezebel.com/5287138/carrie-prejeans-emails-reveal-poor-character-spelling
Click to expand...

THOSE emails are the reason I came here to post.

I 1st SUPPORTER her about speaking her truth no matter how unpolitically correct they were. I didn't agree with her position but I respected her.

NOW seeing her own words, she's far too high on herself, everyone seems to be beneath her and she doesn't RESPECT anyone, NOR her position. I doubt she will accomplish anything else in the public eye, she's incredibly selfish and her comments show her REAL heart. :boohoo::crazy:

Making the Donald mad, he'll make sure she gets NOWHERE in her career. She's a gonner, she had her chance & blew it. What a holier than thou (fill in the blank)
 
Marthatex said:
Is Keith Lewis gay? Looks like they had serious issues; but couldn't they have sat down and talked and worked out what her schedule would be?....
Click to expand...

As I read the available emails, that's what he wanted to do and she refused.
 
ziggy said:
Hey Nova, sorry I misunderstood about the enemies thing.

I didn't mean to insinuate that all true Christians need be anti-gay marriage, I was trying to point out that Obama's feelings about the subject are formed by his Christianity, same as Ms. P, but he's NEVER received even a bad mention from gay rights groups that I have seen and especially nothing main stream news. That's just weird.

With the supreme court, it really isn't that they were afraid to do anything, they are preserving our system. It's about separation of powers and because our constitution can be amended by the vote, it becomes constitutional law and they want to throw it back to the legislators because it's not the judges' job to overturn statutory law. I think they did the right thing to keep our checks and balances, however their opinion was interesting because if gay people really can have all the same benefits of marriage in another way, why are they using that excuse (that if one of them dies, yada yada yada) if they can have everything in place today to protect each other in their committed relationships? By "they" I mean, you know those people interviewed who are always out protesting when I'm at work :(
Click to expand...

Actually, it IS the judges' job to overturn statutory law when a law violates the Constitution. That's a big part of how those "checks and balances" work.

In this case, it was a little trickier because the Constitution itself was amended and the issue was whether this amendment conflicted with other parts of the Constitution (notably the "equal protection" clause).

I don't really know what all the Supreme's motivations were. (Although there was pressure from both sides, only the pro-Prop 8 crowd was threatening recall movements. Our justices can be and have been recalled by vote of the public.) But I do know the same DP law was in effect last year when they ruled it wasn't good enough.

As for why equal rights activists are complaining, it's one thing for the DP law to SAY DPs and marriages are the same, it's another to enforce it--or even sort it out, given the hundreds of rights that accrue to civil marriage. Somebody may well have to sue in order to clarify each of those rights and ensure each right applies equally.

To take but one example, some insurance companies cover marriage partners, but do not cover domestic partners or charge a heavy premium to do so. Okay, the law says DPs have equal rights. But is insurance by a private company a "right"? What if the private company isn't located in California, but in a state that bans DPs? Gay marriage solves an inequity like this; the DP statute almost inevitably sends it back to the courts. Ever fought an insurance co. im court? This is but one of hundreds of issues, most of which you and I haven't even thought about yet.

Moreover, as the same court spent 100+ pages explaining in its decision last year, formal rights are not the only issue: civil marriage contributes to social stability and supports marriages themselves by according them "respect" (the Court's word); this is just as true for gay marriages as for straight.
 
I haven't been following her since the original controversy because...well because she just didn't impress me as being sincere. But I did defend her originally, and in theory, I still defend her right to say what she said. But, what a mess she has turned out to be. Does anyone think maybe she was targeted originally because they knew what a hypocrite she really was? Of course if she hadn't jumped on the publicity bandwagon, gone on all the talk shows and tried to make herself a spokesperson for the conservative voice I think people would have stopped digging and left her alone.

What an embarrassment she is for true conservatives. Conservatives will never have a meaningful voice until the hypocritical ones stop trying to represent us. People aren't perfect and I don't expect them to be. But I don't understand why people who aren't really conservative in their beliefs and actions like to pretend that they are? In today's liberal society, anything goes. She would be accepted for what she is just fine. Why pretend to be something you aren't. That's what I don't understand.
 
Do you have a link to the article? Are they certain it is her? I originally defended her right to speak her mind, but do feel that she has really dumbed herself by some of the things she has done and said. However, I reserve judgement on this; I think there are some people who are out to get her at any cost and discredit her, even if it means "creative" film editing. No offense, but some of the posts her are somewhat shocking---some people are really relishing this, if true, and that is alittle disturbing to me. Why would anyone want to relish in someone elses misfortune or errors in judgement. She has not killed anyone. She has not harmed anyone. All she did was disagree with a large group of Americans, whereas there are a large group of Americans who agreed with her. Where is forgiveness and love that so many aspouse? There are plenty of things I disagree with that are posted here, but out of respect for others I do not speak my mind. I do not wish pain and suffering on anyone (unless they are a child molester or killer); I certainly do not wish harm or pain to someone who just disagrees with my opinion. Wow. Just shocked. JMO

mister happy said:
Well, have y'all heard? ol' Carrie has a sex tape.
Click to expand...
 
SO should we all get called out for every stupid thing we did as a teenager? If so, I am in trouble! I do not consider it hypocrisy, I consider it immaturity.
 
Where the problem lies with me is her being against homosexuality because of her religion when Christianity also views masterbation as a sin.
On the view she said she was young and made a mistake and she trusted her BF.
Isn't premarital sex consider a sin? Maybe her BF was just taping her masterbate but they weren't having sex? Yeh,right!
And she is saying masterbation is not sex?!?
She is a liar and a hypocrite IMO.


Ok she said she sent her BF the tape.I still don't think you do that with someone you aren't sexually active with.
 
This thread has gotten way off where it started, but I just wanted to note a few things.
As I said before, I judge pageants. And if a pageant follows its own rules, here is what is important.
1) Many times high and low scores are tossed so one judge can't sway it in either direction. That said, Miss USA is a little less concerned with that than other systems.
2) Judges are instructed to judge based on HOW something is said, not the opinion it is based on. If you can state your opinion clearly and back it up, the opinion is beside the point.
3) Holding a title is a Job. You have an employment contract, bosses, appearances, and expected duties. And, just like in real life, bosses can fire you.

Miss California:
1) Didn't answer the question that was asked.
2) At all levels you are trained to speak on your feet and off the cuff--that's a big part of the job. She could not articulate her answer, nor could she state it tactfully. For or against again does not matter (by the by, Perez Hilton is a lousy judge and was there for publicity for him and Trump).
So, at the national level she missed out on the job. It's as simple as that. She was not denied the crown because of her opinion. She did not earn the crown and the job because she could not do the job.

As for losing her Miss California crown:
1) Again, it's a job. You don't speak disrespectfully to your boss. You can disagree, but you don't mouth off. You don't skip appearances (they are part of your job). You can refuse to do something, but not everything.
2) When you know you are already on bad terms, you don't keep pushing the boundries unless you want to lose your job.
3) You can't work for Company A, and using your job, speak for company B --which is what she did without permission.
4) You don't lie to get a job --which is what she did whe she signed the contract. Put the info out there, be truthful, and it's not a big deal.

Personally, I'm for gay marriage. But as a judge, what I think doesn't matter and shouldn't matter. Both Perez and Carrie are just using this to get all the publicity they can.

Finally, to speak to a post from earlier --"Beauty Pageants" are not all fluff. Some are and some aren't - you have to pick and choose. (Different pagaents have different jobs --Miss America is very different from Miss USA, and that's because the job in the year following is very different) However, most pageants have an interview componant, and many of these young women are very very intelligent and driven. Not all of them want to be models or have "world peace." I have interviewed girls who want to work for NASA (and later did), ladies who have perfect GPAs who are heading for med school, and some who are more smart at 20 than I will ever be.

Thanks for letting me vent.
 
billiejo said:
Where the problem lies with me is her being against homosexuality because of her religion when Christianity also views masterbation as a sin.
On the view she said she was young and made a mistake and she trusted her BF.
Isn't premarital sex consider a sin? Maybe her BF was just taping her masterbate but they weren't having sex? Yeh,right!
And she is saying masterbation is not sex?!?
She is a liar and a hypocrite IMO.


Ok she said she sent her BF the tape.I still don't think you do that with someone you aren't sexually active with.
Click to expand...

Do most Christians really think masturbation is a sin? I'm Christian and was never taught that.

The "fun" of Prejean is that she scrambled up onto a moral pedestal that could not hold the weight of her own human failings. Who doesn't enjoy watching pompous piety trip over its own feet?
 
My Christian upbring taught that sex is for procreation only. Not that I agree!
Showbiz tonight just said there are many sex tapes!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 143 more.
Total: 2,967 (members: 144, guests: 2,823)

Online statistics

Members online
144
Guests online
2,823
Total visitors
2,967
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,969
Messages
18,165,993
Members
231,905
Latest member
kristens5487
Back
Top