Nobody asked me, but.... I'll accept your comments (please remain civil!)
Although I'm very much in favor of gay marriage, I don't have a problem with Miss California stating her opinion. I have a problem WITH her statements, but not her right to make them.
And I hate Perez Hilton and I think he's an idiot. But personal attacks and derogatory language aside, you know what the difference is between his opinion and hers?
His opinion doesn't discriminate against a whole segment of the population. Hers does.
Racists aren't automatically white. But people who do not feel they should afford equal rights to others based solely on their sexual orientation, are automatically being discriminatory. That's just a fact.
So in short, Miss California should absolutely state her honest opinion. But she shouldn't be surprised by the fallout because her opinion is clearly discriminatory.
Why is it discriminatory? It is her opinion, she is entitled.
I just want to know when did Perez Hilton become the authority of anything? He is just a trash writer.
He is a person that is disappointed that what he wanted to be the out come of prop 8 in his state and it did not turn out the way he hoped.
So since it is a democracy in this country last time I checked, and the people have spoken, he needs to learn to deal with the out come of the majority.
Just like the people that did not vote for Obama. They are learning to deal.
Sue
Daddy Files:
His opinion doesn't discriminate against a whole segment of the population. Hers does.
Actually, they're both discriminatory. A segment of the population - in fact, the majority of voters in the state of California - believe the word marriage shouldn't be redefined. Mr. Hilton and others believe it should. Right there, those views are discriminatory; just as same-sex couples are denied being able to change the word 'marriage', hetero couples would be denied using a word that has been defined so through the ages.
So the question remains: does the state have to right to redefine a word?
So if we were to put slavery to a vote, and the majority voted in favor of it, it should be so? Your logic is completely flawed. And if you don't like the slavery analogy, substitute mixed race marriages. Should we leave that to public opinion as well? Of course not. So why is it OK to leave gay marriage up to the masses? It's not!
No one took away Miss California's right to an opinion. She stated her opinion and now she's dealing with the consequences. What's unfair about that? And no one said Perez Hilton is an authority on anything. I don't pay any attention to him. This isn't about Perez Hilton. You're missing the point.
Gay marriage and equal rights should never be left to a majority vote. Equal rights have no place at the ballot box.
Of course states have the right to redefine a word. That's why the framework of our government is open to amendments. As our country evolves our laws evolve with it.
I see your point...But, by going with your train of thought, then should polygamy be allowed? Should marriage between brother and sisters be alllowed?
Sue
You're right; if the states voted for slavery, that would be an abomination. So we're in agreement.
Isn't it a pity we're not talking about slavery?
We're talking about the redefinition of a word. A word whose meaning predates the republic, itself. Perhaps I am naieve, but I can't recall anything in our history where the fundamental meaning of word was changed by legislation (or, as in the case of a few states, by judicial decision).
This is what I believe is - or should be - the root of the debate.
Commenting by HaloScan
