Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Openly gay director of the Miss California pageant, Keith Lewis, held a presser today and shamed the heck out of traditional marriage supporters; mark that 7 times. This is obviously a pretext to their de-crowning her Miss California; today’s will be called the “venting press conference,” the next one will be labeled the “terminating press conference.” Also known as “Palinized.”

Add the setup question and hate speech comments from Hilton Perez, a member of the Gay Gestapo.

Any doubt that this isn’t revenge for the passage of Ca. Prop. 8?

“Breach of Contract?”

Donald Trump made some cash on this event as well or he wouldn’t touch it.

A bright spot in this is that were it not for all the publicity, most people outside CA would not have known the name of the Miss California winner….but now many do know her name.

However, the downside of that is that it gave the intolerant, whining, gossip-monger Perez Hilton free advertising each time this was in the news…..advertising he did not deserve.

Don’t forget the other bright spot… all those lovely NSFW photos!

yeah! hope something good comes to her for her courage. boy, i can’t imagine what this girl has gone through. i can’t believe that this is the USA anymore.

can’t wait to see what bambi has to say since he too believes that a marriage is between a man and woman. good job Trump for pointing this out.

also, loved her speech about her grandfather.

I’m very happily married, fitfit, so those pics ain’t all that Oooo and ahhhh to me. Nice, but that’s about it (especially of a woman young enough to be my daughter. That being said, I find that the brightest spot of all is that Rosie O Donnel, Perez Hilton, and all the other hypocritical hateful homosexuals get rubbed wrong-not for wanting gay marriage, but for going on a bitch hunt when all she did was give the exact same opinion as President Obama…a person who I’d bet good money got more of the gay marriage vote than John McCain. This is EXACTLY the kind duplicity that drives me nuts-they oppose Iraq…unless it’s a Democrat in charge. They’ve no problem w Miss CA’s position on gay marriage…unless it’s spoken by anyone other than a Dem. They bitch about $400bn in deficit spending, then take power and are silent as $13000 bn in debt is run up. Bitch about no-bid Haliburton contracts…silent when Murtha does the same for his own nephew.

Pretend to care about the issue…then drool over photoshopped pics (can anyone say Jessica Lynch).

Congrats to Mr Trump for exposing the duplicity and rubbing the salt in their wounds.

yeah! i hope something good comes out of this for this beautiful girl. i can’t imagine what she has been through! she should sue for defamation of character.

i can’t wait to hear what bambi has to say about this being that he too believes a marriage is between a man and woman. his gay friends are gonna love this.

also kudos to Trump for pointing this little fact out.

loved her speech about her grandfather. her parents must be very proud.

also, a gay guy for a judge at the miss USA pagent? huh?

@Fit fit: So Nit Wit, are you also going to smear Miss Rhode Island for her racy photos or just Miss Cal???

I love it when the lefties become prudes! What hypocrites!

i really think donald trump is a toad, but i am very proud that he stood up for what is right in this situation. miss california is entitled to her opoinion just as we all are, thank you donald trump.

Love that liberal tolerance

“…and are silent as $13000 bn…”

That’d be $18000 bn, or perhaps a bit higher than that.

Hard Right said a mouth full.

Trump did the right thing, so good on him. Hilton using the “b” word and “c” word, from a public relations point of view, will only hurt his only agenda.

The guy running the Miss California Pageant (Keith Lewis) is gay and his assistant (Shanna Moakler) is a former Playboy centerfold.


So Nit Wit, are you also going to smear Miss Rhode Island for her racy photos or just Miss Cal???

I didn’t smear anybody. Unlike some guys, I like racy photos of women. You were being misleading suggesting she was being reviewed for what she said. She was being reviewed for not disclosing the photos.

People do have the right to their opinion and the right to voice it. Unfortunately they also have the right to be offended by other people’s opinions and the right to voice that as well… Ain’t America great!

@Nit Wit said: ” She was being reviewed for not disclosing the photos.”

Are you really THAT dumb?

The only reason the photos became an issue is because the lefty fascists were digging dirt on her.

That’s exactly why the photos of Miss Rhode Island are relevant here. No attempt to dethrone her!

As for your comment about appreciating Bush it just shows what an ASS you are.

It’s good that she kept the crown, she is a beauty queen not a philosopher, and her voicing her opinion is a great opportunity to show why she is very wrong.

We have so few people who are mentally able to bond with someone for life nowadays and provide stability and dependability to themselves and the people around them, we can’t afford to exclude them. Marriage is far far more than just a reproductive purpose relationship!

There are enough sad Eleanor Rigbys’ in this world as is, marriage should never be outlawed — it’s divorce that should be made illegal, and cohabitation should also be discouraged. If you want to strengthen marriage and it’s meaning, then you look to preserve marriage, love and loyalty, not forbid it!

Scott Malensek: Well said. All of it.

Mike’s America@ 15: EXACTLY!!

The flap about Ms. California started AS SOON AS SHE ANSWERED!

At that point, the liberals started digging for anything they could throw at her to try and get her out of the picture. How dare she speak out against gay marriage?! The audacity!

In several places where I have posted on this topic, I have made sure to point out that Obama has the same views. Yet the very same people who are griping avoid replying to me – I guess they are afraid to do so in that it will knock down THEIR “lord and savior” and they couldn’t do that!

Here is another fine example of SOME who are pro-gay marriage.

I have read on several blogs where people who are all for supporting gay marriage with the argument of “If people love each other, why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry and have the legal rights as a traditional marriage?”

That question would be OK on the surface but … these same people have complained about polyamorous relationships when re-defining what marriage should be.

What were some of the reasons given?
* unnatural
* does not give a stable home life
* morally wrong
* should not be allowed

WTH?? Aren’t those the same reasons some use against gay marriage? And here we have the so called “morally tolerant” people being intolerant towards people “who are in love and just want to be married and have their legal rights just like everyone else.”


I bring this up because, in redefining marriage, you have to consider these things.

If it IS redefined as just being between two legal adults, how long will it be before polyamorous groups start asking for their legal right to marry (Mormons anyone?) And … they would be on good legal footing to do just that. THEN where do you draw that line? At 4 people? 6, 8? 100? 1000?

While it may sound silly, it must be addressed. It is such a slippery slope this whole thing starts.
Imagine the hassles in insuring a family or making a will or even divorce at that point. Forget about custody of the children born in that marriage.

“Your honor, they are unfit MOTHERS.”
“All 6 of them?”
“YES! All 6 and the fathers are unfit too!”
“All 3?

The photos were leaked in an effort to dethrone her, but she was not under review for her opinions…

what an ASS you are

Interesting choice of words…

@Hawk: You’re right. If Miss Cal. had expressed an opinion favorable to those proscribed by the left and photos would later have been released, the left would be the first to scream about her rights to free speech.

@Fit fit: Nit Wit: You’re a BOOB too!

Ha! Better…

@Mike’s America:

Let’s not discuss Fit’s moobs….


unfit is just mad his side lost.
She didn’t pose nude from what I saw so she didn’t break any pagent rules.
Just saw where Shannon Moakler resigned. Like I give a rat’s ass what that brainless bimbo does or thinks.

There are enough sad Eleanor Rigbys’ in this world as is, marriage should never be outlawed — it’s divorce that should be made illegal, and cohabitation should also be discouraged. If you want to strengthen marriage and it’s meaning, then you look to preserve marriage, love and loyalty, not forbid it!

Let people choose to whether they wish to remain single, co-habit or marry someone.

Using the thin edge of the wedge works both ways. Should marriage be allowed for those who broken their vows and divorced? Should marriage be available for those who can’t have or don’t want children? Should marriage be allowed for those of different religions or atheists.

Marriage is a human concept which can be defined whichever you like – and has changed over history and varies across the globe. If people who want to marry more than one person legally (it is legal in other countries and used to be allowed in the US) – then let them campaign for it. What’s the big deal. I’m married but I don’t feel threatened at all that some people might want to marry in a ‘non-traditional’ way.

YAWN…this isn’t over yet?

Hilton never should have asked the question, Prejean shouldn’t be tanked for her answer. It’s really that simple.

Now, as usual, the problem comes in the damage control. Whoever decided that Prejean should become a moral spokeswoman dropped the ball, and big time. Prejean can’t be propped up as a champion of female morality with those pictures flying around (does anyone here really think that they wouldn’t have shown up if she had won the pageant?), and it doesn’t help to invoke the Constitution erroneously (the Trump operation isn’t subject to the First Amendment). There’s also the concern about whether she should have disclosed the photos to pageant organizers, which is a question completely separate (contract law) from the public brouhaha.

Personally, I don’t really care, and never really did. I don’t look to beauty pageant contestants for moral guidance. [chuckle]

On the general question of same-sex marriage, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s no skin off my back. Let me explain…

First, the “defend marriage” argument goes nowhere with me. If people really wanted to defend the institution of marriage, where’s the opposition to civil divorce? How about criminal penalties for adultery? (FYI, Utah actually names both adultery and fornication (between unmarried adults) misdemeanors; that’s the only example I can find.) Repeal of common-law marriage? (Why should the state be able to IMPOSE marriage on people who obviously don’t want it?) Each of these issues is far more damaging to the institution of marriage (and far greater in both raw numbers and percentages of the population) than is that 3%-4% of the population that might pursue same-sex marriage.

Secondly, I believe that marriage ultimately belongs to the Church, not the State. Would I attend or support a church that performs same-sex marriage? No. Does it affect or corrupt my faith if that church does so? No. Do I want government effectively validating the various churches’ interpretations of marriage? Only in the most generic of terms (e.g. age limitations, prohibitions against bigamy/polygamy) that apply to all marriages.

Finally, I think that government should ultimately get away from the notion of marriage and consider “pairings” for purposes of inheritance, taxation and other civil concerns. For instance, my grandfather and great-aunt spent most of their lives together after my grandmother died (she died when my father was about 10); they were just as much of a family/household as were any married or cohabitating couples, but had no real means by which to pool their resources for purposes of various government agencies/actions. These “pairings” might be common-law marriages, same-sex marriages, cohabitators, or heterosexual marriages – what difference should it make to a secular government?