Miss California defended by… Michael Kinsley?
[Posted by Karl]
From the Left, fmr. Crossfire host Michael Kinsley schools his progressive pals:
Miss California’s views on gay marriage have nothing to do with her qualifications for the job and shouldn’t disqualify her for it.
This is really Liberalism 101, and it’s amazing that so many liberals don’t get it. Yes, yes, the Bill of Rights protects individuals against oppression by the government, not by other private individuals or organizations. But the values and logic behind our constitutional rights don’t disappear when the oppressor is in the private sector. They may not have the force of law in that situation, but they ought to have the force of understanding and of habit. The logic behind freedom of speech is that “bad” speech does not need to be suppressed as long as “good” speech is free to counter it. Or at least that letting the good and bad do battle is more likely to allow the good speech to triumph than giving anyone the power to choose between them. Congratulations to Donald Trump for making the right decision in this case. But we can’t count on every employer to be as sensitive and understanding as The Donald.
As Carrie Prejean (and her family) continue to come under attack by Tinseltown’s tabloid media, Kinsley aptly reminds Hollywood “liberals” that the blacklist destroyed people’s careers over their beliefs. Though Kinsley does not specifically mention it, the blacklist was a creation of the MPAA, acting without direct governmental coercion.
Kinsley also misses that freedom of religion is a related subtext to Prejean’s case, and to the gay marriage issue generally. The passage of California Proposition 8, which reaffirmed the traditional definition of marriage, prompted gay marriage activists to launch a wide-ranging “Mormon boycott” that conveniently excluded other demographics (blacks, latinos, etc.) that supported Prop. 8. Hollywood heavy Tom Hanks ended up apologizing after calling Mormons “un-American” for supporting the proposition.
Indeed, earlier this week, a bill legalizing gay marriage failed in New Hampshire because the state’s House of Representatives objected to language in the bill that would have allowed religious groups to decline to participate in gay marriage ceremonies. While Kinsley was correct to note that the Bill of Rights protects individuals only against oppression by the government, people of faith are already getting a look at how fast supposed “liberals” want to slide down that slippery slope.
–Karl
Considering that the people supportive of sme-sex marriage were in the minority on Proposition 8, wouldn’t that mean that had Miss Prejean answered in support of same-sex marriage mean that she would not be representative of California? It would have been more appropriate to strip her of her title — pun intended — had she answered the way our friends on the left wish she had, rather than for the way she did answer, which was representative of the votes of the majority of California voters.
The inquisitive Dana (3e4784) — 5/22/2009 @ 8:20 amThis situation has led me to stop lending support to same-sex marriage advocacy. What was a pickle-biter doing judging a women’s beauty-contest, anyway?
nk (a1896a) — 5/22/2009 @ 8:27 amBravo, Kinsley.
Karl, when writing about this topic, one should never fail to note that Miss Prejean shares the exact same position as Teh One on this issue.
JD (d4c917) — 5/22/2009 @ 8:30 amExcellent, nk. I think we need to delegitimize homosexuality by using fun puns like ‘pickle-biter’. We’ll just ignore the fact that, assuming you dress well for your job, most of your clothes were probably designed by a ‘pickle-biter’.
Jeffrey Diamond (fccb0b) — 5/22/2009 @ 8:30 amHey, nk, looks like you found a sensitive spot on our little faux Moby.
SPQR (72771e) — 5/22/2009 @ 8:33 amBack from Philadelphia, and it looks like TrollFest 2009 continues… Or the Ongoing TrollBot Symposium, maybe.
Karl, great topic, and hats off to Kinsley for “getting it.”
Here will be the mantra of the Left, as the President does or supports things that Republicans have:
(stamp of foot and pout).
http://mschaut.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/fascist.jpg
To be sure, President Obama has many left of center ideas. But his attitudes that are more centrist (like his opposition to gay marriage, as in this topic) are first ignored, and then when they cannot be ignored any more, we get the “…that’s different…” defense.
Or like Andrew Sullivan writes, he knows that President Obama really supports gay marriage; he just needs to lie to get centrist support. Who knew that Mr. Sullivan was also a telepath?
Again, President Obama is a leftist; look at his voting record from his sparse attendance in the Senate. But on some issues, he is closer to the center. Gay marriage is one of those subjects.
And what Mr. Kinsely wrote is spot on. He will be reviled for it, I’m sure, but that doesn’t make him wrong.
Eric Blair (262ccd) — 5/22/2009 @ 8:52 amI believe in the dignity and desire for happiness of all mothers’ children, Jeffrey. But I will not reciprocate intolerance with tolerance.
nk (a1896a) — 5/22/2009 @ 8:55 amAnd I am sorry to throw out the wheat with the chaff.
nk (a1896a) — 5/22/2009 @ 8:56 amJeffwey never fails to get excited over snarky comments that don’t fit into his politically – correct viewpoint. But as always, he fails to answer the question – why on earth was an admitted jerk and avowed gay activist whose well -known intolerance towards anyone against gay marriage invited to judge a beauty pageant in the first place? What, was Sully otherwise busy that evening?
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 5/22/2009 @ 8:58 amI support gay marriage, but I oppose demeaning and persecuting people who think differently. And I especially oppose inserting one’s personal politics into a forum where they don’t belong.
And yes, I also wonder what the bleep Perez Hilton was doing as a judge there anyway.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (79e90f) — 5/22/2009 @ 9:03 amThe Donald is many things, Bradley. “Stupid” is not one of them. I think he believed that Hilton might pull something outrageous at the judging, and thus get The Donald ALL kinds of news attention.
Just a possibility.
Eric Blair (262ccd) — 5/22/2009 @ 9:06 amEric, if that was planned by The Toupee, it’s even more reprehensible.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (79e90f) — 5/22/2009 @ 9:09 amEric – Hope your trip to Philly went well.
Let’s us never lose sight of the fact that the position that Miss Prejean is being reviled for is the EXACT same position that Barcky holds. Remember, it is Teh One that told us that his religion informs his politics on this issue. Clearly, he is trying to create a theocracy.
Mike K once noted how a psychiatric study of a troll might be interesting, in a surreal sort of way. This Jeffrey Diamond one would easily top those charts, as you can add overt dishonesty and self-loathing to the mix.
JD (d4c917) — 5/22/2009 @ 9:28 amBradley, I think that the Donald rolled the dice. He knew what kind of person Perez Hilton actually is—why else have him there, other than to be a wild card who might introduce controversy?
JD: it was a fun meeting. I learned a lot. YES, your point needs to be out front. My campus buddies laugh and are snide about her, but keep forgetting that point.
I wish that Ms. Prejean had just said to Mr. Hilton: “Thanks for the softball question! My religious faith and my belief in freedom makes it a tough one. But I have to be strong in this controversy and firmly state that I hold the same opinion on this topic as the President of the United States, Barack Obama.”
Eric Blair (262ccd) — 5/22/2009 @ 9:38 amPerez Hilton actually had a single out called “the clap” – a song about gonorrhea. His latest contribution to gay club music is here. He’s not a guy that warrants a lot of respect or consideration.
carlitos (a0089e) — 5/22/2009 @ 9:39 amOK, sure, I give Kinsley credit for this, but:
Should this stance, “even” from a gay marriage proponent, even be remarkable? Shouldn’t this defense of her be routine?
What’s so unfortunate is that Kinsley appears to be the exception among lefties, not the rule.
Mitch (890cbf) — 5/22/2009 @ 9:47 amIs a faux Moby a Fauxby? a Foby?
Mitch (890cbf) — 5/22/2009 @ 9:48 amOne might think so, but Sadly, No.
JD (d4c917) — 5/22/2009 @ 10:17 ama Fauxby? a Foby?
How about a Flowbie?
JD (d4c917) — 5/22/2009 @ 10:17 am“Slippery Slope”???
Karl, please show us where liberals want to force Religion to accept gay marriage. Or anyone for that matter.
As far as Carrie Prejean, Michael Kinsley is right and I’m glad he stated it.
I’ve read a few posts and comments here and I agree with most of them…….. again concerning Prejean.
Unfortunately not all liberals are smart.
(Bring on the predictable jokes)
Oiram (a1ed40) — 5/22/2009 @ 10:42 amThe single most important issue in all this is illustrated by the governor of New Hampshire’s promise to veto the gay marriage bill. He said it needed a clause exempting religious organizations from liability for declining to support the new law if it violated religious doctrine.
“This morning, I met with House and Senate leaders, and the sponsors of this legislation, and gave them language that will provide additional protections to religious institutions.
“This new language will provide the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions. It will make clear that they cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles.
“If the legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the legislature doesn’t pass these provisions, I will veto it.
The fact that the legislature, including the obligatory gay Republican, turned this down shows the malice toward religion that lies behind all this righteous civil rights talk.
The bill, which would have accommodated Governor John Lynch’s demands for expanded protections for religious organizations and employees who do not approve of gay marriage, was defeated by two votes. Instead, the House asked the Senate to negotiate a compromise. Another House vote is expected in early June.
This is a war on religion every bit as much as a quest for rights of gays.
Mike K (2cf494) — 5/22/2009 @ 10:42 amI like Flowbee!
Using the suction power of your vacuum cleaner or the new FLOWBEE super mini vac, the FLOWBEE then draws the hair evenly into the recessed blades and cuts it precisely. The results are a refreshing vacuum haircut.
carlitos (a0089e) — 5/22/2009 @ 10:51 amOiram – Was the link to the New Hampshire legislature that Mike K provided sufficient for your question?
JD (d4c917) — 5/22/2009 @ 10:53 amOiram, it was in the post. New Hampshire.
carlitos (a0089e) — 5/22/2009 @ 10:54 amI knew someone would catch that, eventually, carlitos 😉
JD (d4c917) — 5/22/2009 @ 10:54 amKarl, please show us where liberals want to force Religion to accept gay marriage. Or anyone for that matter.
We can’t help you with willful blindness.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/22/2009 @ 10:57 amPaul – As a wise man once said, there are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
JD (d4c917) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:02 amComment by carlitos — 5/22/2009 @ 10:54 am
Why would mariO start reading the posts now?
AD - RtR/OS! (6a6a3b) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:08 amMy only thought on this post is that Michael is the one that doesn’t understand. The Uberleft does not allow any speech it does not agree with and their fascist intolerance is crystal clear. Mr. Kingsley needs to look to the left of him to understand.
Sue (68bdd6) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:08 amSo wait, it’s a slippery slope because people didn’t vote for a bill with religion protection in it???
Of course you guys think that’s why liberals didn’t vote for it right?
I don’t live in New Hampshire therefore I couldn’t vote for it. I have no problem with Religious Accommodations in a bill such as this one.
I suspect I’m not the lone liberal who feels that way.
Oiram (a1ed40) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:16 amYou aren’t in the New Hampshire legislature therefore you couldn’t vote for it. Please try a little harder to follow along. Click link. Read link. Help yourself.
carlitos (a0089e) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:19 amWhy would mariO start reading the posts now?
Comment by AD – RtR/OS! — 5/22/2009 @ 11:08 am
How do you know I haven’t been reading prior to today?
Still haven’t had that dyslexia checked AD?
Perhaps you and JD should go see the same Doctor and preach your brand of spinning to each other in the waiting room.
Oiram (a1ed40) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:21 amIt is nice to see that some on the left are recognizing (or beginning to recognize) the hypocrisy of many of their arguments. One can only hope that this realization will lead to more fruitful discussions about the issues instead of the name-calling, bomb-dropping, finger-pointing era we have had the unfortunate luck to live in.
Corwin (ea9428) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:22 amOf course, ‘fruitful discussions’ will not abound around a beauty contest 🙂 Unless by ‘fruit’ I mean… no I really wasn’t going to go there.
Oiram, it is hardly amusing to watch you pretend that what’s been shown plainly to your face is not there.
SPQR (72771e) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:23 amCarlitos, please explain to me how libberals are trying to force religion to adhere to same sex marriage.
All I see here is people who didn’t vote for a same sex marriage bill. I suspect conservatives in NH voted against the bill too. Are they part of the “Slippery Slope” towards forcing Gay marriage on all of us too?
Oiram (a1ed40) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:24 amSPQR, could you prove to me that liberals did not vote for this bill because of Religion Protection written into the bill?
Oiram (a1ed40) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:25 amOiram, your attempt to misrepresent what others said is noted. The Reuters piece linked above shows that a version of the bill with less protection for religious objections passed the House and that a version with more failed. The difference were the votes of gay marriage proponents who indeed wished to force gay marriage to be recognized by churches who may not wish to.
SPQR (72771e) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:31 amOiram appears to have resumed/continued its practice of feigning ignorance in an attempt to make a point. This is really rather simple, Oiram. The bill passed the Legislature with no protections for religious institutions. After the threatened veto based on the lack of protections for religious institutions, the bill was then defeated with the protection for religious institutions. I suppose that the group of legislators that previously supported the bill could have somehow changed their political underpinnings and withdrawn their support for unrelated reasons, but there is nothing to suggest that. Nothing.
It is really breath-taking that the idea that we should have to protect religious institutions from being dictated to by a Legislature in such a manner. The entire concept of separation of Church and State gets stood on its ear when Government presumes to dictate to a Church what actions it must take. Shakes head, sadly …
JD (d4c917) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:40 amConservative members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, you mean? My God.
Here is a useful primer on how laws are passed.
carlitos (a0089e) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:40 amWell SPQR, if that is indeed the case, I’m on your side.
I could care less whether a bill protects Religion.
Liberals need to understand that Religion is a private thing that should have nothing to do with government.
What’s next? Are they going to interfere with a Woman not being able to be a priest in the Catholic faith?
Oiram (a1ed40) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:41 amI don’t live in New Hampshire therefore I couldn’t vote for it
As if this has anything at all to do with the subject at hand. Typical Duh moment from the master.
Carlitos, please explain to me how libberals are trying to force religion to adhere to same sex marriage.
i.e. you cannot prove to Oreo that the sky is blue, because he says so! And one more thing:
FIRE DOESN’T MELT STEEL!
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:42 amWell, none of this would have happened except that you all refuse to acknowledge that Rush is a member of the MSM.
AD - RtR/OS! (6a6a3b) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:43 amOiram, that was incoherent even for you.
SPQR (72771e) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:45 am#40 DMAC with respect like in #37 (SPQR) anything is possible, did you read #39?
Oiram (a1ed40) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:46 amOiram, since you did not bother to read the linked Reuters piece, I don’t see where you have any place to urge others to read one of your more incoherent comments.
SPQR (72771e) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:47 amOiram – It is usually just easier to admit that you were being willfully ignorant of what you were questioning.
JD (d4c917) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:49 amIt is interesting to me that during the California Prop 8 campaigns, gay marriage proponents specifically denied that what we see in New Hampshire was going to happen.
SPQR (72771e) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:53 amI blame the Mormons. But not the Blacks. Or Latinos.
JD (d4c917) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:55 amIt was the Joooooooooosssssssssssss!
AD - RtR/OS! (6a6a3b) — 5/22/2009 @ 11:59 amSPQR, could you prove to me that liberals did not vote for this bill because of Religion Protection written into the bill?
Comment by Oiram
It’s already been done but I would add that this seems to me the hidden agenda of the entire movement. Andrew Sullivan is a good example. He declares himself to be a devout Catholic. I simply cannot believe that he will rest until he can force the Church to accept him and his partner in the Sacrament of Marriage exactly equal to all heterosexual couples who have taken it for the past 2000 years.
This is not about civil rights but about power. When gay activists can force churches to endorse their behavior, they will consider the battle to be won. They will use tax exemption to do it. They have conducted a similar war on the Boy Scouts and I expect no more courage on the part of politicians on this issue than on the other. We are living in an age of tyranny of the minority.
Mike K (2cf494) — 5/22/2009 @ 12:03 pmJD – I blame the Mormons. But not the Blacks. Or Latinos.
Oh, I suppose they can’t be racist? RACIST!
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 5/22/2009 @ 12:11 pmThat was a given, Apogee.
JD (d4c917) — 5/22/2009 @ 12:15 pmMike K, the same thing is happening in Canada with regards to “hate speech” – preachers quoting Leviticus are now guilty of discrimination against gays, thanks to C-250.
carlitos (a0089e) — 5/22/2009 @ 12:26 pmYesterday’s liberal is today’s conservative.
THOMAS JACKSON (8ffd46) — 5/22/2009 @ 1:40 pmActually, yesterday’s “Jeffersonian Liberal” is today’s “Conservative”.
AD - RtR/OS! (6a6a3b) — 5/22/2009 @ 4:10 pmI see Oiram is still willfully blind.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/22/2009 @ 4:39 pmWhere is aphrael?
I’m interested in his thoughts on the legislative maneuverings in New Hampshire.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/22/2009 @ 4:48 pmComment by JD — 5/22/2009 @ 8:30 am
I also wish someone savvy would instruct Ms. Prejean that every time she is asked either indirect or direct questions about the matter she too should preface her answers with, “I hold the same position as my president…”.
I have yet to read anywhere in the MSM where that fact has been honestly confronted.
Dana (aedf1d) — 5/22/2009 @ 5:02 pmAre you surprised, Dana?
Just remember: “D” in front of your name is good. “R” in front of your name is bad.
That appears to be it.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 5/22/2009 @ 5:09 pmDana – It is just like the national security issues that Teh One is dealing with. He wants us to repudiate the Bush positions, while praising Teh One for adopting the same positions, and in some cases going further.
I will again remind everyone that Barcky is Teh One that told us that his religion informs his politics, and that compels him to be against same sex marriage. Were that Bush, the howling would never cease. Just listen to the howling when Prejean said almost the exact same thing.
JD (a0720d) — 5/22/2009 @ 5:14 pmTack on “And the majority of my fellow Californians”, and you have the perfect statement.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 5/22/2009 @ 5:25 pmI think we need to delegitimize homosexuality by using fun puns like ‘pickle-biter’. Comment by Jeffrey Diamond
Actually, the generally agreed-upon, if not quasi-scientific words, of “gay” and “lesbian” already both segregate and peculiarize, if you will, homosexuals. IOW, the very fact there is a desire on the part of many to verbally separate or differentiate male homosexuality (and homosexuals) from female homosexuality (and homosexuals) — which generally isn’t done when identifying both male and female heterosexuals –automatically creates a strange, freaky sub-group quality to homosexuals/homosexuality.
Mark (411533) — 5/22/2009 @ 7:10 pmKeith Olbermann made fun of her fake breasts as retaliation for her being against gay marriage.
Andrew (39a8a6) — 5/22/2009 @ 7:38 pmThat just proves how little of a man Olbergasm is. And I mean little. Small. Insufficient. Laughable. Pitiable.
JD (a0720d) — 5/22/2009 @ 7:43 pmKeith Olbermann made fun of her fake breasts as retaliation for
nk (a1896a) — 5/22/2009 @ 7:57 pmher being against gay marriagefor not being able to get near of the kind without paying for it.Keith Olbermann–the worst person in the woooooorld!
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/22/2009 @ 8:16 pm