Another perspective on the subject (and is well articulated, IMHO):
THE MO'KELLY REPORT: Perez Hilton is Unready for Gay Marriage in America
http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur52596.cfm
*Just in case you haven't heard about the controversy, blogger and now celebrity "judge" Perez Hilton used his "platform" as Miss USA judge to ask finalist Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA her views on gay marriage. To which, Carrie spoke openly and honestly.
Yes, a gay rights activist asks you about your views on gay marriage with a scorecard in hand...an impossible situation. Not surprisingly, Prejean ended up as first runner-up, likely due to the subsequent markdown by Hilton.
“I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman.” - Miss California USA Carrie Prejean
Perez Hilton in response to Carrie Prejean's answer in the Miss USA pageant, has called Prejean a "*****" on his blog perezhilton.com
In short form, Hilton has once again proven what has been historically wrong and misguided about the gay marriage rights movement. Such has been the paradox of the gay marriage discussion.
In any discussion of "rights, freedoms and liberties" there must be freedom and the right to disagree. Judging by Hilton's behavior, if you don't agree with gay marriage, you're a "*****"..or worse a "****" (his words).
Nothing like arguing for a more progressive nation by falling back on sexist terminology to disrespect those who disagree with you. Such behavior was not unlike what transpired here in California when gay marriage proponents verbally assaulted many African-Americans with "******" to express their displeasure with African-Americans voting in support of Proposition 8.
Yes, calling women "*****es" and Black people "******" to help advance one's "civil rights" agenda. Great strategy there. If that doesn't win over the hearts and minds of people, nothing will.
But speaking of us "Black people."
Mo'Kelly doesn't "agree" with right-wing racial arsonist Pat Buchanan on anything fundamental to African-Americans, but Mo'Kelly more importantly understands that there is a place for people like Buchanan in America...BECAUSE it is America.
Carrie Prejean is not a "*****" because she disagrees with gay marriage and such beliefs are consistent with the definition of freedom and equality in America. There are some people believe it or not who are just fine with being heterosexual. It doesn't a priori mean s/he is a bigot or is "anti-gay." There are some gay people who disagree with Affirmative Action, and Mo'Kelly is smart enough to know, that doesn't make them "anti-Black" either. We should be able to differentiate and discern between the two; disagree without being disagreeable in the process.
Prejean has created no law to abridge the rights of any ethnic or sexual preference group and she's done nothing to personally embarrass the Miss USA pageant as "some" have alleged.
She simply answered the question put before her.
She was asked for her honest opinion and she gave it. She was not supposed to be evaluated on the basis of whether we found her to be "progressive enough" or "politically correct enough." Supposedly, her answer was to be judged on the merits of how thoroughly and well-constructed her answer ultimately was.
Guess not.
It's a beauty pageant, not a political debate. The only person who was unclear was Perez Hilton.
If Rev. Al Sharpton asked a racially charged question to Prejean and she answered the question in the same manner, staying true to her beliefs; Mo'Kelly would feel the same way. She answered the question that was put before her, from a gay-rights activist blogger with an agenda. The only person who should be ashamed was the person who asked the question under those circumstances.
It was a beauty pageant stage, not a political one to advance one's personal platform.
What Hilton fails to understand and refuses to acknowledge is that marriage by definition is a religious ceremony, meaning it has religious overtones and connotations for many people. If you should ask an Islamic man for his religious views and you don't agree with Islam's treatment of women, it's both the man's right to worship as he chooses and our right to disagree and even dislike those beliefs. Freedom is a dialogue, not a monologue by those who may try to shout down all opposing viewpoints.
"Tolerance" is a two-way street.
Parallel: There are plenty people in this country who believe in polygamy. There are a number of religions which observe and encourage polygamy in this the 21st century. Conversely, polygamy is not a legal right. Americans are "free" to worship as they choose, but we still are a society of laws which supersede some worship practices.
Polygamy has been outlawed by most societies, but there are schisms of Mormonism and Hinduism for example which hold it in high regard.
To the point...
What is irrefutable is that marriage is de facto a ceremony, a union borne of religious tradition, and is not a legal right in and of itself in any varying form we may see fit. If it were, polygamy would be equally as viable a marriage union. One can't argue that a man has a "right" to marry a man, and ALSO argue a man doesn't have the "right" to marry two women.
Meaning...
Either there is a strict definition of marriage or there is NO definition of marriage at all. One can't have it both ways. Draw the line somewhere or not at all. Presently Mo'Kelly can't legally "marry" two women simultaneously. Is that discrimination?
Of course not.
In the end, Prejean should not be disrespected and ridiculed (openly or privately) because she does not agree with same-sex marriage. Freedom of speech intimates dialogue, so those who disagree with her should engage her in dialogue not perverse disrespect. Perez Hilton's behavior has only ensured the widening of the gulf between gay marriage supporters and opponents.
He had ample opportunity to at the minimum engage her and the larger public in the debate about same-sex marriage in these subsequent moments. He instead continued on his low-road, opting for "*****" and "****" references.
How "enlightened" and "progressive" of him...
Yes, "persuasive arguments" they are...no doubt. If someone didn't agree with gay marriage before the Miss USA pageant, surely the chants of "*****" and "****" will change their minds...
In addition, the longer people like Perez Hilton continue to help widen this gulf, the longer it will take for the genuine and widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage...assuming that's Hilton's goal. Maybe Mo'Kelly and others have given him too much credit. Acceptance can not be brow-beaten into being.
Respect is earned through demonstration...not demanded.
If the gay marriage movement wants to take anything away from the African-American civil rights movement, take that.
If Perez Hilton desires respect, acceptance and reverence for gay rights, gay marriage and gay people in general, the first prerequisite is to conduct oneself in a way demonstrative and consistent with respect and acceptance. Until that time comes, he's free to keep spinning his wheels and reinforcing all of the negative stereotypes promulgated in regards to same-sex marriage proponents. Perez Hilton is obviously in no way ready for gay marriage in America. And if he isn't...he has no business trying to lecture anybody else on why we should be.
The Mo’Kelly Report is an entertainment journal with a political slant; published weekly at www.eurweb.com. It is meant to inform, infuse and incite meaningful discourse…as well as entertain. The Mo’Kelly Report is syndicated by Blogburst. For more Mo’Kelly, http://mokellyreport.wordpress.com. Mo’Kelly can be reached at [email protected] and he welcomes all commentary.
. I'm just trying to understand what you mean by it. That's all. 
sunnysmyler. 
It'll never happen....
devil ain't nobody scared of you! 
It is hard to be a Christian and not love and show concern for others. That is our nature. So I do see where you are coming from. But I believe satan would love it for us to be so Christlike and loving about this that we become deceived right along with the homosexual population.
