Miss California to campaign against gay marriage

The reigning Miss California has gone to Washington to help launch a campaign opposing same-sex marriage.
Carrie Prejean told NBC's "Today" show Thursday that she'll be working with the National Organization for Marriage to "protect traditional marriages."
The 21-year-old says that marriage is "something that is very dear to my heart" and she's in Washington to help save it.
She says many people have thanked her for standing up for traditional marriage.
Prejean was named the first runner-up to Miss North Carolina in the Miss USA pageant April 19. Her response to celebrity blogger Perez Hilton's question about legalizing

 

If that's what she wants to do, that's her right. To each his/her own

 

"Save it"? Is it in danger?

"FTP-Fuck That Puto"-George Lopez.

 

She is AWESOME!!!

 

A lot of these beauty queens are right-wing Stepford Wives and she is no exception.

 

It's not like anyone is forcing her to marry a woman. If she doesn't like gay marriage then she shouldn't get married to a woman.

How exactly is it changing her life if two people of the same sex get married? Sorry, don't get it.

 

I don't give a rat's ass who is fuckin' who or who is suckin' who. I don't give a hoot if my neighbor across the street wants to lick a donkey where the sun don't shine, how is that affecting me?
The hell with bitches, who wants to tell other folks what to do with their life.

 

I don't get it either.

If two people want to spend the rest of their lives being miserable, I say let them.

Because I have yet to find ANYONE who is "happily" married.:smt003

 

You must not have read any of the posts where I talk about my lovely wife, yes indeed there are VERY happy marriages out there, mine included. So now you have met someone, at least on cyber space, who is happily married.

As far as gay marriage the main reason many object (other than religious/moral reasons) to expanding the definition of marriage is the fear that it will lead to further expansion that could in fact affect all of the populous, i.e. polygamy, changing the age of consent, marriage to extended family member, I was shocked to learn that marriages to first cousins are still legal in most states (http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htm) ect. How could individual choices affect others? Well for example expanding the definition could mean increased costs for companies that provide benefits (insurance, retirement, ect.). Such companies have already said that statistics show that for example gay men are at a higher risk of contracting certain *very* expensive to care for diseases, which could lead to higher insurance costs for all. Other marriage expansion options also carry with them multiple ways costs could increase for the populous as a whole if legalized.

Im not saying that such arguments are right or even accurate, just that there should be a dialogue. I would want to study other countries that already have legalized gay marriage to see if in fact their social services costs have in fact increased to get some sort of guage on the situation. What I think can be said is that exanding the definition to include gays opens the door to a slippery slope as to where the legality line is now drawn and that carries with it major social engineering ramifications for all. All this being said, I am ever mindful that *my* IR marriage would not have been legal prior to 1967, so bottome line for me is I would favor gay marriage for that reason and because of personal experience, I have some great gay couples as clients who I like as people, and I would be happy to see them legally married. It's just not a simple as saying it has no affect on the public as a whole, because it will.

 

Is she going to feed poor children in Uttar Pradesh, or bring running water to a village in Somalia, or read to abused girls in Pakistan??? My guess is no...but she will talk about gay marriage. Conservatives cannot allow their party to be hijacked like this...whatever happened to real conservatives that actually had something to say besides..."No gay marriage, no abortion, no taxes and guns for everyone!" ???

 

Can I just refer to people of your ilk as 5% of the married population?:mrgreen:

 

LOL, here is a link to an admittedly biased study (National Fatherhood Initiative), but I think it is still well researched. http://74.6.146.127/search/cache?ei...riages+marriage&d=IKOrmUxISqEG&icp=1&.intl=us

click the current page link at the top

 

A specious argument as there are several groups in society that are prone to "expensive to care for" diseases like diabetes, heart disease, breast cancer and so on. I'd like to see an employer argue against covering women for breast cancer or black men for prostate cancer based upon their prevalence to develop such ailments. Furthermore, the state would not only be negating the equal protection clause of the Constitution, but also any provisions relating to privacy within.

 

Agreed it is specious, however that is the argument they are making..

http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2004-04-14-gay-marriage-workers_x.htm

 

Gays have civil unions, so they have a form of legal recognition that gives them all the advantages of the institution of marriage. Marriage it's a traditional man-and-woman union and I see no reason why this should be changed and I don't understand why gay couples care so much to be married.

 

Actually, in most of the states in the US, they don't even have that.

Up until very recently in Western countries, marriage was a system in which women were treated as chattel and used as bartering tools for their families to achieve financial or political ends. There are several different traditional facets of marriage (e.g. child brides, forced arranged marriages, polygyny, polyandry ect) that are not currently countenanced by our societal mores and laws, so lets not pretend that the definition of "marriage" isn't malleable.

Homosexual couples simply want the same rights as hetersexual couples to enter into a contract sanctioned by the state which guarantees them certain benefits. If you don't like it, don't marry someone of the same sex. It's as simple as that.

Even though it's not an exact comparison, IMO there is an eerily similarity between the arguments used against same sex couples and the ones used against interracial couples back when anti-miscegenation laws were still on the books.

 

In some EU countries civil unions provide exactly the same rights and benefits that marriage provides. It's just another name/form of the marriage institution that's more fit for gay couples.

 

Agreed.

 

Well said

 

What? Are you telling me that marrying to first cousin is VERY legal in some states?! Man, I wouldn't marrying my first cousin at all. It sounds very wrong, but each cousins should marrying to people that they falling in love with! However, I do remember my history teacher back in good old days told me the story about IR marriage, it was illegal, that has got struck my mind to thinking about gay marriage, we could compared that to IR marriage. To my opinion, gay marriages should be legal, letting them falling in love and adopting children if they wants to! But what about woman with penis? NOW that would be VERY strange to begin with. Otherwise, just letting them have their happily days in their lives without having to interfere in their lives.

Others said that it would ruin our society, because we needed women to have more children in the order to expand our beings of humanity, like going off to another world to settle in. Well, it will not ruin our society. I don't see how it can ruin our society when it comes to reproduction to have children all across this world. I wish we could find the way to get along without having religion butting in gay marriages! It has becoming very annoying that religious people are butting in to make their attempting to having gay marriage banned. Don't get me wrong here, but I'm catholic. I don't let my religion beliefs interfere nor cloud my sense of judgment towards gay marriage. I'm very open-minded person myself. No matter what, god loves his children.

My final saying, for love of god, let gay couples have their marriages!! I'll be damned if gay marriages are banned! Tired and sick of have to drag away to supreme court to observe the case. I find it hard to believe that this world has yet to accepting gay people at all. It's very sad, but I have good faith in humanity. I trust that one day, doors will be open for gay couples to get married legally in whole world!