Apparently, honestly and truthfulness have gone by the wayside. The age of compromise and leaving your morals at the door is upon us, and the ignoramus trumpeting this grand entrance of the execution of conscience is the blogger, Perez Hilton?If you missed it, Miss California USA Carrie Prejean was asked by openly gay blogger and a judge for the event, Hilton, what her thoughts were on same-sex marriage. Prejean's answer was, "...And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offence to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be - between a man and a woman. Thank you very much." This honest answer has been lauded as insensitive, inappropriate, hateful, and exhibiting the worst of bigotry in our country.
The director of the Miss California USA pageant, issued an apology to the state pageant sponsors, in an attempt to save face. They have not responded to requests for comment. According to Moakler's team, Moakler, "...Has had to deal with very upset companies, because they gave so much to Carrie, and think she betrayed them. "
The latest CBS News poll showed that 33 percent of adults backed "gay marriage." Despite the polls showing that the majority of Americans are still against same-sex marriage, the gay rights leaders claim that they are winning the fight. How are they doing this? Well, the same way that Hilton has done it, through mockery, savage attacks of sexism and hatred. As typical from the liberal front who want strip traditional values for a society without morals, Perez tore into Prejean calling her a "dumb bitch", said she had "half a brain", and said that he would have ripped the tiara off her head if she had won.
I applaud Miss California, and her values. We need to contact Hotel Zoso, Palm Springs Florist, and Studio 838 and ask them to continue their sponsorship of the Miss USA pageant and to support Miss California in her ability to speak truthfully to her convictions, without fear of reprisal from judges with political agendas, or fear of loss of sponsorship or reprimand for speaking up for what she believes in.
"I have no regrets about answering honestly. He asked me for my opinion and I gave it to him," said Miss California. Thank God for someone who is still willing to stand up for their convictions in a time that it is unpopular to have traditional values. Thank God for Miss California.
Contact the sponsors here:
Hotel Zoso
smcclatchey@hotelzoso.net
Phone: (760) 325-9676
Palm Springs Florist
(760) 325-7441
Studio 838
ashstudio838@gmail.com
(323)655-3550
Link to the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517281,00.html
Story follow up: http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/people/it-was-about-being-biblically-correct-miss-california-defends-gay-marriage-stance-20090422-aegz.html
10 comments:
Despite the glaring inaccuracies in claiming that allowing homosexuals to sign the same legal contract as heterosexuals will somehow throw the US into a bottomless pit of depravity, if Perez Hilton is the best you can come up with for a generalized attack on liberals, you should try working a little harder. That guy is on the same level as the National Enquirer. :P
Legalizing homosexual marriage...we are not talking civil union, is just another step towards the ever moving line of what is moral and what is not. I agree Perez Hilton is at the same level as the National Enquirer, and a moron.
The problem Eddie is that you seem to always view my posts, blogs, etc. as attacks. I see them as defense of the traditional values of America.
Traditional values of Americans,according to whom exactly?
If you are unclear as to what are the traditional American values, I'd suggest that you pick up some US history books about the founding of our country. The fact is that America was founded on Biblical principles, consisting of individual freedom, equality of opportunity, opportunity for wealth, self-reliance, competition and hard work, and emerged as the core values of the Americas in the late 1700s.
In 1777, the Continental Congress ordered 22,000 Bibles to be distributed in our country, "so that the people would be well-supplied with the political textbook of this nation."
John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" He also said, "Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."
Thomas Jefferson said, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?"
The rights and freedoms afforded to our nation are based upon the scriptures in the Bible, affording the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press and all the freedoms provided to us under the Bill of Rights and Constitution. Without God's word, the United States of America would not have flourished. No other religion grants to the freedoms to the people as that as the Christian religion. Allah, as seen in the middle-east countries would not have provided the freedoms anywhere close to what we enjoy. A country based on Buddhism would have failed during the first hint of a revolution. Or, do you suppose we should have based the freedoms on Atheistic viewpoints? By what standard do you write laws? By what means do you claim your morals are right or wrong? If by the standard of the majority rule, then we would have easily fallen into a communist run government long ago, ruled by a select few, and the rest of us would be subjects of this country, not citizens. Because of the moral code guiding the founding fathers of the country, a definitive republic was created to not discourage the following of those morals, but to create laws that would support and uphold the founding documents.
The answer your question,
traditional values of Americans were established by God.
They were Deists my friend, not Christians, big difference. It is ou that needs to hit the books:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/paine-deism.html
http://www.bbsradio.com/cgi-bin/webbbs_old/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/4847
My friend, I'll pray for you in your journey for truth and understanding. In that, I have to completely disagree as it has been well understood that the majority of the founders were Christians, guided by Biblical ideology.
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html#Declaration
Honestly, these guys sound like Deists?
"Principally and first of all, I recommend my soul to that Almighty Being who gave it and my body I commit to dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for my sins." – Samuel Adams, signer of the Declaration
"This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which is rich indeed."
Patrick Henry
"Unto him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for his manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by his beloved son ... Blessed be his holy name." John Jay, Original Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
"My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble (evade or object to) away the whole tenor of his conduct by which he sometimes positively asserts and at others countenances (permits) his disciples asserting that he was God."
John Quincy Adams
That isn't saying that there may be a few Deists among them, but that doesn't negate the traditional values were established through religious conviction and understanding of the Bible, as the previous poster mentioned.
I don't think government should be in the business of deciding what is and isn't a marriage, period. That's religion's domain. If a specific church wants to perform a marriage ceremony and recognize a homosexual couple, they can. If a church doesn't, then that church doesn't have to. Government has no right to regulate religion and government recognition of marriage should stop. Call every legal marriage a "civil union," and let individual people and their churches decide if they want to call it "married."
Now, having said that, you've shown that people in the 18th century were religious. Color me shocked. They also believed black people were pack animals, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to bring that back.
And, despite what religious beliefs the founders may have had, THIS is what they wrote into American law:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
That's pretty much the only basis I need for backing up the idea that government shouldn't regulate marriage. I'm not even sure if you would agree with that because I don't think we've ever been over that specific idea.
However, the current state of affairs is that government does regulate a legal form of married--THAT is what we are concerned with. I couldn't care less what churches choose to recognize, but according to the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia:
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
And according to the 14th amendment:
"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Therefore, if marriage is indeed a basic human right, then denying marriage to anyone because their sexual orientation makes the majority uncomfortable is denying citizens of the United States their rights, and is a violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
So, as I see it, your attacks(and others' attacks) on equal marriage IS an attack on the traditional values of America. And I don't see how anyone that considers themselves to be a Constitutionalist can oppose that.
Arguments like this make me wish I had the patience to go to law school.
As an aside, hatred of Perez Hilton goes beyond political ideologies. :P
You continue to paint broad strokes with your statements. Not every person in the 18th century believed black people were pack animals. These signers were documented to be against it, John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others were against slavery. Yes there are signers that were for slavery, but stop painting conservatives as evil hateful slave owning bigots! Libs...still selling us lies and propaganda. We aren't having a slavery discussion, so I am not going to delve into this argument further.
The fact that congress enacted laws that protected freedom of religion, and exercise does not however give such a broad blanket as you would suggest. Moral law still must be the higher calling when applied to religious exercise as we have already seen it done.
So, should polygamy be allowed? Should consenting incestuous couples be allowed to marry? Some would argue that the genetic issues with offspring should make that illegal...well then, how about if they were allowed to be married if one of them had medical procedure preventing procreation? What about a person wanting to marry a dog? Where does it stop Eddie? At what point is there any morality? At what point do you deny a person's liberty?...When it crosses the lines of morality.
That is what this all still boils down to. Morality.
I swear you liberals always assume we hate everyone. I don't hate Perez...far from it. Do I agree with him? No. Do I have to agree with him in order to NOT hate him? That seems to be the position of everyone fighting for gay marriage. "If Your Not For Us You HATE Us, BIGOTS!!! It is so tiresome. My love goes far and wide enough...yes, for you and even Perez ;)
Love,
The Conservative Christ Following Constitutionalist
http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/ss/101/
George Washington, slave owner.
Sigh. I did not dispute that some of the founding fathers were slave owners. Many were not.
Post a Comment