Tags

, , , , ,

Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa now allow same sex marriage. All of this non-news was interjected into the MSM when Carrie Prejean, contestant, answered a Miss USA question honestly unwittingly upsetting gay blogger Perez Hilton who, by voting her down, introduced the requirement into the pageant that the winner must fit into the narrowly defined belief system of the far left. Then later, Hilton v-logged, in a bigoted rant, calling Miss Prejean a stupid b*tch.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

…Miss California got booed, but if so, not by many. Perez himself shakes his head in annoyance, but what did he expect? These beauty contests are celebrations of kitschy Americana — of bathing suits and evening gowns, of “world peace” and apple pie.In fact, one has to wonder why the organizers invited Perez to be a judge at all. Surely Perez’ readership doesn’t represent their core audience, and his celebrity-dish-loving readers could care less about Gracie Lou from North Dakota anyway. It’s a very strange choice. And Perez proves it by calling Miss California a “dumb b****” for not agreeing with him…http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/20/video-perez-hilton-at-the-miss-usa-contest/

New Miss USA: I’m totally pro-gay marriage

Not true, actually: She supports some form of legal recognition for gay couples but punts on the marriage label, leaving us to wonder whether she also qualifies as a “dumb b*tch”. Imagine what pure spun comedy gold it would have been if she opposed gay marriage, too. No doubt the inevitable semen-stain photoshop of her on Perez Hilton’s site would have been extra semen-y.

Skip ahead to 2:05. Her answer’s probably good enough to satisfy the D-list parasites who are dumping on Miss California for not telling them what they want to hear; if she’s bothered at all by the fact that she won only because the judges were biased against her competition, she’s not showing it….

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/22/new-miss-usa-im-totally-pro-gay-marriage/

Mark Steyn, when covering for Rush last Thursday, shared that Canada supports gay marriage coast to coast; Spain also does as do several other countries. The state of Iowa, most recently, changed the names of the “to be wed” to Party A and Party B instead of Husband and Wife.  Meanwhile, Steyn mentioned a conundrum that has reared its ugly head and will most certainly become an issue as we start the slide down the slippery slope.

What’s my line on legalized polygamy? Oh, I pretty much said it all back in 2004, in a column for Ezra Levant’s Western Standard. Headline: “It’s Closer Than They Think.”

Well, a mere half-decade down the slippery slope and here we are, with the marrying kind of Bountiful, B.C., headed for the Supreme Court of Canada. Five years ago, proponents of same-sex marriage went into full you-cannot-be-serious eye-rolling mode when naysayers warned that polygamy would be next. As I wrote in that Western Standard piece:

“Gay marriage, they assure us, is the merest amendment to traditional marriage, and once we’ve done that we’ll pull up the drawbridge.”

Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, the former Supreme Court justice, remains confident the drawbridge is firmly up. “Marriage is a union of two people, period,” she said in Quebec the other day. But it used to be a union of one man and one woman, period. And, if that period got kicked down the page to accommodate a comma and a subordinate clause, why shouldn’t it get kicked again? If the sex of the participants is no longer relevant, why should the number be?

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1970/26/

So polygamy shall slip down this same slope and after all, isn’t it up to the individuals how many and with whom? And then, what is next, Steyn pondered…how about incest relationships?

Hmm, will it be more PC to call them:”Intra-family relationships”? If the gender doesn’t matter, and the number doesn’t matter, what should the age matter? A year or so ago, I was abhorred to watch a television interview of a pedophile who was describing how he would “develop” his “relationship” with a 3-year old child.  Maybe we can start calling those relationships–“Pedy-friends” after all, we wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings and heaven forbid we should be un-“PC”!

Once we slip on down to the bottom of the slope, my conjecture is that we’ll be attending weddings/marriages/what-have-you of animals and people…Party A and Party B could be you and a goat you met last Saturday while visiting the “petting” zoo (no pun intended of course) and you just “fell in love” and what’s a little sodomy between friends? Why if the gender doesn’t matter, the number doesn’t matter, the age doesn’t matter, why should the species?

A real "hunk" of a...goat

A real "hunk" of a...goat

Maybe PETA will get involved. I mean with Obama trying to pass FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act–you know the one where we can kill a child up until birth?) because even when born, if we MEANT to kill “it” “it” isn’t human, animals do have MORE rights than humans. Doggone it! SOMEONE’S got to stick up for the pets! Perhaps PETA can make sure the goat can decide if s/he wants the marriage or not–maybe PETA can find a way to “speak” FOR the goat.

Guests at the wedding (she's a single parent don't ya' know)

Guests at the wedding (she's a single parent don't ya' know)

Ah, but I digress…men marrying men, women marrying women, men marrying lots of women, men marrying kids, men marrying goat kids…what’s the difference?

Advertisements