SAN DIEGO - A San Diegan just missed becoming Miss USA Sunday night in Las Vegas.
Vista High School graduate Carrie Prejean attends San Diego Christian College. The 21-year old is first runner-up to the new Miss America, 22-year old Kristen Dalton of North Carolina.
Prejean, the reigning Miss California, was in the middle of the pageant's only controversial moment.
Judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, asked whether Prejean believed in gay marriage. The tall blonde stumbled some before giving an answer that appeared to please the pageant audience.
"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage," Prejean said. "And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."
Some in the audience cheered, others booed. The answer sparked a shouting match in the lobby after the show.
"It's ugly," said Scott Ihrig, a gay man, who attended the pageant with his partner. "I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are."
Charmaine Koonce, the mother of Miss New Mexico USA Bianca Matamoros-Koonce, argued back.
"In the Bible it says marriage is between Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!"
Well, there you have it. The Bible argument is good.
1. This is in California, and this is a very sensitive subject at the moment, since the amendment to define marriage as only between a man and woman was just barely passed last November after months of fighting and debate and millions of dollars of advertising.
2. Beauty pageants have a very high gay following, and the audience was probably predominantly gay. They are also going to be carrying the same sensitivity mentioned above.
But you're right, she was at least honest, which is what ideally a beauty pageant winner should be. But my vast knowledge of beauty pageants comes mostly from Little Miss Sunshine.
In marriage's current state, it is a contract between three entities: two people and their government. Frankly, the idea of a marriage license is ridiculous. Did George Washington have a marriage license with Martha? Did any of our founding fathers enter into a contract with their spouses and their congress? Just this idea that states can run around willy-nilly saying who can get married and who can not is apalling. Can we just return to the good old days, please, when freedom of contract was not a joke? When you could enter into a contract with any man or woman who you please? When you could swear to stay faithful in mind, body, and spirit to one person, through sickness and health, lest you face the consequences laid forth in your contract? When we could swing our fists as hard as we wanted as long as it wasn't into anybody else's face?
Government, please get out of marriage. Please let people just fucking make a promise in a church or on a beach or under a sacred oak with whoever they want, please.
Oh wait. Our freedom of contract still exists. You could enter into such a contract. People are just fighting over a definition of a fucking word.
I don't have such extremist views. I'm pretty okay with the idea of the government running things, since I don't trust people to do the right thing unless there's a punishment hovering over their head if they fail to comply. The definition of marriage is more than just a title you get when you move in with someone; there's all the legal binding business as well. If that's not how our founding fathers did it, fine! I'm glad we're not doing it the same way; I would like to think that in well over 200 years, a society would have changed in some ways to make things better. Our nation has also grown enormously since it was first founded, so I'm okay with the extra emphasis on organization. Maybe it's cuz I've grown up in a big city with TONS of people around me, without a very important role compared to the numerous other people in my population. I'm totally okay with the government keeping track of me, as long as I understand that I am still free to do whatever I want within the law and that everyone else in the country is being monitored in the same way. Maybe I got the wrong impression from your post, John, and if so sorry for ranting and raving about something unrelated. I'm tired.
As far as same sex marriages, I believe the government should absolutely allow them (if not with the title 'marriage', then a 'civil union' with all of the same benefits), and then churches have specific preferences of whether they will allow a same-sex marriage in their church. That way anyone offended by the notion of it won't have to deal with it, since they most likely don't view the church that would allow the same-sex marriage as a respectable church and they can just refer to same-sex couples as not married, but...er... unionized. It becomes a battle of the churches and other churches and non-believers (who some would claim include gays, whether or not they claim they have faith or not). I've always been under the impression that the people extreme enough to deny someone completely harmless happiness are probably the type of people who undergo in church battles anyway. It all falls into the "I don't accept or respect anyone I'm not familiar with because I'm too close-minded to consider what their life is like."
I think the biggest problem with my view of this is that I underestimate how bad some churches might react. I think it's just going to be a slow process of more and more acceptance, and that eventually gay marriages will be allowed. I can hope so anyway. I actually do appreciate that girl's answer; maybe it was a bit bold of her to be so honest in the situation she was in, but polite honesty is usually a welcome trait in a person for me.
this could all be solved by having everyone get civil unions and then decide to get the meaningless adjective of "marriage" on their own time in their own churches/temples/bars/whatever their own way
There's a whole range of crap that is legally different for single, de-facto relationships and married.
Insurance, benefits, inheritance etc, etc.
Sooo, the government is pretty much going to want to know, with some nice forms and general legal mokeying about, where you fit vis a vis relationship status.
Insurance policies can be changed by the insurance companies. Inheritance can be taken care of with a will. What benefits are you refering to?
Taxes? Income tax is stupid.
We've all grown up with such huge, intrusive governments in our lives. Of course we're scared to try something different. I just don't like such a centralized group of people knowing so much about me. Maybe our species will one day evolve into that - I don't know. We'll all be cells in a body and our country will be a large organism - kind of like ants. Nations will have effectively evolved quiescence.
At this point, however, I still urge to be cut off from it. Live off the grid. Run through the wilderness with nothing standing between me and death but my strength and my wits. I want to be tested by nature and accepted by my conscience. I want to see if I have what it takes. I want to LIVE, people.
Back to the government cataloging everything, though: I am uncomfortable with it. Many of you are not. Where DOES everybody stand on this? Who even cares?
I think you just like being rebellious, and that's why you adopt such an extremist view.
I COMPLETELY disagree with you, since I enjoy having a structured lifestyle that is moderated by the government. I believe that without a government, nothing would get done, and there would be whole lotta chaos. Companies and businesses would either fail or go corrupt, since there would be no regulatory force taking action.
What you described right there sounds to me like the life of an animal, and I don't want any part in that. 'LIVING' to you is not living to me; that situation sounds horrifying. I would rather the society I live in be a little more civilized than that.
EDIT: Okay maybe I don't feel as strongly about this as I thought I did, but moral of the story, I would rather have a government monitoring me than everyone free to do what they wanted without anybody watching over them.
Insurance policies can be changed by the insurance companies. Inheritance can be taken care of with a will. What benefits are you refering to?
Taxes? Income tax is stupid.
We've all grown up with such huge, intrusive governments in our lives. Of course we're scared to try something different. I just don't like such a centralized group of people knowing so much about me. Maybe our species will one day evolve into that - I don't know. We'll all be cells in a body and our country will be a large organism - kind of like ants. Nations will have effectively evolved quiescence.
At this point, however, I still urge to be cut off from it. Live off the grid. Run through the wilderness with nothing standing between me and death but my strength and my wits. I want to be tested by nature and accepted by my conscience. I want to see if I have what it takes. I want to LIVE, people.
Back to the government cataloging everything, though: I am uncomfortable with it. Many of you are not. Where DOES everybody stand on this? Who even cares?
I think you should read Lord of the Flies.
And before Bruce says anything, I am only opposed to the current Westphalian nation-state system. I am not opposed to all forms of government.
I think John is probably exaggerating things a little bit. But I certainly can agree with him on not wanting a big, intrusive government like most countries have.
The way I see it, I would like a government that only exists to solve conflicts and disputes between people, provide security against crime and possible external conflicts, provide and/or regulate public services (such as water, electricity and roads, as this are among the few things that a free market would take too long to be able to properly supply) and probably something else I'm forgetting right now (i'm tired). I don't like how my country has tons of public institutions that I think should not exist, or better said, should not exist to be funded by public funds. I thought it was something that happens in Latin American or third world countries, but then I read about how the US has this Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac thingies, and I'm thinking "Why the heck would I want my government to fund financial enterprises?" That's just not right. This are only examples, of course, but I don't seem why the State has to grow into this provider of all things and solutions for the people, when that should not be its role.
I'm just typing this out because I got kinda scared reading about how Mish says she is fine with being moderated by the government. Sure, no government wouldn't work out too fine (Somalia, anyone?), but saying that you'd like to be moderated by the government.. ugh this scares me a bit. It's probably just how you worded it, Mish, though.
Less moderated and more just monitored. It has to do with my fear of people naturally being corrupt, and how a society with no government would be a very cruel one because people would be even more dishonest than they are now. I'd be more comfortable with a government watching over what I do, rather than no one watching anyones actions.
My views of everything have probably changed a lot since my first semester in college, too. Since then I've noticed I don't trust strangers anymore, and I don't give people the benefit of the doubt in most situations (at least for people I don't know very well). Maybe at some point in my future I'll be able to get over myself and be totally okay with trusting some people based on having faith in humanity, but right now I think I'm just bitter and under the assumption that most people are only interested in somehow using you to get something else.
Stupid, overdramatic, I know, but my strategy of fixing these things is time. I'm workin' here.
Let the record show that I do not want society to disintegrate into running through the woods, surviving on each individual's wits. I want ME to disintegrate into running through the woods, surviving on my wits.
I really really want to go camping too. Or some other outdoorsy activity! I'm too tired of the urban, indoor, normal stuff I do on weekends. I have been thinking for a month now about taking a trip to a near beach from which you travel 15 minutes to a little town from which you board some little boats that take you to an isle in which you can see FREAKING RIVER DOLPHINS AND A THOUSAND FRIGATEBIRDS.
I would enjoy camping with a bunch of friends though. The only times I've ever gone camping was with my family when I was little, and I never really had a fun time. I just need to go with the right people so that getting a random tummy ache would be totally worth it.
Seriously though; 90% of my past camp experiences (in a tent, anyway), were all pretty crappy. The times in a cabin were pretty freakin awesome, but thats not real camping so that doesn't count.
PITTSBURGH -- Five fourth-grade students at Fawn Elementary School in the Highlands District were suspended Friday on a weapons charge.
"This was not a weapon to them. This was a toy," said Melanie Chelko. Chelko is the parent of one of the suspended students.
“Everyone uses pencils while in school, but you would never think someone would use them to create a weapon, but that's exactly how the district sees it," said principal Kathi Shirey.
Shirey said the accused students bound two pencils together with tape and tied rubber bands around them to make their own sling shots and used them with paper clips, hitting a teacher and three other students.
"It’s an object that could have caused serious injury," Shirey said.
“They were seeing who could flip the paper clip the furthest. They weren't maliciously using it,” Chelko said.
Shirey said the boys faced expulsion for a year, but considering their age, she said the district decided to be lenient. It suspended the students for a day and took away one of their scheduled field trips.
“We took a lot of time to come to that decision and we really felt it was appropriate," Shirey said.
But Chelko, who talked with Channel 11 News exclusively, said the punishment is too severe.
"I feel he came home and cried for three hours on the couch because he was suspended. That was torment enough for him," Chelko said.
The teacher and the students allegedly hit with the flying objects were not hurt.
Chelko is being much to protective of her child. Sure, the kids were morons and decided to make an actual weapon at school. Seriously, slingshots can hurt. The kids weren't thinking, and the punishment was extremely lenient. What does the mom think should be his punishment? A 15 minute time out? Before you reason with the mother, think about how you would have been punished in 4th grade for creating and firing slingshots in class, both by the school and your parents. I would have gotten expelled.
EDIT: And toys, not weapons? BB guns are "toys", paintball guns are "toys", slingshots can cause serious pain too. Lucky they fired paper clips and not paperweights.
I think this should be in the awesome news thread, because this is the first reasonable punishment from a school I've read about in ages. The usual punishments these days for kids who play cops and robbers is exile to a remote South Pacific island and 20 years hard labor
Comments
Well, there you have it. The Bible argument is good.
1. This is in California, and this is a very sensitive subject at the moment, since the amendment to define marriage as only between a man and woman was just barely passed last November after months of fighting and debate and millions of dollars of advertising.
2. Beauty pageants have a very high gay following, and the audience was probably predominantly gay. They are also going to be carrying the same sensitivity mentioned above.
But you're right, she was at least honest, which is what ideally a beauty pageant winner should be. But my vast knowledge of beauty pageants comes mostly from Little Miss Sunshine.
Government, please get out of marriage. Please let people just fucking make a promise in a church or on a beach or under a sacred oak with whoever they want, please.
Oh wait. Our freedom of contract still exists. You could enter into such a contract. People are just fighting over a definition of a fucking word.
My bad, humanity is still working as intended.
As far as same sex marriages, I believe the government should absolutely allow them (if not with the title 'marriage', then a 'civil union' with all of the same benefits), and then churches have specific preferences of whether they will allow a same-sex marriage in their church. That way anyone offended by the notion of it won't have to deal with it, since they most likely don't view the church that would allow the same-sex marriage as a respectable church and they can just refer to same-sex couples as not married, but...er... unionized. It becomes a battle of the churches and other churches and non-believers (who some would claim include gays, whether or not they claim they have faith or not). I've always been under the impression that the people extreme enough to deny someone completely harmless happiness are probably the type of people who undergo in church battles anyway. It all falls into the "I don't accept or respect anyone I'm not familiar with because I'm too close-minded to consider what their life is like."
I think the biggest problem with my view of this is that I underestimate how bad some churches might react. I think it's just going to be a slow process of more and more acceptance, and that eventually gay marriages will be allowed. I can hope so anyway. I actually do appreciate that girl's answer; maybe it was a bit bold of her to be so honest in the situation she was in, but polite honesty is usually a welcome trait in a person for me.
There's a whole range of crap that is legally different for single, de-facto relationships and married.
Insurance, benefits, inheritance etc, etc.
Sooo, the government is pretty much going to want to know, with some nice forms and general legal mokeying about, where you fit vis a vis relationship status.
Insurance policies can be changed by the insurance companies. Inheritance can be taken care of with a will. What benefits are you refering to?
Taxes? Income tax is stupid.
We've all grown up with such huge, intrusive governments in our lives. Of course we're scared to try something different. I just don't like such a centralized group of people knowing so much about me. Maybe our species will one day evolve into that - I don't know. We'll all be cells in a body and our country will be a large organism - kind of like ants. Nations will have effectively evolved quiescence.
At this point, however, I still urge to be cut off from it. Live off the grid. Run through the wilderness with nothing standing between me and death but my strength and my wits. I want to be tested by nature and accepted by my conscience. I want to see if I have what it takes. I want to LIVE, people.
Back to the government cataloging everything, though: I am uncomfortable with it. Many of you are not. Where DOES everybody stand on this? Who even cares?
I COMPLETELY disagree with you, since I enjoy having a structured lifestyle that is moderated by the government. I believe that without a government, nothing would get done, and there would be whole lotta chaos. Companies and businesses would either fail or go corrupt, since there would be no regulatory force taking action.
What you described right there sounds to me like the life of an animal, and I don't want any part in that. 'LIVING' to you is not living to me; that situation sounds horrifying. I would rather the society I live in be a little more civilized than that.
EDIT: Okay maybe I don't feel as strongly about this as I thought I did, but moral of the story, I would rather have a government monitoring me than everyone free to do what they wanted without anybody watching over them.
I think you should read Lord of the Flies.
And before Bruce says anything, I am only opposed to the current Westphalian nation-state system. I am not opposed to all forms of government.
...which I have never read myself. Is it any good?
The way I see it, I would like a government that only exists to solve conflicts and disputes between people, provide security against crime and possible external conflicts, provide and/or regulate public services (such as water, electricity and roads, as this are among the few things that a free market would take too long to be able to properly supply) and probably something else I'm forgetting right now (i'm tired). I don't like how my country has tons of public institutions that I think should not exist, or better said, should not exist to be funded by public funds. I thought it was something that happens in Latin American or third world countries, but then I read about how the US has this Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac thingies, and I'm thinking "Why the heck would I want my government to fund financial enterprises?" That's just not right. This are only examples, of course, but I don't seem why the State has to grow into this provider of all things and solutions for the people, when that should not be its role.
I'm just typing this out because I got kinda scared reading about how Mish says she is fine with being moderated by the government. Sure, no government wouldn't work out too fine (Somalia, anyone?), but saying that you'd like to be moderated by the government.. ugh this scares me a bit. It's probably just how you worded it, Mish, though.
My views of everything have probably changed a lot since my first semester in college, too. Since then I've noticed I don't trust strangers anymore, and I don't give people the benefit of the doubt in most situations (at least for people I don't know very well). Maybe at some point in my future I'll be able to get over myself and be totally okay with trusting some people based on having faith in humanity, but right now I think I'm just bitter and under the assumption that most people are only interested in somehow using you to get something else.
Stupid, overdramatic, I know, but my strategy of fixing these things is time. I'm workin' here.
I'm saying I want to go camping.
I would enjoy camping with a bunch of friends though. The only times I've ever gone camping was with my family when I was little, and I never really had a fun time. I just need to go with the right people so that getting a random tummy ache would be totally worth it.
Seriously though; 90% of my past camp experiences (in a tent, anyway), were all pretty crappy. The times in a cabin were pretty freakin awesome, but thats not real camping so that doesn't count.
EDIT: And toys, not weapons? BB guns are "toys", paintball guns are "toys", slingshots can cause serious pain too. Lucky they fired paper clips and not paperweights.
Pencil slingshots that shoot little paper clips? My teacher would've told me to 'stop it'.