Thread: Miss California causes waves!

This is all i have to add after reading/skimming through this thread. I keep this around for these moments...

Originally Posted by gssixgun

A warning to those of you on the left, that believe this Cal Gal was wrong in her answer, that sword has two edges, be very wary how far you chose to swing it....

Believe that her answer was wrong or believe that she doesnt have the right to say that answer?

Two different things.

/catching up on thread...may have missed an important point somewhere that clears this up for me.

Originally Posted by AaronX

Does the constitution state marriage for anyone is a right?

It does if the Equal Protection clause comes into play, which I believe it does. In the state in which I live, sexual orientation is a protected class. I believe it should be recognized as such federally. If it was...then a very compelling argument could be (and already has been ) made that witholding similar treatment (I won't use the word "rights", here) would be unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by AaronX

Does the constitution state marriage for anyone is a right?

nope. which is why i think the government shouldn't recognize marriage at all. if people want to get married to one or more other people, and everyone is consenting age, it's no ones business but their own.

even us poor breeders have to do paperwork similar to a civil union for all the governmental rules about power of attorney, inheritance, etc, etc to kick in. which is why i had to goto a courthouse and get a marriage license and fill out all kinds of forms and pay fees, etc in order for those rules to be set in motion for my wife and i.

Thanks Jockeys that was my point.

Define all 'marriages' as legal civil unions for the sake of legal argument and leave the term marriage as a religious term meant to describe a legal civil union between a man and a woman. Seems like that would be a logical solution.

Originally Posted by AaronX

Thanks Jockeys that was my point.

Define all 'marriages' as legal civil unions for the sake of legal argument and leave the term marriage as a religious term meant to describe a legal civil union between a man and a woman. Seems like that would be a logical solution.

There are a few of us with that same opinion (or close to it.) Any two consenting adults can go get "civily bound" or whatever they want to call it. Get the state out of the marriage business.

Then your religious organization of choice can perform a ceremony, and call it whatever THEY want (this would, in my little world, not preclude them from calling it marriage, no matter what genders are involved).

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

Any two consenting adults can go get "civily bound" or whatever they want to call it.

i think in the interests of fairness, the number of consenting adults would necessary be up to those signing the contract and not a preconceived notion of those not involved.

Originally Posted by JMS

What interests me is the question. This is a non political contest and she was asked a political question! It would be akin to judging Barney Franks Political abilities based on his looks! Bassackwards if you ask me.

I totally agree with you, Jimbo! A question like that does NOT belong in a beauty pagent.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

A warning to those of you on the left, that believe this Cal Gal was wrong in her answer, that sword has two edges, be very wary how far you chose to swing it....

I think we are having 2 discussions in parallel here: one about her, and another about gay marriage.

Imo there was nothing wrong with her saying what she said, and I don't think they should've jumped on her like that. She is entitled to her own opinion, and she truthfully answered a curveball question.

I don't share her opinion about gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I would hold it against her. ESPECIALLY in a beauty opageant where politics are rather not the point.

She expressed herself without insulting people, just like we do in here. You and I have vastly different opinions about politics, but I'd go to a bar and have a beer with you all the same. The same goes for most of the people here btw.

Originally Posted by gugi

I don't know how many saw the actual video, but here it is for your convenience over 100 posts later

I think I owe her an apology. I had assumed from comments that she had floundered and given an awkward answer. But now that I've seen the clip, I realise her answer was well thought out (i.e. prepared in advance), diplomatic, and well delivered. And she had the strength of character to actually give an honest, personal opinion. Well done her!