Tue 21 Apr 2009
Is this the Big Tent of Meghan McCain’s Republican Party?
Posted by Veritas Vincit under Culture , Family , Homosexuality , Human Condition , Media[17] Comments
As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman,” said Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, “I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit …
Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. aka Perez Hilton speaking about Miss California in his own words
GLBT individuals comprise less than 10% of the adult US population. Of that 10%, less than 25% actually support what has come to be known as “Gay Marriage”. This overall lack of interest within a minority segment of the population has been the frequent subject of Gay activists lamentations for years now. It seems however, that one activist, Mr. Lavandeira (aka Perez Hilton) cannot reisist inserting his politics into an apolitical event, the Miss USA competition.
A couple of questions came to mind when I viewed this video of Mr. Lavandeira: Is this what we can expect from Megan McCain’s “Progressive Republicanism”? Is this what John Shadegg has in mind when he speaks of “the Big Tent”? Is Mr. Lavandeira a tolerant man? Is he representative of GLBT activism?
Tolerance is defined as: the act or capacity of enduring; endurance.
Here’s my question, shouldn’t tolerance be a two way street? It seems to me, that when tolerance is demanded and not offered it becomes something more sinister, tyranny.
Perhaps when a minority within a minority can demand and command a nations attention, its time to rethink the question, what is tolerance and how far does it extend?
April 21st, 2009 at 9:35 am
VV,
Where are you getting your numbers? I haven’t seen a poll that shows the “25% of 10%” number you’re quoting.
April 21st, 2009 at 9:39 am
I’m not sure I understand the point of this post. Are you saying Perez Hilton is a Republican and you don’t want him in your party? What serious person looks at what Perez Hilton says anyway?
Most of your posts are good for a laugh, like all of us here in the East are enjoying the tea parties, but the logic here verges on incomprehensibility.
Unless, I guess, that it’s amusing that the radical right reads Perez Hilton…
April 21st, 2009 at 10:12 am
I’m confused. You’ve set up a straw man of implicating Meghan McCain and John Shadegg of being party to Perez Hilton’s rants. There’s enough interesting fodder for conversation in this story without doing that.
If you don’t like Shadegg and McCain, fine. But it is an illogical fallacy to set them up as your straw man (and woman) just to take potshots. It diminishes any real argument you have with them on issues with which they have expressed an opinion.
Sonoran Alliance has some very good posts, but sometimes you guys just drop into self-parody and it chips away at your credibility.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:41 am
VV,
I like what you wrote about tollerance! Well said!
What is good for a laugh is reading the comments on this blog every day! Does anyone remember the joke, “Doctor, it hurts when I do this”?
April 21st, 2009 at 10:43 am
oops! I meant “tolerance”
April 21st, 2009 at 10:49 am
Shane, I know you’re reading this. Please. Set some standards. I love coming here to get my conservative news but I find myself beginning to question everything. I outright deny what a few people say but it is starting to get bad.
This is a conservative begging you to save Sonoran Alliance from the jokers that post incoherent rambling posts.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
V V-
This just is not news, it’s not slice of life, it’s not useful, and whether you like it or not, it’s not relevant.
When conservatives get angry and miss the point of constructive complaint, they LOSE, as it all sounds like bigotry. When we stoop to the Anderson Cooper level, we become the same animal- Derisive and pointless. This is not a useful post, we all respect V V.
There is a good debate about whether gays and states rights matter. One carbon cut out beauty queen is not the point.I can EASILY talk of how that woman who looks exactly like a zillion others hurts young girls every day with what she promotes and it has nothing to do with gay rights.
I applaud her right to speak, but Perez in his less than useful manner, had a point too. He then acted like an idiot, but he did make a point of how to say what she felt in a constructive manner.
Legislation of states does matter, and even if the law in question offends me at some level, I respect the states.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Assuming your percentages are true, why in God’s name would anyone be concerned about a tiny fraction of people who are UNABLE to convince their own FELLOW SINNERS? My answer to them is convince your cohorts THEN come talk to me. Clearly this is all about power and nothing else. They likely don’t give a rat’s breathe about marriage, just in destroying ‘straights’.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Meghan McCain is advocating the Republican Party consider Gay Marriage as a valid issue.
John Shadegg is imploring the Party to remain a Big Tent, which by extension has room for the LGBT issue.
Perez Hilton is simply a face to a radical agenda that the majority of the voting population has rejected, however remains subject to their constant harassment.
My point is simple: Should a minority within a minority hold hostage the values of 97% of the entire population; and why is someone with a high profile like Meghan McCain promoting this values shift? And, is this an example of the Big Tent that is so desperate for votes they are letting go of their conservative values?
And, where in those who advocate for Gay Marriage is the tolerance of those who disagree?
Klute, my minority of a minority comes from knowing several professional individuals of that lifestyle who abhor the antics of Perez Hilton and the “marriage” issue. Two of these couples I know are over 55 and have been together for well over a decade or better.
Gayle, nothing in the post was “angry” but very relevant to the direction Meghan McCain and some others wish to take the Republican Party.
Overall, it is interesting that when your (collective) comfort level is exceeded by something that makes you uncomfortable, your responses neglect the content of the original post. Maybe you should examine your reaction to this issue.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:27 pm
“Klute, my minority of a minority comes from knowing several professional individuals of that lifestyle who abhor the antics of Perez Hilton and the “marriage” issue. Two of these couples I know are over 55 and have been together for well over a decade or better.”
OK. But I know many gay people/couples, and I don’t know any of them that don’t want the same right to marry (one couple actually moved from Florida to California while it was legal to marry).
So by my measure, 100% of the 10% agree with it, and at least 75% of straights agree with gay marriage.
And this is the problem with anecdotal evidence. It’s value is equal 0%.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I love the “all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit … ” comment by Perez Hilton. Yes and they should be able to exclude as well.
So when the Catholic Church, the Overwhelming majority of Protestant churches, Judaism, Islam and Mormons all tell you that you can’t get married you better not hear any complaining. I personally am all for gay people getting married but I just don’t see how any religion could allow it when all the major religions denounce homosexuality specifically.
The same way we shouldn’t tell people whether they can get married they have no right to say where they get married.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Johnny,
And that’s the rub – there is no law stating: St. Rita’s Catholic Church (or the Imam Ali Mosque, or Temple Beth-El, or whatever) must marry Adam and Steve. All it states is that the state must recognize those religions that DO (and must perform the civil unions).
I think the Unitarians are OK with same-sex marriages. So do some Episcopal branches. So does on the Indian Nations.
The big lie behind Prop. 8′s victory was: OMGZ!1! YUR PRIEST IZ GONNA BE MARRYING DOODS.
And that’s simply not true.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:03 pm
The point brought up about Meghan McCain may have some relevance. The younger generation of 20-30 yr. old Republicans (like myself) will have to determine how strongly to pursue the marriage issue. When high profile people like Ms. McCain seek to take the party in a radically new and anti-family direction, a legitimate debate is merited.
I think VV is reaching with the Shadegg “big tent” comments. That is an unjust and unwarranted opinion that is a real stretch to make.
Regarding statistics on gays…I don’t know how many gays support gay marriage, but the homosexual population of the country is around 2% according to my psych textbooks.
Conclusion: We can all agree that Perez Hilton is a freakin idiot who needs to get a life. He had no right to call that girl a “dumb b****” for voicing her opinion. Shame on him and all people that beg for “tolerance” but refuse to show it themselves.
April 21st, 2009 at 3:02 pm
“He had no right to call that girl a “dumb b****” for voicing her opinion.”
Actually, he did have the right to express his opinion of her, just as equally as she had the right to express her opinion.
Why is it that people think the right to express one’s opinion comes with a concomitant right to be free from criticism of that opinion?
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:37 am
Two points. First, I did a paper on gay adoption and researched gays as a percentage of the population as thoroughly as anyone in the country. Defined extremely broadly, you are talking less than two percent of women and less than three percent of men. That said, I’m not sure of the relevance of those numbers to this post.
Second, saying that his calling her a “dumb bitch” is a legitimate expression of opinion is idiotic in the extreme. If she had called him an “ignorant fag,” she would not be expressing an opinion, she would be engaging in an ad hominem attack on someone who disagreed with her, as he did. The fact that auntief and others think that is defensible speaks volumes about how out of it they are.
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:39 am
I confess my ‘less than 10%’ figure was in deference to popular culture. Thank you for correcting the figure.
My point being, a minority within a minority is agitating for something a majority has rejected. It is a sad commentary that the cohort under 30 finds a same sex union to be considered ‘marriage’. There may be a reason for this, this age cohort has grown up for the most part with divorce or single parent households and therefore have little experience with a traditional nuclear family consisting of a male/father and female/mother role models.
Is this the product of no-fault divorce ushered into our culture at the beginning of the 1970′s?
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Jg 2:7 And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the LORD, that he did for Israel.
8 And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the LORD, died…
10 And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel.
11 And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim:
12 And they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD to anger.
13 And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.
14 And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies.
This is America’s epitaph. These bloggers make me sorry and ashamed for my country.