Malkin's Commentators

Alright, I promised, so let us be about delivering - but this is FOUR PAGES of comments on Malkin's blog, so...

If I've already addressed a point once, you're not nearly special enough for me to address it twice, and first one to make a point gets credit/infamy.

DFern - Aside from beauty contests not being precisely a bastion of feminist ideals, not everything is about feminism. Hilton, however crass, was not misogynist - he was anti-Prejean, and anti-Prejean because he (rightly or wrongly) found her viewpoint vile.

Englishqueen01 - Equally, if not superior, conservative arguments in favor of gay/samesex marriage can be found here. While I find the latest article a bit...dry....it lays out the conservative case for gay/same sex marriage more logically (and in vastly more depth) than any other article on the topic I've read. And, Perez, it doesn't include a single hissy fit, or instance of name-calling. It's what we grown-ups call mature discussion.

Insomniac - as stated in my last post, using this picture with the crude scrawl, was a regrettable instance of Malkin descending to Perez' rather vile level. Unlike Perez, I expect (and usually observe) far better of her.

PasadenaPhil (and many similar comments) - Please, if you're going to post, try and rise above the level of name-calling or fear-mongering absurdity.

jangar - I worry less about "morals and shame" (as both have been abused by conservatives and liberals in equal measure into absurd bludgeons with which to whip ones political opponents), than that our increasing reliance on "feelings" to the exclusion of logic, critical analysis, and evidence-drive policy decisions. However this is a beauty pageant and a privately sponsored event, so unless we're participating in some fashion - whatever non-criminal weirdness they gin up isn't any of our business. And frankly, I view hate crimes laws as generally counterproductive - teaching folks in groups frequenty targeted for bigotry-based attacks about gun safety, self-defense, and proper firearms selection works much better in my view.

wighttrasch - for whatever reason, many feminist thinkers (the ones that consider marriage a good thing at all) tend to favor equality before the law, which to many means legalizing same-sex marriage. Further, disagreeing with a specific woman (even as crudely as Perez), does not make one a misogynist or "out to get women".

Thackeragency - you are quite simply wrong. At merely the federal level, the GAO has found over 1,000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities available to married couples that are not and cannot be accessed through contractual or domestic partner arrangements. Given the diversity of marriage laws and judicial practice among the States and Territories, the number is large but variable at that level. More than one contractual agreement between persons of the same sex has been thrown out by state courts claiming that the agreement was contrary to the public interest. A joint power of attorney or a will isn't worth much once a judge throws it out, particularly in the face of a hostile and phobic family.

It's not about trying to sue a church that won't perform a given marriage. Between the First Amendment to the federal constitution and the heavy weight of precedent indicating that a church CANNOT be compelled to act against its own doctrines regarding marriage, such a case would be laughed out of court.

How, pray tell, would extending the institution of marriage further burden the courts? Granted, it would likely generate a certain number of divorce cases...but it is doubtful they'd be any more frequent than those emerging from traditional marriages, and they would certainly be simpler and take less court time than the "palimony suits" that today burden the courts when same sex couples part ways (resolving property, children, investments, real estate, etc WITH NO DIVORCE STRUCTURE, AND OUTSIDE A LEGALLY RECOGNIZED RELATIONSHIP) eats court time with a vast and mighty appetite.

thetoysurgeon - I only wish it were true. We are still burdened with counterproductive academic and workplace speech codes, and it will take years of time and effort to point out that "freedom of speech" means "freedom to say things that folks don't like w/o governmental harassment" (i.e., the living room rule - I can kick you outta my living room if you offend me - but the government can't arrest you for calling me nasty names."

xler8bmw - That's a liberal (and far left) definition of bigotry if ever I saw it. From Merriam-Webster, "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". I'd limit it further to "a person who fails to consider members of groups (such as race/ethnic/religious/orientation/gender/etc) as individuals, exhibiting hatred or intolerance towards individuals that they percieve as members of that group, based on the groups alleged and frequently stereotypical characteristics." Perez, in my opinion, is a vile and immature toad - however, at least in this instance I didn't see him exhibit bigotry - merely "if they hold this view (which they just stated, on camera even) I dislike them and consider their view ludicrous" dressed up in a lot of name-calling and crudity.

right4life - Frankly, if the theocratic branch of Christianity would just leave us the hell alone and tend to their own miseries rather than trying to run our lives, most LGBT folk really couldn't give a damn about silencing, applauding, or mooning the Christian faith. Given our historic rejection and, frequently, persecution by His followers, such a reponse is surprisingly gentle. Gay or same-sex marriage, I'm sorry to tell you, is NOT really about you - beyond rare exceptions, we just plain don't care about you that much. It's about garnering the same protection for our partners, our children, and our posterity that you enjoy in the eyes of the law.

flmom - In passing, I'm merely a libertarian brand of right. However, I agree, the left has largely lost (in particular, those in elected office) the ability to engage in civilized discourse. I am saddened to be able to say that is increasingly true of many on the right, as well.

orlandocajun - he really is one of those I wake up thinking "please, can't he be on the other side!" when I think of him at all. Regrettably, there is no ethical way to abolish him. We rarely (do, let's look at some of the conservative and libertarian "prizes" out there) get to choose our self-proclaimed "famous folk" or "representatives". It's not as if, once a year all us LGBT folks got together in Sioux Falls to elect a bunch of representatives each year.

gridlock - to my regret, for a long list of reasons too numerous and lengthy to go into here, the vast majority of the LGBT community held their noses and voted for Obama on the "not-a-republican" ticket. Prejean wasn't running against a GOP presidential candidate, thus under this mindset any reason to hold back vanishes.

iamsaved - Umm. You know, there's this guy down in Kansas, Fred Phelps, that I think you'd be real good buddies with.

ArizonaNeanderthal - Civil wars suck. Bigtime. What say we not, even by implication, cheerlead for one? We may get one anyway, with this administration, but I suggest it would be a very bad thing indeed, no matter how it ends.

CDat88 - The MissUSA pageant is a private organization entitled to pick whoever it wants as judges, no matter how much you or I may agree with them. If I were told I had to choose a gay judge with a big name for the event (after getting past the "quota/token" headache), it surely wouldn't have been Perez - any of the boys from Queer Eye would have been better choices, as they know fashion/design/civility like the back of their hands. Sadly, Perez was chosen.

And violence is way to serious to expend on mere obnoxious speech. Should be saved for persons busy being physically assaultive or felonious in the general direction of self or loved ones.

Wareagle82 - As long as someone isn't actively "out to get me" or obnoxious, I (and most other LGBT folk I know) either respects you or, never having encountered you, is more or less oblivious to your existence. We've got troubles enough of our own without fretting about you.

While I disagree with many in my community about the Boy Scouts (not without qualms, but they are a private organization, entitled to come up with whatever bizarre membership requirements make them feel all warm'n'fuzzy, no matter how wrong-headed I find them) I'll address your other points.

Your family is your family, and as long as you aren't busy abusing your spouse or kids, most likely none of anyone elses business, and nobody should give you a ration about it. All we ask is that you not harass our kids (or encourage your kids to do so), not try to screw us over 'cause we're not "just like you" and we don't fit your worldview, and acknowledge that our families have the precise same rights and benefits as anyone elses.

Marriage, I've touched on repeatedly above. It's enough to say that it's not so much that we're all hot and bothered (at least most of us, and fess up, you've got your own Bridezilla's) about the big church wedding - we're mostly a whole bunch more interested in obtaining the same lega protections (and responsibilities) for our spouses, ourselves, and our children that you and your family enjoy.

Maisy - have you ever noticed the truly disproportionate number of gay men in the fashion and makeup/haircare industries? Yes, a gay man is qualified to judge a beauty contest - particularly when balanced by several other judges.

#59 - Pt#4 "Gays are stirring up anger AGAINST people who disagree with them. There haven’t been such childish demonstrations of a lost elections as there was in California under Prop 8 for a while. Gays are digging their own graves with their political uprising and I hope they keep it up. Perez is a great spokesman for the gays."

Umm. We lost. You expect we should celebrate? Or give up? Or give big warm fuzzy hugs to those that managed to amend the California Constitution to specifically exclude us, our partners, and our children from the rights, protections, and responsibilities granted everyone else in California, legally or otherwise?

Not being a victim anymore is a positive development in the mindset of the LGBT community - of course, it also means we'll fight back when someone kicks us in the slats.
___________________________________________________________________

All right, I didn't make it all the way through. It was getting too long to reasonably expect anyone here to read, and I can only take so much BS in one sitting (not to say that all comments were BS, it was just the RATIO that was painfully high).

Done.