Right Minded Online

Pageant officials finally figured out a way to give former Miss California Carrie Prejean the boot and install a new Miss California. Trouble is, the new Miss California shares the same view of same-sex marriage as her predecessor. Maybe pageant officials can figure out a way to give this one the heave-ho and find a Miss California who does believe in same-sex marriage.

Tami Farrell, the newly crowned beauty queen who is replacing the ousted Carrie Prejean as Miss California, apparently holds the same view as her predecessor, Carrie Prejean, and President Obama that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Fox News host Neil Cavuto asked Farrell, who is Christian, on his show today:

“[Prejean] went out and said that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Do you share that view?”

Farrell responded in the affirmative with a simple, “Uh huh.”

“You do, OK,” said Cavuto.

Farrell quickly added: “I don’t think that I have the right or anybody has a right to tell somebody who they can or can’t love. And I think that this is a civil rights issue. And I think that the right thing to do is let the voters decide.”

Prediction: California pageant officials will figure out a way to make same-sex marriage advocacy a litmus test for future pageant winners. This will probably happen in other states, too.

New Miss California: Marriage between man, woman.

In the wake of harrassing Proposition 8 donors in California, gay-rights activists are planning on publishing the names of those who sign petitions in opposition to same-sex partnerships.

A group called WhoSigned.org says it will publicize the names of people signing petitions for Referendum 71, which seeks a public vote to overturn a new expansion of Washington’s same-sex partnerships.

WhoSigned.org says it’s partnering with the gay rights group KnowThyNeighbor.org to put the names online.

In a statement Monday, WhoSigned.org says it expects people who see the names online to contact the signers for what may be uncomfortable talks about gay rights.

Yet they will tell us we need to be tolerant.

Michelle Malkin » Gay marriage mob harasses petition-signers in Washington state.

The California Supreme Court, in a surprising 6-1 ruling, has upheld the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

California high court upholds gay marriage ban – Yahoo! News.

Had Carrie Prejean won last month’s Miss USA pageant, she likely wouldn’t be as famous as she is for not winning it. Prejean, representing the state of California, has gotten a lot more airtime than the eventual winner. I honestly can’t name the winner. I could look it up, but it doesn’t really matter.

What does matter is that Miss Prejean was confronted during the April 20 pageant with a politically-charged question regarding same-sex marriage. Her answer shocked the amazingly thin-skinned entertainment world: “We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. 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.”

The audience responded with some boos, but mostly cheers. Regardless, her fate was sealed at that moment. She would not win.

Prejean later told NBC, “I knew at that moment, after I’d answered the question, I knew that I was not going to win because of my answer – because I had spoken from my heart, from my beliefs, and for my God.”

Pageant judge Perez Hilton, a gay-rights activist who proclaims himself “queen of all media,” called the answer “the worst answer in pageant history.”

In a video blog on his website, Hilton remarked, “She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage, she lost because she’s a dumb b****!”

That, in a nutshell, is the kind of ”tolerance” same-sex marriage supporters have become famous for.

Similarly, Scott Ihrig, a gay man who attended the pageant with his partner, remarked “It’s ugly. 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.”

Oddly, Miss Prejean’s view of marriage is identical to that of a more noted leftist: President Barack Obama. During his forum with Pastor Rick Warren last year, the soon-to-be president was asked to define marriage. Here’s what he said: ”I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Carrie Prejean’s view of marriage is also consistent with the majority of Americans. To date, constitutional amendments limiting marriage to one man and one woman have been on the ballot in 29 states, and the voters in every single state have approved them, including the state of California, which isn’t exactly known for its conservatism.

In the last 4 weeks, Prejean and her family have been hounded by the media and gay-rights activist, even receiving a death threat, but have also been buoyed by fellow Christians.

Her pastor, Miles McPherson of the Rock Church in San Diego, went on The O’Reilly Factor two weeks ago to discuss the post-pageant fallout. ”She honored her God,” he remarked, “and that strength is what’s keeping her going today, and she’s not going to back down.”

McPherson noted that a lot of people support Prejean, but are being quiet about it. “People are scared to stand up. Everyone is so intimidated to say anything against the gay agenda. We don’t have the freedom of speech anymore.”

Bill O’Reilly called the backlash against Carrie Prejean “a shocking display of hatred and un-American sentiment. This woman is an American citizen and does not deserve to have her life ruined.”

Prejean has stood by her comments. “I wouldn’t have answered differently,” she told The Today Show’s Matt Lauer. “It’s not about being politically correct. For me, it was being Biblically correct. When I’m asked a specific question, I’m going to give a specific answer. I’m not going to stand in the middle. I’m going to take one side or the other. I was true to myself, and I know now I can go out and speak to young people about standing up for what you believe in and never compromising anything, for anyone or anything, even if it is the crown of Miss USA.”

In an interview with Fox News, she described what happened to her as a spiritual test. “This happened for a reason. By having to answer that question in front of a national audience, God was testing my character and faith.”

It inevitably cost her the crown she had wanted so dearly, but Carrie Prejean no doubt fared much better in the eyes of the greatest judge of all.

Michelle Malkin reports that “Gossip blogger/barrel-scraper Perez Hilton was a judge at the Miss USA pageant last night. He asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, whether she supported legalizing gay marriage. Prejean answered respectfully that she disagreed with the legalization movement, but supported states’ rights to put the question up for a vote. She was booed. Hilton responded by calling Prejean a ‘dumb b*tch.’”

Where are the feminists?

Michelle Malkin » Gossip blogger/pageant judge calls contestant “dumb b*tch” over gay marriage question.

It continues to befuddle me that on the one hand the left demands tolerance from others for every and all manner of debauchery, but reacts with vitriolic intolerance toward those who uphold Biblical morality.

If there is a YouTube moment from Sunday’s show, it may be Miss California’s answer to a question about legalizing same-sex 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.”

iphone.foxnews.com.

So much for “the will of the people.”

Iowa’s Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state — and first in the nation’s heartland — to allow same-sex couples to wed.

Iowa joins only Massachusetts and Connecticut in permitting same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California’s high court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.

The Iowa justices upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman.

Iowa Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage.

I’m stunned that the liberal paper-of-record has actually reported this. Perhaps this really is the era of hope and change.

FOR the backers of Proposition 8, the state ballot measure to stop single-sex couples from marrying in California, victory has been soured by the ugly specter of intimidation.

Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance, and their businesses have been boycotted.

Ah, liberal tolerance at its best.

Michelle Malkin » NYTimes finally acknowledges that anti-Prop. 8 mob is harassing traditional marriage supporters.

Barack Obama has created a controversy, not on the right, but on the left, for choosing Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration. Warren is the pastor of Saddleback Church in California, where he hosted a forum for Obama and John McCain back in August. Obama has defended his choice of Warren because he wants the event to reflect diverse views.

That’s all well and good, but the left has reacted to Obama’s choice of Rick Warren with indignation. You see, liberals have this great fear that Rick Warren will utter the name of “Jesus Christ” during his invocation, and that prospect has them tied in knots. Back in 2001, Reverends Franklin Graham and Kirbyjon Caldwell were criticized for invoking Christ at George W. Bush’s inauguration, and even prompted a lawsuit from infamous busybody atheist Michael Newdow, who is better known for attempting to have the words “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

But there is another reason why Rick Warren is being targeted by the left. It has to do with the fact that he favored California’s Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment that limits marriage to one man and one woman. Voters approved Proposition 8 on Election Day by a 52-48% margin, and gay rights activists haven’t gotten over it.

The Human Rights Campaign, which the Associated Press calls “the nation’s largest gay rights organization,” says Warren’s opposition to gay marriage is a sign of intolerance.

Pot, meet kettle.

Gay rights activists, in the aftermath of the Proposition 8 vote, have written the book on intolerance. But it’s typical of liberals to demand tolerance for all manner of debauchery, while showing zero tolerance toward those who have different beliefs.

Within days after California’s passage of Proposition 8, gay rights activists were so distraught over losing at the polls that some of them actually threatened violence against churches and those who supported the constitutional amendment.

After it was learned that California’s black voters helped push Proposition 8 over the top (yes, the same black voters who voted 95% for Obama also voted 70% for the marriage amendment), actress and liberal activist Roseanne Barr wrote on her blog that “[Black voters] showed themselves every inch as bigoted and ignorant as their white christian right wing counterpartners who voted for mccain-palin and bush-cheney.”

The anti-Proposition 8 crowd ended up taking the brunt of their fury out on the Mormon Church, which heavily supported the amendment, but Christians have been targeted, too.

One individual who attended a gathering of Christians in San Francisco’s Castro district — a gathering that had nothing to do with Proposition 8 — just days after Election Day, describes how they were treated by a mob of gay rights activists (as cited on MichelleMalkin.com):

“Then a crowd started gathering. We began to sing ‘Amazing Grace,’ and basically sang that song the whole night. (At some points we also sang ‘Nothing but the Blood of Jesus’ and ‘Oh the Blood of Jesus.’) At first, they just shouted at us, using crude, rude, and foul language and calling us names like ‘haters’ and ‘bigots.’ Since it was a long night, I can’t even begin to remember all of the things that were shouted and/or chanted at us. Then, they started throwing hot coffee, soda and alcohol on us and spitting (and maybe even peeing) on us. Then, a group of guys surrounded us with whistles, and blasted them inches away from our ears continually. Then, they started getting violent and started shoving us. At one point a man tried to steal one of our Bibles. Chrisdene noticed, so she walked up to him and said ‘Hey, that’s not yours, can you please give it back?’ He responded by hitting her on the head with the Bible, shoving her to the ground, and kicking her. I called the cops, and when they got there, they pulled her out of the circle and asked her if she wanted to press charges. She said ‘No, tell him I forgive him.’”

What happened to Margie Christoffersen is another example of the type of “tolerance” gay rights activists show toward those who believe differently. Christoffersen was a manager at El Coyote, a Beverly Boulevard landmark restaurant that used to enjoy a large clientele. Many of those customers were gay, and Christoffersen, a devout Mormon, donated $100 in support of Proposition 8. She never advertised her politics or religion in the restaurant, but her donation eventually showed up on a donor list, and El Coyote became a target. A boycott was organized on the Internet, with activists trashing El Coyote on restaurant review sites. Then came protesters, some of them shouting “shame on you” at customers. The police arrived in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob.

Says Christoffersen, “I’ve almost had a nervous breakdown. It’s been the worst thing that’s ever happened to me.”

Even though liberals made a clean sweep on Election Day, winning the White House and increasing their majorities in both the House and Senate, they’re just as angry as ever. So when gay rights activists scoff at Barack Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to deliver the inauguration invocation because of his intolerance toward them, just remember that gay rights activists, and liberals in general, demand tolerance for themselves, but have proven themselves wholly unwilling to show tolerance toward others.

The tolerance police continue to stir up trouble over the choice of Rick Warren to deliver Barack Obama’s inauguration prayer, with liberals worried sick over the prospect that Rick Warren might invoke the name of Christ during his prayer. These are the same people, of course, who demand tolerance from everyone else.

Evangelicals generally expect their clergymen to use Jesus name whenever and wherever they lead prayer. Many conservative Christians say cultural sensitivity goes way too far if it requires religious leaders to hide their beliefs.

“If Rick Warren does not pray in Jesus’ name, some folks are going to be very disappointed,” Caldwell said in a recent phone interview. “Since hes evangelical, his own tribe, if you will, will have some angst if he does not do that.”

Advocates for gay rights protested Obama’s decision to give Warren a prominent role at the swearing-in. The California megachurch founder supported Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in his home state. Obama defended his choice, saying he wanted the event to reflect diverse views and insisting he remains a “fierce advocate” of equal rights for gays.

The thing is, gays already have equal rights in the U.S. — even the right to marry. Any gay man can marry any woman who agrees to it, and vice versa, which is the same right heterosexuals enjoy.

Warren’s inauguration prayer could draw more ire – Yahoo News.

California’s Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment limiting marriage in that state to one man and one woman, was approved by the voters 52-48% on Election Day. Since then, the gay-rights crowd has behaved with predictable anger and rage, and now the approved constitutional amendment is headed to court where it may be struck down. Folks, in a sane world, you know, a world without liberals, a constitutional amendment is considered part of the constitution. You cannot strike down a constitutional amendment, because passing a constitutional amendment by definition makes it constitutional. But we’re not operating in a sane world these days, so who knows what will happen?

In a related post, Michelle Malkin points out that the gay-rights crowd isn’t interested merely in equal rights or eliminating discrimination. They instead want to force their deviant behavior on everyone else, as evidenced by the eHarmony case.

Gay-rights activists are still aflame over the passage of California’s Proposition 8, as chronicled by Michelle Malkin on her blog. And I thought the Obamessiah was going to heal our broken souls.

Unfortunately, the left isn’t quite as gracious in defeat. Gay-rights activists continue to protest the passage of California’s Proposition 8, and are taking the brunt of their fury out on the Mormon Church. But they aren’t restricting their protests to the state of California. They are protesting from coast-to-coast. Even though liberals came away with a clean sweep on Election Day, they are as angry as they’ve ever been.

You’d think that American liberals might actually be happy for at least a short period of time since Democrats swept the national elections just nine days ago, but the rage goes on over the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Of course, you don’t see conservatives enraged over the fact that a socialist with terrorist friends just got elected president, or that the Democrats increased their majorities in both the House and Senate. But something doesn’t go the left’s way at the ballot box, and their short-fuses get lit. What’s ironic is that Proposition 8, which passed 52-48%, was apparently pushed over the top by the state’s black voters, and liberals, who consistently accuse the right of racism, are attacking black voters — the same black voters who voted 95% for Obama — for providing the margin of victory for Proposition 8.

Opponents of California’s Proposition 8, which limits marriage to one man and one woman, are so distraught over losing at the polls that some of them are actually threatening violence against churches and those who supported the constitutional amendment. It’s the latest illustration of just how tolerant and peaceful unhinged liberals really are.

In California, which has already performed a number of same-sex marriages, voters have approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Similar amendments were also approved in Florida, and in Arizona, where the amendment failed to pass just two years ago.

California voters approve gay-marriage ban – Yahoo News

For all the talk about Christians and their intolerance, the left sure is intolerant of Christians. Despite the commonly-held stereotype that evangelicals want to force our beliefs onto others, in reality, it’s the other way around.

Two lesbian couples who were denied permission to use a church group’s seaside pavilion for civil-union ceremonies have persuaded New Jersey officials to punish the group through revocation of its tax-exempt status. Proposed federal legislation could accelerate that trend.

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association owns the boardwalk pavilion that is a popular spot for weddings.

A spokesman for the gay-activist group Garden State Equality said the state didn’t go far enough, and may ask a court to revoke the tax exemption for all of the boardwalk and land, which the Methodist group has owned since 1870, according to The Associated Press.

As it stands, the change may cost the Methodists an estimated $175 a year for just the pavilion. But both sides say it’s about the principle.

“We’re happy, but there’s a lot more happiness to be had,” said Steve Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Equality.

The Methodists say they are following deeply held religious beliefs laid out in their Church Book of Discipline.

[Link]

Focus on the Family reported yesterday on intimidation tactics same-sex marriage advocates are using on supporters of state marriage amendments around the country.

People in Colorado, Arizona, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wisconsin are just 26 days away from deciding the fate of amendments to protect marriage.

In Wisconsin, proponents of traditional marriage find themselves the target of intimidation and harassment tactics utilized by their opponents, according to Julaine Appling, executive director of the Wisconsin Family Research Institute — and a leader of the Vote Yes for Marriage campaign.

“What we should be debating here in Wisconsin,” she said, “is: What does this amendment do? What will happen in if we don’t put this amendment in place? What will Wisconsin look like if we give people who want to redefine marriage the opportunity to do so, by not putting the amendment in place?”

Instead, gay activists have used the press to make personal insults against Appling — accusing her of everything from being a liar to being a lesbian.

…

The examples of harassment run the gamut from the frustrating to the downright creepy.

It was frustrating, for instance, when a pro-marriage amendment display in the public library of a Madison suburb was vandalized.

“Thirty-six hours after the display went up it was vandalized,” she said. “People inside the library took the words off the display, but left the pictures. Well, the pictures without the words were meaningless, so we were robbed of our freedom of expression.”

…

But most seriously of all, threatening phone calls have been made to people working in support of the amendment.

“These are phone calls that should never have been made,” she said, “that were completely inappropriate; filled with foul language, and very threatening messages given to the recipients.”

…

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality said what is happening in Wisconsin is happening in other places as well.

“Gay activism has an ‘end-justifies-the-means’ mentality,” he said. “You just have to shake it off and go on your way, because we cannot let these thugs intimidate us from doing what’s right.”

Bill Hobbs has written the best short summary of the Tennessee marriage amendment that I have ever read.

The Tennessean has a page-one story exploring the debate over the proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would define marriage as involving one man and one woman. I’ll repeat what I’ve said before: voter approval of the amendment will not take away any rights or discriminate against any individuals in Tennessee. After it passes, just like before, all unmarried adults – gay or straight – will have the identical marriage right in Tennessee: the right to be married to one person of the opposite gender. The amendment also makes it impossible for five unelected state Supreme Court justices to change the definition of marriage in Tennessee against the expressed wishes of the people of Tennessee.

That one just landed in the upper deck.

A commenter named “Thogek” made an appearance yesterday and asserted that “I don’t believe that anyone is suggesting that those who hold deep religious beliefs should be discriminated against. Only that they, as per the U.S. Constitution, not be permitted to force those religious beliefs (such as their senses of morality) onto others who do not share them.” Okay, fine. Thogek remarked that one person I had referenced in the original post, Jeff King, sounded rather foolish for remarking that “The homosexuals are trying basically to establish a legal right, a civil right, for immoral acts. If this happens then they can use that as a bludgeon against the church.”

But those things that Jeff King warned against are already happening. In a post I made on July 16, “A collision course between church and state,” I linked to a Maggie Gallagher article, “Banned in Boston.” In that article, Gallagher tells the story of Catholic Charities of Boston, which decided to terminate its adoption services because it could not get a religious exemption which would have allowed the agency to refuse to place children with same-sex couples. It’s a long story, but here’s how it ended:

From there, it was only a short step to the headline “State Putting Church Out of Adoption Business,” which ran over an opinion piece in the Boston Globe by John Garvey, dean of Boston College Law School. It’s worth underscoring that Catholic Charities’ problem with the state didn’t hinge on its receipt of public money. Ron Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, agreed with Garvey’s assessment: “Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples.”

This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be theoretical. How could Adam and Steve’s marriage possibly hurt anyone else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage.

So who is right? Is the fate of Catholic Charities of Boston an aberration or a sign of things to come?