No surprise here

From The Politico:

President Barack Obama ended up in the middle of an unlikely controversy this morning — the debate over Miss California’s position on gay marriage.

At a press conference addressing Carrie Prejean’s disputed title in the Miss USA competition, pageant owner Donald Trump compared Prejean’s stated views on gay marriage to Obama’s.

“It's the same answer that the president of the United States gave,” Trump said. “She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her heart.”

In her own remarks moments later, Prejean echoed Trump’s statement, telling reporters: “The president of the United States, the secretary of state, and many Americans agree with me in this belief.”

In the final round of the Miss USA pageant, Prejean told judge Perez Hilton: “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.”

Mr Trump and Miss Prejean are both correct. Barack Obama did express almost exactly the same views during the primaries. If this causes Perez Hilton to think that Carrie Prejean is a "dumb bitch" I wonder if he also thinks that Barack Obama is a "dumb nigger" for believing the same thing?

Did Mr. Hilton want to run up on the stage when Obama was being sworn in and slap the bible out of Chief Justice Roberts' hand?

The fact is that I don't remember hearing anything about Perez Hilton launching an obscene tirade, or any other type of criticism, against Obama when he defined marriage in exactly the same way as Miss Prejean.

So how about it Hilton. Are you just going to spew your venom at a 22-year-old beauty pageant contestant when she didn't say anything different than the President? Let's hear you use the same kind of language to describe President Obama.

Or are you a disgusting, filthy coward afraid to go after anyone who you think might be able to fight back?

New York to recognize homosexual "marriages"

From The New York Times:

ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”

The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as “a strong step toward marriage equality.” And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.

What will be interesting to see is how the people of New York state receive this bit of news. Legalized homosexual "marriage" is the harbinger of the death of the institution of true marriage. It is not that the sight of two men or two women standing at the alter will cause a heterosexual couple to divorce, or not marry in the first place. Rather it is that when a culture's moral values degenerate to the point where it is willing to redefine marriage in that way it is an infallible signal that marriage is no longer truly valued.

Society is nothing more than a complex network of human relationships. Since marriage is the foundational relationship weakening it serves to weaken the entire society. Imagine if the reinforced concrete which makes up the foundation of the Empire State Building were to be replaced with sandstone. The results would look like the aftermath of 9/11.

In every case in the US in which a state has legalized homosexual marriage, or in this case recognized same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, it has not come as a result of a referendum in which the people were allowed to vote on the issue directly. Nor has it come about because a state legislature, composed of the elected representatives of the people, has voted on the issue.

In every case it is the judiciary which has imposed homosexual marriage on an unwilling population. In every state where the people have had the opportunity to speak directly on the issue they have rejected homosexual marriage by large margins. This indicates that the moral rot has not spread so far that our culture is beyond repair. However effective steps must be taken to rein in these out of control judges.