Thursday, April 23, 2009
Miss California 2009
When did we reach the point that espousing what has been the view of civilized society for the past 5,000 years is suddenly considered “controversial”? It seems like only a few years ago that were told that we had to be more “tolerant” of the homosexual lifestyle. Most of us were willing to do that. Then it wasn’t enough to just tolerate them, we had to “accept” them. Then companies had to go bankrupt to offer them “domestic partner” health insurance benefits. (Anyone remember the expressions Moral Hazard and Adverse Selection from Economics class?) Then it was a call for “civil unions” which rapidly escalated to a call for full marital benefits. Now we have Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. (AKA Perez Hilton), throwing a hissy because Miss California dared to express an opinion that deviated from the party line after he ambushed her. He then proceeded to attack her on the most vile and personal level that would never be tolerated if it were directed at him. Now the pinheads from Access Hollywood have (light)weighed in on the subject as well. And E-Network chick Guilianna Rancic twittered to no one in particular that as a "journalist" she was sick to her stomach and couldn't stand this contestant!!! Then the guy who ran the Miss California pageant couldn't hide his displeasure on a tv interview with her view on gay marriage - basically saying somtimes these "mistakes" happen at pageants. Once again, I’m confused. When did this collosol shift in mores occur. And by the way - aren’t the liberals always preaching to us that we are the ones who need to be tolerant of opposing viewpoints?