Carrie Prejean made 15-20 sex videos and she was 20 at the time

by CynthiaYockey on November 15, 2009

MSNBC, 11/13/2009:

Visit for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

When Carrie Prejean dropped her lawsuit against the Miss California USA pageant last week, she acknowledged making only one video of herself masturbating and claimed she was 17. Saying she was 17 is convenient because it means distributing the video or possessing it is illegal because she was a minor. However, this claim forced her ex-boyfriend to go on the record to TMZ, release several photos and say she was 20-years-old in the videos. Oh, and apparently there are 15-to-20 Carrie Prejean sex videos, rather than just one. The money quote from the ex-boyfriend, “She’s not the girl she’s presenting herself to be.”

I began predicting on May 1 that Prejean lacked integrity and would make her supporters sorry. The only thing Carrie Prejean truly believes is that she can say and do anything to get what she wants.

The following is from a post I wrote on June 10 after Carrie Prejean was fired as Miss California USA:

I attended the NOM [National Organization for Marriage] press conference yesterday [April 30] and sat just a few feet away from the podium when Ms. Prejean spoke from prepared remarks. She is not in a class with Ann Coulter either for brains or beauty. My impression of her personality is that the more people get to know her, the harder it’s going to be for her to get a date or find employment.


I doubt that the National Organization for Marriage will be interested in Ms. Prejean for very much longer since she no longer has her crown and lost it by her own actions. After posing as a martyr for her integrity, it turns out that she committed career suicide through her lack of integrity. But, if NOM does continue to work with her — and they have some serious integrity issues of their own — I predict she will make them sorry sooner rather than later. I feel certain she has no idea what she did that was wrong. The School of Hard Knocks is in session for this young woman and it is not going to be pretty.

Ace of Ace of Spades HQ is classy enough to admit he feels used:

On the other hand: She knew all this stuff was out there, she knew it was coming out, etc., and yet I and many of her supporters have been impressed into duty as her defenders through deception.

Because it wasn’t ever true that there was no reason, save anti-Christian animus, to kick her out of the pageant organization. A masturbation tape is, well. I’m not really offended by it but other pageant-hopefuls have gotten the boot for the same thing, and even a lot less.

So what do I feel about her? I feel she chumped me in order to advance her own legal interests. And there’s nothing hypocritical about that, and nothing about Christianity about that, and nothing about sex about that.

It’s just dishonest, and mercenary, and I don’t appreciate it.

So, that’s that. Yes, she got a raw deal. Yes, a lot of other pageant hopefuls have sexual skeletons in the closet that never come out because the gay left in the media isn’t determined to bring them down, by hook or by kink

But still, for me, I’m very much done defending her. It’s not like it cost me a great deal to defend her — quite the opposite; taking a popular position among your political confreres is never really a costly position — but still, I feel a bit taken for a ride, and don’t really want to defend her any further.

Whether she has anything more interesting to say is up to her. But the Perez Hilton/pageant stuff? I really don’t care to hear how unfair it all was anymore. It was unfair, and a book deal was gotten out of that; that’s enough. A book deal can bandage up a lot of wounds.

And Allahpundit quotes Ace, too, and then ponders:

I’m wondering if he’s [Ace] in the minority on that or if sentiment is spreading that her defenders, in some way, have been had. I agree with him (and said so yesterday) that the left’s “hypocrisy” charge is overblown, for the simple reason that Christians don’t claim to be perfect. On the contrary, it’s the fact that they’re imperfect and prone to “stray from the path,” as we all are, that draws them towards redemption in the faith. There does, however, come a point where you stray so far from the path or so frequently that your commitment to it comes into question.

My next prediction is that it will be established as fact that Carrie Prejean’s mother is a lesbian, which will prove that she sold out her own mother for personal gain and will cast doubt on her assertion that her parents raised her to believe that marriage should only be “opposite” — in other words, just as her ex-boyfriend says, and just as I’ve said, she is not the girl she has presented herself to be.

Update, 11/15/09, Sun.: Welcome, Little Miss Attila readers, and thank you, Joy, for the link and kind words — also your quote of Tommy Christopher, who put his finger on how supporters of same-sex marriage should have responded to the National Organization for Marriage and their use of Prejean.

As for Darleen, I really do not understand why anyone thinks Prejean’s attack on gay marriage was brave or non-PC in the wake of its defeat in California — and part of the point of the pageant interview is to determine whether the contestant is able to make intelligent, diplomatic and inoffensive replies to controversial questions. Prejean’s remarks against gay marriage at the pageant were sure crowd-pleasers and triumphantly cruel and divisive  — but the fact that she was rubbing salt in a wound that was so large and so fresh when she could have given a diplomatic reply without compromising her beliefs — assuming she has any, which I do not believe — is what disqualified her from winning the Miss USA pageant.

Also — I am mystified by Darleen’s claim that conservatives keep their sex lives private. First of all, there is really no such thing as a private sex life because your sex life shapes your entire life. Do straight people really not know they are rubbing homosexuals’ noses in their sex lives every time they say, “I went on a date with (name), I am engaged to (name), my wedding …, my wife/husband, my child, Mrs.,” or they hold hands in public or show wedding photos or wear a wedding ring or a thousand other tells? It would be wonderful to have same-sex marriage equality and be able to have/do all that public stuff without risking one’s life, job or home.

Follow conservativelez on Twitter

Peter November 15, 2009 at 4:15 am

I never cared much about Ms. Prejean either way. My only point, and I’m sorry I angered you, is that I don’t believe Ms. Prejean has, or had, any bearing at all on LGTB/straight community relations.
Nor do I believe that Ms. Prejean’s parents, be they lesbian/gay, lesbian/straight, straight/gay or straight/straight did not teach her as a little girl that marriage should be between and man and a woman.
For one thing, even should Ms. Prejean’s mama turn out lesbian or asexual or bi or decided to make love to trees , what does that have to do with what she and her ex taught the kid. For that matter, I’m pretty sure the parents didn’t tell the kid “when you grow up, make a whole slew of tapes of you diddling yourself and sent them to a boyfriend whom you cannot trust.

I’m not your enemy in this fight, if fight it is. No one, in my entire life has ever asked my permission to be gay. I, however, was never in the part of government handing out marriage licenses. I was in the part that tried to prevent people from beating each other and driving around drunk. And I did a fairly good job in my part of the county.

As far as the National Organization For marriage, never heard of it. Don’t care if I ever hear of it again. My only personal questions about gay marriage is that I’ve seen a boatload of very volatile, even violent gay relationships in my day. I am not psychologist enough to know (or care) if that is simply from being (mostly young) men or if there is something else involved. But then, my knowledge of being in a lot of straight houses during their ugly times leads me to have a pretty jaundiced view of the whole durned human race. Although I’ve never been called to a domestic violence beef in the homes of our few “lifelong spinsters” out in my rural country.

Of course, no one calls 911 because everything is going just right.

Cynthia Yockey November 15, 2009 at 11:58 am


I send you love and hugs. It has been a painful and sleepless week, which has made me less gracious than I would like to be. I apologize.

The relevance of the National Organization for Marriage is that they immediately made Prejean their spokesperson after the Miss USA pageant in April. They have been very active in their opposition to same-sex marriage equality and claim credit for over-turning the new law in Maine that granted homosexuals marriage equality.

Prejean’s controversial pageant remark is based on the picture she created of her religious family teaching her that only “opposite” marriage is valid. Since the truth is very likely to be that she has been well aware of her mother’s lesbianism since her early teens, she lied about what her family is like. The important point is that she lied. I also doubt that her mother taught her to believe that the Bible condemned her (the mother’s) same-sex relationships, so that would be another lie. It’s the comprehensive lying in order to get things she wants that is the problem.

About the young male couples — I’ve read that most crime is committed by men under the age of 25, so when there are two of them and love and sex are involved, I think testosterone is mostly to blame. However, I will point out that this does illustrate how second-class citizenship is a death of a thousand cuts — really a lot of gays, especially in their teens and twenties, are estranged from their families either because they are hiding their sexual orientation from them or because their family has cut them off due to their sexual orientation. On top of this, they do not have the socializing influence that the ability to marry provides. So they are at an enormous disadvantage individually and as couples because they do not have the socializing influence of the institution of marriage and they do not have the socializing influence and emotional and financial support of their families. That’s huge. That’s what the death of a thousand cuts IS.

When I tell you about the death of a thousand cuts, Peter, as a deputy sheriff, you’ve seen the ultimate results: the dead bodies, the crime scenes, the people pouring out their stories of rage and disappointment. I promise you, equality for homosexuals will improve society and save lives.


Graumagus November 15, 2009 at 2:40 pm

The part that just has me shaking my head at all this is how bone crushingly stupid this woman truly is. At first, I commended her for speaking her mind instead of what people wanted to hear. I admire that, even if what they’re saying isn’t something I agree with…. Unless it was all a ploy to deliberately start controversy for it’s own sake. The only reason I don’t think that’s the case isn’t because I attribute any honor to this stupid bint, but because I truly don’t think she’s smart enough to pull it off on purpose.

That said, she KNEW these tapes were out there. Even wishing for the best and praying they didn’t get posted for the world to see, after one DID get used against her by the pageant’s legal team, she then lies about her age and keeps the farce going even though she knows that there’s many, MANY, more videos out there? Are you KIDDING me?!?! And if she DID start all this hoping for a book deal or something, knowing those tapes were out there makes her just that much more revoltingly brain dead.

Still think Perez Hilton is a worthless oxygen thief though 🙂

I R A Darth Aggie November 15, 2009 at 3:39 pm

I guess the lesson I’m taking away from this is if you cross the gay mafia, they’ll destroy you.

Now, if they go after The Won with this much enthusiasm…

Cynthia Yockey November 15, 2009 at 6:44 pm

I R A Darth Aggie,

So — despite the fact that all of my posts have focused on how the real guiding principle of Prejean’s behavior is to say or do whatever will get her what she wants when she wants it, and now this is catching up with her, somehow, in your mind, she bears no responsibility for the consequences of her own behavior and instead her current plight is due to the “gay mafia”?

Prejean’s entire value to the National Organization for Marriage is that the more anyone denounced her — gay or straight — the more the Right supported her and hated gays and got busy working and voting against same-sex marriage equality laws. Apparently, you are still under her spell. One more time: she is NOT the person she has presented herself as being and continuing to believe in her is going to end in tears.


Gary Ogletree November 15, 2009 at 7:12 pm

I feel bad for Carrie. She could have made something positive from all the unearned publicity. Now she seems to be a victim of her own stupidity. Best for all if she stays away from cameras and mikes.

Little Miss Attila / Joy McCann November 15, 2009 at 9:56 pm

IRA–What am I going to DO with you?

“Gay mafia.” There really are some people who truly think that, you know.
.-= Little Miss Attila / Joy McCann´s last blog ..This Is Where I Was Supposed to Be . . . =-.

Spankity November 15, 2009 at 11:02 pm

Regarding this statement:
“I’m wondering if he’s [Ace] in the minority on that or if sentiment is spreading that her defenders, in some way, have been had. ”

Here’s an eloquent, reasonable Christian observation that sums it up nicely:

Darleen Click November 15, 2009 at 11:08 pm

Hi Cynthia,

Where did I say Prejean was “brave”? I didn’t. Please don’t read what I haven’t written. I said she was un-PC in that she made a rather innocuous statement that wasn’t anti-gay in the least about marriage. I don’t see what was “cruel” about her remarks.

And I have to disagree with your assertion that sex lives are not private. Wearing a wedding band or discussing (voluntarily) being on a date with someone is not discussing a sex life. Orientation is about sexual attraction, not sexual behavior.

And a person who would find someone talking about a date (as long as the conversation was a voluntary one) as “rubbing it in the face” of someone else indicates the issue is with the person being “offended”. It’s like a vegan being offended by overhearing a co-worker discussing a planned visit to a steak house. I would suggest someone feeling the vapors over hearing someone say “I went and saw UP with [opposite sex or same sex person]” needs serious psychological help.

That is entirely different then someone approaching another person and regaling them with tales involving fur-lined handcuffs, throbbing organs and batteries.

Has the “zero tolerance” mentality so corrupted our culture that it has fully burned out that area of our brains where “common sense” used to reside??

The personal is NOT the political and there is a difference between public and private behavior and men and women are fundamentally different.

The immoral, unethical scumbag in this instance is the ex-boyfriend. In another era he would deserve being horsewhipped. This was a breach of trust most foul and there is no excuse for it.

Prejean is a pretty young thing and not much more. She’s rather silly (like a lot of people who have doors opened for them because they are attractive) and her reach certainly exceed her grasp. But that doesn’t excuse the scorched earth tactics directed against her. Oh, I know why it was done. She’s the “warning”. Like that poor lady owner/manager of the restaurant in Los Angeles who gave $100 to Prop 8 and had her restaurant, workers and customers threatened and harassed.

Prejean may be a silly bint, but those people who are savaging her in order to silence others are morally bankrupt.
.-= Darleen Click´s last blog ..A Few Good People to Operate One Good Tyranny. [JHoward] =-.

Cynthia Yockey November 16, 2009 at 12:26 am


Thank you for visiting and your thoughtful comment.

Here’s the line in your post that I interpreted to mean you were calling Prejean brave, as in, if you dare to do something, you are brave: “Now, Carrie Prejean is a sweet, young thing who found herself in the middle of a media buzzsaw because she dared to be un-PC at a pageant.”

If you think Prejean’s remarks were innocuous and not cruel, I do not feel confident that you have the capacity for empathy that would enable you to understand my explanation.

If you could lose your friends, family, home or job because people find out about your committed sexual relationship, and a wedding ring announces it, then you would be aware that wedding rings announce your sex life, which is therefore not private. If you ever had to work to truly hide every iota of evidence of your sex life, including guarding all your conversation to avoid mentions of people or activities, like dating, that would give you away, then you would be aware how absolutely public straight people are about their sex lives in thousands of ways that they get to take for granted but gay people do not. You have no idea what a hell gays who live in the closet go through. I had to live that way until I was pushing 40 and it is torment and life-damaging in every way.

I am absolutely appalled at your inability to see a different point of view.

And I am going to have to go with the Prejean as the one who is responsible for all her troubles.

The second-class citizenship that is forced on homosexuals is a death of a thousand cuts. This means the people who like to position themselves as guardians of society’s morality for forcing a minority into second-class citizenship by virtue of their ability to hijack the apparatus of the state to impose their religious teachings on the general population in order to serve the greed and lust for power of their religion in violation of our Constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state are in actual fact cold and deliberate murderers. Prejean is their spokesperson. It is Prejean and the people she represents who are, in fact, the moral bankrupts.


Dr. sipmac November 16, 2009 at 12:58 am

Correct me if I’m wrong please, but… Prejean is kind of “balloon girl”, isn’t she?
.-= Dr. sipmac´s last blog ..¡Déle al Público lo que pida! =-.

Darleen Click November 16, 2009 at 10:13 am


If you could lose your friends, family, home or job because people find out about your committed sexual relationship, and a wedding ring announces it, then you would be aware that wedding rings announce your sex life, which is therefore not private.

With all due respect, people have been known to lose friends, family home or jobs for any number of things – including political and religious views. There are any number of obnoxious, crass, rude and frankly idiotic people in this world that we have to deal with on a daily basis. This has nothing to do with empathy. It has to do with thinking, not feeling. Sexual orientation just is. The more it is treated matter-of-factly, as nothing more special than color of eyes, then that’s the way most people will deal with it.

Honestly, this is a question I’ve asked [rhetorically, in my case] previously:

So, either gays are just like everyone else (good or bad, right or left, talented or schlubs) with that one difference, or are they some exotic, alien species that needs separate and celebrated parades, university studies, bodies of literature, law and, especially, politics.

Maybe it is because I’ve been in theater and music all my life, with gay friends and my daughters also with gay friends — even to my house being the hangout for teens and my #3 daughter’s BFF from high school who I love like crazy and I had him move in with us for six months because his mom threw him out of the house for being gay and I was raised by a ultra-conservative dad who not only had gay friends in (1940s) high school (notice that? conservative has nothing to do with being anti-gay), was foresquare against the Briggs initiative and as a Master Sgt in the Army (Korea) knew who were the gays in his unit but as long as they abided by the same rules as other soldiers, was unconcerned about it.

Don’t be appalled that I take a practical POV based on reality, not feelings. Men and women are not fungible.

When a certain political faction harasses and theatens people for believing that redefining marriage, then something a lot more than just providing legal privileges is afoot.

Marriage is pre-political. It has nothing to do with the separation of church state nor with the Constitution. It is a contractual relationship that society privilege for matters of protection of children and inheritance. Now, one can legitimately debate how the state privileges the institution, but has nothing to do with people being “second class” because they cannot avail themselves of it. The state doesn’t recognize polygamy, nor adults who want to marry who are family (brother/sister, mother/son, first cousins).

I’m not religious so I don’t harbor any special feelings for or against religious views, only behavior. Someone who believes I’m going to hell because [fill in blank] is welcome to their view. No skin off my nose. If they physically attack me, physically harass me, threaten my family or my employer because of their views THEN it becomes my issue. Sticks and stones.

It’s not Prejean who violated trust issues nor physically threatens people for view points. I support marriage remaining one man/one woman AND civil unions for same/sex couples because it is about reality.
.-= Darleen Click´s last blog ..Of, By, and For the People [JHoward] =-.

Cynthia Yockey November 16, 2009 at 12:44 pm


Let me see if I understand you:

First: the thrust of your comment seems to be that that, (1), homosexuals really are not second-class citizens despite not having same-sex marriage equality and being blocked from serving openly in the military and from adopting children; and (2), the quest of homosexuals for equality is really a veiled attempt for some bad thing — I’m not sure what, perhaps the overthrow of capitalism — and must be stopped in order to prevent the bad thing.

Second: you totally missed my point about how one’s sex life is revealed in every aspect of one’s public life and did not connect with my point about empathy at all. So you really do not have the capacity for empathy. This is a big deficit. However, it is cruel to play catch with someone with no arms, so I will reframe my arguments for your intellect, which is the faculty you rely on to do the service of all the ones that you don’t have.

Third: “men and women are not fungible”? That is exactly why homosexuals seek marriage equality for same-sex partners — the right to marry an opposite sex partner means nothing to us. Without marriage equality, we do not have the 1,138 federal rights and privileges that the General Accounting Office told Congress are attached to the right to marry in its last report on the Defense of Marriage Act, to say nothing of the rights lost at the state and local levels.

Fourth: Nothing is “pre-political.”

Fifth: Regarding the separation of church and state, the coalition fighting same-sex marriage equality is almost totally driven by a coalition of churches (Catholic, Mormon and black Protestant/Black Liberation Theology churches). You may engage your fact-proof screen at full force, but the facts are that these religions are doing this to advance their own selfish goals of obtaining the maximum power and wealth for themselves by striking at anything and everything that does not lead to the maximum number of babies/followers being produced for them. What they have not been able to accomplish toward those ends through persuasion of their own followers, they seek to impose through the laws of the state.

Sixth: The rationales being offered by the religious organizations and their secular front groups now demean marriage by reducing it, as you state, to “a contractual relationship that society privilege[s] for matters of protection of children and inheritance.” Since everyone is going to die, it seems reasonable that gays ought to be allowed to have the same legal rights and privileges straights do to build a life together and on their passing, have their spouse have inheritance rights identical to those of a straight married couple. Regarding children, 20 percent of homosexual couples have children. Those children would benefit enormously from having another legal parent committed to them for life. It is a sweet little catch-22 that gays get barred from adopting the children that straight people have thrown away, then straights claim they don’t need equality because they don’t have children.

Seventh: The rationale against same-sex marriage equality now seems primarily to be that marriage is only for couples whose union is likely to produce children directly from the two persons involved. This is an insufficient reason for banning same-sex marriage equality weighed against the benefits it denies to same-sex couples — 1138 federal rights and privileges, uncounted state and local rights and privileges, and having to pay up to $500,000 more over a lifetime in taxes and legal services to obtain a status that still is far from equal to marriage — in addition to the socializing benefits and cost-savings to society of more people marrying.

BTW, the argument about marriage being for children is clearly bogus because there is no movement to bar from marriage straight couples who do not intend to have children or who cannot have children, or to dissolve the marriages of straight people who are past their child-bearing years. This is illogical.

Eighth: It shocks the conscience that one of the arguments against same-sex marriage is that not every gay or lesbian is obsequious enough to straight people when they are objecting to the all-encompassing slow-motion destruction that second-class citizenship brings down on their lives. Rather a large number of people are ungracious about being tormented and thwarted in their noblest aspirations. People who have consciences do right to others because of who THEY are and without regard to who or what the other person is, or whether they merit having right done by them. Only God is in a position to judge.

I have to get my father ready to go to the doctor, so that’s all for now.


Darleen Click November 16, 2009 at 9:08 pm

Hi Cynthia

Somehow my attempting to point out that I am FOR same-sex couples to have civil unions which would grant all the responsibilities and obligations as marriage [which is opposite sex] is not registering with you.

And you are not understanding my statement that men and women are not fungible.

Let me address the latter first. Men and women are fundamentally different. A difference that is biological and recognized by law. Hence, because the sexes are not fungible then there is a fundamental difference between a SS couple and an OS couple. That is not a judgement, that is just a recognition of reality. A table has four legs but it is not a cat.

Further, you seem eager to assume things I haven’t said. I think gays SHOULD be able to serve “openly” in the military under the same rules of non-fraternization, etc as straights. I would have thought my citation of how my father regarded gays under his command in the 1950’s for goodness sakes would have been a huge clue. As for adoption, I think SS couples can make great parents and should have the opportunity to adopt. HOWEVER, for any particular instance of public adoption there needs to be a heirarchy according to the needs of the child. IE. a child deserves first crack at a mom and a dad. Then SS couples. Then singles of any orientation. Private or religious institutionally directed adoptions do not enter into this discussion.

Fourth: Nothing is “pre-political.” That is just silly. Marriage has existed long before any political system. Indeed, the whole modern concept of “sexual orientation” and “gay” would make an ancient Greek or Roman blink in confusion. Sexual behavior in those societies had as much to do with declaration of class distinction as it did with any attraction. Let’s not get into the conceit that “modern” societies’ take on things has always existed. And marriage is similiar. IE in Roman times it was a private institution in order to secure a legitimate line of progeny. Disputes were still taken to government authorities to resolve. In our modern society, there is any number of public laws/statutes that give a default setting to relationships in order that all parties know the obligations, including the arbitrator. Landlord/tenant or inheritance. All has a “default” set of statutes that can only be superceded by individual contract (ie marriage and prenups). Look at any marriage statute on the books: one man/one woman of minimum age, outside a particular degree of consanguinity, both consenting. Do you see “love” in those statutes? Or sexual orientation? No.nope.nada. So any emotional appeal to “I have a right to marry the one I love” is a logical non-starter; because if “love” is the criteria, then no restriction on marriage can logically stand. Who are you to say that one man/two women can’t be just as in love as a SS couple?

NO reasonable person is demanding that gay (or even polyamorous) relationships be criminalized. Marriage is a public institution, like the military and not everyone will be able to meet the standards of joining.

Regarding the separation of church and state, the coalition fighting same-sex marriage equality is almost totally driven by a coalition of churches (Catholic, Mormon and black Protestant/Black Liberation Theology churches).

So? It was the religious who drove the abolition movement. It was the religious that drove the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. WHERE these people got their beliefs is immaterial. What are they asking? What is their behavior? Was it the Mormon church that published the names and addresses of contributors to the anti-Prop 8 movement and encouraged Mormons to get those people fired? To physically threaten them and their families?

Read the First Amendment again – religious people have rights to the public square.

the quest of homosexuals for equality is really a veiled attempt for some bad thing

Stop conflating equality with marriage. And not really “veiled” either. I’ll have to dig up the articles, but pre-prop 8 there were many SSM advocates who were quite open on how it was going to give them the ammunition to “finally” destroy religious organizations by having their tax exempt status stripped if they ever preached against homosexuality or refused to preform SS marriages. And you only have to look to Canada to see pastor convicted of violating human rights law for publically disagreeing with homosexuality.

Either sexual orientation is just an aspect of a person’s make up, or it is so utterly transformational that special rights, including stripping people who disagree with them of their constitutional rights, is called for.

Are you really interested in making sure SS couples have a body of law that codifies their relationship (because I am), or are you interested in using the law to punish anyone around you that dare disagree with your politics?
.-= Darleen Click´s last blog ..Of, By, and For the People [JHoward] =-.

Little Miss Attila / Joy McCann November 16, 2009 at 11:13 pm

Are you two listening to each other? I’m concerned.

Cynthia, I do not think Darleen is a homophobe, or any kind of gay-hater. I really don’t. I think her argument has two components, and I don’t agree with either of them, but one is esoteric and has to do with male energy vs. female energy–and their effect on kids, developmentally (both are, theoretically, desirable in any child’s life; I don’t think that’s controversial–surely most SS couples with kids make sure that there are adults around of the other sex–honorary uncles and aunts, godparents, etc.). The other has to do with potential “unintended consequences” if society goes the gay marriage route vs. the civil union route–that is, the effects on churches and adoption agencies if legislation is not crafted carefully.

Certainly, the fact that Darleen sees gay couples as more fit for parenthood than single parents says something.

Darleen, I think we must respect Cynthia’s position as a widow who was deprived of the state’s acceptance of her partnership for the years that she and Margaret were together. I understand that society’s roadmap doesn’t depend on any one person’s well-being, but let us grant credit where credit is due, and be sensitive to the pain that this has brought into her life. There are areas where you and Cynthia may not agree, just as she and I do not agree on everything, and you and I do not on everything, but not everyone can intellectualize every single issue to the same degree.

Certainly, we all agree that young gays need more support and resources, and that the military’s current rule needs to be revised so that service members aren’t forced to live in the closet. That should be, I think, a beginning.

The rest, I think, can be sorted out state-by-state, as solutions to Darleen’s concerns develop–and I think it can be done in a way that is respectful of people in Cynthia’s situation. (For instance, I’d like to start by fixing the “Federal benefits” problem, which I see as more important than whether gay partnerships are called “marriage.” Triage, you know.)

Let’s breathe deep, ladies, and be kind to one another. That is the most important thing.
.-= Little Miss Attila / Joy McCann´s last blog ..Aw, Come On. =-.

Darleen Click November 17, 2009 at 12:06 am

Hey Joy,

I appreciate you and your comments. I am totally unaware of Cynthia’s history or its particulars, but it does point that any committed couple should be free to designation medical, property, etc, as they see fit. Above all else I’m a little “L” libertarian who supports that each individual has the right to control their property they way they see fit.

Hard to do now-a-days in the era of Kelo, delta smelts and threatened “net neutrality”.

Certainly, young people who are gay deserve our love and support. I’ve opened my home to a man I now call “son” and who calls me “mom”. I am very proud that #4 daughter was a founding member of her high school’s GSA.

I apologize if my stance at remaining emotionally detached lead anyone to believe I have no “empathy”. I just believe wherever possible that clarity and listening to what others actually say (and not what you feel they are saying) has to come from thinking not feeling.

Indeed, clarity over agreement.
.-= Darleen Click´s last blog ..Well, Obama did say “57 states” [Darleen Click] =-.

Steve Poling November 18, 2009 at 1:20 am

I’ve been sympathetic to Ms. Prejean. And I’m still inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. But there are fewer doubts. If she were 17 when she made the tapes, then she is guilty of distributing child porn. Her former boyfriend has a strong motive to claim she was 20 b/c if she was a minor, he is guilty of a felony, else he’s merely a cad.

I can understand youthful indiscretion and bad judgment. I hope that her Christianity moved her to repent of her onanistic exertions for the camera. Happily, I’m not the judge of that matter.

Conversely, if Ms. Prejean was NOT a minor when she performed for the camera, then she’s lying NOW. And she’s saying she’s a Christian NOW. If so, that’s a moral problem for her, because the Bible puts “bearing false witness” in the 10 Commandments, but sex tapes aren’t exactly black-letter law. Though Bill Clinton rationalized perjury saying “everyone lies about sex,” Ms. Prejean is held to a non-Clintonian standard.

If Ms. Prejean had the integrity of Socrates, she’d insist that she’s guilty of distributing child porn and she’d seek her own prosecution for that crime. Few moderns have the integrity of Socrates who accepted the hemlock thrust upon him and drank every drop.
.-= Steve Poling´s last blog ..Don’t pick on Gays =-.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: