A fair assessment of Miss California's position

(AP Photo/Eric Jamison)

Miss California on the night of her "would be" crowning where she said the that she does not support same sex marriage because that "it is the way she was raised and no offence to anyone else". I know this answer disappointed Mr. Perez and many homo and hetrosexuals in people around the country alike. Many celebrity homosexuals, and perhaps a small largely unheard voice of hetrosexuals, had an immidiate reaction against her position. I think it is fair to say that she incorrect in saying that "in America people can choose same-sex marriage and opposite marriage", there is no choise. But the immidiate agitated reaction was bitter and contemptable coming from Perez Hilton and Buck from the What The Buck show on YouTube. Reacting by personal attacks against her looks and character seems to me the only thing that people can say when they can't attack a beautiful woman like her. She never said she hated homosexuals and she made it clear that is what she was saying. She said the she was not being "politically correct, she was being biblically correct", if she says she doessn't agree because she is Christian, she is correct. Yes, the bible does say in the Old Testament that god killed fags. No there is not a clear connection between that and the "love they neighbor" in the New Testament that came several years later. Several people can disconnect the two ideas while reading the Bible in order from cover to cover. So I make my point, do I hate Christians? Do I hate fags? No, but can a "holy scripture" entice someone to dislike or disapprove of the way they are treated in society? Of corse it can, depending on your interpretation of it. Even if thats not true, her opinion is still clear. That doesn't make her any less American by saying what she said. There no doubt that marriage in America was brought about because of Christianity. I feel sorry for anyone that can't stomach the fact that marriage is a religious institution that was allowed into the legal system and is innately prejusdice against others. In this instance, I can't help but say that the Muslims and the Mormons are quite generous for not getting upset at this on this point. It is their belief to allow the practice of polygamy, it is legal by means through their eyes of their god. How would the Federal Law treat these people which should have no authority to judge? Prison time, a prison time that allows only a mandatory sentence and no chance for parol. A sentence that is sure to tear families apart as in, the recent past, namely Texas and occasionally in Utah against people that are only practicing their religious beliefs. The remedy is to get rid of the institution of marriage completely from our legal system that has so corrupted family ties, showed prejudices in many forms, and ultimately is a religious institution that does not belong outside of a church to begin with. Thomas Jefferson said the reason we have in the First Amentment to the Constitution, is to have a "wall of separation between church and state". To remedy the problem of discrimination, shift everything over to civil unions and make it the dominant form of a legal institution that is run by the Judicial system. With civil unions, allow gays to join hands and religious members to practice their beliefs. I think this goes beyond the capacity and means of a beautiful California Pagent whos only interest should be on the crown, not the gays. What has she said that will really impact weather or not people will actually make a law or not? When you answer this question, I think thats exactly the point I'm trying to make. What she says will not dictate weather gays get their marriage or not. What she says does not make her any less American than you or I weather we see eye to eye on an issue or not. And finally, If she says that she is being "biblically correct" I rest my case. My faith is just as high to defend her rights to my death to believe what I do, as her right to belive. With that said, I rest my case.