National Organization for Marriage

On April 11, 2009, someone posted a link to the National Organization for Marriage to a message board.  The original article he was referencing is no longer available.

Someone else wrote:

This thread makes no sense whatsoever.

A third person said:

Let me try to break it down for you. A Catholic group opposes same-sex marriage. Ex makes a plea to the Republican Party to silence private citizens with no apparent affiliation to the party. Ummmm.....

Never mind, you are right.

The original poster responded with this:

Not a Catholic group. Stetson, who's undoubtedly bankrolling it, is a pretty prominent Chuck Colsonite and party member. Admittedly, the thread is a result of posting while drunk, though.

Here is some information on them:

The Bible and Its Influence is a textbook first published in 2005 to facilitate teaching about the Bible in American public high schools. Its publishers, the Bible Literacy Project, say the textbook allows schools to study the Bible academically while fully respecting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It is designed for teaching either a semester course or a full-year course on the literary and historical influence of the Bible.

The development took over five years, at a cost of $2 million, with contributions from 40 evangelical, Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish and secular experts and scholars.

Co-author Charles Stetson is a Christian Evangelical educational political activist. Stetson serves as chairman of the "Bible Literacy Project", an organization which strives to introduce Christian beliefs into the American public school system. Stetson was also one of the founding members of the National Organization for Marriage, a group dedicated to blocking the legalization of same-sex marriage in the US. Stetson was also long affiliated with Charles Colson.

On April 13th I wrote this:

Yes, the issue would be much simpler if there were no consequences of sexual relationships.

I do have to give Vermont credit for passing same-sex marriage through legitimate and legal processes. I just wonder if the general public supports it at the same high rate as the veto-proof legislators.

The original poster responded to me:

Should they have to support it by 2:1? It's hilarious how the spin goes that the override "squeaked by" (at 100:49).

Then I wrote:

Did they know they were electing a governor opposed to same-sex marriage? A simple majority is fine as long as the governor agrees to it. I thought 80 to 90% of the legislators supported it, but I guess that was only in the Senate. I was just thinking that the vote in the legislator should resemble the views of the population and I wasn't sure if that was enough to override the veto, but perhaps that is swaying too far away towards Democracy.

Of course in a federal republic with a representative democracy, the legislature should represent the views of the voters.  One of the reasons for separating from Great Britain was taxation without representation.

Here is some information on the marriage legislation in Vermont:

The State Senate approved same-sex marriage legislation on March 23, 2009, and Governor Jim Douglas threatened to veto it.  On April 3, the State House passed an amended version of the bill 94–52, several votes shy of a veto-proof two-thirds majority.  On April 6, 2009, the Senate approved the amendments made by the House, and the Governor vetoed the legislation as promised.  On April 7, 2009, the Senate overrode the veto by a 23–5 vote and the House overrode it 100–49.

Since September 2009, the definition of marriage in the state of Vermont has been the following:

Marriage is the legally recognized union of two people.

Miss California Sparks Furor With Gay Marriage Comments

On April 20, 2009, someone posted a Fox News article about the 58th Miss USA pageant to a message board.

I responded with this:

I considered starting this topic, but I see it already was made. So Mario Lavandeira gets to be a judge because of his popular gossip blog? If this really is the first time the audience has booed, then it is an interesting justification for not letting her win. My guess is he considers anyone a bigot who wants marriage only between opposite sex partners. If I were to answer the question, part of my response would be that at least the Vermont legislatures followed a rational approach and it wasn't imposed on the state.

On April 24, 2009, Politico had an article about the controversy:

After getting booed by the beauty pageant crowd and berated by one of the contest judges on Sunday, Carrie Prejean is suddenly a conservative sensation, a poster girl for the right who has bloggers, talk show hosts and Republican pols singing her praises.

Blogger Mario Lavandeira uses the pseudonym of Perez Hilton.  As a pageant judge he asked:

Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?

Miss California Carrie Prejean answered this:

Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I think I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.

Her answer is confusing because in the first part where she mentions "Americans" and "land" it sounds like she is endorsing same-sex marriage and saying that people should choose which type of marriage they participate in.  However, in the second part she says "in my country" and that marriage should remain as one man and one woman.

Here is a poor quality video showing the question and answer:

It sounds like the audience is cheering and clapping.

I think the three states prior to Vermont were: Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa.  All three of those were forced to accept it because of a court ruling.  Vermont was the first that approved it through the legislature.

"Donald Trump, who owned most of the Miss Universe Organization at the time and who is now President of the United States, defended Prejean's answer, saying that 'Miss California has done a wonderful job' and that 'It wasn't a bad answer, that was simply her belief.' He then added that the question was 'a bit unlucky' and that no matter which way she answered the question 'she was going to get killed.' He later stated: 'It's the same answer that the president of the United States gave. She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her heart.'"

Kristen Dalton from North Carolina was the winner, but Carrie Prejean was the 1st runner-up.

In 2009 Prejean wrote a memoir Still Standing: The Untold Story of My Fight Against Gossip, Hate, and Political Attacks.

In 2010 she married former NFL quarterback Kyle Boller in San Diego and took his surname.  They have two children.