The other week the National Organization for Marriage ran an ad showcasing front and center how the left bullies, demonizes and belittles those who are guilty of nothing more than expressing an opinion (which is a freedom in this country under the 1st #$%@#$ Amendment for FREE SPEECH!)

Well, I guess Perez couldn’t handle the mirror put up to his bigot face and has been all over the place forcing YouTube to take down the video by stating its a violation of copyright. Ummm, WTF? Please, it’s only a copyright violation in his eyes because he’s being called out (properly) on his obnoxious behavior which is inappropriate and typical of the far left loons.  I didn’t see him claiming copyright when NBC’s The Today Show (and other liberal MSM) ran the EXACT same clip but then interviewed him or Miss California Carrie Prejean immediately afterward.

But now a knight on a white horse all rode up in Patterico as he calls Perez’s bluff.  (via Ace via Patterico)

It is clear that Hilton is embarrassed by what he said, and he is using a transparently frivolous copyright claim to try to squelch free speech about his ridiculous statements.

I’m not standing for it.

If Hilton sends me a DMCA takedown notice, I’m going to fight it — and I may sue him. I have never seen a clearer example of fair use in my life. The video shows a mere three seconds of Hilton calling Prejean a “dumb bitch” (the word is bleeped out). Later, there is a one-second clip of the same video confined to a small box at the bottom right-hand portion of the screen, as the announcer intones: “They want to silence opposition.” He had no idea how right he was.

Ooooooooooooh, snap! It’s a fight. A fight. Between the left and right!

Dare I say I’ve acquired another internet crush a la Steven Crowder and Michael Yon???? I’m sure liberals would challenge me when I say that these are real men women admire as opposed to sniveling weasels like Perez, Keith and that Daily Kos monkeyboy. (rolling eyes) Yes, liberals…I’d much prefer a guy who wants me to be near the underage limit (a la Keith) and to just sit there with my mouth shut making sure I don’t do anything feministic like voice a mature, intelligent opinion based on facts. You know, as opposed to conservative men who can appreciate an ALPHA Female (and a boisterous one at that). Go Democrats for women’s rights!

Anyworthlessnitwit, I guess the Keith-Olbermann-defined Intellectual Titan can’t handle it when the pressure comes back to his dumb biaytch comment in full force. Riddle me this – if you’re an intellectual titan shouldn’t you be able to handle with class and maturity a little intellectual opposition? Hmmmm…..

Here’s the video…if you’ve got a blog, Facebook page or twitter account – post aaaaaaaaaway, maties!

Honestly, does he believe it would have been better for her to lie in order to win the title? Is that what this society is coming to – betray your individualism in order to get ahead?

Why should a beauty pageant contestant leave out her own beliefs in the interview round? That’s what 40% of beauty pageants are – your platform and interview.  I guess Miss California should have just pushed her individual perspective aside for the others she “might” offend. (eyes rolling). And she did give a politically correct answer – if you listen to the entire answer and not cherry pick it to use as a distraction tangent for a baseless argument.

It’s unfortunate that liberals continue to play from the standard persuasive tactic of “your viewpoint must cater to mine despite your individualism because your perspective might be offensive to me despite the fact my perspective could be offensive to you.” Then the mask that “PC” attitude and try to pass it off as tolerance or fighting for equality. They’re not fighting for compassion and tolerance. They’re fighting for forcing/oppressing others who disagree into solidarity.

And keep this in mind – because this is really a gas. That all of this (talk about equality, being inclusive, and not alienating citizens of differing choices in lifestyles, opinion and politics) is coming from a jackass who makes his living by harassing (and outing) in-the-closet homosexuals to proclaim their homosexuality in a public fashion, insinuates drug use by drawing dots of ‘cocaine’ under photos of celebrities without any actual evidence, and draws phallic symbols to degrade women as nothing but whores  - all the while he ducks behind a computer at the local coffee shop.

Yeah, I’m SOOOOOOOOOOO with this judgmental liberal on this whole tolerance thing. Pffffffffff.  If the gay marriage movement did something right, they’d put this clown in the closet because he is doing nothing good for their cause. I’ve spoken with intelligent gay marriage advocates and this guy isn’t one of them – ummm, Trust.

He’s coming across as a sniveling, immature brat who just isn’t getting his way, not as a mature adult who’s an intellectual advocate on the debate of this hot political issues.

Oh, now wait – the obligatory example of “tolerance” from the liberal-smearanyconservativeonanylie-”progressive”

But guess what, calling those who hold an opposing opinion “dumb bitch(es)”- that’s the REAL way to uniting people together. Pfffffffffff. O-okay, you whiny nitwit. It’s guys like this that come to mind when my gay guy friends tell me they have a hard time finding a great guy to date (that and the lack of gay guys who are I guess super KU fans).

If you’re going to ask a controversial question, then you should have the maturity to expect the answer may not suit you. And when it doesn’t that’s not a free pass to act like a 2-year-old with a temper tantrum just because you’ve got a webcam pointed at your face.

I admire a supporter of gay marriage more when they treat those who oppose their greatest political desire with the same respect they wish to be given. I mean I wish everyone could accept that I am the supermodel-turned-actress-turned-songtress the world is missing (Sasshay-Shante!) but just because they might disagree doesn’t mean they are a “dumb bitch.” And while my supermodel day dreams are not as essential to our societal fabric the same way the gay marriage debate is, it does speak to the heart of how to earn (yes, EARN) the understanding, compassion and respect of those whose views are not in alignment with your own.

It’s bigots like Perez who hide behind a mask of anonymity and playground insults because they are the ones who are the true cowards of having a real, adult discussion.

UPDATE: Andrea Tantaros brings up an EXCELLENT point:

The double standard is astounding.

I didn’t hear the outrage when Joe Biden said that he and Barack Obama are against gay marriage. No incendiary language, no insults, no four letter obscenities.

Why is it acceptable for Obama and Biden to have this opinion but not a conservative female? And where are the women’s rights and feminist groups to speak out against this kind of language? Or gay rights groups to denounce this clown because he does nothing to advance their agenda of tolerance? The same place they were when other females who possessed traditional values or beliefs like Sarah Palin exercised their right to free speech and expressed these views: they’re nowhere to be found.

This is what I brought up in my earlier post about the US’s current quagmire on Gay Marriage:

But a civil discussion, on the debate of gay marriage, just isn’t sexy enough for CNN when they can put out the stereotype of Cletus the ‘redneck hick who done don’t know no bett’r.’ Cause right, all evangelicals are a). never articulate or use logic in their reasoning, and b). are always the “only” ones who oppose gay marriage statutes (eyes rolling). A lot of fellow Democrats sure had to vote for California’s Prop. 8 in order for it to pass, but I loooooove how that is never reported.

And just for the record, here’s what Perez has said (or lack of saying) about Obama not supporting gay marriage here, here, here and here. Multple times just having a “strong disagreement” with Obama’s view.  Even though he states that Obama has “Thus far, he’s FAILED us on gay marriage” there’s no name calling, no accusations of how Obama should be ashamed of his view, or even that Obama is a “dumb bitch.” Hypocrite in the hoooooooooooooouse!

President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

Obama supports civil unions just like Miss California but hmmm…something’s missing. something’s missing – oh right the same standard is! But like this is any surprise to people who’ve debated liberals on in the past. Heh.

“Basic fairness and constitutional equal protection were the linchpins of Friday’s historic Iowa Supreme Court ruling that overturned a 10-year-old ban on same-sex marriage and puts Iowa squarely in the center of the nation’s debate over gay rights.”

To start, I don’t have time to worry about what people want to do in the privacy of their own homes. I’ve got a full-time job, this blog, a husband to sarcastically make fun of every night, and then I spend 2-3 hours motivating myself to do a ½ hour workout (ummm, you know you are guilty of this too!). Time is of the essence, people! And I ain’t got time for yo’ beeswax! Buuuuuuuuuuuzzz!

I personally don’t think the government should be in the business of redefining marriage at all. That said, I don’t have anything against two, three, same-sex, opposite sex consenting adults committing themselves to each other, as long as they are adults. Why should the government be butting their nose into our private lives? And I’m strictly talking about the debate between civil unions vs. redefining marriage, not the idea of not letting any same-sex unions occur.

Despite the lies the liberal media would have you believe, a lot of conservatives AND libertarians actually feel this way. Many could honestly care less about who wants to commit themselves to whomever in their private lives as long as it only involves consenting adults. But when it comes to redefining laws, which ultimately don’t need to be defined by govt., that’s where people have the issue and especially when the laws are a result of a judge legislating from the bench. But a civil discussion, on the debate of gay marriage, just isn’t sexy enough for CNN when they can put out the stereotype of Cletus the ‘redneck hick who done don’t know no bett’r.’ Cause right, all evangelicals are a). never articulate or use logic in their reasoning, and b). are always the “only” ones who oppose gay marriage statutes (eyes rolling). A lot of fellow Democrats sure had to vote for California’s Prop. 8 in order for it to pass, but I loooooove how that is never reported. Thanks, never-reporting-the-full-story-worthless-media!

Personally, I think you can designate different classifications on contracts to be legal in the eyes of the law, but other people proclaim it an equal rights violation. I mean there are different classifications for custody cases and for divorces/separations, yet people seem to never claim a violation of equal rights based on those differing classifications. If assigning different classifications were a violation of equal rights, then we should all be ONLY referred to as Americans and never deemed separate classifications on anything. Or is the fact that I’m referred to as white a violation? How about when I’m classified as female on my driver’s license also issued by the government – wouldn’t under that same logic be a violation of my equal rights? Feminists UNITE! I want to be referred to the same as males so that I’m not discriminated against on my driving skills (or lack there of, as my dad would say – Ummm, don’t laugh…not my fault my dad is a slow poke! Love you, dad, if you are reading this. LOL) 

Gloria Steinem, where’s my giiiiiiiiiirl at coming to my defense? My equal rights have been violated because I’m classified as urrrrgh, dare I say it … I got an “F” in Sex on my government-issued license. Oh, that’s right I’m a pro-life gal, so I’m not “the right kind of woman” in Gloria’s eyes. Biaytch.

Anyliberalcontradiction, how come there is just the fight for same vs. opposite sex unions? I don’t hear anyone chirping up about how opposite-sex domestic partnerships should also be treated the same. If you have gone through a commitment ceremony does that technically make you more committed than domestic partnerships? No it doesn’t. I know many opposite-sex people who are more legally bound to each other than same and opposite-sex married couples. But people fighting for same-sex marriage, do they refer to these non-commitment-ceremony opposite-sex partners as married? Ummm, no they do not.

I mean if same sex couples want to commit themselves to the life long debate with their spouse about how the laundry will not magically pull itself out of the hamper and fold itself (not.at.all. saying I have ever, ever had any experience with that particular question. not.at.all.), then more power to them. I personally think the state governments should just call it a union contract across the board if they have to have the same legal classification for everyone’s commitment.

I know gay-marriage advocates aren’t for denying another group a right, but at the same time want to be recognized equally in the eyes of the law. Right now those advocates don’t feel that way with just civil unions but at the same time many people believe that the lack of classification with the word ‘marriage’ is not enough of a reason to establish a violation of equal rights, especially since changing that institution’s definition would result in potentially infringing on one’s freedom of religion.

Why can’t we shoot for making the state classification on all commitments then a “union contract” and let churches keep the recognition of ‘marriage’? Wouldn’t the best thing be achieving your goals without angering more than half the country??? For a country that uses the phrase “bi-partisanship” like it’s the latest fashion trend, it sometimes appears that objectives and strategies for certain issues aren’t on the same path. (But I also think bipartisanship is just a fantasy people exude to make themselves seem mature but really just want it to be their way or the highway – so very human of us.)

Also, I for one get very weary of establishing precedent where the ACLU is given room on the leash to go in and attack churches for denying to marry gay couples. With the ACLU’s history attacking religion Christianity I wouldn’t put it past them.

I just think the State/Church relationship should be a co-existence. The church shouldn’t cross the line of the state and vice versa. If the states kept all commitments, including domestic unions, as ‘union contracts’ and left the church to ‘marriage’ I would be extremely happy with that. And then, maybe for once “progressive” would gain some actual foundation, and no longer be a term thrown around by uber-hungry-to-sound-so-cultured-liberals.