# Contestant loses Miss USA for not being liberal enough. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 21, 2009, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798 "2009-04-21T01:14:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/261 "2009-04-30T20:20:21Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > We’re not. Where did you get that idea from? Marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman for X hundreds of years. Now recently it is being redefined as between any two people of whatever sex. You don’t call that a radical restructuring? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/262 "2009-04-30T20:23:47Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > Marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman for X hundreds of years. Now recently it is being redefined as between any two people of whatever sex. You don’t call that a radical restructuring? No. My marriage hasn’t been restructured by it. I haven’t noticed any effect on it at all. How about yours? ---
**Author:** ![BigShooter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@BigShooter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigShooter)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/263 "2009-04-30T20:31:25Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > You do realize that marriage is about family, and family is largely about children, and that this fact makes same-sex marriage a sad joke, don’t you? I’m married. We have no children and don’t want any. Does that make my marriage any less valid? Should we not have gotten married? Marriage isn’t about family or children. It’s about a commitment that two people make to each other - and it’s between those two people only. No one else. This is a lame arguement. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/264 "2009-04-30T20:52:57Z")
I still don’t get why the government has a finger in marriage in the first place. Civil unions? Sure, I’m on board with that. For straight couples and gay couples. Let the churches wave the hocus-pocus wands and call people married, or wedded, or matrimonied, or ball-and-chained, or schnerkboogled, or whatever goofy title they want to bestow on two people who had the forethought to get dressed up and hold hands in front of other people for a day. Why does anybody, public or private, give two shits about how two other people describe their relationship? ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/265 "2009-04-30T20:56:42Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > Marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman for X hundreds of years. Now recently it is being redefined as between any two people of whatever sex. You don’t call that a radical restructuring? It’s not at all radical. It’s a very minor editorial change. [QUOTE=The Dictionary] the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. [/QUOTE] to [QUOTE=The Dictionary] the social institution under which \*\*two people \*\*establish their decision to live as **partners** by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. [/QUOTE] A substantial change would be if you modified the ethos of the institution - for instance, if you made marriage about property ownership between one man and an older man who happens to have a daughter. That was a substantial change in the institution of marriage and it happened quite slowly. Adding same sex marriage to opposite marriage is an example of an insubstantial change in the definition. For the record, I think a **radical** change would be to make marriage an institution where two people decide, by legal commitments, to grow turnips on a 3rd party’s farm and sell them to Mexico to fight scurvy. That would be an example of a **radical** change in the definition ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/266 "2009-04-30T21:00:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > No. My marriage hasn’t been restructured by it. I haven’t noticed any effect on it at all. How about yours? I’m sure you know the difference between micro and macro. How SSM impacts you and spouse wife is a “micro” effect. How it affects society as a whole is a macro effect. When you can satisfactorily quantify the macro effects of the change, (which would include but are not limited to how much its gonna cost the US Treasury to have SSMs all filing jointly on their taxes, and having probate property pass to them free of estate taxes, and getting spousal survivor Social Security benefits) get back to me please, or point me to the relevant cite with that info. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/267 "2009-04-30T21:02:05Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Why does anybody, public or private, give two shits about how two other people describe their relationship? To make it clear … I think if two gay people got some ‘civil union’, they should go right out and tell everyone they’re “married” if they want to. Same goes for the straights. What’s going to happen? Someone’s going to call the “Don’t Say That Word!” police? ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/268 "2009-04-30T21:02:36Z")
Gay men and gay women have been living together in long term partnerships and raising kids, without legal recognition, for a long time. What will change when they have the same legal recognition that straight people have? ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/269 "2009-04-30T21:04:32Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I still don’t get why the government has a finger in marriage in the first place. Civil unions? Sure, I’m on board with that. For straight couples and gay couples. > > Let the churches wave the hocus-pocus wands and call people married, or wedded, or matrimonied, or ball-and-chained, or schnerkboogled, or whatever goofy title they want to bestow on two people who had the forethought to get dressed up and hold hands in front of other people for a day. > > Why does anybody, public or private, give two shits about how two other people describe their relationship? Because we always have before and marriage, since it’s a legal institution, is inherently embroiled in all manner of issues. You can’t just decide, all of a sudden, that marriage is a religious institution when it has a long history of being a social and legal institution. It’s the same reason you can’t decide that marriage has always been about the tender love between a man and a woman who decide they want to procreate. Because it’s just not accurate and sometimes reality is important. And because of that, you can’t all of a sudden decide that marriage is only going to exist in churches and gay people get a new separate but equal word called “civil unions”. Marriages have been civil unions for a long time. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/270 "2009-04-30T21:05:14Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > I’m sure you know the difference between micro and macro. I’m familiar with the terms being used in spurious arguments about how new strains of flu don’t prove nuthin’ about no EVILution. Your arguments strike me as equally compelling. > [@](#): > > When you can satisfactorily quantify the macro effects of the change, (which would include but are not limited to how much its gonna cost the US Treasury to have SSMs all filing jointly on their taxes, and having probate property pass to them free of estate taxes, and getting spousal survivor Social Security benefits) So, your argument is based on wanting other people to pay for the government services you consume? Do you call yourself a “conservative”, by any chance? ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/271 "2009-04-30T21:06:16Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > To make it clear … I think if two gay people got some ‘civil union’, they should go right out and tell everyone they’re “married” if they want to. Same goes for the straights. > > What’s going to happen? Someone’s going to call the “Don’t Say That Word!” police? Why don’t we just keep calling it marriage then, if the “Don’t Say That Word!” police aren’t a problem? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/272 "2009-04-30T21:07:03Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > When you can satisfactorily quantify the macro effects of the change (which would include but are not limited to how much its gonna cost the US Treasury to have SSMs all filing jointly on their taxes, and having probate property pass to them free of estate taxes, and getting spousal survivor Social Security benefits) get back to me please, or point me to the relevant cite with that info. If you’re serious about \*those \*being valid bases to make a determination on the matter, then there’s nothing much else to talk about with you. Tell you what, how about we just ban marriage altogether and maybe that can cure the deficit? :rolleyes: Great idea, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/273 "2009-04-30T21:18:06Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > She answered with her honest opinion, which should be valued more highly than by giving an answer someone else wants to hear. > > She won much more than a hokie pageant. Sorry but that’s just dumb. If your honest opinion is that swine-flu patients should go to elementary schools, drop trou, and blast buckshot diarrhea in the faces of all the kids, I’m not going to applaud you for it. And yes, that is how offensive I find her “honest opinion.” ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/274 "2009-04-30T21:20:18Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > Marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman for X hundreds of years. Now recently it is being redefined as between any two people of whatever sex. You don’t call that a radical restructuring? It was between one man and possibly several women for thousands of years before that, and still is in many countries. Redefining marriage expands it, but does not effect existing marriages at all. Mine wasn’t when SSM was legal in California. ---
**Author:** ![filling\_pages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9bd4f/32.png) [@filling\_pages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filling_pages)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/275 "2009-04-30T21:42:34Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > You do realize that marriage is about family, and family is largely about children, and that this fact makes same-sex marriage a sad joke, don’t you? Well, technically speaking, a lesbian couple could easily have twice as many kids as a straight couple. Which makes them, what, half as sad as a man and a woman who are married to each other? Twice as happy? Oh, wait, that makes sense - twice as _gay_. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/276 "2009-05-01T02:10:43Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > And because of that, you can’t all of a sudden decide that marriage is only going to exist in churches and gay people get a new separate but equal word called “civil unions”. Marriages have been civil unions for a long time. You misunderstand me. I’m not saying that gay people should get separate but equal anything. In my opinion, \*\*\*all \*\*\*marriages should be “civil unions” whether it’s between two straight people or two gay people. As far as legal this and government that, that’s all it needs to be. And everyone can walk around and say, “Get us … we’re married” and what does it really matter. You are what you want to be. Again, both for straight people and gay people. Now, if people feel the urge to jump through whatever ecclesiastical hoops they so choose in order to make it a religious marriage, all nice and churchy in the eyes of the guy in the funny hat or whatever … then, shit, wanna buy some rice? What do I care? ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/277 "2009-05-01T03:26:08Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > You misunderstand me. I’m not saying that gay people should get separate but equal anything. In my opinion, \*\*\*all \*\*\*marriages should be “civil unions” whether it’s between two straight people or two gay people. As far as legal this and government that, that’s all it needs to be. And everyone can walk around and say, “Get us … we’re married” and what does it really matter. You are what you want to be. Again, both for straight people and gay people. > > Now, if people feel the urge to jump through whatever ecclesiastical hoops they so choose in order to make it a religious marriage, all nice and churchy in the eyes of the guy in the funny hat or whatever … then, shit, wanna buy some rice? What do I care? No, I understood your point. What I am saying is that marriages are civil unions now. It’s a social and legal institution and has been for a long time. You can’t just hand wave, even with sterling intentions, and say ‘Ok, now marriage doesn’t mean what it always meant - it’s now, _all of a sudden_, something that only religious people can have. Gays, atheists, and anyone not interested in the sacrament of matrimony get some separate but equal thing under the law called civil unions.’ You can’t do that because the vast majority of what makes marriages important to people is a social construct having nothing to do with god. Even with religious people - you get married in a church. How long does that take? 20 minutes? You spent the rest of your life building a life together and being recognized as partners by your peers in society. That’s what marriage is whether you’re gay, an atheist, or a christian. So no, you can’t just decide that only the religious get to call it marriage _all of a sudden_. Because everybody else deserves to keep calling it marriage too. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/278 "2009-05-01T12:52:31Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > You can’t do that because the vast majority of what makes marriages important to people is a social construct having nothing to do with god. Even with religious people - you get married in a church. How long does that take? 20 minutes? You spent the rest of your life building a life together and being recognized as partners by your peers in society. That’s what marriage is whether you’re gay, an atheist, or a christian. So no, you can’t just decide that only the religious get to call it marriage _all of a sudden_. Because everybody else deserves to keep calling it marriage too. I think we’re on the same page, just looking at it from different angles. Marriage, as far as the law is concerned, is very much nothing but a civil union. And I think that should be the law of the land. The religious connotations have only been important … if you are religious. And there’s nothing saying that gay people can’t get married in a church either … just probably not a Catholic one, or a Southern Baptist one, but whaddayagonnado … it’s there rules what goes on in their churches. I’ll say this, which may temper things a little, I do think that any “civil union” between straight people or between gay people, should be referred to as a marriage, because that’s what it is, regardless of how much it gives the vapors to Michelle Bachmann et al. I just think it’s important to differentiate between what a legal marriage is and what a religious marriage is. And I don’t think the government should have anything to do with religious marriages … leave that to religions. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/279 "2009-05-01T13:01:14Z")
– nevermind – ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/280 "2009-05-01T13:32:05Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I just think it’s important to differentiate between what a legal marriage is and what a religious marriage is. And I don’t think the government should have anything to do with religious marriages … leave that to religions. I’ll try to make my point a little more clear. I contend that marriage is legal, social, and potentially religious institution. Further, I’m saying that marriage as a social institution is by far the most important to everyday life. As near as I can tell you’re not giving as much credence to the social institution of marriage as I think is needed. Even if you’re, say, Catholic - your marriage has little to do with god and religion. You get married in a church in front of a priest, but beyond that how often do people think of their union as a holy bond involving god? I don’t really know but I suspect for the overwhelming majority of religious people it’s not very important. On the contrary, marriage for anyone regardless of religion is about the social institution and what goes along with it. It’s about commiting to someone and making plans to be a family with them - even if it’s just the two of you forever. And it’s about your family, friends, and society at large recognizing your commitment to each other. That’s what marriage is to virtually everyone, whether they realize it or not. People can’t just declare it’s fundamentally about god and religion with a little bit of law mixed in because \*in reality \*it’s a social construct. For what it’s worth, I’m fine with going the other direction and saying that the holy sacrament of matrimony is entirely separate from marriage in the general sense, and churches can discriminate against gays or blacks or interracial couples from engaging in the sarcrament. As long as everyone can get \*married \* and the discriminatory churches lose their tax-exempt status, I don’t care what religious people call their sacraments. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798.md?page=15)