That is a fair point, although bringing it into the conversation here does assume that 1) all of Petijean’s critics here voted for Obama or at least haven’t found his lack of support for gay rights extremely problematic, and 2) people like myself will not extend an equal or greater amount of criticism to Democratic leaders who support gay rights. In other words, it makes the assumption that everyone “picking on” Petijean is a liberal – well, not just a liberal, but a liberal who supported or supports Obama.

John keeps falling back to the argument that attacks on and criticisms of Petijean are “petty”, but I don’t see any reason why Petijean should be off-limits – or that criticisms of her should be on some arbitrary level of decorum (although I will admit that I was disgusted by Perez Hilton’s undisguised misogyny) – when another quasi-famous public figure who has criticized gay rights in public fora like, say, Orson Scott Card presumably isn’t. That’s why we should probably just agree to disagree (although I admit I did kind of enjoy the excuse to debate!).

I don’t recall myself or anyone else “tearing into her”, at least not by my standards. I do see myself and lots of other people calling her a bigot, which she is by any reasonable definition.

And I’ll just say that I find it stunning that you think it’s beyond the pale for gay people to be angry at a public figure who makes anti-gay comments in a public forum. God forbid we shouldn’t be “constructive” when someone is outspoken in their opposition to our rights.

Ignoring or forgiving her comments would only serve, if only a little bit, to keep anti-gay views part of the mainstream narrative.

There is a huge difference between criticizing public comments in a constructive fashion and tearing into her as if she were Josef Stalin reincarnated. That you cannot see this is simply stunning. And yes, “harmless” she remains from what we’ve seen of her thus far, no matter what you care to project upon her to the contrary.

if you think for one second that Miss California 2008 will stand with you and defend you and support you as a gay American, then you will deservedly reap the “fruits of travelling with a fool”.

So you are saying that a 21-yr old beauty queen is someone I should turn to as my ‘champion’? Give me a break, Mark. I don’t rely on any celebrity or near-celebrity for this, nor is my ego so fragile that I need validation from folks like them. You lay all this nonsense at Prejean’s feet, trying to paint her as being some kind of monstrous figure which is every bit as absurd as the rhetoric coming from The Peter et al. Prejean is not my enemy nor have you even come close to making the case why I should consider her to be. Yes, she is harmless from what I’ve seen thus far. If she decides to follow in Antia Bryant’s footsteps that will change things, but for now all of this calumny directed at a young beauty queen of all things is absolutely stupid and petty.

I don’t know what your life experience has been John, but anyone not living in an urban environment knows that the smiling bigot can be the most poisonous and lethal. They’ll be nice to you to your face then “stick a knife in your back” when you’re not looking. It’s a generalization to be sure, but they do exist. Perhaps you have not yet been privy to the latest revelation about the putrid “Prejean” (I mean what a pretentious name).

Perhaps you’ve heard the saying, “If you lie down with dogs, you’ll get up with fleas, and that’s the fruits of travelling with a fool.”

I am no fan by any means of Perez Hilton, but your poor lack of judgment to choose a smiling bigot as someone you would trust and associate with, someone you deem to be “harmless”, makes you someone I could not trust and could not associate with. Yes, Perez is reckless and ugly in his presentation, but if you think for one second that Miss California 2008 will stand with you and defend you and support you as a gay American, then you will deservedly reap the “fruits of travelling with a fool”.

Apologist is not a good look on you.