[Lucky Strike]

Why do liberals overwhelmingly support gay marriage opponent Barack Obama, yet applaud Perez Hilton in attacking the integrity of a woman who respectfully expressed her opinion when asked?

[Infidelis]

Obama supports civil unions, a compromise between the two ends of the spectrum and/or a segway from purely straight marriage, to where Prejean (who I didn't even know existed until I saw this thread) doesn't have any leniency on the issue.

I thought that would be obvious, though...

[Holding]

Obama supports civil unions, a compromise between the two ends of the spectrum and/or a segway from purely straight marriage, to where Prejean (who I didn't even know existed until I saw this thread) doesn't have any leniency on the issue.

I thought that would be obvious, though...

How did Prejean demonstrate she had no leniency on civil unions? I couldn't find anything indicating that she even had a stance on civil unions.

[Infidelis]

Your google-fu is weak, Holding-son.

She answered Greta Van Susteren in the most reflective way possible, claiming she's okay with gays seeing each other in the hospital, but won't concede much else, citing ignorance. Her stance is similar on gay couple adoption.

Perhaps you saw this and still thought she must not have a position, but she's aligned herself with with a religious marriage-focused NOM, who cites civil unions as a threat to marriage and equally dance around the benefits of marriage (see #6 on their talking points.) on the same site, claiming medical stuff is okay, but should be settled another way...not conceding much more.

She basically wants to hold the conservative position without really ever answering whether she would be willing to compromise in the middle.

[Holding]

No, I saw all of that. She never gave a clear discription of her stance on civil unions, but did on marriage itself.

That she's aligned with NOM doesn't mean much, I don't think. I "align" myself with Republicans in terms of supporting them, yet I'm an atheist that doesn't support the war.

I don't think her stance on civil unions is obvious.

[Infidelis]

That she's aligned with NOM doesn't mean much, I don't think. I "align" myself with Republicans in terms of supporting them, yet I'm an atheist that doesn't support the war.

Your alignment isn't the same...her face is plastered all over the NOM site...If you and your thoughts were plastered all over the GOP site, A.) they'd be in better standing with Americans, B.) I'd hope you were vetted on the issues.

I don't think her stance on civil unions is obvious.

It's not, you're right. But given her strong religious beliefs and how she stayed perfectly in step with NOM's talking point on the issue I believe she's dodging the issue. I mean, c'mon, who advocates this much and doesn't have a stance on civil unions?

[Holding]

Perhaps she's unsure. She was confident about her stance on marriage and spoke on it clearly. She doesn't speak so clearly on civil-unions, so it's very possible she's not confident in her stance, not enough that she feels she should speak on it. I don't express political beliefs unless I'm fairly certain I believe them.

The only point I meant to make in this thread is that I don't think it's obvious.

[Infidelis]

The only point I meant to make in this thread is that I don't think it's obvious.

I can't argue against that...

So, to the OP, is your question answered at all?

[Lucky Strike]

The reaction from Hilton, et. al., came before her answer on civil unions. Therefore the assumption was that she was an evil Christo-nazi who wanted to string up gay people.

[Infidelis]

The reaction from Hilton, et. al., came before her answer on civil unions. Therefore the assumption was that she was an evil Christo-nazi who wanted to string up gay people.

I don't know if anyone sane thought she advocated killing gays, but it's obvious she isn't keen on gay relationships by her statement.