printMichael Musto, the Village Voice’s machine gun, on Miss California: “This girl is a ding-dong. She’s not just a boob, but a fake boob. (An allusion to Carrie Prejean’s breast augmentation.) A beauty contestant with falsies and an opinion. Let the babe who needs a brain implant deflate. You’re telling me a lot of beauty contestants are fake? Next you’re going to be telling me their personalities are artificial too. There is no talent, no personality to these contestants, just parading down the runway like a ding-dong trying to cure cancer and find the right handbag to match her navel.”
Ding-dong has been stumble-bumbling on the morning shows. Expect Hannity’s Great American Panel to be next, the slutty Kim Kardashian having already blazed a trail with her famous tail on that Fox News show. I never thought I’d come to think of “Hannity and Colmes,” “Hannity” in his previous incarnation, as an intellectual high-water mark for this “news” program.
From the bimbo burlesque, let’s move on to the ding-dong’s area of expertise, same-sex nuptials. This is from my “MARRIAGE AND THE MANUFACTURING OF RIGHTS”:
“Not conferring the benefits of marriage on homosexual unions does not violate the rights of gays. Not if we adhere to the libertarian definition of rights as the inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. Since these are the only rights libertarians wish the state to enforce, equality under the law is thus the requirement that the state not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process. …
“If we define rights properly, we must conclude that gay couples are not being denied their individual rights.” …
“Ideally, government should be entirely divorced from the nuptial business. But from the fact that the state upholds traditional marriage, why does it follow that it is violating the individual rights of same-sex couples who clearly don’t fit the definition or the profile?”
“Religious institutions ought to act as the ministers of marriage. If marriage were privatized, conservatives would have to accept that some liberal churches and synagogues (the mullahs in their mosques would resist) will wed homosexuals.”
Update (May 1): To read about other “conservative,” blond, ding-dongs, see:
Ilana: (1) You correctly recognize that while adults are entitled to a right to contract, there is no right to state-defined “benefits”. (2) Neither the IL-liberal gays nor the Christian Right seem secure enough to let people enjoy their own beliefs without forcing their beliefs on others. (3) If gays have an inherent right to marriage since it is merely an economic contract, does that also apply to my daughter and I when she turns 18 since (a) we would save $ 5,000/year by filing to the IRS under a “joint return”, (b) we would avoid inheritance taxes and probate should I die, and (c) she gets spousal pension / Social Security benefits when I die. (4) I would challenge anyone claiming a fundamental right to state-codified marriage among gays to explain why incestuous marriage should be DISALLOWED if homosexual marriage is allowed. Certainly a father and a son cannot produce deformed children and my adopted daughter surely does not share my DNA – nor do many marriages produce children in any case…. – BONUS QUESTION – Why have gay men judging “beauty pageants” – that is as sensible as me choosing the next pope!
Who was Michael Musto talking about?
The beauty pageant winner?
Or the First Lady?