The Miss USA pageant isn’t something I generally find myself tuning into, but my DVR recorded it last night due to Kings moving to Saturday night. Out of morbid curiosity, I skipped around the recording until I got to the question and answer section. Miss California, or Carrie Prejean, was asked by pageant judge Perez Hilton, a popular blogger, if she thought same-sex marriage should be made legal in all 50 states. Here is her response in full:

Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, and my family, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how that I think it should be between a man and a woman.

The controversy that her answer generated seems to be focussed on the second half of her answer. I interpret that half as having to do with her religious beliefs, to which she is certainly entitled. Yet this seems to be the only part of her answer that the media is quoting.

The indisputably wrong part of Ms. Prejean’s answer is the first half, that “Americans are able to choose” same-sex marriage. This is only at most 5% true: the 2000 census populations of the states that allow same-sex marriage (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Iowa) divided by the population of the U.S. is 0.047.

I suppose that in one sense, the religious sense, it is true. Religious entities are free to choose who they marry. That’s a fundamental right guaranteed by the freedom of exercise clause of the First Amendment. However, in the legal sense, the vast majority of states do not recognize marriages of same-sex couples. It is the legal sense that Mr. Hilton’s question explicitly pertained to.

Despite being factually wrong, the first half of Ms. Prejean’s answer suggests that she actually favors the legalization of same-sex marriage, calling the ability to choose “great.” I wonder if her rather bipolar response reflects America’s confusion over this issue. Many Americans probably don’t grasp that there are rights and benefits denied to gay couples who would be married if legally allowed and purely see the issue through a religious lens. If they truly understood that rights were being denied, then they’d have to come to the same conclusion as John Hodgman, that “opposition to gay marriage has no logical foundation in a civil society that is premised on equality.”

Isn’t the obvious argument that it’s punishment for not giving the torturer the information he or she seeks? Either in the case that the person tortured has the information but is unwilling to give it, or doesn’t have the information and can’t make something believable up?

I had hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: “All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.” Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely rational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

Despicable.

Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, says he is introducing measures this legislative session to:

• Deny regular birth certificates to babies born in Arizona unless at least one parent proves citizenship.
• Expand the state crime of trespass to cover anyone in the U.S. without authorization.
• Require proof of legal presence in the U.S. to register a vehicle or get a title.
• Deny workers’ compensation benefits to undocumented workers injured on the job.
• Bar local policies that prohibit police officers from checking the immigration status of those they encounter.

Pearce is not taking any chances the measures will be rejected by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, who previously vetoed a trespass bill and similar proposals. All are being drafted so if they pass the Republican-controlled Legislature they go directly to the ballot.

The fact that that first provision is meant to deny citizenship to people born within the borders of the United States — and therefore unconstitutional under the 14th amendment — won’t prevent the legislature from allowing this proposition go to the ballot. They’ve proven that they can’t be trusted to uphold the Constitution.

The numbered boarding passes are a fair change, and should eliminate the silly lines at the gate. But it’s hard to believe a major airline produced something designed like this. It looks like the rules for a Girl Scouts troop.

The sad fact of the matter is that this design style fits right in with the image that Southwest tries to make for itself. They go to great lengths to appear as unprofessional as possible. (And I happen to know that Girl Scouts troop rules would look considerably more professional.)

A prime example is how Southwest handled the media coverage of a woman flying to Tucson who was told by a flight attendant to change clothes because her skirt was “too short” and “revealing.” Of course, it turned out her mini skirt was less revealing than the hot pants that were standard issue for Southwest stewardesses in ’60s! So, at best, the flight attendant was playing fashion cop. At worst, he was intentionally sexually harassing a customer. You’d expect Southwest to give the woman an apology. They did, but in “classic Southwest Airlines flair.” This has got to be one the worst press releases ever:

DALLAS, Sept. 14 PRNewswire-FirstCall — In classic Southwest Airlines flair, CEO Gary Kelly today made a public apology to one of its Customers whose trip several months ago has become the subject of recent television and newspaper commentary. Company President Colleen Barrett has reached out to the Customer directly, and Kelly issued Kyla Ebbert an apology and invitation to again fly on Southwest as she taped a television show.

“From a Company who really loves PR, touche to you Kyla! Some have said we’ve gone from wearing our famous hot pants to having hot flashes at Southwest, but nothing could be further from the truth. As we both know, this story has great legs, but the true issue here is that you are a valued Customer, and you did not get an adequate apology. Kyla, we could have handled this better, and on behalf of Southwest Airlines, I am truly sorry. We hope you continue to fly Southwest Airlines. Our Company is based on freedom even if our actions may have not appeared that way. It was never our intention to treat you unfairly and again, we apologize.”

Kelly took an additional step and is sharing his direct comments about the incident by recording ads for national radio. Those comments detail a national fare sale launched today featuring “mini-skirt” fares.

Fly Southwest: we’ll sexually harass you, joke about it and then use it in our advertising!

So yeah, Southwest’s new boarding scheme — while an improvement over the old one — isn’t likely to get me to start flying with them again.

I’ll turn the page on a growing empire of classified information, and restore the balance we’ve lost between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in a democratic society by creating a new National Declassification Center. We’ll protect sources and methods, but we won’t use sources and methods as pretexts to hide the truth. Our history doesn’t belong to Washington, it belongs to America.

I’ll use the intelligence that I do receive to make good policy — I won’t manipulate it to sell a bad policy. We don’t need any more officials who tell the President what they want to hear. I will make the Director of National Intelligence an official with a fixed term, like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve — not someone who can be fired by the President. We need consistency and integrity at the top of our intelligence agencies. We don’t need politics. My test won’t be loyalty — it will be the truth.

And I’ll turn the page on the imperial presidency that treats national security as a partisan issue — not an American issue. I will call for a standing, bipartisan Consultative Group of congressional leaders on national security. I will meet with this Consultative Group every month, and consult with them before taking major military action. The buck will stop with me. But these discussions have to take place on a bipartisan basis, and support for these decisions will be stronger if they draw on bipartisan counsel. We’re not going to secure this country unless we turn the page on the conventional thinking that says politics is just about beating the other side.

It’s time to unite America, because we are at an urgent and pivotal moment.

Via Anderson Republican’s diary on Daily Kos.

When U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf described the alleged terror plot to blow up Kennedy Airport as “one of the most chilling plots imaginable,” which might have caused “unthinkable” devastation, one law enforcement official said he cringed.

The plot, he knew, was never operational. The public had never been at risk. And the notion of blowing up the airport, let alone the borough of Queens, by exploding a fuel tank was in all likelihood a technical impossibility.

I understand that it’s a prosecutor’s job to get a conviction, and part of that is getting a conviction in the “court of public opinion.” What really irks me is that a statement like that probably causes more “terror” than this terrorist-wannabe and his cohorts were capable of alone. Hyping movie-plot threats as if they were real does more harm than good.

Hat tip to Oliver Willis.

State lawmakers voted Monday to approve a law blocking the sale of anti-war T-shirts with the names of dead soldiers on them — a measure one media lawyer says is “unconstitutional about three or four different ways.”

The Senate agreed to make it punishable by up to a year in jail to use the names of deceased soldiers to help sell goods. The 28-0 vote sends SB 1014 to Gov. Janet Napolitano for her signature. The measure also would let families go to court to stop the sales and collect damages.

Dan Frazer, a Flagstaff businessman who is selling the T-shirts that caused all the fuss, said he doesn’t intend to stop selling the $20 shirts even if Napolitano signs the measure. He said it’s an illegal infringement on his First Amendment rights.

I’ll be writing a letter to Napolitano to urge her to veto this, even though it’ll become law regardless. It’s really sad and pathetic that any legislative body in the US would unanimously censor constitutionally protected speech just because they either disagree with it or think it’s in poor taste.

Update (5/19): The Star spelled Dan Frazier’s name incorrectly, which is why I haven’t been able to find his website: carryabigsticker.com.