"Maybe they could inject some fat from her butt. Oh, they have?"

UPDATE - A big welcome to all readers of two of my favourite bloggers, Tim Blair and the Instapundit. They are part of my required daily reading.

And a welcome to Gay Patriot readers too!

BTW, though I've linked to Andrew Bolt's blog twice is my piece below, I still reckon I should acknowledge that what I had to say was my take on his post.

You know, there are days when you just have to say to other poofs "fuck off, you self-centred, self-absorbed, nasty and arrogant shits." Reading the Bolter today was one of those.

What happened to being able to firstly argue a case intelligently and rationally and then, secondly, be prepared to agree to disagree while respecting another person's honestly held opinion?

Enter Miss California, Carrie Prejean, and the otherwise useless celebrity blogger Perez Hilton.

Quite why Hilton was a judge of a "pick-a-chick show for hetero fantasists" is a mystery in itself, but his question on gay marriage to Prejean and the vicious misogyny of the reaction to her answer has done nothing to bring credibility to gay rights activism.

Indeed, the nature of that reaction has laid bare the streak of women-hating nastiness that still hides just below the surface of all too many gay men. Everything is fine and dandy as long as they are pathetic fag hags, but cross one of these men who will endlessly lecture you about intolerance and its effects on them and watch out!

Ms Prejean's crime against humanity that has justified her vilification in the most appallingly sexist and personally abusive manner?

She's a Christian who naturally enough believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.

That's the simple answer she gave to Hilton's question of what she thought of gay marriage.

And hardly a minority view.

Not even in her native California where a referendum on gay marriage resulted in a defeat for its proponents, with the delicious irony for leftist pieties that it was black and latino voters who turned out in numbers to sink it.

It's a view even apparently held by the current adored darling of the cultural left, Barack Obama, who according to Hilton has "inspired millions."

But, let's face it, Prejean is a much smaller and easier target for the hatred of Hilton and others.

The organisers of the Miss California pageant fell over themselves to piously declare that "religious beliefs have no place in politics in the Miss California family."

Does anyone imagine they'd have said the same if she's espoused support for gay marriage because of her religious beliefs?

But as has been observed repeatedly about the left, tolerance for them is very much a one-way street.

I am no longer a Christian, but respect the right of other people to be true to their consciences and their beliefs. I am not an anti-religion fanatic. Something that seems quite fashionable amongst a certain class of person these days, though it more often manifests itself as a narrowly focused contempt for Christianity, whereas more "exotic" religions not seen as "white" or "western," especially Buddhism, are almost considered funky.

Though I suspect the free pass so often given to Islam is a result of them being afraid of it. You can be as daringly "transgressive" as you like about Jesus or the Virgin Mary. No amount of Piss Christs is going to get you anything other than publicity and invites to any number of government subsidised writers' festivals.

Try being arty with Mohammad or the Koran and you risk having your throat cut, as Theo van Gogh found out.

But Hilton and company knew they had an easy and safe target in Ms Prejean and they piled on.

The Miss California organisers wasted no time in letting it be known that she had had a boob job, and that they had paid for it.

This was after Hilton had called her a "dumb bitch."

Keith Olbermann on MSNBC called her a "boob," and spent 5 minutes with the gay writer Michael Musto of the impeccably "progressive" Village Voice saying things like:

“She’s dumb and twisted. She’s sort of like a human Klaus Barbie doll . . . She thinks innuendo is an Italian suppository . . . They also paid for Carrie to cut off her penis . . .," and:

“Now here’s a babe who needs a brain implant. Maybe they could inject some fat from her butt. Oh, they have?”

(Gosh, these guys are funny though, aren't they? How many times have we heard the [insert foreign country's name] suppository joke before?)

Let's just recall here, her crime was to simply say she believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. That's all. You may not agree with that opinion, which is fine, but surely she has every right to say what she thinks?

Or does she? We are certainly seeing the evangelists of tolerance more and more trying to control what people are and are not allowed to say.

However, you'd of course expect feminists to leap to her defence and decry the disgustingly sexist nature of the abuse hurled at her, wouldn't you?

I mean, talk about increasing a woman's intelligence by taking fat from her butt would be guaranteed to get your average feminist back to the barricades. Not this time though.

Some of them even joined in!

Here's women's rights activist Gloria Feldt: “What Prejean needs is a heart transplant rather than the breast implants.”

Luckily though, Prejean does not have any children, because they'd be considered fair game too by our Mahatmas of tolerance.

Whatever you may have thought of Sarah Palin, the use of her daughter and her baby son with Down Syndrome to attack her marked a new low for people who'd be absolutely mortified at any suggestion that they were not on the progressive and humane side of politics.

Michael Moore (of course) insinuated that baby Trig wasn't Palin's child at all, but rather her daughter's. (But they were only warming up at getting at her!) Gay writer and blogger Andrew Sullivan kept demanding that Palin prove that Trig was her child by producing the birth certificate, even after the news broke that Bristol was pregnant and couldn't be Trig's mother.

Worse still were the direct attacks on the little disabled baby boy. The Huffington Post thought it was being very clever and funny in describing him as the "runt of the litter." Here in Australia, the editor of Crikey.com called him "a mongrel." (Quite frankly, why Crikey has any credibility with the left here is beyond me.)

But of course Crikey's Guy Rundle had to join the pack that then went after Bristol, smarmily saying that the 17 year old had "a face that says yes."

What a charming fellow.

Or comedian Russell Brand saying that her mother was going to send her to the electric chair "for being a little slut." Wow, funny and progressive at the same time Russell! Hypocrite.

But they all hypocrites. Every last one of them. And some of my fellow poofs give me the shits sometimes.

Posted via email from Garth's posterous