This is why I read the NYT. They may have Scientology ads but at least they don’t have ads and articles objectifying women.

You know, she was asked the question. Perhaps the real issue should have been why the question was asked to begin with. So if asking the question is okay, then one needs to be pro gay marriage in order to be part of the pageant?
In any event, her answer in no way indicated a hatred for gay people. She simply stated her opinion on gay marriage. You can be against gay marriage without hating gay people, right?

Unfortunately, you started your article with a post quoted from the Conservapedia. I waited for the disclaimer, didn’t see it, stopped reading.

Far Left, Far Right, both are lockstepping, parroting morons.

So some contributors are interested in politics and some are interested in celebrity gossip (Huffington lives in LA, it’s not a peculiar mix). Combine that with the fact that most people who can form coherent sentences and complete a paragraph without spell check are liberal and you have your explanation. Voila!

The woman is a wacko libertarian, and the paper is entirely consistent with its editors political stance.

-libby mcliburul

a liberal democrat from new york named tim

ps. dont forget to hail to the chief!!!

Blatant homophobia? Where? Her answer was practically indistingishable from Barack Obama’s on the campaign trail, and it was couched in plenty of deferential language, then prefaced with “I belive …”

Believing that marriage is between a man and a woman is an opinion, not “homophobia”.

Diversity of opinion is only good, I guess, if you happen to have an “approved” opinion.

Now, given that no one in this forum has proposed government censorship, it is interesting that you should see the specter of totalitarianism here. It is even more interesting that, in your second comment, you take issue with Hess’ lack of enjoyment of the sexism beat. I wonder what you think of the journalist assigned to the local crime beat?

The obvious objection is that sexist speech is not a crime. Nor should it be. But IF you believe that it is a problem (and it is completely coherent to deny this premise), then what are you to do? Remain silent?

maybe the two sections are just edited by two different people. also, celebrities aren’t human so they can’t be held to the same standards.

In the rest of the world “liberal” does not connote any particular concern for women’s rights or minority group rights. Instead, the term refers to liberalism in the classical, philosophical sense. Liberalism in this sense emphasizes 1) the division between State/Public and Civil/Private concerns and 2) a list of rights universally conferred upon citizens, among them “free speech”.

Of course, historically, the actual implementation of this philosophy has always coexisted with the existing power structures of sexism, racism, and imperialism. And this paternalism is even philosophically consistent so long as the subjugated groups are reduced to a childlike status who need to be guided or civilized. So long as the “greater good” is secured by a paternalistic liberal order, and so long as the State doesn’t cross the boundaries established by constitutionally enumerated civil/property rights, this order is justified, even if there is some necessary violence. That’s the idea, anyway.

Are self-identified American “liberals” Liberal? Yes, but their vaguely egalitarian motivations* to raise the status of historically marginalized groups is more accurately connoted by the term “progressive”. Fortunately, this term is in wide use, although I imagine fewer people would self-identify as progressives than as liberal. Could the sexist fluff on HuffPo be justified as “progressive”? Probably not, as it is difficult to see how nip slip stories better the status of women at this point in history.

And it figures that the confused American usages of “liberal” and “conservative” serves our fake choice two-party political system. The Democrats and Republicans, using these fairly empty terms, can cynically bargain for (and betray) constituencies while appearing to “stand for something”. The trouble is that when asked, most politicians can only give conflicting or incoherent answers as to what that “something” is.

[*There are moderate rightist, as well as leftist varieties of these (vaguely) egalitarian concerns, which usually don't concern themselves with a wholesale critique of how the "system" is organized. See conservative localism, communitarianism, the writings of Wendell Barry, or the bloggers of FrontPorchRepublic.com for interesting challenges to elite American politics from conservatives.]