More than a week has gone by since Perez Hilton's question about gay marriage vaulted Carrie Prejean (Miss California) into the spotlight. The obvious question is, why did she take the bait?

Mario Armando Lavandeira, or Perez Hilton as he prefers to be known, really was attempting to do some reverse discrimination, being a gay man, he himself would have been subject to such discrimination years ago.

Now it's his turn to be a demagogue. But is anyone really afraid of gays not getting their day in court? Is gay marriage really a concern, or is it a smokescreen for more "left-right" polarization?

Being a Republican, and a conservative, (but also a libertarian) I don't really care who Mr. Lavandeira associates with freely. It doesn't even bother me that gays are seeking civil unions or, the right to visit a dying loved one. It doesn't bother me that they want to call these civil unions "marriage".

I may not fully agree with Ms. Prejean on gay marriage, because I don't feel threatened by such a thing. Because redefining civil unions, doesn't redefine the moral quality of marriage, or the aims of marriage. A man and a woman don't marry because they like hanging out together. They don't marry for sex, because everyone knows that marriage isn't really about that. Opposite marriage happens because two people with common beliefs and common goals (family) create a covenant between each other that is supposed to be unbreakable.

The big question is: do hetero couples define themselves solely on a sex act, as homosexual couples do? Are married couples seeking sex? That seems ridiculous, because if they just wanted sex, then marriage doesn't lead to that, marriage leads to increasing responsibility, and the care of children. Which really is not conducive to free time, and romance.

The better question is, "How have we as a society, permitted a group once considered deviant, because of sexual proclivities a normal status?" Given that hetero marriage really isn't about sex, it's about what happens after sex, and reproduction.

Why do we sanction marriage? I believe we do because it strengthens the family, and thusly strengthens our culture.

Does homosexual marriage do that?

I don't take such a hardline approach to gay marriage. But I believe there should be limits, such as no right to adoption, or foster parenting. It seems that any other sexual deviant that wanted easy access to children 24/7, would not be received very well. Given the gay lifestyle's rejection or social norms, are they the proper stewards for young children?

But I digress, Mr. Lavendeira asked for an honest answer. One wonders whether he was stirring the pot. He was looking for a conservative contestant to give an honest answer, so he could discriminate against them.

It seems in Mr. Lavendeira's case you really do become what you despise. Demagogues of any flavor are a joke.