My wife and I were watching the last 20 minutes of the Miss USA pageant last night when Miss California was asked an interesting question by a judge whom most people (whether right or wrong) would assume was a gay man.
The question basically was if she believed in same sex marriages?
Miss California (Carrie Prejean) answered; "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."
Now I'm sure she was surprised by the question and nerves might have played a part in the "...or opposite" blunder, but aside from the start of her answer (which sounded a little like political correctness dancing) she got back on track with a marriage should be between a man and a woman......"no offense".
After her answer the camera cut back to the judge who clearly didn't like her answer and even shaked his head with the disapproval.
Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement.
"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."
So the co-director doesn't hear the answer she wants to hear and she rails immediately against religion and government.
Funny, I didn't hear Miss California talk about religion or the government. She gave her personal opinion just like she was asked to do, and that cost her.
After the pageant was over, Miss California's answer sparked a shouting match in the lobby after the show. "It's ugly," said Scott Ihrig, a gay man, who attended the pageant with his partner. "I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are."
I don't know what pageant Ihrig was at (Or what world he lives in...wait, yes I do), but after Miss California made her statement there was loud bursts of cheering and thundering clapping from the audience as she walked back to her place on the stage.
So did her answer cost her the crown?
I think it did.
12 comments:
Personally, I find the whole concept of 'Miss Teen...' to be offensive, but that's just me.
She's entitled to her opinion and her honesty in the face of political correctness should have been celebrated and encouraged.
That's what many rights groups don't understand; equality means that people have a right to disagree with you on an open stage not that everyone has to agree with your way of thinking.
The same with civil rights. Black/White equality in the US has basically come to mean that Chris Rock can bash any colour he likes, but white comedians can't go near the N-word.
True equality would mean that anyone can say, pretty much, anything about anyone - you don't have to like it, you don't have to agree, but they get to say it.
As long as you're not actively encouraging actual discrimination against ANYONE (not just 'minority groups') you should be able to express any opinion you hold without fear of reprisal.
Just. My. Opinion.
Why ask a question if you only want to hear one answer? I think that question was a set up. I think they were hoping to get a contestant to support gay marriage by either (1) hoping someone would support it or (2) fold under political correctness. No one can say that there is not a gay agenda when a prominent gay man asked that question in a Miss USA pageant.
Yeah, a gay man asking a question about gay rights at a beauty pageant is really ramming the gay agenda down our heterosexual throats, isn't it?
Gay marriage is a topical question, just as much as the economy, environment, foreign policy, abortion, illegal immigrants and infrastructure are.
I've no problem with him asking the question, but he has no right to bash the answer just because he disagrees with it.
I find it difficult to relate to the reactions she received, although they are not uncommon. An overtly gay person on television making thoroughly explicit statements on this same topic in the opposite direction would only conjure up an eye-roll and a channel-change from me.
And perhaps a brief stomach-turn depending upon the degree of vulgarity of the statement.
I agree with ExPatMatt. The very idea of tolerance demands that there must be something that one does not agree with, or like, in order to even tolerate it. The notion that tolerance means that we cant disagree or tell each other that we hold different opinions is ludicrous and philosophically flawed.
But on a different note, I finally posted my review of that Roger Olsen book "How to Be Evangelical Without Being Conservative." Drop by my blog and check it out when you get a chance.
Grace and peace,
Danny
Wendy,
Do you think entering into beauty pageants is 'Biblically correct' in the first place?
It just seems a bit, well, shallow.
Danny Turner,
You agreed with me and you have the five Beatles as your avatar - can we be friends!
Matt does bring up a valid point of whether a Christian woman should be performing in beauty pageants to begin with.
A Christian woman is at liberty to do so, but does that make it right?
Don’t you just love how the opponents of Biblical marriage try to control the terms that are used so they can have the advantage? That if I am not for gay marriage then I am a “bigot” or I “hate gay people”. Basically we are accused of hate speech because we have a moral objective standard to what the world believes in normative. As Christians we don’t want to ban gay marriage we only want to define properly what marriage is. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I mean biologically it just makes sense. Right?
I also kick such a kick out of how they say that we are intolerant of gay people yet they will not tolerate our view or our opinion. One of these days as Christians we are going to get hauled off to jail for standing for morality so do it now while we can speak freely!
I think I've said it before, but I'll say it again;
Marriage (with a big 'M') is a religious institution whereby two people are joined according to the rites and rituals of the faith in question.
marriage (with a little 'm') is a legal contract between two people and the State, which recognizes their commitment to each other as life partners.
Religiously-based Marriages should not be compromised, just because some people don't like the restrictions that are in place - if you're not going to play by the rules, you shouldn't be in the game.
Secular-based marriages are non-religious, so any misgivings by people of faith are irrelevant - as long as you're two, consenting adults you can enter into a marriage together.
Don't tell us who can marry in City Hall and we won't tell you who can Marry in Church; deal?
/2 cents
"Don't tell us who can marry in City Hall and we won't tell you who can Marry in Church; deal?"
Do you think it ends there Matt?
What happens when couples start taking preachers to court because they want a church 'wedding' but the preacher wouldn't perform the same sex marriages?
Or, even worse, preachers are put in jail for refusing to perform the marriage?
And why even stop at same sex marriages?
Why can't a man have several wives or several husbands and vice versa.
Why can't a brother and sister marry...they love each other...they are consenting adults after all.
Why can't a father and daughter marry? Or, a mother and her son.
You wouldn't be opposed to these kind of marriages would you Matt?
After all, they would/could use the same argument you used...
"Don't tell us who can marry in City Hall and we won't tell you who can Marry in Church; deal?"
I think you're stretching it a bit there Wayne.
If a same-sex couple wants to get their marriage sanctioned by their church, but that church has taken a stance against it, the couple are not abiding by the rules of the church and they don't get to be blessed there. End of story.
I'm actually surprised at the number of atheists who get married (little 'm' deliberate) in churches; I see it as being quite hypocritical.
I would hope that the courts would uphold that, but of course, there's no counting on common sense these days.
The thing is, no religious group should have the ability to determine the terms & conditions for a secular contract between two people and the state - there's no reasonable basis for them to be able to do so.
But the flip-side is that the secular state (and the couple) shouldn't be able to determine the terms & conditions for any kind of religious service either.
I know that it doesn't really play out that way, but that's what I'd hope for.
Post a Comment