What is certain is the public derision and condemnation that the brave beauty contestant will face. Perhaps she will at least be supported by the Miss California USA organization? Alas, not a chance.
Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement.Apparently, the Miss California USA organization believes that only supporters of gay marriage have a right to their beliefs, and that it is fair to insert political and moral questions into a competition and then castigate the contests for their personal political, moral, and religious beliefs. What disturbs me most is that supporters of gay marriage are so hostile to opposing viewpoints, and so aggressive about trying to demonize and ostracize their opponents. Miss California USA should be aware that Carrie Prejean's traditional beliefs, rather than being out of the main stream, represent the view shared by a majority of Californian's who have twice now voted in favor of traditional marriage. Not to mention, at least 42 states plus the District of Columbia define marriage as between a man and a woman according to Wikipedia, either by statute or constitutional amendment. Oh yeah . . . even Obama says he opposes gay marriage, I guess he can kiss his hopes of winning Miss USA goodbye."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."
Perez Hilton's comments were crude and nasty. He made himself look like a blithering idiot-- not really a surprise. The anger about Prop. 8 in California has led to any number of nasty crap from those who support gay marriage-- but at Miss USA? Come on...
ReplyDeletePersonally, I support the notion of gay marriage (although the Calif. version was badly put together) because it's both anti-discriminatory (a function of governemnt to enforce Civil Rights) and reinforces the "free exercise clause" of the 1st Amendment (why should a govt. define what is sacred?). But these kind of shallow, polarizing, load-of-crap antics are tough to look beyond and hurting their cause.
Well said. Although personally I don't agree with the concept of gay marriage I understand those who do. It is merely due to starting from a different set premises and assumptions. What scares and saddens me is the vicious attacks on those who disagree, and the deceptive attempt to portray the majority opinion (for traditional marriage), as some sort of radical outlying opinion. Basically I get upset whenever the democratic process is threatened, and religious liberties are threatened. Both are at risk of serious damage here. If the state court is allowed to overturn a constitutional amendment, then it has removed the last check on its own power. (Hasn't happened yet, but will be surprised if it does not happen.) And religious beliefs are already being severely threatened. (recognition of homosexual behavior as protect conduct, means that Christians lose there freedom of association, or must abdicate beliefs that help define their religion. Unfortunately, that shouldn't be a related issue but it is because of how far the tentacles of government now stretch into every aspect of our lives.
ReplyDelete