Okay, I didn't watch Donald Trump's Miss USA contest... but of course I heard about it the next morning, not because of who won, but because of who lost and more importantly why she lost. Carrie Prejean, Miss California, lost because she was asked a question that was a "no win" for a pageant contestant that had a judge with a specific agenda. Unless she gave a completely "political" answer where no one would know what the contestant believed (let alone what she actually said, like many politicians). Because the answer she gave actually was what she believed and was based on her religious beliefs and was founded in basic conservative values, it has become a firestorm of sorts.
Let's face it, the questioning judge, Perez Hilton, an openly homosexual "celebrity" blogger, baited her. He new from her bio that she was attending a Christian college and that she was a strong adherent to Christian values. He could have asked her a number of questions that were relevant for the day but instead decided to take one of the most divisive and controversial subjects, for which he admittedly had a specific agenda, and exploit it on national television. I'm not saying it isn't a legitimate question only that it wasn't asked for the right reason.
The fact that Miss California "admitted" to believing that the institution of marriage should be reserved for a man and woman was just too much for the judge. He tanked her probable selection by marking her so far down on the judge's ballot that it was impossible for her to win and then he proceeded to vilify her in the press and to literally call her names that cannot be used in even impolite company.
The problem with all this is that Perez believes activist judges should make the decisions regarding marriage, not the people who go to the ballot box. Of course he only believes that because these judges agree with him and the electorate does not. It is the heigth of hypocrisy of the left and those with agendas outside the mainstream to scream intolerance when they themselves cannot and will not tolerate another's belief or opinion.
In this case, when there are clear differences in opinion on the subject, Miss California should not have been "judged" by the content of her answer but rather by how articulate her answer was given. Clearly, she was not given that benefit by Perez.
Maybe if she had opened her remarks by saying... "I agree with President Obama on this issue" , perhaps that would have been enough to get her by... unless of course Perez actually listened to what Obama said during the campaign (apparently most people didn't), where he agreed with President Bush that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman.
By the way, for the record... I believe that all persons should be treated with respect and dignity (unless of course they are trying to kill us or attack our country... but that's another subject and I digress), and that every person should have the right to enter into civil agreements that allows them to choose who will inherit their estate, who is entitled to visit them in hospitals, who can co-sign on mortgages, etc.
If you are an unmarried person, regardless of sexual orientaion (because candidly I don't want to know what your sexual orientation is, period!), and want to enter into legal civil agreements, it should be allowed. In California every right afforded a married person is legally available to unmarried persons under statute. If you are a single mother and want to have a civil agreement with your best friend you should be able to do it, whether you live together or not. (notice I didn't mention what her sexual orientation is...). If a single man wants to enter into a civil agreement with his cousin, best friend or brother, he should be entitled to do this.
I've hired and worked with people of all ethnicity, religion, and "lifestyle". I have eulogized employee/friends who have died of aids. I have never taken into consideration one's lifestyle in the workplace unless they flaunt it in an inappropriate way. We should all have equal protection under the law and the law should afford all the rights I mention above, not because we create a separate class, but because we are all the same under the law and the law is no respecter of persons.
However, changing the definition of marriage is neither necessary nor prudent in protecting peoples rights. It has been defined the same for millenia and changing the meaning of language to promote a social agenda that is not mainstream or the desire of the electorate is just plain wrong.
I'm still upset that I can't use the word "gay" anymore in its historical and legitimate context, you know like in the old campfire song, "and we'll all be happy and gay", because it has been "redifined" and co-opted to mean something completely different.