Wednesday, April 22, 2009

I Agree with Obama... and with Miss California

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.


John H. said...


Nicely written piece, though the video I saw of Miss California's answer did not contain a well constructed answer.

I have long argued the government should not be in the marriage business at all. Apparently others are beginning to see the wisdom of this thinking as well -- if you Google "Government out of Marriage", you will see others' comments.

With respect to "marriage" the government should not "define" it, recognize it, etc.

Marriage is, for most people, a religious institution, and should be treated as such. Each religious or social group that wants to "define" a marriage should be able to do so, with their own set of requirements, procedures, etc. In line with laws to protect minors and others from exploitation or abuse.

The civil responsibilities and benefits can be defined in contracts that stipulate what rights an individual or individuals have in the affairs of another (inheritance, visitation, etc.).

Denise said...

Mormons across the United States bought that vote in California after receiving the following letter (on 6/29/08) from the head of their church:

"In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.' The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.

The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage."
I agree with John H that the government should get out of the "marriage business". They should only issue licenses for all citizens to get civil unions. Then if a couple wants to additionally get "married" in a church, fine. (And if said church wants to ban gays from getting married in their church, fine.)

Taryn Simpson said...

I respect your opinion and have read your position on gay marriage.

While it is certainly your right to voice your views, it seems that we are still living in an age where others are being judged for perceived "sins."

While I could probably write a book on this subject, I will simply remind you and others who hold this position that Billy Graham even revised his views on this subject as he so eloquently phrased it, "one sin is no more powerful than another".

So, those who overeat, drink too much, covet thy neighbor's wife etc, etc., are as "sinful" as a homosexual.

We were all made in God's image. No one is a mistake and no one should feel like a second class citizen.

thank you for allowing my comments.

Taryn Simpson

the Lola Letters said...

I stumbled upon your blog while searching for google images of my Grandpa Headlee and found a photograph of my Uncle (Howard Headlee) here on your site.

Well, I was immediately "sucked in" and have been reading for the past half an hour!I especially love this article in particular.
You have stated things not only eloquently, but fairly as well.


"It is the height 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."

has officially become my favorite quote regarding the matter. My sentiments exactly.

I just wanted to say that I've thoroughly enjoyed reading!