Can we just strike a deal wherein the pro-gay-marriage forces agree not to make Carrie Prajean the face of the mixed-marriage traditional-marriage lobby, and the anti-gay-marriage people not do the same to Perez Hilton with respect to those they oppose?*
Because:
1) One of the reasons for the outrage after the beauty contest is that politics are not supposed to be injected into these pageants, and Perez knew he could get by with doing so. And Ms. Prajean was a bit clumsy in her response. (I mean, I think I know what she meant to say, but who am I to know for sure?)
2) Few of us go to youngsters at beauty pageants for our political or spiritual insights.
3) Neither do we usually look to gossip columnists for same.
The focus on the Hilton-Prejean conflict is really raising passions on both sides. The incident is perceived in a particularly subjective way by many people on both sides of the gay-marriage debate, and focusing thereon sheds more heat than light.
I’d rather see us debate the issue on its face, rather than retreading the same old ground of “which one of these people behaved inappropriately?” What part of “it was a freakin’ beauty contest” are we unable to wrap our heads around?
Given time, this issue will resolve itself. It’s only by insisting that we must figure it out to everyone’s satisfaction this year that makes us all so cranky.
UPDATE: Sorry about the “mixed marriage” phrasing. That’s my quasi-autistic side coming out: I literally was thinking “this will work; like ‘mixed company.'” We must remember that I am, while bright, a bit of an idiot. Fixed, I hope. Carry on.
; ?>/images/user.png)
; ?>/images/email.png)
; ?>/images/feed.png)
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
I just came on Hilton saying some reasonably nice things about Prejean . I do agree with him that she should step down or be removed. I was at her press conference yesterday and even in the space of a couple of sentences, the young lady could not keep track of whether or not she is a private individual or heroically representing California and the entire U.S.
Cynthia
“Mixed marriage” ????
Is that what we are calling male/female unions these days?
I think the Joker was right. This country/culture/society does need an enema.
I suggest a no-rules cage match with one person walking out. There are plenty of countries that would be willing to host it.
I’m opposed to legislation or court decisions favoring Same Sex Marriages. (“SSM”).
But what came out of that Perez/Carrie thing, was that now the policy makers of the Miss USA Pageant will in effect making it forbidden for their participants to hold or express the maintain-the-marriage-between-one-woman-and-one-man public policy.
So be it. In 20 years we’ll look back and point to some more errosion of that Pageant.
Conservatives like competition, I’m sure business plans are being drafted for a Miss America pageant allowing for Carrie’s views.
Didn’t that contest used to be called the Miss America Pageant? Was “America” too contraining?
I’m surprised that the “Miss” is still around.
No, the Miss USA pageant is the feeder for the Miss Universe pageant–both owned by Donald Trump since 1996. It goes back to 1950 when Catalina (the swimsuit manufacturer) created their own pageant when the Miss America winner wouldn’t wear a swimsuit–Catalina’s.
It would have been nice for the Donald (who “owns” this thing) to void Hilton’s vote. He was the one who broke the rules.
I’m in Darrell’s camp on the “mixed marriage” thing.
There is marriage. It is defined. Other novelties, to which one may apply a libertarian indifference, will meet with a cold shoulder.
Let’s examine Carrie Prejeans answer, shall we?
“I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman.”
Anyone that takes exception to that is someone that should be ignored.
I think the subject has to be addressed legislatively (and judicially) sooner than later to avoid the very problems we all are seeing on the horizon.
Even though I would like to NOT have to do this, we have to separate civil marriages from religious and sacramental Marriages. Only civil marriages will confer contract (legal) rights and obligations: Sacramental/religious Marriages will not. Those wishing both can secure both, subject to the rules of the religious organizations.
Civil marriages will take place with signatures witnessed at approved government offices, like DMV facilities. No ceremony will be permitted–just a review of benefits and responsibilities, questions answered, and witnessed signatures. It will be strictly a licensing process. Any ceremony the couple wants to participate in can take place off government property.
Since sacramental/religious Marriages do not confer legal rights and responsibilities, no government involvement/interference will EVER be allowed–in any way, shape, or form.