Posted by
Bob Siegel on Monday, April 27, 2009 8:45:02 PM
By now, everyone knows the story of Carrie Prejean, (alias Miss California) the courageous young woman who stood by her convictions at the Miss USA contest instead of offering the Politically Correct answer to an emotionally loaded set up question. Had Miss Prejean played it safe, she may have come in first place. On the other hand, who really remembers the name of the woman who actually did come in first place? I mean no disrespect to the newly crowned Miss USA, but I honestly do not remember her, neither would I have ever known anything at all about this year's pageant because I never watch Miss USA. I suspect there are millions upon millions of others who caught the event this year for the first time. (Not the entire program mind you, just the few minutes where contest judge, Perez Hilton decided that no event on Earth deserves to be shielded from militant gay activism, not even an evening as harmless as a simple beauty contest.) But then, homosexuality does seem to pop on to the scene everywhere else, like a surprise Jack in the Box, even in Massachusetts kindergarten classes shortly after gay marriage became legal. If four and five year old children must learn about alternative lifestyles, I suppose a 21 year old contestant cannot be immune either.
I have written at length about the hot potato subject of homosexuality and I have discussed the subject frequently on my radio show. My thoughts range from sympathy toward most homosexuals who merely want to be left alone, to criticism of militant gay activists who don't seem to want to leave anybody alone.
Speaking of everybody; everybody and their brother had an opinion this last week. I have no wish to merely repeat what others have already said. Instead, since the nature of my ministry as a Christian apologist has been that of answering questions, allow me to share some common objections generally thrown at Conservatives around coffee tables, water coolers or college campuses when one or two brave souls dare to tell us that the Emperor isn't really wearing any clothes, only to discover that others did not see the clothes either. Instead, they merely assumed that if the majority saw them, the majority must somehow have been right.
HERE WE GO:
"Why did this woman impose her religion on the contest?"
She didn't. She was merely answering a question about a difficult subject. When asked for an opinion, one has a right to state the reason for her opinion. In Carrie Prejean's case, her Christian beliefs were her reason for believing that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman.
"But isn't this showing intolerance?"
Nobody is tolerant of everything. Should people tolerate slavery? Should people tolerate racism? Those might sound like questions with easy, obvious answers but previous generations did not formulate their conclusions quite so quickly. Should we tolerate murder? Should we tolerate rape? OK, how about some less severe examples? Should we tolerate gossip? Should we tolerate rudeness? Here's one I know you'll like: Do you tolerate religious hypocrisy? Let's be clear and honest: You yourself do not tolerate all behaviors or all lifestyles. The true discussion is not tolerance as an end in itself but rather, our reasons for tolerance in some cases and our reasons for intolerance in others.
And while we're on the subject of tolerance, how tolerant was Perez Hilton of Miss California after she failed to answer his question exactly the way he felt it should be answered? Did you see his vile comments on You Tube? Do we even need to say any more? Carrie Prejean happens to have an opinion about gay marriage which differs from Perez Hilton's. Did he show tolerance for her beliefs?
"Perez Hilton was not being unfair in his response to Miss California.
After all, on You Tube he merely said that she should have left out the
details and answered that this was a matter best left to the states."
If only he had said that and nothing else. Nevertheless, let's go ahead and examine this statement.
It's a disingenuous comment. Hilton himself had already declared that
this was an issue being decided state by state. He was asking Carrie's
opinion about whether all states should follow suit. Saying she should have embraced the idea of each state deciding for itself only means she was expected to give the answer he
wanted. Maybe Carrie doesn't believe the matter should be decided state by state.
And even if she does, Perez himself does not believe it should be
decided state by state. If he did, he would not be so vocal against the
passing of Proposition 8, which, after all, was nothing more than a
state deciding.
"But isn't it important to speak against hate? Those who are against gay marriage are filled with hate, aren't they?"
With all due respect, that's quite a sweeping generalization. Have you met and conversed with every single person opposed to gay marriage? And how exactly are you defining hate? Carrie spoke in a warm, diplomatic, friendly tone. She said she intended no offense. She said she accepted a person's right to have different opinions. Would the woman have even mentioned a word about gay marriage if not asked? And was it really a sincere question if she was expected to have only one answer, the Politically Correct one? Is it possible for people of high conscience to have legitimate disagreements without hating each other? Even 10 years ago, (long after gay people had come out of the closet) if a friend of yours said, "Personally, I have nothing against homosexuals as people, but I disagree with their life style and I believe an ideal marriage is between a man and a woman," would you have called such a remark hatred?
"But disapproving of homosexuality is like disapproving of an entire race because gay people were born that way."
Actually nothing of the sort has ever been proven. (See link below) But even if you disagree, viewing sexuality as different than race or skin color isn't really that far of a stretch, is it? To use some common terms, can you yourself show compassion and tolerance for people who have a view of homosexuality contrary to your own?
"But aren't we suppressing the rights of gay people? Shouldn't they be allowed to marry?"
Nobody says they can't. In fact, gay churches and other liberal churches have been performing homosexual weddings for years. All we ask is that they not force the rest of us to change our own definition of marriage."
"But in most states a gay marriage isn't recognized legally."
That is true. But civil unions are. A civil union grants identical rights. There is no financial benefit denied and no hospital visitation suppressed. So, legally, homosexual couples have the same rights and religiously (depending upon the church) they have the affirmation of marriage. Ten years ago, militant gay activists, while fighting for civil unions, promised that this would be enough. That promise has been broken. I honestly appreciate your desire to be fair and compassionate. I really do. But please think about this for a moment. If gay couples can get married in liberal churches and if they can also have legal civil unions, if they decide to then call themselves married (as they have been doing for many decades) and if nobody is passing any law against their free speech to describe their relationship any way they choose, what possible reason remains for demanding that the entire country change its definition of marriage, other than to insist on affirmation from people who have a right to their own opinion about varying lifestyles?
"I heard Perez Hilton say to Dennis Prager on Larry King Live that if we kept church and state separate, Evangelical Christians would have nothing to worry about. Let there be two kinds of marriage, a civil version and a religious version."
Sounds OK to me. Only one problem: Hilton is being dishonest once again. He knows full well that in many places, churches which refuse to perform gay marriages are being subjected to lawsuits. Even in states like New Jersey, where only civil unions are allowed, churches are still being sued. So in what way is he embracing "separation between church and state?"
"But the rest of us are not affected by gay people getting married."
I can understand why you might feel that way but it actually is not true. Gay marriage affects the entire country in very profound ways. (See link to article below)
CONCLUSION:
Perez Hilton was asked to judge a beauty contest. He was not there to advance his own agenda. He knew that once an emotionally and politically charged question like homosexuality came up, it would instantly trump all other events of the evening.. (No pun intended, Donald.)
Now, even the Miss California organization is putting pressure on Carrie Prejean. This has been very apparent from supposedly subtle comments on television interviews. Prejean is being accused of misrepresenting California by imposing her own views. Once again, she was asked for her own views. That is exactly, specifically what Hilton asked. If the Miss California pageant wants to get angry, they should get angry at Hilton, but they dare not, for fear of being branded as hateful, racist homophobes. Besides, if we really want to get technical, Carrie Prejean is speaking for most Californians, but then, that takes us back to Proposition 8, unpopular with the Miss California Pageant and Perez Hilton's confessed reason for stirring up this hornet's nest in the first place.
This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.
Also by Bob Siegel:
If You Think Gay Marriage Will Not Affect You, Think Again!