Miss Calif.: Anti-gay marriage answer 'Cost me my crown'MSN Entertainment
Miss California Carrie Prejean thinks her anti-same sex marriage opinion cost her the Miss USA title on Sunday.
In an interview on Monday's Billy Bush Show Prejean stated: "It did cost me my crown. I wouldn't have had it any other way. I said what I feel. I stated an opinion that was true to myself and that's all I can do."
During the show, celebrity judge Perez Hilton asked Prejean on whether she thought same-sex marriage should be legalized. Prejean replied: "In my country, and in my family, I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman." Prejean later lost to Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton, who took home the crown.
"It is a very touchy subject and (Hilton) is a homosexual and I see where he was coming from and I see the audience would've wanted me to be more politically correct," she said. "But I was raised in a way that you can never compromise your beliefs and your opinions for anything."
Even though her answer stirred up some controversy, Prejean said she still felt like she won the competition.
"I feel like I'm the winner. I really do," Prejean said, mentioning that she had more than 200 friend requests and 1,000 new messages on Facebook.
A lot of people, many friends of mine included, are really pissed off at her. Being the gay rights megaphone that I am, you'd think I would want to 2X4 her. Strangely, I'm not pissed off or surprised - just more and more determined to keep pushing forward. And, you know what? I find it weirdly refreshing that she at least stood where she stood and spoke what was true for her - right in the face of a gay man and in a industry largely run, and supported by, gay men. That took serious balls. Not that I agree with her in the tiniest little bit. I do not think she stood as a beacon for righteousness and protection of the almighty and oh-so-horribly threatened family. Her truth is bigotry. But I am so tired of people talking out of one side of their mouths out of fear, and in order to be politically correct, and then turning round in private and rolling their eyes and bashing the gays. That happens way too much - here in Utah especially.
People that oppose gay rights and gay marriage are standing firm all over the place. Fine. Good for them. It is better than being two faced pussies about it. But they must also know that there are now consequences for doing so. Friends of mine, gay and straight, have chosen out of long time friendships with people that are clinging to their bigotry. I have not had to yet. People kind of know not to step on that land mine with me. And, they understand why I feel the way I feel. It used to be the case that those of us that supported gay rights would keep our mouths shut and say to ourselves, "They don't know any better, it's what they have been taught. Just let them be." No more. Prop 8 crossed the line and no one is taking it anymore.
Those individuals that discriminate against gays do not yet see that it is no different than discriminating against women, blacks, Jews... the list goes on and on. And they may never see it in this lifetime. But they do need to know, here and now, that they can no longer open their mouths, judge and condemn people, and expect to be awarded for it. There are no crowns being given out for hatred.
They will continue to praise each other and give one another big pats on the back. They will support one another in their fear and judgement and convince themselves that it is okay because they are on the Lord's errand. They are standing for truth and know that their treasure, their crown, is in heaven.
I just think they are going to be more than a little surprised when they finally leave this life and sit down for a little chat with Jesus. What did he teach, again? Oh, yeah...
21 comments:
Well stated.
Although I don't agree with her I do have to say that I respect an honest answer to a question. What pisses me off is when people start "bandstanding" their opinions unsolicited.
(Oops, did I just do that here?)
Enjoyed this post. Stand firm. Whatever you're standing for.
No more. Prop 8 crossed the line and no one is taking it anymore. Exactly. After Prop 8 passed, I went through and purged all my Facebook "friends" who in any way support discrimination. I've ended friendships and have strained relationships with family who don't understand why they can't take away my rights and still be my friend/loving family member. And I still feel the same way. In Prop 8, something broke that cannot be fixed until I have complete and total equality.
I think the biggest problem with what Miss California had to say was "in this country we have a choice, you can choose same sex marriage or opposite (sic) marriage". That is simply not true. In 4 US states, same sex couples can choose to marry, but even those legal marriages are not recognized by the federal government. She made it sound like we all have the same rights and she was just expressing a preference for one choice. Until that is really true, it's not just an opinion, it's hateful, divisive rhetoric.
Ok, I've never expressed my thoughts on gay marriage but what the heck.
I am undecided. It hasn't become an issue in my state,and when it does I will have to decide once and for all.
The conservative arguments are often stupid (there is a stoooooooorm gaaaaathering), and they do use a lot of guilt and fear, both of which make me roll my eyes, but they do have a few good points as well.
The liberal arguments have been a little more difficult. When the anti prop 8 side says "leave this life and sit down for a little chat with Jesus" and when they go on and on about denying people the chance to love, it reminds me of two things:
1. Evangelical conservatives throwing a fit trying to make liberals feel guilty about abortion and
2. That scene in "Dan in Real Life" where the teenager melts to the ground and screams to her father "You are a MURDERER of LOVE"
To convince me, logical, statistically sound reasons that gays getting married would contribute to our society are much more productive than telling me what Jesus will think of me if I don't fall in line with the liberals.
Every so often, I "gird up my loins" and take a peak at your blog. And then of course I scurry for cover. But today, I'll be brave and make a comment. Here's my issue with the Miss USA pageant. Forget the gay marriage debate. Why are they asking these girls political questions anyway? As if anything enlightning or interesting is going to come out of their mouths. It's a beauty pageant! They need to spend less time talking and more time learning how to walk in heels. The past two Miss USA's have fallen on their asses during the Miss Universe evening gown competition! What up?? Not a trip, not a stumble, but a full-on, heinie on the floor, legs akimbo. Where's the pride USA, where's the pride!???
@Melinda
I've never heard anyone on the liberal side trying to use any sort of religious argument to convince people to allow gay marriage. That wouldn't make any sense, as it's not a religious issue. It has not a single thing to do with religion. It's only and ever was about civil, human rights. Just like desegregation was. I'm curious to hear more details about what you're talking about.
Also what do you think are the "good points" the conservative religious side has?
For me, there's only one reason (and several secondary, supporting reasons) why gay marriage needs to be legal, and is no more liberal or conservative than human rights is (although we see in the country that the conservative movement in many ways no longer cares about human rights for others, just themselves):
LGBT people are humans too, and we inherently deserve to be treated exactly the same as anyone else. Sexual orientation and gender identity are no more important than race or gender. To say that gays should get civil unions but not marriage is exactly the same as saying blacks should use a different water fountain from whites. It's segregation, and it's wrong.
Not to mention the fact that research shows that children raised by gay parents are statistically just as well raised and socialised as those raised by heterosexual parents, and that the fact that gay families in most of the US don't have legal protections is harmful to those children. To have anything but total and full equality, even if it the same rights called something else, that's telling society that gays aren't quite as good as straights, and have to be segregated by definition from heterosexuals. That kind of mentality persisting can only fuel the fires of homophobia and violence that we have to deal with every day.
Thanks so much, blond guy. Yeah, your argument that gays are people who deserve the same rights too, and that it is wrong to deny them rights, is an excellent one, but in the end, it is yet another moral argument.
On this particular issue the moral arguments on either side just haven't been enough to push me off the fence. I am continuing to soul search the morality of the whole thing. But I know that I'm going to need a solid non-moral reason to go to one side or the other.
I didn't say the left was using a religious argument to convince people to allow gay marriage. I could probably scrounge up three examples if you are really, really interested (one that comes to mind is "if Jesus were alive today, he'd be a Liberal-- like anyone can even know that!) but this part of the conversation really doesn't interest me beyond its comic value which is a 3 on a scale of 1-10.
Since you asked, the logical, societal, non-moral reasons the right proposed that made a little sense to me were in this article (I only agree with part of it):
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
Your "not to mention" sentence is the exact thing I wish the left would mention... very specifically. I wish I could see an article with the same tone and perspective but from the opposite side, because for me, it is the missing piece.
But if anyone gets all mad about this, I will drop out of the discussion immediately. I have never fought about this issue and never plan to. Not fighting is one thing that I do feel morally good about.
So let me get this straight, you feel comfortable sitting on the fence, because the fact that discriminating against some people is unfair and a violation of human rights (just because they're different from you) isn't a convincing argument as to why you shouldn't? I just want to be clear on this.
I would also like to know exactly which of the reasons in the article you think are good reasons to discriminate. I've heard all of those before, and can give you reasons why they don't hold water, and why they're inevitably just a front for religious bigotry.
Also, while the left could quote statistics and research, that's not the kind of thing that sways people. If all that was needed was logic and reason, why would anyone belong to a religion in the first place? Because we all know that faith is the antithesis of reason.
The focus is on fairness, love, respect and equal rights because that's the kind of thing that will sway people to supporting gay rights. We're humans, and there is not a single reason to treat us differently from heterosexuals. Just because you're the minority doesn't mean you can treat everyone else however the hell you want. That's tyrranical mob-rule, and that is wrong.
Look, I am upsetting you. I didn't want to do that. I don't feel comfortable sitting on the fence. I want off the fence.
At this point, statistics and research and non moral arguments might sway me, but I can't speak for anyone else.
It isn't just the left side that I find wanting, the right side's arguments have by no means hit it out of the park for me.
kɹeɪ̯ɡ̊ says "I've never heard anyone on the liberal side trying to use any sort of religious argument to convince people to allow gay marriage."
Uh. . . really? Did you happen to read the last sentence of the blog post you're commenting on?
As a Koolaid-swilling Mormon, my big question on this whole issue is, What is the LDS Church's next move?
I used to think big LDS should and would keep fighting in the public arena on this issue. But now I'm thinking it would buy us more peace time in society if we go dark. Not refute our beliefs, but just circle the wagons, reaffirm what we believe to each other and our children and whatever converts come our way, and let society do what it will.
I think Prop 8 was important for the LDS Church to make it clear to all Mormons everywhere that the gay lifestyle isn't something that the church is going to accept. If you want to be in the church, you need to work on resisting and overcoming your same-sex stuff, period. And this message is especially important for our children, who will grow up in a world where gay marriage is accepted and where it will be increasingly hard to resist any same-sex stuff they have in their own lives, because society will grow ever more bold about aiding and abetting homosexuality.
Obviously Mormons will continue to reaffirm the sanctity of godlike marriage within our own group and to those are sincerely interested in our viewpoint, but I don't see the point in raising much more stink in general society, which is mostly all located in the great and spacious building these days anyway. It's not worth all the bad publicity and ill will to fight something that's going to happen anyway. We've gone on record, we're now very clearly known to oppose gay marriage, and now I think we should just wash our hands of it and sit back and watch as society does what it will. To do otherwise seems as unwise to me as pasting targets on our foreheads and butts.
Even if we go dark, I still think society will eventually dig us out of our burrows and persecute us if we won't embrace the gay movement, and of course we'll have to hold our ground at that point, come what may. But clamming up until then will buy us more time than continuing to go public on the issue.
Perhaps at some point here on earth or in the eternities, Mormons will be able to say, "Told you so."
I wasn't upset, just wanted to better understand your position. Obviously I didn't fully understand what you were saying.
If you are indeed interested in statistics/empirical research about gay rights, I strongly suggest you check out http://www.isocrat.org It is a website with near exhaustive resources on gay rights, links to numerous articles, and excellent articles and blog posts on the subject.
I think they should make it easy. Marriages happen in a church. Civil Unions happen in a courthouse. Both impart the same legal rights to couples. If one wishes to be "married" because they like what that word means then they need to take part in the religion of their choice. Straight atheiests might take offense at not being "Married" or would they? Has anyone asked them?
Nevermind on that anonymous post...it started with Making things easy and obviously nothing about this topic is....sorry, just nevermind
My prayer, O Lord, is that I get to look at Christopher Bigelow and tell him "I told you so."
Thanks, blond guy. I responded to your comment in my comment on "watch where you step" or "watch what you step in" or whatever that post is called.
Em,
#1 Yes, definitely. Both sides of every question. It is a very sobering quote.
#2. Amen. It was just so the readership knows they are hearing from an actual (insert adjective of choice depending on your perspective) Mormon.
I hope this discussion isn't wreaking havoc on your already overloaded life....I have to go do last night's dishes now.
Adjective of choice: Absofreakingamazinglybeautiful.
Amen Christopher. I have a lot of respect for the church's historically pragmatic approach to political issues. Abandonning polygamy for statehood and staying out of the civil rights struggle (despite some very backward doctrine that came straight from the teachings of the prophet, see Emily's earlier post for documentation) show wisdom and foresight.
I grew up in a very vocally politically conservative home but when I asked my dad how the church, and by extension God, would view an issue he responded "the church supports politicians on both sides that help support the church". It would be an absolute mistake for the church to align itself too openly with one side of the political spectrum and I think the leadership knows it.
As a Californian I can tell you that money that poured out of Utah to buy commercials claiming if prop 8 wasn't passed then kindergartners would be taught about sodomy did serious damage to the reputation of Mormons as an honest people.
I think you are absolutely right to say that Mormon parents should take the initiative, time and responsibility to teach their kids about sexual morality. And then they should have the integrity to not try and confuse gay marriage with an attack on their moral instruction.
When you say that "society will eventually dig us out of our burrows and persecute us if we won't embrace the gay movement" I can hear a little bit of the bogus arguements that gay marriage means marriage in Mormon chapels will be made illegal and, Heaven forbid!, the church will lose its tax exempt status, but in general I think the philosophy you advocate is the one that is best for the church and its neighbors.
Post a Comment