In 1993 I ran for student government governor. It was my first foray into politics, and I was pretty well known. I had been in a couple of the student plays, I had spoken in my small school’s forum, and let’s just say I didn’t dress like everyone else.
However, when election day came, I lost to someone that was less well known, but “cooler” and the shocking thing was what a lot of the teens gave as their reason for not voting for me…
They said that because I said that homosexuality was wrong in a public forum, they voted for my opponent.
The New Taboo
So, when I read that Miss California, Carrie Prejean (21), was asked what she thought about gay marriage, and when she responded as a majority of her state did—that marriage is between a man and a woman—she believed she lost the title of Miss USA, I could sympathize.
Much of liberalism is a double standard. You can say anything you want, as long as it’s not Christian. You can have any religion you want, as long as it’s not Christian.
Now, I’m not sure if her answer lost her the title. I’m not sure how much input Perez Hilton had in the judging, and I’m not sure what business that question had even being asked.
It was one thing for me to get up and make that kind of a statement, it’s another thing for an openly gay man to ask a contestant their thoughts on a political/cultural/moral issue and then judge her because of her conviction.
Expect To See More Of This
It does not surprise me, however. This movement is extremely vocal—though many of its adherents are not. Many people that are for same sex marriage do so out of a belief that it’s fair somehow. Just like many people are Pro-Choice because they want to stay out of people’s lives and decisions.
But that doesn’t stop either of these movements from believing that support of “Choice” and non-interference is equal to support of their lifestyles and choices.
So as more people support the choice, and there is more involvement by the gay community in the public square, so I expect there to be more instances where this new litmus test is put into practice—especially in the media and other liberal friendly venues.
So two choices present themselves:
1. Conservatives and Christians abandon these venues and create their own.
I mean, one could ask the question of what a Christian is doing parading in her underwear in front of a nation, allowing her body to be gazed upon by millions of teen guys, and then claiming to be an example of someone taking a moral high ground. Beauty pageants—regardless of whether there’s a scholarship attached, or emphasis on talent—are still simply opportunities to show of physical traits and a woman’s form for the purpose of having men look at them.
So, Christians can (and have) created other opportunities to do much the same thing. They can try to produce a better product and see where that goes.
2. Conservatives and Christians can try to reclaim these venues and make them their own.
Or the opposite. If you can get enough Christians involved to take back venues, make sure they have a voice and are represented, then a difference can be made. But I’m still hesitant to make the battle ground of choice this one—it’s like making an argument for modesty in a bikini, how can you make that argument and practice something entirely different? How can you be in a beauty pageant that shows off your body and alludes to sex and yet take a stand against a sex-saturated society?
And was God really testing Miss California’s faith by not letting her win?