by 
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?
So if I was interviewing for a job in a Christian school, and in the course of the interview I voiced my support for gay marriage, thereby costing me the job, that would also be wrong, correct?????
I thought not. You cannot have it both ways. Christians have a right to their views and opinions (even if I consider them to be intolerant and outdated). So does everyone else though.
Christian schools/churches/organizations can continue to discriminate based on their religious convictions. I don’t have to like it, nor do I have to stand for it in a PUBLIC, not religious setting. Miss CA was not running for Miss Christian Virgin 2009. In that hypothetical situation, her answer would have been awesome. Know your audience and your judges.
Musicguys last blog post..Happy Darwin Day!
I’m curious: What job was Miss USA applying for where her answer of not supporting gay marriage– like a majority of the people in her state said on election day– was grounds for her not being hired or selected?
Where in the rules of the contest did it say that the organization should support gay marriage– or you could end up losing.
I think we’re together on wondering what place someone who has “Christian Morals” has in one of these contest– probably for different reasons– but if a person is going to get judged on something totally irrelevant to the position they are applying for then that is injustice.
She was applying for the job of Miss Usa, with it’s duties and responsibilities throughout the next year. Granted, I think the duties are a load of crap, but that’s how beauty pageants work. The judges (yes, plural) did not like her answer, and how she answered the question. They have every right to score her accordingly.
In the end, the judges did not want her representing the pageant because of her religious views, and I completely agree with that decision. Miss CA has been surrounded by gay men who worked very hard to get her where she was. I have a feeling she’ll be looking for new behind the scenes support after that answer.
My bigger issue here is that Miss CA wants to wear her religion on her sleeve while parading around less than half naked. Can’t say I really understand how a beauty pageant is the right place for a good christian girl.
Musicguys last blog post..Happy Darwin Day!
I’m still unsure that the job description of Miss USA has anything in it that prohibits someone who believes that same-sex marriage is wrong, or that there is some religious test involved (or should be involved). To me, you might as well have asked her “Do you like the color red?” and if she said “No”, then choose not to pick her.
Their decision shows more about them then it does about her– and the attention should be focused on the judges, in my opinion.
Now, as for a woman who claims to be a Christian and “God is testing me by having me lose”, I don’t think she’s very strong in the faith in the first place– and probably using that as part excuse. I agree with you that a “good Christian girl” shouldn’t be parading around in her underwear for money or fame. I’m not sure Christ would ever call a person to that. But we could go so far as to say why does any woman do something that totally undercuts all women and objectifies them more.
I must not understand it because I’m a guy.
Miss USA will also be representing every state now, including those where gay marriage is legal, or will be soon (NJ). The winner had a much better answer (when asked in an interview the next day):
“In short, I would say everyone should be able to enter into a civil union, where they’re legally recognized as a couple and earn the same rights as a married couple. I’m not going to say whether or not I think it should be defined as marriage because that’s up to our politicans and our elected officials.”
If Miss CA had answered like that, she very well may be wearing the crown right now.
Musicguys last blog post..Happy Darwin Day!
This answer is irrelevant– it happened after the fact and the winner could take time to be more nuanced. The part that I object to is that this question seems to stand alone, to this one individual, and it ended up being a litmus test. I understand the arbitrary nature of the judging here, but if only one contestant is asked this question which relates to a controversial issue that people have different moral convictions about, the nature of this competition should have been flexible enough to allow a range of opinions.
It’s one thing to disqualify a person because they can’t name the states they’d be representing– having an intellectual problem– or carrying a radical belief (like is a member of the KKK), but to deny a person a position because she has a belief that is line with a majority of her state and the nation (though 4 states may have legalized same sex marriage, 3 or 4 times that many have altered their constitution to prohibit it) is not just. When people are divided on a belief, good people can agree to disagree. There’s nothing saying that Miss California could not have had a “better” answer to this question after being crowned, just like the now Miss USA has a better answer after the fact.
How was the question worded?
Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”
Musicguys last blog post..Happy Darwin Day!
If it was understood that the pageant organizers, promoters, judges, supporters, etc, etc, like the color red, then answering “No” would be the equivelant of committing professional suicide. Although it’s not written anywhere that Miss USA be pro-gay, the inherent nature of the event would dictate that (just as I would assume that any Christian event, in or out of a church, would most likely be anti-gay).
Musicguys last blog post..Happy Darwin Day!
But then the question comes down to, do you lie or misrepresent the truth (or dodge the question)? And in this case, I’m not so sure that it’s a given that Miss USA is pro-gay.
Really?? it’s a beauty pageant!
In the words of another judge:
“The beginning of Prejean’s answer was ok…but, she made the mistake of not knowing when to shut her mouth. As she continued to speak, I saw the crown move further & further away from her. When she finished, she looked strangely proud for a moment. Personally, I was STUNNED on several levels. First, how could this young woman NOT know her audience and judges? Let’s not forget that the person asking the question is an openly gay man, at least 2 people on the judges panel are openly gay. Another judge has a sister in a gay marriage. Her very own state pageant director, KEITH LEWIS is an openly gay man who has been a very generous benefactor of hers…in many ways. Did I mention I was STUNNED?”
Musicguys last blog post..Happy Darwin Day!
Yes, it was a litmus test, and the Christians us them just as frequently. As I said in my first post, you cannot have it both ways. If you as a Christian want to use a litmus test to exclude people, from whatever job/organization/title/etc, then you should expect the other side to do the same thing.
Musicguys last blog post..Happy Darwin Day!
I don’t mind the “test” if the rules are stated and followed. If Miss USA, as an organization, is pro same sex marriage, then she was foolish. I’ll even go so far as to say that not knowing your audience and judges is something that is laziness at worst, ignorant at best. But was the answer sincere– did she answer the question honestly or did she try to dodge it? If she answered honestly, that’s a whole lot better than some of our politicians that parse their words to pander to the audience.
If the Miss USA organization is not pro-same sex marriage, then the question was out of bounds. Why was the question even asked? Was she set up?
What I’m trying to get at– and you do have a couple good arguments in here Musicguy– is whether or not there were known qualifications (you have to be pro-civil unions or same sex marriage) or whether it is just that the judge panel was biased and the only way to win was to hedge.
From what I know about what Miss USA does, this is hardly something that she’d have to go around and weigh in on. She has little clout (most people understand that a majority of how these women get there is how they look in their underwear and a formal), and is mostly just someone to get your picture taken with. How does this issue relate to the job qualifications?
I understand how this answer relates to promoting the gay agenda– it would be much better for same sex marriage advocates to have a public figure head (a heterosexual beauty queen no less) trumpeting the message of equality on television and wherever she goes than it would be to have someone that stands for the opposite– but does that turn the pageant into a political interest group, defined by that issue? Is that where they really want to go?
What happened to having unbiased judges? You’re all putting it as a choice that the CA girl had to make. Why should she have to do that? Isn’t it the organization’s responsibility to make sure the judges don’t ask any questions on which they’re biased? Better still, don’t choose biased judges.