Greetings from Seattle



Thursday, May 7, 2009

How They Scorn Ya, Miss California

Poor Carrie Prejean. She did everything right. She got the right clothes, the right make up. She enhanced and perfected her body. She nailed the prancing in the bikini. All was going so well until she was asked to think and speak. I confess, I watched much of the "pageant". My regular shows were repeats and I was in need of mindless entertainment. I saw Miss California breeze her way through the fluffy question. But then she got the one that she said later was the one topic she dreaded. I watched her struggle, be completely inarticulate, and finally burst out with what she really thinks. Another confession: When I was that age, I would not have had a good answer either. Young people are so involved in "growing up" that they don't have the time or experiences to be "grown ups". Once again I lament that most often you have to get old before you get wise. Then no one cares what you think. What a waste of wisdom. But back to Miss California. She is now being assaulted by the left for her stance on gay marriage. She has been conscripted to be a spokesperson for those "defending" heterosexual marriage. Someone is releasing photos of her as a seventeen year old model posing in her panties. She might lose her "crown". Does anyone know who won the Miss America/Universe title? Right. Me neither. Carrie might be the loser, but with all this free publicity, her career is launched! And what about the marriage controversy? Is marriage under attack? Do we have to protect the sanctity of marriage? Will allowing gays to marry really damage heterosexual or "opposite" marriage? I had to laugh this morning when our morning talk show guy, Dave Ross, asked "Who is a bigger threat to heterosexual marriage, Miss California or Barney Frank?" He is the Crusader For Common Sense. It seems to me that in this day and age when many people don't bother to get married, and half of those who do end it in divorce, that we ought to be thrilled that anyone would want to enter into a committed and binding relationship, gay or straight. The state began to license marriage to have a legal system in place for when the marriage failed and it was time to assign blame and divvy up, but also to control who was allowed to marry. Sometimes blood tests were required. You couldn't marry your cousin, but in some states you also couldn't marry someone of a different race. We have abolished many prejudices, but it's still OK to deny civil rights to same sex couples wanting the rights that the states grant married couples. Why? Because homosexuality is a sin? So some say. Is denying them the rights associated with marriage going to stop them from having sex? It doesn't stop anyone else. This has become a silly argument.

12 comments:

  1. Very eloquent, Linda. I do agree about the flap over gay marriage. I feel it is only a matter of time before the majority of our states agree.

    People need to stop forcing themselves and their political party into our bedrooms.

    Miss C is entitled to her opinion and the right to voice it loudly wherever and whenever she wants. However, I do not understand why anyone really cares what this young woman thinks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with you. I have always thought that the pageants were not a good thing- the spotlight is on the wrong aspect of what young girls should aspire to.
    As to the civil unions, why can't people live and let live?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that civil unions and marriage be totaly separte. When you get married in a church that should not automatically convey the rights of civil union, although I would hope that a church would require a civil contract for those entering into marriage.
    A person should be able to convey the civil percs (tax, health care, retiremet, etc.) to anyone with whom they are making a commitment of mutual care. Sex is usually but need not be a part of such a relationship. If siblings or platonic friends are willing to make a contractual commitment to care for each other in sickness and in health, why should they not be able to convey these percs on one another.
    I know I'm weird, but I think caring not sex should be the determining factor. Does this make sense to anyone but me?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, Martha, you've given me something more to think about. We're really hung up on the term "marriage", but under your plan it would simply be a ritual to "sanctify" a union, based on whatever a particular church would allow. The state would be out of the marriage business, and would license and grant rights based on whoever applied for a civil union contract.
    Interesting, but maybe farther down the road than we are ready for yet.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Martha makes an excellent and interesting point. Although there are laws in place to protect many "non-sexual" relationships - estate laws, living wills, and so on
    the problem with not allowing gay people to legally marry is that they are then denied all the rights automatically bestowed up married people and their children are at risk should something happen to one or both parents

    Miss California is an idiot! What the hell does "I am a Christian but also a model" mean? And how funny that the people who pimp her out for the bigoted commercial then condemn her for the silly pictures.

    Actually maybe she's not an idiot, perhaps she's very clever and will keep her 15 minutes of fame longer than others.

    I'm furious at Perez Hilton for asking the question and then being absurd about the answer - he demeaned all of us who are fighting for equal rights.

    I read that another one of the judges was quoted as saying he could understand why Chris Brown beat up his girlfriend Rhianna

    that paegant really attracts a classy group!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just a quick note to say that I liked the way your title rhymed!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Amen, Linda. Let's live and let live. With so many promiscuouis folks these days we should be thankful some folks want to be in a commited relationship that can be legal and blessed by some clergy.I bet anyone who hails from a large family has a family member who is either homosexual or bisexual. Let's have some compassion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Again, I'm 100% behind you and agree with everything you say. You always say what I feel in just the right way. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree, but you may have stepped on a few family toes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, change is a comin'... a good thing in my opinion.
    For those of us in long term committed relationships the issue of civil rights is certainly important.
    Separation of church and state seems relevant too.
    Why should I have to carry documents to allow me to be at my partner's bedside in case of a medical emergency?
    So, thanks Linda. Your articulate viewpoint is a pleasure to read.
    Steffany

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thank you for your words of wisdom! I hope people are listening.

    ReplyDelete

I would love to read your comments. Since I link most posts to Facebook, you may comment there if you do not have an account. I have eliminated Anonymous comments due to spammers.