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.