(Miss) California Love

It's been about a week since the last entry and I apologize to those of you who have been patiently waiting. But we're back and better than ever. Well, kind of. At least we're back.

Anyway, as I'm sure all of you know, the Miss USA Pageant took place this past week. Because I know everyone watched it closely, I was going to write an entry breaking down the contestants and their vital stats, what they did right and wrong, and analyze the final results of the pageant. However, there was a moment during the contest that sparked some controversy and I've reluctantly decided to can my original plans and instead just write a piece responding to the said incident. I know you're all sorely disappointed, but don't worry: next year I promise a huge Miss USA Pageant entry. I'm already starting my research.

Anyway, during the question-answer part of this year's pageant, Carrie Prejean, a.k.a. Miss California, was asked this question by judge number eight, celebrity gossip columnist Perez Hilton: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?" Prejean responded by saying that while she thought it was great that in America, a person had the choice between one or the other, it was her personal belief that marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman. (Here's the video.)

Okay, let's clear a couple of things up. First, she's incorrect when she says Americans have the option for gay marriage. Only some Americans have that option; those who live in those states where it's been legalized. Also, she called marriage between a man and a woman "opposite marriage". I assume she was going for "opposite sex marriage". Okay, so the girl isn't the brightest bulb in the box. We still get the general idea of what she meant. And since she's pretty, we'll let that slip-up slide.

Now with all that being said, while I personally don't agree with Prejean's stance, I don't really have a problem with her answer. This is America and everyone is allowed to have their own opinions on all issues. And believe it or not, people, but even the opinions you don't agree with are allowed to be spoken.

After the pageant, Hilton (who is openly gay) increased the controversy by recording a video message on his blog basically saying that he was upset by Prejean's answer not because she doesn't support gay marriage, but because she didn't answer the question appropriately. In his mind, Prejean should have answered the questions in terms of federal versus state jurisdiction, not in terms of whether it was right or wrong. Hilton went on further to call her names and use words so foul that it'll probably take a Costco pack of Orbit to clean that dirty mouth.


Look, Hilton is right that she didn't exactly answer the question. But the way that the question was phrased basically forced Prejean to put out her position on the issue. Now, it was my understanding that the purpose of these questions was to test the thoughtfulness of the contestants. But this question tested her opinion. She was put in a terrible position. When the question was posed to her by Hilton, she knew what answer he wanted to hear. In that moment, she had to make a decision: give the "right" response, or stay true to her beliefs. She chose the latter and perhaps cost herself the crown in the process (she was the first runner-up). And it's important to remember that it's not like she slandered gays and gay marriage in her response. If you watch the video, she simply answered the question in a very respectful manner, albeit not the most eloquent.

One thing that I think we should also consider is that Prejean is from California. While the same-sex marriage proposition failed in California this past November, it's no secret that California is one of the most left-leaning states in the country. There's no doubt that Miss California's answer was unpopular among many of her fellow state residents. But what if the contestant had been, say, Miss Alabama? Would her response have gotten as much attention as it did? Probably not, and that's what makes this more unfair to Miss California. As many people as I know in California that support gay marriage, I probably know just as many that oppose it. In my opinion, the societal "expectations" of our state forced her even more into a situation where there was no way out.

Now in the big picture, who even really cares what a pageant queen thinks about this issue? Hell, I didn't even know that the Miss USA pageant was even on. I mean, do people actually watch it? And what does Miss USA even do? If you know, please fill me in because I'm kind of intrigued now. Anyway, the point is that it's pretty clear that this whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. She's one person with one opinion.

In spite of that, people still seem to want to crucify this woman for what she said. But Rich Tafel of Log Cabin Republicans (which as far as I can tell is a left-leaning Republican organization which supports gay marriage) made an interesting point. In a running conversation on the New York Times website, Tafel writes, "As the tide turns in favor of gay equality, what a sad victory it will be if we become the new bullies. We lose the moral high ground that propelled our cause. Calling this woman an unprintable name as Perez Hilton did is indefensible. The crime here is not that people have opinions we disagree with. The crime is treating those who disagree with us with the same incivility that they treated us to."

Something to keep in mind.

Anyway, I know this entry was kind of deep and not really in the tone that I normally aim for. I realize some people might be disappointed as a result. But I have a gold nugget of comic relief. In the spirit of pageants, I present Miss Teen South Carolina 2007. Enjoy.

(P.S. I promised Joan Hwang a shout out, so I'd like to say hi to her now. Hi, Joan. Thanks for following the blog.)