Friday, April 24, 2009

Miss USA 2009 Controversy: A Compendium

I assume that the reader has some knowledge of the controversy, which started Sunday night, so I will not bother to give the complete background right now.


The deciding question: Pageant judge Perez Hilton: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage; do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”

The response: Miss California, Carrie Prejan: “...In my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be – between a man and a woman.”

The aftermath: Hilton voted the front-runner Miss California to defeat, Hilton apparently later goes on to curse Miss California on his blog, controversy emerges, sides are chosen, and death threats are made.


After thinking about the matter on Tuesday as the hoopla over the pageant continued, personally, here's how I would have answered if I were Miss California.

Hilton: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage; do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”

My response: “Given that I accept neither the assumptions nor central premises of ethical minimalism, and given that I intuit that homosexual relations are of no moral equivalence with benign things such as one's being Black or one's consummating an existing marriage to the end of the fulfillment of the designs of chemistry and plumbing associated with such things, and given the controversiality of homosexual relations as reflected in relevant writings from erudite persons in the fields of Darwinism, philosophy, and the time-tested, battle-worn, ages-old traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, if I must err then let me err on the side of caution to say that no one has yet produced conclusive proof that the legal sanctioning of same-sex marriage, if such a thing can exist, is justified by either natural or moral law. Therefore, I do not think that same-sex marriage, as it were, should be allowed.”

And that seems like a fair, well-rounded response to me. ;) It answers the question; it does so in a diplomatic way; and it drags both the Mosaic Law and Islam down into the mud right along with Christianity in a way that challenges people either to gainsay a politically-correct religion such as Islam and show their inconsistency in matters of offense and PCism or to rethink whether biblical ethics is really such an absurd thing.


The next day, Wednesday, we found the following posted at

Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, Heidi Montag Tweet About Same-Sex Marriage
Cyrus, Montag mention religion in support of same-sex nuptials.
By Jocelyn Vena

Miley Cyrus and Britney Spears have taken to Twitter to support gay marriage, just days after Miss California Carrie Prejean sparked controversy during Sunday night's Miss USA competition when asked by celeb blogger Perez Hilton if morestates should legalize same-sex marriage.

Prejean stated her opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman --and in the process has made an enemy of Hilton -- but has also started a conversation among many notable celebrities on Twitter.

"Love is love!" Britney Tweeted to Perez. "People should be able to do whatever makes them happy!"

Miley Cyrus Tweeted similar thoughts, telling Hilton, "Jesus loves you and your partner and wants you to know how much he cares! That's like a daddy not loving his lil boy cuz he's gay and that is wrong and very sad! Like I said everyone deserves to be happy. I am a Christian and I love you -- gay or not. Because you are no different that anyone else! We are all God's children!"

Apparently her comments are right in line with those of "Hills" star Heidi Montag, who is expected to marry the show's Spencer Pratt this weekend.

"God says in the bible that we should love our neighbor and he created us all as equals. I know in my heart that gays and lesbians should have the same government rights that Spencer and I will when we get married. So, yes, this blonde Christian believes in gay marriage and I hope to one day go to your wedding, Perez!!!"

Heidi's and Miley's Tweets have apparently led to a Twittermance. On Tuesday, Montag told Miley, "Let's [meet] up!!!! we should have a bible study!! I love Miley!!!! Jesus loves Miley!"

This is a remarkable article if all the quotations therein are accurate and true to the spirit of the contexts from which they were lifted. It's remarkable because it jibes with a pattern in recent polling and observations which together suggest that the word "Christian" is becoming either meaningless or uninformative. (For example, see Yet I leave this matter for another day or another discussion.

On the other hand, it might be fun or informative to interact with some of the opinions offered by the celebrities mentioned above.

1) If I could sit down over lunch and have a word with Britney Spears about the matter I would like to say this: One obvious question that arises from your Twitter comments to Hilton is What if a man and his daughter love each other in an unspeakable way? Should such a would-be marriage be sanctioned by the state? Could it be that there are limits to the idea that people in love should be able to do whatever makes them happy? Come to think of it, is the existence of same-sex marriage, as it were, even logically/analytically possible to start with?

2) Meanwhile, if I could sit down over lunch and have a word with Miley Cyrus, first I'd congratulate her on the being the daughter of Billy Ray Cyrus, then I'd try to find a polite way of asking when she's going to get a real job (since, you know, child stars have a way of falling apart once they age). But then I'd ask her: Where does the Bible say that Jesus loves either you or unrepentant, lifestyle-homosexuals? Okay, even if you can cite chapter and verse and show that Jesus loves you, where again does it say in the Bible that Jesus loves those who shake their fist at God? Come to think of it, suppose there's a person out there who loves to pass out poisoned candy at Halloween to kill children; even if Jesus loves him, should the state allow such a person to go on poisoning children? Why not? Wouldn't it make this child-killer happy?

3) @Heidi Montag: a) Even if God says that we should love our neighbors, does this mean that paedophilia and incest should be sanctioned by the state, even if this were to involve people who really like each other?

b) Even if God says that all of us were created "as equals," does this again mean that pedophilia and incest should be sanctioned by the state, even if this were to involve people who really like each other?

c) I know in my heart that gays and lesbians already have the same government rights that you and Spencer have. You and Spencer can marry whomever you like, though only up to a point. Both of you are allowed to marry the person he or she loves, but this would not be the case if either of you wanted to marry his brother or sister. This would also not be the case with any gay or lesbian who would want to marry his brother or sister. So at the end of the day both heterosexuals and homosexuals are neither necessarily nor absolutely allowed to marry whomever they might want to marry. That means we're all on legally equal grounds, all of us constrained by strict, old-fashioned, narrow paramters of the law. So rest well tonight, Heidi; rest well, knowing that from the majestic forests of Maine to the burning embers of the once-Golden State both gays and straights are already practically equal in the eyes of the law.


And since that time on Sunday night we've all heard of death threats to one of the Miss USA judges (Alicia Jacobs, former Miss Nevada USA) and we've all read the back-and-forth discussions on whether Miss California actually answered the questions she was given, or whether Miss California was set up to receive one particular question, or whether Miss California's answer was inoffensive enough even for a non-affirmatory answer concerning same-sex marriage. (Hmm, difficult to see how such an answer could fail to offend someone though.)

Miss California is on record as having stated that she anticipated receiving a question pertaining to same-sex marriage before the pageant began Sunday night. For the record, judging from transcripts Miss California also really didn't answer the entire set of questions posed to her. Sure, she doesn't think that same-sex marraige (as it were) should be sanctioned by the state, but she never really says why she believes this, unless the way she was raised is a stated reason. Of course, if her upbringing was in fact given as a reason, so be it. However, if her objections to the sanctioning of same-sex marriages ultimately are based on a biblical belief that such things are bad, then one would hope that in the future her answer to a Perez-like question will sound a lot more like something the apostle Paul, or Greg Koukl, or Derrick Bright might say. Biblical ethics deserves a good defense, for this set of ethics is correct.


Next post: Other subjects, and also any needed clarification of what I wrote in my joke response to Hilton's question above. After all, I've already had at least one person so far label it as a bunch of meaningless babble and as a convoluted answer. :D

1 comment:

D.B. said...


* Can you imagine if she had responded that way? lol. Their jaws would have hit the floor, then she would have been completely dismissed, except for the part where she says no.

* 1) RE: love is love. Man/daughter is not ok, of course. (assuming age of consent) And their response would be that you are silly for even suggesting that. EVERYONE knows that is wrong. Duh. But they never can offer why that is any different than same-sex marriage. They just dismiss us right out the gate.

2) Cause killing is wrong. And love is love.

3) I'd say most of the times, the gay activist types refuse to think this through. They know some gay folks who are nice, and many probably are, and why should you be mean to the nice gay guys? This is evidenced, in part by Hilton's response of calling MS. CA a b....., and then insinuating he should have called her the c-word. Name-calling is far more easy than seriously dealing with the arguments (and it makes better sound bites).

Thanks for the post, Kwame. I think she was very gracious (and tolerant-in the classical sense) with ehr response in a decidedly PC universe of a pageant. I have not followed her responses since then, but it would be nice if she were better able to articulate her reasons as she interviewed with others. Either way, kudos for sticking up for marriage.