Miss California’s New Clothes

1 09 2009

I’ve really had enough of listening to former Miss California belly ache and now when I thought it was out of the headlines, she is back again to sue the organization.  Her lawsuit seems rather weak, but I’m not an attorney.  In case you haven’t read the news for the last six months, at the Miss USA competition she decided to use it as a platform to showcase her religious beliefs against same sex marriage.  One could say, the question had no place in the competition, the question being whether states should legalize same sex marriage – but the issue is political, not religious.  And she chose to cover it from a rather narrow minded religious angle in her answer.  Miss Prejean stood on a stage before millions of viewers, before judges that included a very vocal gay rights promoter and gave a bigoted answer to a political question.  She could have answered that question in half a dozen other ways than she did.  She started off strong, agreeing that in America we are fortunate enough to choose, but she chose to clarify by saying that choice was limited to same sex marriage support or opposite sex marriage support.  She ramped it up by saying that in her country marriage should be between a man and a woman.  She could have simply left it at it being great that Americans are free to publicly choose their relationship lifestyle but that her personal belief was that it should be between a man and a woman.  But she didn’t. She narrowed the avenue of choice as being which political fence you may sit on and extended her belief to state that in the country as a whole it should be defined based on how she was raised.  The Miss California pageant officials urged her to remove the religious overtones from her response, she is a representation of them after all.  But she refused.

I am not a homosexual, but I don’t comprehend the need for our government to decide who as an American, I can fall in love with; marry.  The whole same sex marriage argument is a waste of money and time by our government.  If two consenting adults of sound mind and age make the decision to fall in love and marry – why the hell is it the business of Miss America, Senator Joe Smith or the US government on whether or not that marriage should be permitted?  No we don’t need marriage redefined to say it is between two people of opposite sex!  We need the narrow minds of the nation redefined to comprehend it is a bond between two people in love.

And for the record, the Miss California officials state she didn’t lose her crown because of being a religious bigot but rather because the ‘wind blew her shirt open’ (see below) a few times over, and chose to pose topless and semi-nude, which is against pageant rules, but evidently acceptable by her religion.




4 responses

1 09 2009

She was asked for her opinion and she gave it. How is that any different from you having a different opinion? Our country was founded on Christian ideals and its about time someone stepped into the spotlight to uphold them from immortality!

1 09 2009

Dee, firstly, I believe you meant immorality. Define immorality, please. Two people being in love does not constitute immorality. And if you are indicating that sexual intercourse other than missionary is immoral, you have just labeled at least 4,392 priests in that category, by the Vatican’s statistics. How does that phrase go? Don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house, or John 8:7. Both apply.
Secondly, our country was not founded on Christian ideals, but rather on relief from religious persecution. I know there is a misguided belief that the Constitution was written to mirror the Ten Commandments, but then again for centuries people thought the world was flat. Eventually all peoples expand their mindset and see the flaws in their thoughts.
Thirdly, she was asked for her opinion, I wasn’t. That’s the difference between she and I. Plus about 50 pounds around the waistline, but who’s counting.
Marriage, Dee, is a contract between two people in love. It is a permission slip for a couple to receive a tax break, to visit their dying loved one in the hospital, to legally be able to support one another. Why shouldn’t gay people have the same rights as hetrosexuals to lose half their shit in a divorce? Because Dee, that is what marriage is. It is the right to take a risk to be completely stripped before the person you love, to share yourself completely with them for as long as they have you. And how the government or Miss Prejean feels doesn’t really matter, what matters is that in this country people should have the right to love.

1 09 2009

I think the issue has been beaten into submission, revived, and then beaten again. I choose to comment on another aspect that many, I’m sure, have thought but may have been too nervous or afraid to say:

Wow she has nice knockers.

1 09 2009

Our country was founded on Christian ideals and its about time someone stepped into the spotlight to uphold them from immortality!

Haha, Dee! Really! The US find foundation in the blood of Native Americans faithfully massacred by Christian nuts! Now YOU talk about immorality? I suggest you buy a dictionary.

As for Prejean she’s only the perfect avatar for slutty-for-God fretting freaks. And Dee, just because she was asked for her opinion and gave it does NOT mean she is right. Is it that a PhD in boobism is the next best thing to the Nobel Peace prize now?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: