I heard about this on my way in to work this morning & found it interesting. The executive summary is that Perez Hilton was a panelist for the Miss USA pageant this year and asked Miss California the following:
Vermont recently became the 4th State to legalize same sex marriage, do you think every state should follow suit, why or why not?
To which she responded:
I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other, uhm, we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and you know what, in my country, and 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 that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you.
To me that is an excellent response, especially for an off the cuff response from a pageant contestant. “Choice” has a bit of a negative connotation when it comes to gay causes, but in this case I think it is entirely appropriate. We can chose to head to any of the 4 States that will marry us & get married anytime we like. I am also impressed that she went on to be entirely honest about her beliefs even if they run somewhat contrary to what seems to be the current media current. And it seemed clear from the crowd reaction that more were on her side than Perez’s, though that could have been timing since the applause for Vermont was in the middle of his question and her applause was at a natural applause point for a contestant response.
The real issue I have with this little dustup is Mr. Hilton’s response (entitled “Everyone Is Entitled To Their Own Opinion, But…"). I think he needs to re-listen to her response. I think she actually said just about what he said a contestant should say, albeit in different words, but then she didn’t have time to craft a polished answer.
Comment feed for this post
No, I am not stretching anything. It is a choice. Whether that choice and the tradeoffs associated with that choice are acceptable is a matter for the individual to decide. Constitutionally, regardless of which side of the issue I am on, this seems a States rights issue. I do feel, though, that states should recognized marriages conducted in other states as they do now. For instance, if you marry your second cousin in one of the states where such a thing is permitted, that union should be recognized by other states where it is not.
That said, I also feel that marriage is just a convenient, pre-written contract. The "holiness" of marriage is only valid in personal relationships and has nothing to do with the governmental aspects of marriage. You should be able to marry whoever and as many people as you like as long as they are of legal age to sign a contract.
Constitutionally speaking, anything legal in one state MUST be recognized with equal legitimacy in another, which is why the Funny-mental-ists are eventually going to get The Finger on this one.
If I ever marry, nobody will know about it but I and the other party: I don't believe in/refuse to participate in the modern, socialist perversion of jus primae nocta!