Sooo, Perez Hilton asked a bitchy tough question this weekend at Miss America. And we are surprised because..? Did we not know that Perez Hilton was bitchy? Yeah he asked about gay marriage. It was a political question, so were some other questions asked. Miss California answered marriage is between a man and a woman, and Perez Hilton is very open about how he graded her down for it. This was all over the Today show this morning.
They were asking is it ok that Miss America is judged on questions like politics and morality that may be subjective? I think a better question is, is it okay that she is also subjectively judged by how good she looks in formal wear or a bathing suit (or activewear or whatever bs it is now)? I think there is nothing wrong with that question. Miss California seemed to think it not ok that that was why she lost. Ummm, did she not know who Perez Hilton was? Did she not know that gays like pageants? From her answer and her interview, she is a self-identifying Christian of the big yes on Prop 8 variety. You know the smug God Hates fags, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve variety. She stands by her answer (and her God). Which if she is going to have convictions, she should stand by them even if I think her convictions are bigotry. But I also think she ought best not be on the Today show bitching about losing. She knows that answer cost her the crown (or likely did) no one will directly say at camp Miss America, but she also says even if she knew that she would say the same thing. Well Whoop de doo, then you don't get to bitch about losing. Like pick one. Either be a champ for sticking to your bigot guns or or be miss america, but no whining about not getting to be both. Also, maybe try being a little less of a bigot. Its fun, ask Perez Hilton.
Now I don't know how all my readers feel about gay marriage, but I am all for it. If individual churches do not choose to consecrate gay vows, well cool that is their right, and I could see where it would be at odds with their foundation or beliefs (kind of like science). I may not choose to join them, but they are probably fine with that anyway. I am all for freedom of religion. Just like I am against tyranny of religion. This religion has no business in my state affairs. Quite frankly I feel that a civil marriage is a legal contract not a sacred consecration (thus it is called civil and not like holy or something), and by therefore any two legal adults should be free to enter into it and receive the same protections from the state as any other two legal adults. The Catholics already kind of get this. They don't consider a civil marriage to be the same as a church one. And they need the marriage to be blessed by God and the church to really count. Umm, other churches welcome aboard this train of thought. Give civil marriage to everyone or to no one. Let the churches keep their sacraments out of my government.
8 comments:
FYI, I deleted that comment since it seemed to be only a push for a book and not someone's personal reccomendation for a book. I am not trying to silence discussion in my comments.
I think marriage is a religious institution, and should therefore be granted by religious institutions, not the government.
I say we send everyone who is already 'married' a "civil union" certificate on 1/1/2010 and then say no state will provide marriage licenses anymore. They'll provide 'civil union' licences to any 2 individuals who wish to be joined in a civil union, but no marriages. If you can find a religious institution to give you a marriage, then good for you. Go get you one.
And you know that there will be churches out there that will grant to all and others that will grant only to some, and the government will no longer be supporting this kind of discrimination.
I mean, that or just let everyone get married. Whichever.
In Dan Savage's book The Commitment, he addresses this whole issue really well. He points out, for example, that if people want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, perhaps they ought to take a good long look at what heterosexuals have done to the institution before they go blaming gays for it not being the sacred contract it used to be.
I don't know if that's the book you didn't want to include in comments earlier or not, but Savage really does a nice job of looking at both sides of the issue. I had my students read it last year. They loved it. It's one of the reasons he came to campus, actually, their remarkable enthusiasm for his book.
And you're right about Miss California. If your beliefs don't cost you something occasionally, maybe you haven't really been holding them dearly enough.
By the way, this reminds me of the latest entry at unphotographable.com.
I think enough smart people have commented here that I don't need to state my opinion. This stuff seems so obvious, it's difficult to believe that more states aren't allowing gay marriage.
I love the book The Commitment! Such a great book.
The comment I deleted seemed like not a comment from a friend who might like a book that mentions the book, some info about it, and maybe a link to its amazon page or something. The deleted comment has quotes from the author, detailed links, and information about the publisher, you know kindof like a press release. I welcome comments from friends and strangers alike, and I am all for them pimping their own stuff. I am not okay with my comment section being essentially spammed by a corporate shill. (And seriously, no offense to Republican Joe, especially not for a bigoted right wing nut job spouting hate speech).
i agree with you on this. i mean, what DID that lady expect? and why go around being a sore loser about it? that doesn't seem very toward. that is UN-TOWARD.
Post a Comment