Miss USA Runner Up Speech

Controversy erupted when Miss California Carrie Prejean (the Miss USA pageant runner up) responded to a question by gay pageant judge and celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton on whether she believed in gay marriage.

Prejean told the audience her family believed "marriage should be between a man and a woman".

"No offence to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMvviFbkf0

I'm torn on this. I'm totally for gay marriage, but I guess she was answering truthfully.... But then, the value of truthful bigotry is pretty questionable, to say the least. Any comments?

Whilst I don't agree with her answer....I think its refreshing that she answered truthfully. Too many of these pageant queens just spout what they think everyone will want to hear, and I think good on her for going out there and stating her views even if it causes ripples.

I din't have a problem with her answer, that was her opinion. Yes she could have been politically correct in her statement and say she felt it was up to each state, but frankly I am sick of political correctness. It was refreshing to see her stand up for her beliefs.

What I did have an issue with was Perez Hilton's blog response. How dare he call her a dumb b****. He has no right to spout off at her because he didn't agree with her answer.

For the record I don't think gay marriage should be an issue, marriage is marriage regardless of the sex of the couple.

I personally think she should never have been asked that question. No-one should be peanalised for their views on the subject, if she had been of a devout religious faith it could have easily turned into discrimination.

That judge new that if she answered the way she did it would incite trouble, it was totally unfair for her to lose because she answered honestly to a badly chosen question.

It seems to me like these contests are just a circus for the media, i really dont think we should be judging a person on their beliefs about marriage.

Original Post by windra06:

I personally think she should never have been asked that question. No-one should be peanalised for their views on the subject, if she had been of a devout religious faith it could have easily turned into discrimination.

If she was asked a question about racism, or sexism and gave a negative response while backing it up with the excuse, "But that's just how I was brought up" would that be tolerated?

No. And it shouldn't be.

This subject is nothing to do with political correctness. It's about equality.

... But she does believe it's socially acceptable for women to parade in swimsuits in front of a panel of judges and be assessed on their physical attributes.  Well, at least she's consistently forty years behind the times..... 

the question isn't about her answer...

isn't her not getting the crown because she is against it as bad as if she didn't get the crown because she was FOR it?  If being for gay marriages cost her the crown would there be even MORE attention.

if we are to be an equal society...shouldn't ALL beliefs be respected?

This thread isn't about being pro or con anything...it's about someone being penalized for their beliefs and is that ok.

Original Post by kae03:

if we are to be an equal society...shouldn't ALL beliefs be respected?

This thread isn't about being pro or con anything...it's about someone being penalized for their beliefs and is that ok.

In my opinion, no, definitely not. Some people believe that certain groups are superior to others, that certain behaviours are acceptable to be carried out to different groups, etcetc. Tolerating beliefs like that would in essence allow others to continue believing these things, and allow future generations to grow up with these views.

People should be treated fairly and equally. If you hold negative (or positive) views about certain types of people then you may be unable to treat them how you yourself would like to be treated.

So Miss California doesn't have a right to her beliefs?

Or doesn't have a right to be open about them?

I do see both sides but I think this could be a slippery slope...

If she lost the crown because she said that she BELIEVES in gay marriage...would that be ok too then?

To me...this doesn't have anything to do with gay marriage...it's about the ability to think for yourself and believe that you believe.  I would feel the same way if the situation was reversed.

There is a fine line here.  On one hand, ones religious beliefs, silly as another may find them, dictate the way they live their lives.  A church has every right to refuse to perform a marriage between two men or two women according to their doctrines.  However, the state is supposed to be a secular organization whose primary function is to protect the rights of the individual by protecting property rights and arbitrating contracts.  Marriage is just a contract between two consenting adults.  The proper role of government is not to define that contract, but to act as a third party arbitrator / enforcer through the courts.   Since the state and local governments have decided to provide a boilerplate contract for marriage, it should apply to all consenting adults, regardless of sex.  Of course the government, overstepping it's proper role, has provided a myriad of tax and legal incentives to marriage in its quest to socially engineer according to what is acceptable to the majority at the time.

She had an opportunity to argue a number of ways that defend individual rights while still stating her personal opinion against gay marriage:

1) She may have stated that while she personally believes marriage is between a man and a woman, the state, as a secular organization, should offer the same contract to all consenting adults.

2) She could have stated that while she believes marriage is between a man and a woman, the state has no business defining the relationship between two consenting adults.  The definition, and scope of marriage should be left to the private sector - churches, individuals and lawyers - to define on a case by case basis and the state governments should go back to their proper role of mediating and enforcing those contracts through the courts.

Her answer shows that she didn't give any thought to this issue from the standpoint of individual rights and that she leans towards theocratic statism.  She probably thinks majority rule is ok, even if it violates idividual liberties.

This is a complex topic that has been heavily covered in the news for over a year.  One should expect that a thoughtful individual has formed an opinion one way or another and should have some sort of rational argument to back that opinion up.  Is it really that surprising that these contestants would spout off a canned answer?  I suppose her downfall was in not choosing the correct canned answer.  

Original Post by kae03:

So Miss California doesn't have a right to her beliefs?

Or doesn't have a right to be open about them?

I do see both sides but I think this could be a slippery slope...

If she lost the crown because she said that she BELIEVES in gay marriage...would that be ok too then?

To me...this doesn't have anything to do with gay marriage...it's about the ability to think for yourself and believe that you believe.  I would feel the same way if the situation was reversed.

She shouldn't have beliefs like that in the first place.

If she lost the crown because she said that she was FOR gay marriage, then that definitely wouldn't be acceptable either as it would show that the people judging the competition held unacceptable beliefs.

To me this IS about gay marriage and people's beliefs surrounding the issue. Fair play to her for voicing her actual opinion, but it's a horrible opinion to hold.

(p.s. It's not what she thought for herself, she HERSELF stated that it was a belief that she'd been brought to believe purely by her upbringing)

Original Post by la_discotheque:

She shouldn't have beliefs like that in the first place.

that isn't for us to decide.  That is narrow minded thinking and will NOT get anyone anywhere.  If we are going to be liberal...we too need to let others have thier beliefs. 

I do agree with DS1973 that she could have answered in a way where she stated her belief without judgement..."while I am not for gay marriages, it is up to the states to decide" 

What DID happen though is open up for her a HUGE platform to share her values with MANY people...she will be a very popular speaker for at least a year before it settles down.

Original Post by jess_sun:

He has no right to spout off at her because he didn't agree with her answer.

 Last I checked, people in the US have every right to spout off for or against anyone elses views, has something changed?

Original Post by kae03:

that isn't for us to decide.  That is narrow minded thinking and will NOT get anyone anywhere.  If we are going to be liberal...we too need to let others have thier beliefs. 

I do agree with DS1973 that she could have answered in a way where she stated her belief without judgement..."while I am not for gay marriages, it is up to the states to decide" 

What DID happen though is open up for her a HUGE platform to share her values with MANY people...she will be a very popular speaker for at least a year before it settles down.

I never said I was liberal.

If people continue to think that certain groups of people are not allowed the same rights as others then this leads to bigotry, discrimination, etc. People should be allowed the same chances and opportunities in life and by taking certain rights away then it just propogates things like racism, sexism, homophobia etc.

She hasn't been allowed to think for herself, and that's mainly what I take issue with. She has unquestioningly taken what she has been told to believe in her childhood and this is what I think is wrong.

Original Post by kae03:

Original Post by la_discotheque:

She shouldn't have beliefs like that in the first place.

that isn't for us to decide.  That is narrow minded thinking and will NOT get anyone anywhere.  If we are going to be liberal...we too need to let others have thier beliefs. 

I do agree with DS1973 that she could have answered in a way where she stated her belief without judgement..."while I am not for gay marriages, it is up to the states to decide" 

What DID happen though is open up for her a HUGE platform to share her values with MANY people...she will be a very popular speaker for at least a year before it settles down.

 no, it's not for us to decide what any particular individual will believe

but, i suppose, if we're going to have beauty pagents to reinforce that the most important thing about women is their appearance, then we, or the appointed judges, do decide whether or not a miss america will believe things that reflect well or poorly on our country

someone brought it up above and it was neatly ignored - but if she was raised to believe that whites are superior to every other "race" of people, would we want her to "represent" our country at the "miss universe" pagent?

her beliefs about marriage amounts to a belief that straight people are superior, and therefore more deserving of rights, than are gay people

i do not care one iota about miss america and if people want to pay for miss california to speak to them, well, that demonstrates their education dollars in action, doesn't it?  you get what you pay for.

Original Post by la_discotheque:

She hasn't been allowed to think for herself, and that's mainly what I take issue with. She has unquestioningly taken what she has been told to believe in her childhood and this is what I think is wrong.

 

 

 I agree with you on that...

Original Post by kae03:

 I agree with you on that...

But why do you think it's okay for her to believe to gay people are inferior to straight people?

because to live in a free country we need to. 

the only point I really see with her losing the contest was that in a small way, she would represent the country and in that 1 sentence it did not seem like she could represent everyone...

She shouldn't have beliefs like that in the first place.

 Nee nur nee nur nee nur.. here come the thought police... 

When government becomes a tool for one group to force another to abide by their beliefs that is tyranny.  When one groups beliefs can be forced on another, then you start worrying about regulating beliefs.  Can you see the dangers of an all powerful government?

Yeah, we've been on that path for a while now.  The government is constantly undermining individual rights for the supposed "good of the majority".  It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you do not violate anothers freedom to action. 

The right should be concerned about stemming the erosion of our economic freedoms from the left rather than eroding social freedoms.

If she said that she'd always been taught that a woman's place is in the home, I wonder if people would be leaping to her defense?

Original Post by la_discotheque:

Original Post by windra06:

I personally think she should never have been asked that question. No-one should be peanalised for their views on the subject, if she had been of a devout religious faith it could have easily turned into discrimination.

If she was asked a question about racism, or sexism and gave a negative response while backing it up with the excuse, "But that's just how I was brought up" would that be tolerated?

No. And it shouldn't be.

This subject is nothing to do with political correctness. It's about equality.

 But that's just it... it was a politically based question.  The question was "Vermont is now the fourth state to legalize gay marriage.  Do you believe that the other states should follow suite?"  Not, "is gay marriage right or wrong". 

She shouldn't have been asked that question, because it was a politically based question, which have never been asked in the history of the show.  I mean, come on!  They must have expected something like this, which is likely why they asked it.  It's all about ratings.  I mean, what better question to ask Miss California after that voting on proposition 8. 

Perez was right on his blog when he said she should have answered the question with something like, "Well, I think the states should decide for themselves."  But, really, the question should not have been asked.  Geez.

But, honestly she was set up.