OK, on one hand I can’t believe that I am commenting on this matter, yet on the other hand I find one aspect of it fascinating.
The news programs (desperate as they are) are all a twitter (can we say that in the age of Twitter?) about whether or not Miss California lost the Miss USA pageant because of her pro-marriage answer to the question put to her by one of the judges (a particular human who needs no more publicity than he already has). Apparently that judge is saying on various media forums that her position absolutely did disqualify her, and some others are saying so, as well, because they say that if she personally disagreed with the idea of so-called homosexual “marriage” she should not really have said so and that she should have created a more neutral answer. (This is, of course, just as much nonsense as saying that if she agreed with homosexual “marriage” she shouldn’t have said so and should have given a more neutral answer.)
Some are also criticizing her for using her answer to make a political point — but, of course, the judge was the one using the opportunity to make a political point while she, on the other hand, was simply answering the question given to her about what she believes, so that makes no sense at all. When did sincerely and honestly answering questions put to you begin to equate to political activism? And would she be accused of “making a political point” if she had answered in the opposite direction?
All of this said, the idea that she should not have disagreed with homosexual “marriage” publicly, regardless of her personal stand on the issue, and that her position disqualifies her for being Miss USA does intrigue me. Because isn’t that the stated position of our new President, Barack Obama? If such a position disqualifies her to win a pageant, how does that speak to the one actually making decisions for our country? Is the real issue that leaders should be willing to be hypocritical and state things differently than they believe? Is this why Miss California fails to get a pass, but the President succeeds?
On one hand, this is a non-issue. A beauty pagaent is not the end of the world, and that particular judge used up his undeserved 15 minutes of fame a long time ago. On the other hand, the issue of “practiced pretense” and the public’s acceptance of — if not desire for — hypocrisy on the part of its chosen leaders does fascinate me. The Bible prophesies a time when we will lack any leaders worth having and that people of integrity, character, and fortitude will be hard to find.
The one thing that I think would have made all of this more interesting would have been seeing Miss California answer the question by saying, “I take the same stand as the new President of our great country and believe like he does that marriage should be preserved. He’s really set the example for all of us in finding a balance between being a welcoming, tolerant society and yet maintaining important boundaries concerning right and wrong, and I admire him for that.” While I wouldn’t have agreed with such an answer in all its details, it would have essentially communicated the same thing, and I think the talk among the talkikng heads and chattering classes on TV today would contain a much more interesting element to them.