This will surely be my last post on the Miss California issue. Really. But in some ways it is the gift that keeps on giving. (Of course, in other ways it is the gift that keeps on annoying.)
In reviewing some news today, I came across this NewsBuster article refering to an interview between CNN’s Howard Kurtz and the homosexual judge who had asked Ms. Carrie Prejean “the question” and who has since been slandering her for that answer.
The article caught my eye for its title: “Perez Hilton Gives Obama Pass on Same-Sex Marriage, Blames Miss California for Controversy” — mainly because it reminded me of the question I had asked in my own post, “So, Miss California agrees with President Obama” (and the followup: “Marriage is between a man and a woman? Shocking!“)
But when reading it, I saw what was — for me — an illustration of the point I have tried to make: that many people prefer hypocrisy to a true statement of opinion or belief, even among our representatives or leaders. For instance, here is a selection from that article, with a quote from this particular fellow:
“Well, you mentioned President Obama, but when he says that, he says he believes marriage is between a man and a woman,” Hilton responded. “However, he also says that he believes gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights that heterosexual couples [have]. If Miss California have said the same thing, then I wouldn’t have had an issue with her answer because it wouldn’t have been inclusive and it wouldn’t have caused this wedge and divided the way that it did.”
Now, whether or not you believe that this person has properly characterized the stance of the President is irrelevant. What I see here is an actual request for hypocrisy on the part of a supposedly rational person.
This person who (for reasons that still aren’t clear) served as a judge in the contest is actually saying that he would have preferred that Miss California state (1) marriage is between a man and a woman, and (2) homosexual couples should have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples. Of course, some may not see this as a contradiction (and thus not hypocrisy), but you have to remember that for most activists “same rights” means not just “civil unions” that carry the same legal weight as marriage, but the label marriage — like the word is some sort of magic arrangement of letters. For many, the rights without the word equals unacceptable intolerance.
Consequently, what he is saying is that, “Miss California should have said something in the second half of her statement that would have allowed me to imagine that she didn’t really believe the first half of her statement.” So, again, it seems to me that there is actually a preference for hypocrisy — a desire to see a leader state his or her position in a way that really does not communicate his or her real beliefs.
Of course, maybe I’m wrong, and it’s a preference for irrationality and self-contradiction and not for hypocrisy, at all. Maybe the same judge would have preferred her answer conclude with “…and as we all know, Mr. Judge, not only does two equal one but also country fried unicorn makes for good eating.”
Nah! It’s a preference for hypocrisy. And it’s a real shame when people prefer that their leaders speak with forked tongues. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Matthew 12:34), so, if — with his or her mouth — the leaders we prefer are routinely willing to subjugate character to convenience — what does that tell of us the hearts of those leaders?
Jeremiah and others in the Bible prophetically speaks of a culture for which hypocrisy is a prominent characteristic (e.g., Jer. 9:8). Are we there?