Gay Old Time At Miss USA

Apparently, Miss California Carrie Prejean caused a major uproar in her bid for the Miss USA title. I say apparently, because I did not even know it was pageant time. Nor, in spite of a healthily hetero predilection for beautiful women, did I really care. Anyway, when asked about same-sex marriage by Perez Hilton – an openly gay man and a controversial gossip blogger – Prejean answered that she believes, due to her upbringing and beliefs, a marriage should be between a man and woman. The backlash began immediately, with Hilton stating he gave her a “0” for the answer – which almost certainly cost the crown to her ostensibly long-lost twin, Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton. (Both blonde, both hot. Let your mind wander on that thought for a second…).

By saying Prejean gave the “wrong” answer to a politically charged, morals-based question, the judges criticized her politics and morals while in the same breath wanting her to agree with theirs. Hilton even qualified his question by asking “why or why not” she would feel that way. Though apparently looking for a well-argued opinion on the subject, it is obvious he was looking for an answer more in step with the gay community. Consequently, she was judged not on the quality of her answer, whether agreeable or not, but rather on her political correctness, due in large part to an apparent bias on the part of, at least, one judge in favor of same-sex marriage. That is a textbook example of the liberal mindset of the Left, awash in self-congratulatory smugness considered intellectually absolute.

The contention is not the validity of the question. In a country founded on individual freedoms, civil rights should constantly be part of the dialogue. Rather, the contention is the reaction to Miss California's answer in light of obvious assumptions of what constitutes the “proper” one. I hate people who ask a question, and then act stunned when the answer is not what they were looking for. Then do not ask the question.

The real question is because contestants’ answers are in opposition to a certain lifestyle – one shared by a few of the judges on this year’s panel, mind you – it should constitute an automatic mark? Such a double standard is absurd. That it happened at an event chastised in the post-feminist era for its allegedly sexist exploitation of women makes it even more hypocritical. How do you question political correctness in a pageant seen as anything but by certain standards of society? Expecting tolerance for rights is one thing, but it comes with being tolerant of expression for or against those rights as well.

With Sean Penn’s recent win at the Oscars for his portrayal of Harvey Milk, gay rights are once again a hot topic. Should Miss California been sensitive to that circumstance? Maybe. After all, the point of the Miss USA pageant is to choose a contestant best fit to represent the ideals of the United States. Ultimately, they are judged on their integrity and character as relates to the values of the nation. However, one’s personal principles speak to integrity and character, and compromising them to conform to another’s speaks as well. Again, the judges seemed more concerned with the latter than the former – yet another tenet of the liberal agenda. Prejean did not compromise her principles in stating her respectful opposition to same-sex marriage. Whether you agree or not, that is the criteria upon which she should have been judged.

It is becoming increasingly rare that substance wins over style. Why should it be any different at a pageant where style is queen?

©2009 Steve Sagarra