Friday, May 8, 2009

Ms. California the New Anita Bryant?

Perez Hilton wrote in a post recently:

He brings up an interesting comparison between the current Ms. California controversy and Anita Bryant. After her singing career, Bryant became the spokesperson for Save the Children. Currently, Ms. California is in the firing line because it seems she is leaving her platform of the Special Olympics to concentrate on the fight to keep traditional marriage, or opposite marriage as it is now known.

Interesting facts:
*When Anita Bryant was pied in the face, she prayed for them. When asked for a response to Hilton calling her a "dumb bitch," she said she would pray for him.

*Both were beauty pageant queens.

*Both were DEVOTE Christians.

*And both have to "protect" things from gay people. Bryant had to protect the children, and Ms. California is protecting marriage.

It seems like the extreme right needs a pretty, soft woman to help be the spokesperson for their cause. After all, if somebody attacks the nice pretty girl, they are the monster (or beast as Hilton was called after he released his video). The same situation happened with the Republican party and Sarah Palin during the last election. The things that makes me the most upset about this whole incident is people like the National Organization for Marriage and other ultra-conservatives say things like, "All she did was state her opinion in a polite manner and now she is being attacked/punished for it." You know what, her opinion IS hurtful. It doesn't matter how it is said or what language is used.

I have a feeling this debate, and Ms. California is not going to go away soon. Next Tuesday, Donald Trump is going to make a decision is she will be removed of her crown. On a personal note, I wish he would, but on the other hand, this will just add more fuel to the fire that she is being punished for her opinions. But what people don't understand, that the same argument that they are using against Hilton in favor of Ms. California happens the other way too! Their opinions on marriage is punishing millions of people across the country.

And, just FYI, if you have to say "No offense to anyone," chances are good that the statement being said is going to be offensive and should not be said at all. If you have to prepare people that your words are going to hurt them, it is probably not right to say it.


  1. I know I'm preachiing to the choir for the most part here, but just because someone is polite in stating their opinions does not mean those opinions are appropriate. A person could talk all day long about a woman's place being in the home and serving her husband, an immigrant (or even a multiple generation hyphenated identity, i.e. African-American, Mexican-American, Asian-American, etc---why don't we say European-American by the way) needing to go back to "their country," or that mixed-race relationships are bad, and those opinions would still be innapropriate and hurtful. Setting same-sex marriage apart from these other issues dehumanizes anyone who identifies as someone who is in a same-sex marriage. As I'm typing this, I realize that there are probably a lot of people who hold the "polite opinion" that same-sex marriages are wrong who also believe the examples I wrote above are opinions that are okay to have.

    All that being said, I do not think people should not be able to voice their opinions, polite or otherwise. Our country was founded on a few basic rights (see the Constitution of the United States of America), one of which is the freedom of speech. I most likely would not be able to write this comment if that right wasn't listed on that document. People should definitely be allowed to utilize their freedom of speech. The problem that many people have is that they feel like freedom of speech is connected to an expectation that what they have to say cannot be attacked. Quite the contrary. Freedom of speech entails an expectation that anyone can challenge what you have to say because they have freedom of speech too. If you don't like what I have to say, you may want to change your opinions

  2. Our society recognizes any thoughts, no matter how “inappropriate” as okay to have; you just can’t act upon it. So I can believe with all my heart people with purple skin are superior to people with orange skin, but I cannot act on it. Otherwise racism would be in the DSM, right? (Something LGBTQ identified are not always exempt from).

    In our society even speech can be restricted. Words that spread hate and incite others to act on that hate, for example. So when and how is responsibility given to the speaker who impacts with their spoken words? What about when “no offense [is] meant?” And how is responsibility affected with an incredibly powerful platform like celebrity? When you’re…oh, I don’t know…say, a reigning Ms California and Ms USA first runner up? It’s the age old question whether those in the public eye, like politicians and movie stars, should be responsible for their behavior as role models whether they want to be or not.

    So, again, I’m not arguing weather Ms. California’s belief in “opposite marriage” is okay. It is her right to believe and her own right to her own marriage. I am arguing that Carrie Prejean does not have a right to act upon it i.e. speak, particularly when she is using her celebrity.

    Remember the question asked of her during the pageant was whether other states should follow suit in legalizing same-sex marriage. Not about Ms. Prejean’s sexual orientation. Who cares. Since legalizing same-sex marriage does NOT affect Ms. California’s ability or right to marry a cis-male and receive the benefits of such a civil union, and because the question was a legal question and not about her personal opinion, Carrie Prejean’s answer implies she does NOT support the ability and right of others to marry those of their own choosing—and that, friends, is a right of every citizen, as the right conferred upon her already infers. Her answer thus encourages others who believe in their own “opposite marriages” to vote against others’ right to the same. And that is a hateful act.

    It is unfortunate that Ms. California can base her understanding of another on what best fits into her own, self-validating worldview. That’s just selfish AND wack.