By Gregory Moore
When Carrie Prejean gave her now ‘famous’ answer to a question asked by gay blogger Perez Hilton, many Americans were relieved that someone had the stones to state their beliefs and what their value systems are in a touchy realm.
But when Hilton set off the firestorm of trashing Prejean for speaking her mind on the matter he asked, what it showed was exactly why same sex marriage legislation will ultimately fail.
Hilton’s ‘bitchy’ retort to Prejean’s answer only solidified what many hetrosexuals think about those who are for same sex unions; you don’t respect the institution or its ideals.
You cannot say that I’m wrong on this premise because evidently there have been people out to discredit Prejean since the April 19th episode that was aired on NBC.
Naked photos of her from some low life photographer have been found on TMZ and other websites. Same sex advocates have pretty much trashed the 21-year-old and almost called her ‘Satan’ while the heterosexual nation has sat back and allowed legislation trounce an institution that is as old as man itself.
Who is the blame for all of this?
Heterosexual nation of course.
Marriage is defined in the Merrian Webster as: “a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners”.
That is different from a “civil union” in which it is defined as: “a ceremony celebrating the affirmation of a partnership shared by a same-sex couple or a couple who choose not to marry.”
One would think that these definitions would suffice but evidently they don’t. In our society we have incompetence in both legal and political realms where good ole fashion common sense doesn’t factor into any decision making.
It is the very reason why we have the problems we are discussing now in relation to what is free speech and how come no one stood up for Ms. Prejean.
For the record I think that same sex marriages are nothing more than a farce to what God has intended; the holy union between a man and a woman who want to procreate and live their lives in a dutiful manner according to His word. I believe that there are abominations when you say that you are Gay but yet you are a Christian. That is an oxymoron that cannot exist and it is not recognized in any Bible.
However that doesn’t mean that two men or two women should not have the same rights in a civil union that a husband and wife would have in a marriage. The liberties that is the main argument for the same sex advocates are more benefits and assurances; not religious blessings. And in this country, all men and women are created equal.
Yet you have to ask yourself, why didn’t anyone from the same sex marriage side step up and defend Prejean’s statements?
Remember what she said?
“I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”
Whether you are gay or straight, what Prejean was talking about goes far beyond wanting to be able to bang your sex partner legally, having the rights to have access to all the legal protections as far as property, insurance and financial rewards that marriage affords a couple. What she was talking about was her belief system and for giving that straight of an answer, she has been vilified.
And Hilton and others wonder why there is such a backlash on same sex unions right now?
Prejean had a right to say what she said.
In this country freedom of speech is a right that we all have.
Granted Hilton and others have a right to disagree with her but the manner and magnitude of that disagreement became far more vile than it should have been.
The 21-year-old beauty had a right to say what she wanted as an American and everyone that believed in same sex marriage or civil unions should have came to her defense on being able to say what she wanted and respect her for doing so.
Just like the same sex advocates want to have the same protections as a heterosexual couple who got married, I would think they would want the same liberties protected when it comes to speaking about their cause. They too have the right to speak freely on issues and many of us have the right to disagree with them.
However what if everyone that was against their cause treated them the way that many of them treated Ms. Prejean, would those of us who are against such laws be called bigots because we are discriminating against them?
After all if they want the same rights that they are squaking about that many of us enjoy, shouldn’t they support someone who is actually against their cause?