Tuesday, April 21, 2009


Miss California was the runner up in this week-end's Miss USA Pageant. It seems she caused quite a stir with her response to the question provided her by one of the judges. This judge wanted to know her stance on gay marriage. She clearly stated that she felt marriage was between a man and a woman.

Many felt this cost her the crown. It was felt if she had made a more palatable (which is code for saying absolutely nothing so your opinion is that you have no opinion) response she might have won. It seems we want our Miss USA to be middle of the road and wishy-washy. After all, what would America do with a beautiful woman who also had substance? We like our "Barbie's" plastic not plausible.

The judge felt she should have kept her beliefs (Christian) out of her response. Miss USA needs to represent all America not just "Christian" America, according to this judge. This would include Jewish-Americans, Gay-Americans and Atheist-Americans as examples. And who is to say that her statement didn't represent those outside the Christian arena? Truth be told, her statement didn't represent all who share her foundational belief in Jesus and his salvation.

This judge even went so far as to say that if she had won (I guess we know which way he voted) he would have went up on the platform and taken her crown. Now that is what I would call a tolerate inclusive action! So what part of America would he have represented if it had come to that?

Here is what this judge and many others do not understand: When you make a statement, when you have an opinion there will be somebodies out there who you do not represent! This is why it is an opinion. It would have been impossible to make a statement that would have pleased everyone. It seems to me the judge was saying, by his actions, I want a Miss USA who represents me. And if that is what was desired then those rules ought to be made clear upfront.

The question was framed with what she thought. This being the case how can she be criticized for giving a personal response to the question? Few, if any, have to agree with her. The judgement should not have been on the agreeableness of the response, but how well it was articulated and thoughtfully given.

Next time just instruct the Miss' to provide an answer that people want to hear...then, again, would that not offend deaf people?

No comments: