The controversy is this. Miss California finished second in the Miss USA contest after she gave an equivocal, factually incorrect, and inarticulate answer to a question. This alone does not distinguish her from the field. But the particular question was whether she supports SSM, which gets everyone's culture-war adrenalin flowing. She answered that it's "great" to live in a country where people are "free to choose same-sex marriage" or "the opposite marriage" - which is descriptively false but sounded as if she supported SSM as a policy matter. Then she added that in "my country" or in "my family" marriage "is between a man and a woman" - "no offense intended" to anyone.
I, for one, took no offense because I have no idea what she meant. The most likely interpretation is that she was playing to both sides, supporting same-sex marriage as a policy matter, but personally opposing it, the way one might believe a protestor has the right to burn a flag but think that flag-burning is wrong. I think just about every SSM supporter can live with that. And if it had been left there the matter might have been entirely forgotten, as the answers in all these beauty-contestant pageants are forgotten. As the second-place finisher, Miss California herself would have been forgotten, as indeed are the first-place finishers.
But the judge who asked the question, an openly gay celebrity-gossip maven, then defensively posted a video denying what nobody had yet charged, that Miss California had lost because she opposed gay marriage, which she hadn't opposed. Even this might have been forgotten if he hadn't added insult to non-injury by screeching that she had really lost because she's "a stupid b-h" who couldn't give a coherent answer to a predictable question.
By the next morning, the disappointed Miss California with no definable position on gay marriage had transmogrified into a free-speech and religious-freedom martyr who lost because she bravely stood up for her values, in "a test from God," against the gay mafia and the fork-tongued enforcers of PC orthodoxy. Never mind that the gay questioner was one of twelve judges. Never mind that the director of the Miss California organization said that he did not think she had lost because of her answer to the gay-marriage question. Never mind that she had been third going into the question round - which comes on the heels of the swimsuit round and the evening-gown round and the walk-around-the-room-and-wink round.
The whole manufactured controversy was a microcosm of the talk-show argument against gay marriage: dubious causation, exaggerated victimhood, endless repetition, and selected deployment of the most outrageous statements from the most overbearing gay advocates as if they somehow speak for gay families.
By the next afternoon, Maggie Gallagher at NRO annointed Miss California the new exemplar of traditional marriage for standing up against "lies and hatred" and all the demon bats of Hollywood.
Really? If there's a public face for Maggie's anti-SSM campaign, isn't it Levi Johnston, who appeared on Larry King Live last night, and Bristol Palin, whose traditional-family-values upbringing might be undermined? Aren't they the kind of folks who might become dangerously confused if gays wed? Adam and Steve get hitched and, next thing you know, Levi and Bristol will be off forgetting that sex, marriage, and babies go together.
10 Comments for “Joan de Fresno”
posted by BobN on
The only thing worse than Miss California’s incoherent answer was Mr. Hilton’s certainty that he understood it.
posted by Stephen Clark on
I mostly agree. And I’m delighted to see someone finally suggest I also thought: that she was going for some kind of “personally opposed, but wouldn’t impose on others” position. But the incoherence did leave me not entirely sure what she intended to say.
I’m not as tough on Hilton, though. Obviously, you can’t use a gender slur, and that was stupid. His subsequent antics were also indefensible.
But I also don’t want to delegitimize gay rage. It is perfectly justified to feel some rage over the mistreatment of gay people all your life.
For myself, I find it pretty offensive when someone basically says “you’re less worthy than me” and then cluelessly adds, “but no offense.” No offense? But it IS offensive, unavoidably so, even if it is a religious opinion. Since when is it polite to basically tell another person he is a moral degenerate as long as you close with “no offense”?
The expectation that the gay addressee shouldn’t take offense is just surreal. It involves a refusal, at some level, to accept that his offense could be legitimate. He’s supposed to dispassionately accept that, yes, that is a perfectly legitimate assessment of my existence about which fair-minded people can disagree. Out of the whole answer, the most dehumanizing part to me was the “no offense intended.” Because, at some level, it just isn’t treating the gay man like a real human being with real human emotions.
posted by Bobby on
Her answer was perfectly clear, there are places in America where you can get a same-sex marriage or a civil union, and she thinks that’s great. But from her religious perspective, she believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
If she had been a muslim, hispanic, or black, I doubt Perez Hilton would have called her a bitch and a cunt.
Moreover, this is a perfect example of how political correctness is destroying America. Perez Hilton is wrong, Ms. USA DOES NOT have to be politically correct, most Americans are sick of political correctness and we’re sick of the media elites telling us what we can or can’t say.
posted by BobN on
I repeat my initial comment but substitute “Mr. Hilton” with “Bobby”.
posted by Rob on
If she had been a muslim, hispanic, or black, I doubt Perez Hilton would have called her a bitch and a cunt.
Sure he would. You have no idea how obnoxious that guy can be.
BTW she clarified herself on the talk show interviews. It gets more ugly.
posted by Bobby on
“Sure he would. You have no idea how obnoxious that guy can be.”
—Perez like most lefties can’t afford to attack minorities. Remember what happened to Dog the Bounty Hunter after his son gave the media a recording of him using the n-word.
“BTW she clarified herself on the talk show interviews. It gets more ugly.”
—I saw the interviews, she doesn’t seem ugly, she’s very classy and not at all vindictive. “Love thy neighbor” doesn’t mean “agree with thy neighbor.”
Gays need to understand that there’s a difference between being homophobic and not supporting same-sex marriage.
posted by Steven on
if we would leave social commentary and agendas up to beauty pageants, wouldn’t the word be at peace? Actually my response Ms California comments is to say if you’re against gay marriage, then don’t get one!
posted by dalea on
Bobby says: ‘Gays need to understand that there’s a difference between being homophobic and not supporting same-sex marriage.’
No, being against same sex marriage defines a person as homophobic. There exist no reasons other than mindless hate to be against equal marriage rights.
When I saw the vidoe, my first reaction was that this was a drag contest. Ms CA certainly looks like a drag queen. They need to do Olympic style gender testing for the contestants.
posted by MFS on
dalea, I’m gay and I’m against gay marriage.
I’m also old enough to remember when Andrew Sullivan first popularized SSM and was assaulted and spat on – BY LESBIAN AND GAY GROUPS! The whole concept attempted to “normalize” gay sex, whatever that means. “Enforced monogamy” was one phrase that stuck out from that period.
The sea change in thought on this is astounding. The gay political class realized that SSM wouldn?t really mean pressure toward monogamy. But, it would be a new stick to whack churches, Boy Scout troops, dating services and anyone else with the temerity to remind us that we are not heterosexual.
Here in Maine, the legislature is considering a SSM bill. Every supporter I spoke with in Augusta was mystified that marriage would mean fewer (one?) partner. Every one. No, the lawsuits would be just too gratifying to pass up.
Personally, I’ve been in a relationship with a great guy for eleven years now. I don’t need validation from the Vermont legislature or the robed set in Iowa, thank you. I’m doing just fine.
Look out straights! We’re gunning for you and THIS time we brought our attorneys!
Best wishes,
-MFS
posted by TS on
The connection between anti SSM and homophobia is most interesting. It’s one of those things where you can make a generalization and be partly right in most cases. E.G. one I am currently exploring involves bisexual men. What I would characterize as a majority of bisexual men are more sexually attracted to men than women, not exclusively but definitively. They are unwilling to give up the emotional fulfulment society has promised them they will find with women, and as such are willing to explore the heterosexual side of their sexuality. No doubt there are some bisexual men who identify that way because of more elaborate intellectual rationalizations or a genuine equal sexual preference, but I consider those exceptional. I find that perfectly ok. I reconsider the setup of the question, then I realize that the new answer is just as acceptable as the old one.
To end the digression, I think most SSM opposers are homophobic. As with bisexual men, some people have elaborate intellectual rationalizations or may somehow be opposed to SSM and not homophobic, but in most cases, that’s how it works. The confusion is not between SSM opposing and homophobia. It’s between homophobia and bad. Homophobia is just fear. And perhaps a measure of just plain aesthetic distaste. I wouldn’t ask anyone to apologize for that.
This is a matter of public policy in a secular democracy. Thus, I think emotions and aesthetic preferences are unsound bases for arguing. That is why I think same sex marriage should be allowed. But I have no hatred for homophobic people, and frankly I’m not surprised they’re fighting same sex marriage, even though I wish they wouldn’t.