I had an interesting talk last week with Hal (as Charlie was walking and running us), we had an interesting discussion about Carrie Prejean--the Miss California who was asked her opinion of gay marriage during the Miss USA pageant.

Here is her response: 

"Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other.  We live in a land where you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and ... you know what, in my country and in my family, I think that I believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman--no offense to anybody out there--but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman.  Thank you.'

Since that answer, Carrie Prejean's fame has grown as she's been vilified by gay activists and sainted by the religious (and irreligious) right.  I agree with Hal that Carrie had a right to her opinion and to freely express her opinion on that stage.

Soon after she gave her answer, Celebrity blogger  and pageant judge, Perez Hilton went on camera and said she lost the title of Miss USA not because of her controversial answer but because she was a "dumb b*tch and a divisive personality rather than an uniting personality.  He also said, rather hubristically, that he was "the...moment" of the pageant.  Get over yourself, girlfriend.

Perez Hilton, by the way, is equally entitled to his opinion and to the free speech protections that Carrie Prejean holds so dear in every interview since.

I quibble with Perez Hilton's vlog about the answer and Carrie Prejean because he resorted to personal attacks rather than reasoned argument for the ways in which he took issue with Prejean's answer.

In a similar way, I have issues with Carrie Prejean's answer.  First she states, inaccurately, that it's great to live in a country where people can "choose" same sex marriage.  Very few people in very select parts of the country can make that choice.  So she overstates her initial attempt at an appeasement answer.

Then she stops herself and reverses course.  And I especially note the words, "in my country" that marriage should be between a man and a woman.  This is her genunine opinion and she has the right to voice it.  However, it sends chills up my spine because that's exactly the point...it's not just Carrie Prejean's country, it's my country and the country of my gay friends and relatives.

Various defenders have pointed out that she was representing California because the "majority" of Californian's voted for Proposition 8.  But they neglect to mention that it was a bare majority, not a landslide by any means.

In later interviews, a couple of other comments by Prejean really rankled me.  When asked her opinion of Perez, she said she would be "praying for him" and that he's obviously angry and hurt about something greater in his life.  And she knows this how?  She doesn't.  It's the typical "christian" answer that says see how pious I am, pitying this poor creature who is attacking me.

She also said instead of being politically correct, she chose to be biblically correct.  I'd love to sit down and talk with her about the 7 instances which could remotely be interpreted as being condemnations of homosexual activity.  And at the same time I wonder about a young woman who claims to adhere to biblical principals as a guide yet prior to this had stated, according to the LA Times, that her goal was to be a Victoria's Secret model and who surgically enhanced her bust size in order to do better in the contest.  While neither is directly addressed in the bible, there are more urgings of women to be modest in their dress than there are strictures supposedly against homosexual acts.

The lessons I hope we all can take away from this brouhaha are:

1.  People in the USA enjoy the right to free speech.

2.  If one disagrees with another's opinion, it's best to disagree with the opinion, form counterarguments, etc., than to attack the person (whether you do it by name calling as Hilton did or pseudo-piety as Prejean did).

3.  If you put yourself in the public eye, you'd best be better prepared to defend your opinion than saying "that's the way I was raised."  Otherwise, the arguments will keep on coming.

Such is my not so humble opinion.  Now off to yoga!

I mentioned last week that through the synchronicity which often happens as I'm reading through various articles and surfing the internet, there was a confluence of a web-ad called "A Gathering Storm" and an article in Newsweek on Religion called "The End of Christian America."

In the article, author Jon Meacham makes reference to the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey which found that "the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent."  Moreover, much of the shift has occurred in parts of America not associated with liberalism per se...the Northeast for example, has been a bastion for religious institutions, yet the article points out that it "has emerged in 2008 as the new stronghold of the religiously unidentified."

Meacham discussed the issue with R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Mohler is concerned that the growing number of religiously unaffiliated Americans indicates the "coming storm" (to borrow a phrase) where America's religious life is no longer the underpinning for America's social order.  Mohler (and I dare say the folks at the "National Organization for Marriage;" meaning the National Organization for Keeping Marriage exclusive to heterosexuals) tend to see these numbers as proof of the unravelling of the fabric of our society.

But as Meacham points out so succinctly, "As crucial as religion has been and is to the life of the nation, America's unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom--not least freedom of conscience."

We are, I believe, at a cross-road when it comes to the intersection of religious freedom and equal civil rights for our gay and lesbian neighbors.  And I think Meacham's point about our unifying principle having more to do with freedom and liberty and less to do with particular faith paradigms is so crucial.

Precisely because we are at this cross-road, organizations like NOM (and religious leaders like Mohler) are in a position where they feel vulnerable and threatened.  In the past, it was easy to assume that everyone shared the same religious tenets; that the power exercised by religious authorities within the public square was not only right but natural.

But we have seen the crumbling of discrimination, in many cases fostered by the church, founder on the rocks of our national dedication to equality, freedom and justice.  We've seen it with slavery, with anti-miscegenation laws, with women's rights and now we are beginning to see the dawn of the day where gay men and women are recognized as full citizens with equal rights.

Unfortunately, the ad by NOM is addressed to the worst instincts of fear.  Actors intone that a storm is gathering, that "gay activists" want to change "my life."  (Which begs the thinking person to ask, "Really?  They want you to be gay?")  They cite a few situations where religious organizations and the State have conflicted over equal rights for gays.  Catholic Charities voluntarily withdrawing from adoption when they couldn't exclude adoptions to gay couples in Massachussets.  A church that received tax exempt status for a recreation area and was subsequently denied tax exemption (which had originally been a state incentive encouraging private charities and religious organizations to allow access to open spaces for the general public) when they refused to allow a lesbian couple to wed there.

And, of course, there are the ubiquitous protests of "They'll teach my kids that gay couples are equal to straight couples."  This argument will be painfully familiar to those who endured the Prop 8 ads last fall.  What I object to the most in this ad is the fear-mongering and the "aw shucks, we're just folks who don't want things to change" tone that puts me uncomfortably in mind of our former President's tactics for keeping us afraid for so very long.

And yet, I think we have solutions available to us that will allow churches and their adherants to maintain their religious freedom while also allowing the State to recognize gays and lesbians as fully equal citizens.  A few weeks ago, I wrote about an article proposing a third way--where religious freedom was protected specifically by law--allowing churches, synagogues and mosques to teach and practice their faith according to their doctrine; not requiring them to marry or even accept as members those who break with their doctrine.  The idea has grown on me.

In this interim, I don't see anything wrong with protecting ACTUAL religious freedom.  But when it comes to matters where the State has primary interest, commerce, education, equal employment and, yes, the right to marry the person you love--I think religious freedom is trumped by our national interest in adherance to our fundamental values of liberty and justice for all.

As Meacham said in his article, "The decline and fall of the modern religious right's notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment and, for many believers, may help open the way for a more theologically serious religious life."  I hope he's right and this cross-road leads to calmer, informed and respectful discourse among us all, regardless of our beliefs.