Few in the media or left-wing blogosphere seem to be heeding my advice to ignore Carrie Prejean. Just yesterday, while doing cardio at the gym, I looked up to see the bleach blonde beauty queen featured in a segment on CNN.
Has any beauty queen received as much attention as she?
Given the hysterical reaction of many outspoken gay marriage advocates to her statement supporting the traditional definition of marriage, I decided to offer a rational response to that civil statement:
We’re delighted you responded in a civil tone:
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.
She’s right that we can choose same-sex marriage, the difference is that only a few states recognize those unions. Yes, we have that freedom, but same-sex couples in most states don’t get the benefits which accrue to those who “choose” traditional marriage.
And you know what, in my country, in my family, 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 and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.
We respect that you stated this belief without denigrating gay people. Let us hope that those social conservatives who now herald you for articulating a position near and dear to their hearts will follow suit. Instead of attacking gay people, they will defend the longstanding definition of this ancient and honorable institution.
You needn’t worry, however. We’re not asking you to change your beliefs. With religious liberty provisions like those in the Vermont and Maine legislation recognizing same-sex marriages, your church would remain free to continue define marriage as it has always defined it. These laws are only about civil marriage and do not impact the practices of particular religious institutions.
Once again, we appreciate you responded in such a civil manner. While we don’t agree with your views, we certainly support your right to express them. It’s unfortunate that after posing his question in such a civil manner, Perez Hilton chose to personalize this issue by insulting you personally. He was wrong to do so.
If you continue to make the case for the traditional definition of marriage, which you have every right to do, we hope you will continue in the tone with which you first addressed the issue and will fault your fellow gay marriage opponents who are using the current controversy to demonize gay people.
ADDENDUM: Shortly after finishing this post, read a reader’s link to this piece revealing yet another irrational response to Miss Prejean. What is it with these people? Why does her position, that of the President of the United States, get them so hysterical?
They’re the ones trying to change a longstanding definition of an ancient institution. Shouldn’t they expect people to defend the status quo?