Why Speaking Honestly Is Not All It's Cracked Up To Be Posted by Michael Cohen

Forgive me DA readers for going a bit afield today, but it's Friday and I need to get something off my chest.

For those of you who don't only read political and foreign policy blogs the big story over the past few days has been one Carrie Prejean, the runner-up in the Miss USA contest. Miss Prejean was asked by the openly gay celebrity blogger, Perez Hilton, for her views on the issue of gay marriage and responded that "a marriage should be between a man and a woman." Afterward, there was great speculation that she lost the competition because of her "politically incorrect" answer.

Not surprisingly, Miss Prejean has become a conservative darling; punished for expressing her true feelings and speaking honestly about the issue of gay marriage. For example, at Red State, Mark Impomeni said, “Miss California Carrie Prejean’s act of courage - in the face of tremendous pressure to spout the liberal line - serves as a fine example for young and more seasoned conservative politicians . . be true to your beliefs, and let the chips fall where they may.”

Then there was this from TownHall: "this was a travesty of justice and she is being punished for answering honestly -- and standing up for what she believes in."

Ok, here's the thing; just because you "answer honestly" doesn't automatically end any criticism of what you have said. For example, if Miss Prejean had been asked, "Barack Obama has been elected President of the United States. Do you really think that the country can trust an African-American in the nation's highest office?" And let's say Miss Prejean answered, "my personal view is that black people are inferior  and do not deserve the same rights as white people. I'm sorry if anyone is offended, but that's just what I believe."

Do you think that anyone - outside the KKK - would be rushing to her defense?

Now of course you hear the argument that Miss Prejean was just expressing her religious view - she even went so far as to say that she would rather be "biblically correct" than "politically correct." Later she was quoted as saying, "I knew there were secular judges, but I felt I needed to express my passion for the Lord.” (Apparently expressing intolerance toward homosexuals is a sign of religious devotion.)

So again, if Miss Prejean said that because of her well-established religious beliefs she believes that Christians should fly planes into the Grand Mosque in Mecca and should kill Jews and Arabs whenever they have the opportunity that would apparently be ok because she is "being true to her beliefs."

The simple fact is that Miss Prejean offered an opinion about gay marriage that no matter how "sincere" or "honest" is based on intolerance and leads to the denial of civil rights for an entire group of Americans.  While obviously Miss Prejean has the right to her opinion; the rest of us have a right to judge her harshly for it.  And well we should. Quite simply, no one has the right to hide behind their "beliefs" when they are expressing fundamentally intolerant views.

Comments

[Sav]

The comparison made here is not only faulty, it's insulting. Prejean never called anyone inferior, and to compare one's belief that marriage is between people of the opposite sex to people who slaughter others is so despicable, I have to hope the author doesn't believe it.

Also, the statement that Prejean's opinion "leads to the denial of civil rights" is bogus. She has no power to change anything.

I wonder if the author has "harshly judged" Mr. Obama for having the same belief. Something tells me no.

[Jay C]

Amazing - the whiny, self-pitying self-victimization of the contemporary conservatives seems to know few bounds! The common theme of the right-wing reactions to Carrie Prejean's remarks seems to take it as a basic assumption that she should have WON the Miss USA competition (by some sort of "natural law" one supposes), but that she was unfairly robbed of the crown for her "politically incorrect" remarks. It takes a special sense of entitlement to view public criticism of one's - publicly aired - political opinions (however wrapped in bible-thumping righteousness) as "punishment". But then, from the likes of RedState, what can you expect?

[Alan Cooper]

Of course the claim that this is why the girl lost may be nonsense.
But to say that claiming "marriage is between a man and a woman" is anti-gay is like saying any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic. Both are nonsense. For many people, "marriage" refers to a religious institution rather than a secular one and in many of those cases it's purpose is procreation which does still require a heterosexual union. The girl may not really have been referring to the civil/legal institution of "marriage" (which never should have been called that in the first place) - and even if she was it still wouldn't be evidence of anti-gay attitudes.

[Zathras]

Just because one has a right to do something doesn't make it a good idea. I have a hard time imagining the circumstances under which judging a 21-year-old beauty contest entrant harshly for anything would make it on to my to-do list.

[It's_Chet]

What Michael Cohen fails to understand about Prejean's being lauded for "answering honestly" is two-fold.

First she didn't offer her opinion. It was asked of her in a forum where she was required to give it. She didn't force feed anyone. She would gladly have answered another question instead, but this is the one she got. It was not a voluntary crusade. It was her duty to answer that question, as a finalist in the competition. She had to give an answer. Better an inconvenient truth than a cowardly lie.

Second, she's being celebrated for her answer because the world, and especially the media and government, is full of people who choose to silence themlselves, go with the flow, capitulate, and betray the values they claim to champion or are thought to at least once had (and others who hold those beliefs, by extension), in order to avoid the criticism of the kind of people who are now criticizing Carrie Prejean. The villifying and deriding is too much for many people to handle, and so they cower. Carrie Prejean did not cower. She did not fear. She did what was right, though it cost her. And yes, whether she was set to win or not, it cost her. Hilton gave her a zero, that means her answer cost her.

The point, so profoundly lost on Prejean's critics, is that she has integrity, honesty, and courage. It's sad that to uphold the truths that were once common sense in this country now requires courage in the face of a hostile and bloodthirsty mob, but it's also encouraging to see people like Prejean holding the line, come what may, in spite of the unwarranted bigotry and loathing heaped upon her. She has represented many, and the abuse she has received is felt by the rest of us. That is why we stand behind her. Too many others have betrayed us to try to save their own skin. Not her.

Writing off her remarks (again, required of her, not merely "offered")as honest but insipid intolerance, completely misses the point. But then, the politics of some function as a prism that blocks out certain aspects of reality, and they cannot help missing the point.

[Paula Brooks]

It could also be said that when George Wallace stood in the school house door... he also showed a good degree of integrity, honesty, and courage when it came to his beliefs and principals.

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[cheap coach bags]

Great comments! You are so nice, man! You never know how much i like'em!

[cheap coach purses]

Yes, that's cool. The device is amazing! Waiting for your next one!

[sesli sohbet]

The comparison made here is not only faulty, it's insulting. Prejean never called anyone inferior, and to compare one's belief that marriage is between people of the opposite sex to people who slaughter others is so despicable, I have to hope the author doesn't believe it.
seslisohbet
seslichat