Alright…  I know that there is a lot being said these days on the topic of gay marriage, especially since Miss California Carrie Prejean has openly shared her personal views on the topic. Just for the record, here’s how it went down…

Perez Hilton: Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?

carrie prejeanCarrie Prejean: 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, in my family, I think that I believe that 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.

It is not the argument on gay marriage that I want focus on here. There is enough being said about that already. Besides, as a Christian man who is active in his faith, I’m sure that you can figure out where I stand.

I want to focus on the public response to Prejean’s position. Prejean has been on trial by the world for stating her views. So let’s consider the evidence in this case…

Exhibit A:
The First Amendment of the United States clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Argument: Prejean has the right to express and exercise her religious beliefs, and to say what she would like to say.

Exhibit B:
Prejean’s statement in response to the Hilton question. Translation = “I am glad that we live in a place where people have choices. This is my position. You don’t have to feel the same way that I do.”

Argument:Prejean was asked to share her views, and she did so in a respectful way.

Exhibit C:
Giuliana Rancic, an E! News anchor, Twittered that, “I know i’m a journalist, and i should be objective … but she is an ignorant disgrace and she makes me sick to my stomach.”

Argument: Umm…   WHAT?! This is not even close to being a productive statement in any way! It is nothing but a personal attack on someone because they don’t agree with their views! And there are many others like this…

gavelClosing Argument:
I am amazed at the hypocrisy that Prejean’s opponents display. I wonder what the backlash would have been like if Prejean had responded to Hilton (who is openly homosexual) with a statement similar to Rancic’s. Imagine if Prejean said something like, “Ugh! Your homosexual lifestyle is disgusting! I think that all of you are going to burn in hell!”…

The truth is that Prejean did not respond that way. She responded to the question very respectfully, and in a way that doesn’t disparage anyone.

On the other hand, responses towards her are personal attacks that accuse her of being some aweful person that makes others sick to their stomach.

For discussion:
There this standard in America that says that people should be tolerant of other people’s views. So why is it then that people like Prejean get blasted for having a view? Isn’t that the definition of intolerance?

To me if you expect people to be tolerant of your views, then you should also be tolerant of their views as well. Tolerance does NOT mean that other people should HAVE your views, only that we should respect the fact that we have different ones. What gives?


Related article: in defense of christian marriage

mock trial: carrie prejean v. the world

by Dan King time to read: 3 min