mock trial: carrie prejean v. the world

Written by Dan King

Christ-follower. husband. father. author of the unlikely missionary: from pew-warmer to poverty-fighter. co-author of activist faith: from him and for him. school of ministry and missions instructor. president of fistbump media, llc.

April 30, 2009

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

22 Comments

  1. RickD335

    Yep – we're the intolerant ones because we don't condone, support, or promote homosexuality. Also, just a quick observation – we've let a minority subculture hijack a word that once meant happy and lighthearted and now substitute the word “gay” for the more properly descriptive of homosexual. Can't sing “don we now our gay apparel” without wincing

    Carrie may not have been the most articulate spokesperson, but she was honest, and respectful, and spoke about her beliefs – not what she thinks others should believe. Hilton and Rancic add nothing to the discussion save their opinions – we can't ignore their statements in hopes they'll go away (tempting though it is). We can, however, borrow Carrie's approach in response – low-key, truthful, and respectful.

    Reply
  2. RickD335

    Yep – we're the intolerant ones because we don't condone, support, or promote homosexuality. Also, just a quick observation – we've let a minority subculture hijack a word that once meant happy and lighthearted and now substitute the word “gay” for the more properly descriptive of homosexual. Can't sing “don we now our gay apparel” without wincingCarrie may not have been the most articulate spokesperson, but she was honest, and respectful, and spoke about her beliefs – not what she thinks others should believe. Hilton and Rancic add nothing to the discussion save their opinions – we can't ignore their statements in hopes they'll go away (tempting though it is). We can, however, borrow Carrie's approach in response – low-key, truthful, and respectful.

    Reply
  3. RickD335

    Yep – we're the intolerant ones because we don't condone, support, or promote homosexuality. Also, just a quick observation – we've let a minority subculture hijack a word that once meant happy and lighthearted and now substitute the word “gay” for the more properly descriptive of homosexual. Can't sing “don we now our gay apparel” without wincing

    Carrie may not have been the most articulate spokesperson, but she was honest, and respectful, and spoke about her beliefs – not what she thinks others should believe. Hilton and Rancic add nothing to the discussion save their opinions – we can't ignore their statements in hopes they'll go away (tempting though it is). We can, however, borrow Carrie's approach in response – low-key, truthful, and respectful.

    Reply
  4. BibleDude

    I really feel bad for Miss California. Dude, she got ripped to shreds by people who preach tolerance but obviously know know how to practice it.

    I agree that she may not have come off as the best spokesperson on traditional marriage, but she was asked to share her thoughts, and I thought that she did so quite well.

    As to your point about the changes in the meanings of words… not sure what to do with that personally. I understand completely what you are saying, but am not sure who to put that 'blame' on, or if any blame needs to be placed anyway…

    Thanks for popping by Rick! It's always a pleasure to chat with you!

    Reply
  5. BibleDude

    I really feel bad for Miss California. Dude, she got ripped to shreds by people who preach tolerance but obviously know know how to practice it.

    I agree that she may not have come off as the best spokesperson on traditional marriage, but she was asked to share her thoughts, and I thought that she did so quite well.

    As to your point about the changes in the meanings of words… not sure what to do with that personally. I understand completely what you are saying, but am not sure who to put that 'blame' on, or if any blame needs to be placed anyway…

    Thanks for popping by Rick! It's always a pleasure to chat with you!

    Reply
  6. BibleDude

    I really feel bad for Miss California. Dude, she got ripped to shreds by people who preach tolerance but obviously know know how to practice it. I agree that she may not have come off as the best spokesperson on traditional marriage, but she was asked to share her thoughts, and I thought that she did so quite well.As to your point about the changes in the meanings of words… not sure what to do with that personally. I understand completely what you are saying, but am not sure who to put that 'blame' on, or if any blame needs to be placed anyway…Thanks for popping by Rick! It's always a pleasure to chat with you!

    Reply
  7. Casey

    I don't get the gay rights movement. Why would you want to define yourself based on your sexuality in the first place? My friend John did a pretty good job of questioning this phenomenon here.

    And why do they want to call their relationships “marriage”? It's not marriage. Marriage has a definition, and the only way to call their relationships marriage is to redefine the word. The only reason I can see for pushing for the right to “marry” instead of the right to enter into a “domestic partnership” is that they want to force people to accept homosexual behavior as normal.

    Reply
  8. Kara

    I completely agree! I'm exhausted with being accused of being “extreme” or “ignorant” because I don't agree with gay/lesbian activity. Excuse me but isn't America supposed to be the “land of the free” for everyone? They sure have no problem exercising free speech when it comes to being gay/lesbian. They EVEN have a parade! (at least one that I know of) I don't keep up with all of that much. But if Christians march down the street for JESUS, we are “extreme” and “hateful!” I think it's TIME for us to STAND UP FOR CHRIST and stop being stomped all over by groups who obviously KNOW they are practicing lifestyles which are CLEARLY outlined in the Bible as SIN! That is why they are so defensive! They are lashing out at Christians while really they are probably feeling conviction because of their SIN.

    Reply
  9. Casey

    I don't get the gay rights movement. Why would you want to define yourself based on your sexuality in the first place? My friend John did a pretty good job of questioning this phenomenon here. And why do they want to call their relationships “marriage”? It's not marriage. Marriage has a definition, and the only way to call their relationships marriage is to redefine the word. The only reason I can see for pushing for the right to “marry” instead of the right to enter into a “domestic partnership” is that they want to force people to accept homosexual behavior as normal.

    Reply
  10. Casey

    I don't get the gay rights movement. Why would you want to define yourself based on your sexuality in the first place? My friend John did a pretty good job of questioning this phenomenon here.

    And why do they want to call their relationships “marriage”? It's not marriage. Marriage has a definition, and the only way to call their relationships marriage is to redefine the word. The only reason I can see for pushing for the right to “marry” instead of the right to enter into a “domestic partnership” is that they want to force people to accept homosexual behavior as normal.

    Reply
  11. BibleDude

    This is a great point about the definition of the word 'marriage'. And personally, I am not against a system that allows people the legal right to have a relationship where there can be sharing of things like medical benefits. But I agree that not only does the term 'marriage' have a definition, but I also feel that it is a very sacred and spiritual one.

    Thanks for stopping by Casey!

    Reply
  12. BibleDude

    It is important to stand up, but this is a tough one for me. The double-standard on tolerance is wrong, but we should operate with a heart of reconciliation, not division. I think of Jesus trying to deal with this balance….

    He called out the people who were being hypocrites, but usually when He did so it was simply to help them realize the error in their ways. He also taught us that the world would hate us because it first hated Him. He also taugh us to love (agape, the same love that He has for us) even our enemies.

    So I think that whatever Christians do to 'stand up' we must be driven by the question, “Does what I am doing open a door for conversation with those who don't agree with me, or does it drive a wedge even deeper in that relationship?”

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts Kara!

    Reply
  13. Kara

    I completely agree! I'm exhausted with being accused of being “extreme” or “ignorant” because I don't agree with gay/lesbian activity. Excuse me but isn't America supposed to be the “land of the free” for everyone? They sure have no problem exercising free speech when it comes to being gay/lesbian. They EVEN have a parade! (at least one that I know of) I don't keep up with all of that much. But if Christians march down the street for JESUS, we are “extreme” and “hateful!” I think it's TIME for us to STAND UP FOR CHRIST and stop being stomped all over by groups who obviously KNOW they are practicing lifestyles which are CLEARLY outlined in the Bible as SIN! That is why they are so defensive! They are lashing out at Christians while really they are probably feeling conviction because of their SIN.

    Reply
  14. Kara

    I completely agree! I'm exhausted with being accused of being “extreme” or “ignorant” because I don't agree with gay/lesbian activity. Excuse me but isn't America supposed to be the “land of the free” for everyone? They sure have no problem exercising free speech when it comes to being gay/lesbian. They EVEN have a parade! (at least one that I know of) I don't keep up with all of that much. But if Christians march down the street for JESUS, we are “extreme” and “hateful!” I think it's TIME for us to STAND UP FOR CHRIST and stop being stomped all over by groups who obviously KNOW they are practicing lifestyles which are CLEARLY outlined in the Bible as SIN! That is why they are so defensive! They are lashing out at Christians while really they are probably feeling conviction because of their SIN.

    Reply
  15. BibleDude

    This is a great point about the definition of the word 'marriage'. And personally, I am not against a system that allows people the legal right to have a relationship where there can be sharing of things like medical benefits. But I agree that not only does the term 'marriage' have a definition, but I also feel that it is a very sacred and spiritual one.

    Thanks for stopping by Casey!

    Reply
  16. BibleDude

    It is important to stand up, but this is a tough one for me. The double-standard on tolerance is wrong, but we should operate with a heart of reconciliation, not division. I think of Jesus trying to deal with this balance….

    He called out the people who were being hypocrites, but usually when He did so it was simply to help them realize the error in their ways. He also taught us that the world would hate us because it first hated Him. He also taugh us to love (agape, the same love that He has for us) even our enemies.

    So I think that whatever Christians do to 'stand up' we must be driven by the question, “Does what I am doing open a door for conversation with those who don't agree with me, or does it drive a wedge even deeper in that relationship?”

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts Kara!

    Reply
  17. BibleDude

    This is a great point about the definition of the word 'marriage'. And personally, I am not against a system that allows people the legal right to have a relationship where there can be sharing of things like medical benefits. But I agree that not only does the term 'marriage' have a definition, but I also feel that it is a very sacred and spiritual one.Thanks for stopping by Casey!

    Reply
  18. BibleDude

    It is important to stand up, but this is a tough one for me. The double-standard on tolerance is wrong, but we should operate with a heart of reconciliation, not division. I think of Jesus trying to deal with this balance….He called out the people who were being hypocrites, but usually when He did so it was simply to help them realize the error in their ways. He also taught us that the world would hate us because it first hated Him. He also taugh us to love (agape, the same love that He has for us) even our enemies.So I think that whatever Christians do to 'stand up' we must be driven by the question, “Does what I am doing open a door for conversation with those who don't agree with me, or does it drive a wedge even deeper in that relationship?”Thanks for sharing your thoughts Kara!

    Reply
  19. RickD335

    Hi Dan!

    I don't know how many of us could enter the debate without setting ourselves up for criticism on how well we spoke, but that is beside the point. Carrie is only one in a long list of people (self included) who have misused the language.

    On the change in the meaning of words – specifically the word “gay” – I think it far less important to lay blame than to recognize the fact that the word can hardly be used in its traditional sense of being lighthearted and happy due to the cultural hijacking that happened. The “new” connotation of the word is meant to imply the original definitions apply to the homosexual lifestyle – I don't buy that for one nanosecond.

    Thanks for posting, BD! 🙂

    Reply
  20. RickD335

    Hi Dan!I don't know how many of us could enter the debate without setting ourselves up for criticism on how well we spoke, but that is beside the point. Carrie is only one in a long list of people (self included) who have misused the language.On the change in the meaning of words – specifically the word “gay” – I think it far less important to lay blame than to recognize the fact that the word can hardly be used in its traditional sense of being lighthearted and happy due to the cultural hijacking that happened. The “new” connotation of the word is meant to imply the original definitions apply to the homosexual lifestyle – I don't buy that for one nanosecond.Thanks for posting, BD! 🙂

    Reply
  21. RickD335

    Hi Dan!

    I don't know how many of us could enter the debate without setting ourselves up for criticism on how well we spoke, but that is beside the point. Carrie is only one in a long list of people (self included) who have misused the language.

    On the change in the meaning of words – specifically the word “gay” – I think it far less important to lay blame than to recognize the fact that the word can hardly be used in its traditional sense of being lighthearted and happy due to the cultural hijacking that happened. The “new” connotation of the word is meant to imply the original definitions apply to the homosexual lifestyle – I don't buy that for one nanosecond.

    Thanks for posting, BD! 🙂

    Reply
  22. RickD335

    Hi Dan!

    I don't know how many of us could enter the debate without setting ourselves up for criticism on how well we spoke, but that is beside the point. Carrie is only one in a long list of people (self included) who have misused the language.

    On the change in the meaning of words – specifically the word “gay” – I think it far less important to lay blame than to recognize the fact that the word can hardly be used in its traditional sense of being lighthearted and happy due to the cultural hijacking that happened. The “new” connotation of the word is meant to imply the original definitions apply to the homosexual lifestyle – I don't buy that for one nanosecond.

    Thanks for posting, BD! 🙂

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Kara Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

mock trial: carrie prejean v. the world

by Dan King time to read: 3 min
22