Friday, April 24, 2009

Miss California's Warning for All of Us

I haven't been much interested in the Miss USA pageant since I quit salivating over the lingerie adds in the newspaper back in Jr High. But unless you've been under a rock the last few days you have no doubt been hearing of the brouhaha over Miss California's response to the question on same sex "marriage."

A nice summary can be found over at Pearl Diver:

So Miss California got baited and reeled in at the Miss USA Pageant. And, of course, now she’s being fried by the oh-so-neutral mainstream media we’ve all come to know and love. I am so proud to be a Californian right now! First, We the People speak our minds and establish that in California, marriage is between one man and one woman. Then, our “little Miss,” responds to a loaded question posed by gay blogger, Perez Hilton, with a very diplomatic, but firm response, “I think 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.” (more)

Pearl goes on to discuss an interesting phenomenon with the searches on the subject focusing on the possibility that Miss C might be a Mormon. It's an interesting read as is the rest the blog over at Pearl's place.

But something caught my eye while reading the comments section. Avery interesting comment from Opine Editorials that said this:

"Miss Prejean is currently a student at San Diego Christian College, which is associated with Shadow Mountain Community Church at whose International Ministry Center Miss Prejean has volunteered. While virtually any faith would be proud to count Miss Prejean a member, it appears she is currently affiliated Southern Baptist.Here's the wrinkle: Miss Prejean's educational background would have been part of her application for the Miss USA pageant, to which all judges would have been given access. Mr. Hilton likely knew Miss Prejean's Christian faith when he targeted his highly divisive question at her. Donald Trump, the pageant owner, attributes the question to her "bad luck." I'm not so sure."

And I think he is on to something here. I think Miss California was targeted specifically for her views on this subject and I think it bodes ill for all of us.

STR says this:

The fact is, decent Americans are the ones being bullied here, citizens who are people of conscience, overflowing with tolerance in the classic sense, but are being pushed around and oppressed because they disagree with the extreme views of the minority. Instead of making the case for traditional marriage, maybe we should also point out what's really going on behind the rhetoric that appeals to fairness and equality.

Let me tell you what’s really going on here.
Good people with honest differences with the Homosexual agenda are being bullied.

First, Americans are incredibly tolerant of homosexuality, especially considering the moral concerns lots of folks have with it. Same-sex couples have been getting married for years in private ceremonies. No one interferes, and no one should.

Americans are happy to give equal rights, and that is done virtually everywhere. However, they do not want their arms twisted into approving something they do not think is good for America or for families. That’s the real issue. (more)

The expansion of hate law legislation ( a dubious idea to begin with) only adds to the concern for the loss of religious freedom and free speech.
Hate Crimes Legislation Draws Criticism from Christian Groups

And in order to pass the legislation proponents often (surprise) play fast and loose with the facts.

From OneNewsNow
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, notes that Democrats were forced to eliminate a key portion of the bill -- the findings section. "We exposed the fact that they claimed, they have fraudulent claims that there was an epidemic of hate against homosexuals and drag queens, transgenders -- and that claim was the foundation of the bill," she notes. "They claimed that homosexuals are fleeing across state lines to avoid persecution, and that perpetrators are crossing state lines to commit crimes against these gays, lesbians, and transgenders, and that they have trouble purchasing goods and services or finding employment. We nailed them on the fact that that's a lie." Lafferty says during yesterday's markup hearing, Democrats neglected to mention that in America -- a country of 300 million people -- there have been only 1,521 cases of hate against homosexual, bisexual, and transgender people. (more)

Lifesite shows us what may be at stake:

...In a motion almost completely ignored by the mainstream media, the Judiciary Committee voted 15-12 to allow the hotly contested H.R. 1913, known as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009, to go forward.

The measure would grant the federal government a new authority to prosecute any violent crime anywhere in the country that is perceived to be "motivated by prejudice" against a number of protected characteristics, including "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."
Christian leaders are particularly concerned that attempts to secure the right to speak against the homosexual lifestyle and its normalization have failed. Among many rejected proposals for the bill was one offered by Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, which would have included a clause ensuring ministers could not be prosecuted for abetting a "hate crime" because they preached the Christian perspective on homosexuality.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the Congressman who introduced the bill, claimed the bill posed no danger to Christian free speech, saying that it "only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way." Section 10 of H.R. 1913 states: "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

Yet free speech advocates have pointed out that under current U.S. law, any action that "abets, counsels, commands, [or] induces" a perceived "hate crime" shares in the guilt of that crime, and is therefore punishable.

The danger posed by the "hate crime" legislation to Christian ministers was confirmed when Congress considered practically identical legislation in 2007. Then, Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., admitted during a hearing on the measure that it could be used to prosecute pastors for preaching the biblical perspective on homosexuality, given the perception that it may have "induced" a later hate crime.

No comments: