How the Crucifixion of Miss California Hurts the Marriage Equality Movement
I'm going to channel a character from one of my favorite shows for a moment. As the Golden Girls' Sophia Petrillo might say, "Picture it..." Only instead of asking you all to picture Sicily, sometime, I'm going to ask you to "Picture it...Las Vegas, 1960." The Miss USA pageant is being held and beloved entertainer Sammy Davis, Jr. is one of the judges. When it is his turn to ask the finalists a question, he looks at the blond-haired, blue-eyed beauties and says, "Interracial unions are currently illegal in 31 states. Do you think those states are wrong in saying that you and I cannot marry?" The question -- and the beauty's fumbling answer causes outrage, embarrassment, and an uproar. But here's my question to you. Had this fictional incident actually happened, do you think it would have made anyone in the nation who was opposed to Davis's union with white Swedish actress May Britt anymore accepting? Do you think the exchange would have made those sitting at home who believed at the time that people like my parents were second class citizens, believe so any less? Most of all, do you think it would have made those people who are ultimately responsible for bringing about social change in this country -- good people who are often uneducated and undecided on an issue, before their consciences finally move them in the right direction -- embrace Davis's position any more?
The answer of course is a resounding no.
This brings me to the ongoing flap regarding Miss California USA Carrie Prejean. If Perez Hilton's goal was to shame Carrie Prejean, with his question at the Miss USA pageant, mission accomplished. But if his goal, and the goal of those who have piled on her since then, is to ultimately win greater support for marriage equality, that mission is failing.
As someone who grew up in a church in which I was taught to believe that being gay was somehow wrong, before growing into an adult who was proud to be included in my close gay friend's wedding, I have been blown away by how misguided, and ineffective -- no matter how well-intentioned -- some of the prominent supporters of the marriage equality movement have been.
Watching the three-ring circus that has been the fallout from Hilton's grilling of Prejean, I have been amazed at how gleeful a number of liberal writers, bloggers, outlets and activists seem at their "gotcha!" moment. It is the same joy that many often have when a conservative gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar -- and the cookie jar happens to be a woman he is not married to, or a man he is not married to, (or a minor he is not married to.) There is just one catch that makes this situation different, actually a few of them. Number one Miss California wasn't running for office. Heck, she wasn't even running for Miss America. The fact that there is no talent portion in the Miss USA pageant and no academic scholarship (save for some acting classes) tells you all you need to know about the role their intellect is meant to play in the pageant (and probably their long-term careers). Who knows? Ms. Prejean may see affirmative action in higher education (which I support) as unfair, along with un-opposite marriage, but I never would have asked her if she does because frankly, who cares what she thinks about affirmative action, opposite marriage or anything else except maybe eating disorders? But the main difference between Carrie Prejean and some scandal-plagued politician is the scandal that liberals have tried to create out of her answer is not a scandal in the eyes of the half of Americans who agree with what she said, (as inarticulate as it may have been), including the president.
The reaction to her remarks -- even on this very site -- remind me of a pivotal moment in the McCain campaign. It was the moment when John McCain, with the support of his three closest male advisors, all talked among themselves and decided that the most strategic way to get the female vote in play was to draft Sarah Palin for the ticket. Instead of reaching out and engaging a bunch of women (besides Cindy McCain), through polling or otherwise, these men took it upon themselves to decide that they knew the best way to reach an audience that they weren't a part of but really needed.
They failed miserably.
This is precisely what the marriage equality movement is in danger of becoming -- a movement in which those who know they are right on the issue become so paralyzed by emotion and frustration that they end up talking in an ideological echo chamber with those who already agree with them, and end up talking AT, or worse attacking, those who just aren't there yet -- but may very well get there someday.
But you won't get them there any faster by calling them "bitch."
This echo chamber first became apparent to me several months ago, when I met someone who worked with Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in the landmark Loving v. Virginia case that struck down anti-miscegenation laws paving the way for interracial marriages. When Loving, was first contacted not too long before her death last year, and was asked if she would lend her support to the marriage equality movement, she eventually agreed, spurred in large part by one of the people who reached out to her, a fellow black woman, who like Loving was a practicing Christian who had also struggled at first to reconcile her faith and her ultimate belief in rights for all. But what struck me most about the story is that Loving had, allegedly, never been contacted prior to that moment even for a conversation, by anyone else in the equality movement -- EVER, a fact that boggles my mind to this day. Because just as we saw with the Civil Rights Movement, laws can only change so much. Real societal change happens on a personal and cultural level. When people get to know one another, like one another and love one another, it becomes harder to discriminate against each other. But for this to truly happen, you have to meet people where they are, not simply expect them to be where you are already, and ridicule them if they are not.
As of yesterday, New York state is THISclose to becoming the next in the land to legalize gay marriage. Do you know what ultimately moved one of the Republican Assemblywomen who had previously been opposed, to reconsider? It was not the shaming of Carrie Prejean. It was a lesbian couple that lives on her street.
As Melissa Etheridge wrote so eloquently on this very site about the Rick Warren inauguration fallout, "They don't hate us, they fear change. Maybe in our anger, as we consider marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands. Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en masse and volunteer for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world. Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us."
She is right.
www.keligoff.com
http://twitter.com/keligoff
Follow Keli Goff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keligoff
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As a conservative, Christian (now bash me since I don't walk on water), we work with gays, our neighbors are sometimes gay, they do our hair and make-up we laugh with them, are friends with them and a lot of times pray with them. I don't hate them, judge them or condemn them I or we-since I do hang with lots and lots of Christians with same exact beliefs) care for them but, as a mother doesn't give in to the cries of there children's temper tantrums, nor will I (we) give in and call what is wrong something that is right, whether you "love" what is wrong or not doesn't make it right. I don't fear gays, non-sense! Your point lacks power as we were not born yesterday, we are living with gay people all around us. They are actually easy and fun to get a long with if we are going to stereo type. The issue isn't the person, it is the behavior. Getting to know them is one thing but supporting the act of homosexuality is another. There has to be a line driven somewhere. I guess by calling us names, haters, bigots, and now assuming we are in fear of them may empower you to somehow believe we are going to see things your way. SOrry it is not going to happen. Homosexuality is wrong. Love the people though. We all have the right to be married, it just has to be "RIGHT".
While I don't heartily concur with all of your points, the tenor and the focus are intelligent and right. And, most of all, I want to thank you for referring to this Constitutional issue as "MARRIAGE EQUALITY" not "gay marriage." Would that the media and all of those who support the equal application of the 14th Amendment use this more accurate term. As Mildred Loving's story so aptly shows, today it is one group, tomorrow it could be another.
HURT? You are wrong.
Perez keeping the cat-fight alive will only help.
Yes, it is nice when people come to the decision by themselves, BUT it is not time to be nice in every instance and by everyone.
If African Americans waited for the public to vote for their rights, they still wouldn't have them.
Civil Rights should NEVER be up for popular vote. Courts usually have decided Civil Rights and then legislatures follow with new laws. We have a couple new exceptions on Gay Marriage, but the legislatures saw what was coming and decided to make the laws before they were told to.
This will be a battle won in the court and in the legislatures, along with semi-nice outreach, PROTESTS and people speaking up and pointing out hypocrisy as Perez did.
FEAR? The Bush's & conservatives have been using the fear card and are good at it. They lie cheat and break laws to get their way.
I am fully happy that some fear gays. Mainly fear that we will not stop protesting, not stop being in the news daily, and not stop being in their lives until they give us our rights. When we have OUR RIGHTS, we can go back to our lives and they won't have to hear from us.
I am all for Perez protests to spark conversation, and peaceful protest rallies across the country until DADT, DOMA, and other laws are changed to give gays OUR civil rights.
I agree that Perez Hilton is a brash, loudmouth of the gay community.
As for the subject of gay marriage, look it's simple. Against gay marriage? Then. don't marry someone of your own gender. You may not get the concept of gay marriage, but I would think all people understand the reasons why someone wants to get married. If they can understand that desire and very basic, core need for love and acceptance, then why is it so hard to understand that it applies to everyone, gay or straight?
The problem with the argument here is that many gays did not agree with Perez Hilton's rants on his blog. Who are the ones that crucified her supposedly. This was a straw man from the beginning.
Until some right wing homophobe ends up lashed to a fence and beaten to death, like openly gay Matthew Shepard was, it is patently absurd, offensive and demeaning to the cause of gay civil rights to use words like "crucifixion" to describe the fallout that the homophobic Miss USA Carrie Prejean is encountering from her anti-gay marriage remarks and subsequent joining of anti-gay marriage groups.
Umm..what crucifixion? She kept her crown, spent more time with Trump, and got loads of media attention. All of this, while agreeing to be a representative for a group that stands for bigotry and theocracy.
So what did more for civil rights - Sammy Davis saluting martinis with the ratpack, or black american athletes Tommy Smith and John Carlos making the black-power salute from the '68 Olympic podium in Mexico City?
Why are people (the author included) presuming that Perez Hilton is speaking on behalf of a movement (as a representative). He isn't - Perez is speaking on behalf of Perez. What we have witnessed this past week or so is a well televised cat-fight, that individual sides of the marriage equality debate have opportunistically taken advantage of. NOM in particular.
The issue of marriage equality is a legal, and constitutional one. That it has become a "moral" issue is ironic at best. As someone who supports marriage equality as a constitutional corrective , I find it problematic that no one is asking the pinnacle question. How is it "moral" to assert that one has a right to dictate whose relationships are viable?
At the end of the day that will be the larger ethical question that societies like the U.S. will be confronted with - well beyond the "win" of marriage equality. What looks like an argument over words and their definitions, is really about individuals wanting to exercise control over human life based on their own interests.
Good point. Perez is a professional bitch. What were the pageant organisers expecting?
Yes.
How about (for a bumper sticker), Beezleboob made me do it...
The department I work in has 13 members. 8 Republicans and 5 Democrats.
Needless to say the 8 Republicans are against same sex marriage. Of the 5 Democrats, 4 are against same sex marriage. Finally some common ground between the Republicans and Democrats.
I am not gay, but I am the only person in the department that has no objection to same sex marriage.
The gay community will never get equality from either party, Democrat or Republican!
Now, to the credit of the Democrats, all agree on civil unions for gay Americans. But all think that same sex marriage is an abomination and their position on same sex marriage is biblically rooted.
Gay Americans will never get an equal shake from either party on same sex marriage, not until they exert some political pressure on one party or the other.
Gay Americans should demand that the next member of the supreme court be an openly gay American.
Crucifixion? How blasphemous of her! Hyperbole-overstate much?
Lambasting would've been my word of choice. I do agree with the content of the article though. Perez was the one acting like a bitch.
That is right Perez Hilton. This article assumes that gays as a group crucified her.
Amen and well said. I'm tired of Carrie Prejean. I'm tired of her breasts. I'm tired of hearing her lambasted. I'm tired of hearing about her at all. So she doesn't agree with us. She's young, and she's had the disadvantage of a religious upbringing, not exactly a great harbinger of intellectual rigor. Give her time, and a chance to know us as more than people who demonize her.
CatotheCensor: wrote of Carrie Prejean: "She's young, and she's had the disadvantage of a religious upbringing, not exactly a great harbinger of intellectual rigor. Give her time, and a chance to know us as more than people who demonize her."
Well thought out and well said. Thank you.
great comment
Your kidding right? "not the harbinger of intellectual rigor" lol 99% of the most brilliant men who ever lived were all men of faith some of them deeply religious whom you could not hold a conversation with.
LOL... Yes because what Perez Hilton did was so much more classier than Rosa Parks. I don't recall Rosa Parks degrading her white counterparts. So the comparison is rather horrible. All those great leaders of the Civil Rights Movement made sure that they stayed composed. You did not see them lashing out with derogatory language or ad hominem attacks. Instead it was a determination of spirit and will through non-aggresive acts. So yea Perez Hilton only gave social conservatives more of a reason to fight harder and see Gays as people who are without morality.
If America wasn't scared to DEATH of Malcom X and the Black Panthers, Martin Luther King Jr. would never gained the influence that he did. Rosa Parks was NOT a friendly old lady, she was an angry American willing to go to jail to secure her Constitutional rights. Quit sugar-coating the A.A. Civil Rights Movement, and quit ignoring the ugliness that the MAJORITY of America showed its citizens of color.
You are wrong. The Black Panthers were post Civil Rights Movement. I not sure Malcom X played as piviotal of a role as you suggest.
The Civil Rights Movement can't be qualified as AA, that isn't historically correct. Again, AA is a post civil rights movement label.
The Civil Rights Movement was very strategic and disciplined. It wasn't about expressing anger. It appealed to our humanity---"I AM A MAN" Very powerful.
The Civil Rights Movement was made of coalitions that agreed with the goals and tactics of the movement. It had recognized leaders.
You are historically incorrect.
What is he known for, a rauchy gossipy website, nuff said.
Here is how the crucifixion of Miss CA REALLY hurts...
Mel Gibson will make a movie about it and it will gross $500 million and he'll funnel that money to his dad and it will be used to fight the gay marriage cause...
AND, besides, what happens after she rises from the dead 3 days later? She will have billions of followers and worshipper
Don't get me wrong, Jesus is a nice looking guy and all...but most people are going to go for the blonde...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
