So we've all heard about Miss California's view on gay marriages. (Although she starts by saying she thinks we live in a land where you can choose same sex marriage or opposite sex marriage .... uh I live in Illinois and last I checked I couldn't.) In "her country" she believes marriage "should be between a man and a woman." "No offense." Um, no, none taken ... I think it's great that you think you can define other people's relationships. Fantastic. Not offensive at all.

But are we surprised? This was the Miss USA pageant, after all. A beauty pageant, for young women to parade their beauty on stage for a crown and a title. One of the most heteronormative displays in our popular culture. Why wouldn't we expect one of the contestants to have a heternormative view on what marriage should be?

Unfortunately, it is the Miss "USA" pageant, and Miss USA should unite the country, not divide. And if Miss California had a better speech coach, she would have said it should be up to the individual states to decide what laws govern it's people. There you go. You get an A in civics. But instead she gave an answer that divided the country, and as much as I think beauty pageants are ridiculous, I'm glad she was penalized for her polarizing, non-BS answer. Come on! It's a pageant. This is no time to have the "courage" to share your real "values"!

But she's not done yet.

Miss California is going to appear in a commercial funded by the National Organization for Marriage. Ironically, an organization that says it is "for marriage" is not really. When I hear that you are "for marriage" I would like to think that you want to give the right to any couple in love ready to make a commitment the right to marry, but sadly, this is America, and I am wrong. National organizations purposely use deceiving names. (I'm looking at you, "Pro-Lifers" ... when are you going to march against the death penalty and war?) Believe it or not, the National Organization FOR Marriage is against gay marriage. The irony is hilarious. And sad.

Miss California seems confused: "Marriage is good," Prejean said at the news conference. So, if marriage is good .... why restrict it? She goes on, "There is something special about unions of husband and wife. Unless we bring men and women together, children will not have mothers and fathers." Hmm. Interesting. The holes in this logic are canyon-sized. Men and women have been "coming together" ("having sex") for years ... that doesn't mean every child has a mother and father present. So straight people ain't so good at always adhering to the 1 mom + 1 dad rule.

Moving on, According to the group, the ad will call "gay marriage advocates to account for their unwillingness to debate the real issue: gay marriage has consequences." This just blows my mind. So you're saying straight marriage (excuse me, the term is now "opposite marriage") has no consequences? Because before crazy Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont legalized gay marriage, divorce didn't exist in this country? Domestic violence never happened among "opposite married" couples. "Opposite" couples never got married for the wrong reasons, never lied, never cheated. The gay couples must have done that!

As much as I hate on Miss California, at least she didn't win Miss USA. At least that shows some sign of hope in this country.

Creative Commons License