"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, 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."
Of course, I share Miss California's belief that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. It's too bad that she had to massage her answer so much, however. Obviously, she knew she was in hot water and was trying desperately to put forth her view with as little offense as possible. Kudos to her for that. But look at the fallout from this, and while you're looking, be thinking about how the gay rights advocates preach "tolerance" of alternate views.
Keith Lewis runs the Miss California competition, and he told FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement:
"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman. I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."
Perhaps he meant that religious beliefs have no place in the Miss California family, or maybe a journalist mis-typed that. But no matter, I cannot help but notice Keith Lewis' intolerance of a religious/political view that is in opposition to his. So intolerant is he of this view, that he wants to keep it out of the Miss California family… whatever that means.
Apparently Miss California's answer sparked a shouting match in the lobby after the show. A gay man named Scott Ihrig had this to say:
"It's ugly, I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up."
Hmmm. So this gay man, who supposedly preaches "tolerance" wants to disallow Miss California from the first runner-up position based on the fact that her religious or political beliefs don't match his. How "tolerant" is that, Mr. Ihrig?
Again, I just cannot resist the sweet, sweet, irony of this. These people claim to be above any kind of moral judgment, and yet they are quick to make moral judgments according to their personal moral standard, such as it is. They want to set the moral standard and anyone who recognizes a higher moral standard is, by definition, immoral and deserves discrimination.
They preach "tolerance" and yet they are extremely intolerant of views which oppose their own.
What's even more disturbing is the fact that these intolerant bigots who are discriminating against Miss California will never be called on it in the major media. The articles will be all about Miss California's "intolerance" even though she was obviously struggling to present her opinion on the matter in the least offensive way she could.
People are going to have to realize that those who preach moral relativism are not really moral relativists. They merely pose as moral relativists when it suits them. Someone who prides themselves in not making moral judgments must refrain from making moral judgments themselves, don't you think? Someone who claims to believe that morality is defined by individual choice can't very well object to someone who has defined their own morality differently, can they?
What it comes down to is this: Either morality is really relative, or it's not. Since nobody seems to be able to live consistently as a moral relativist, since even those who claim to be moral relativists end up resorting to their own absolute moral standard and expecting everyone else to obey it, then I must conclude that morality is not relative.
The only true moral relativist, it turns out, is actually a sociopath.