« Page 2 of 2

As is expected, the ramifications of Miss California, Carrie Prejean's comments regarding traditional marriage or "non-opposite marriage" (whatever that may be) continue to be felt. While some may argue that Prejean's semi-nude photographs that have recently surfaced provide a major blow to her fight in favor of traditional marriage, I think the photographs serve as a great jumping off point for discussion on a few important issues.

When Mario Lavandeira (also known as Perez Hilton) asked Prejean to give her opinion on whether same-sex marriage should be legalized, it was no shocker that whatever answer she gave pro or con, was bound to make the press. But what shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone is how quickly many individuals would seek to discredit the messenger who spoke the shaky words, "I believe marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman." It is interesting what the masses do when someone puts forth a personal opinion that is at odds with what many wrongly assume is the ethos of the majority. There is little that can be done to combat the opinion of another, so instead of going after the opinion, the adversary attempts to combat the integrity of the individual. That's where many messengers with valid points fall short -- lack of integrity (Rush Limbaugh, I'm talking to you).

For whatever inconceivable reason, Carrie Prejean posed for semi nude photographs. Was what she did when she was 18-years-old in conflict with her Christian beliefs? Though many would argue with me, I'd say so. While I don't care for the type of logic that implies tastefully done boudoir photos are less egregious than posing as a nude centerfold for Playboy, I do think that given the current age of sex tapes, sexting, and drunken revelry, Prejean's current art making the rounds on the Internet is far less incriminating than what you might find opening up an issue of Maxim or logging on to TMZ.com. Still, I've never been one to get behind the whole soft/hard classification of pornographic material. It all leads down a very bad path as far as I'm concerned. At age 21, is Prejean the same person she was at age 18? I'd hope not. Maybe these photos fall under the banner of "we all make mistakes." Unfortunately, that conclusion is entirely too cliche for my tastes.

If I were a betting woman, I'd wager that Ms. Prejean likely never imagined one day her answer during a beauty pageant would temporarily make her the face of a major moral and political debate. And had Ms. Prejean been privy to her future, I can pretty much guarantee she wouldn't have posed for those "modeling" shots either. The decisions we make in life are far more crucial to our future than we realize. Short-sightedness is familiar territory for many young Americans. Whether or not you believe Prejean is in the wrong for posing for those photos, the reality is, given her current platform, she executed poor judgment and is now reaping the consequences of that mistake. "To whom much is given, much is required" comes to mind. Are there many well-meaning people who pose for semi-nude photographs with no intent of ever releasing the photos to the public? Certainly. Unfortunately, some people will end up in places down the road where those very photos might call to question their integrity on an entirely separate issue. If you're one who likes to reason such consequences and double standards as unfair, let me remind you of two phrases my mother often said, "That's great for Johnson family, but you are not a Johnson," and my personal favorite, "Life is not fair. And then you die."

In the age of Myspace, Facebook, and all matters of social networking, the Internet is wrought with irrevocable regret. Although Carrie Prejean's photos had little to do with the Internet, her predicament may become a common future occurrence as countless young people carelessly manage their online and digital identities. Many young adults are already reaping the consequences of posting photos of themselves engaging in underage drinking and illegal drug activity. Many have been suspended from school or worse, charged with a crime. I foresee a day when Internet documented debauchery could cost some people their jobs, their promotion, or even worse, their message.

The saddest reality in this entire conundrum a very powerful and important message is being lost. That's exactly what opponents of Prejean would like. Unfortunately for them, she's just a pageant contestant and despite her own shortcomings, she spoke truth on that stage. Fortunately for those with an ear to hear -- Truth always stands tall regardless of the mess going on around it. There are a whole slew of Americans, some with a platform, others without, who stand firm in the conviction that the definition of marriage must not be changed. Being pro-marriage, doesn't mean being anti-rights for those who choose a homosexual lifestyle. If that minority wishes to have unions legally recognized as such, or civil ceremonies or whatever their wish, that's perfectly fine. But let's not redefine the definition of marriage, one of the bedrocks of our society. That is a slippery slope towards a standard none of us can define.

As for the fate of Miss California, quite frankly on the most superficial level, I don't care. If the Miss USA organization strips her of her state title, that's certainly their prerogative. If the vetting process in the competition included questioning about improper photos and Prejean was dishonest in her answers, then let her reap those consequences. I hardly believe she's the only contestant with questionable photos out, but sometimes public figures make public targets and that's just how the cookie crumbles. I trust that if Prejean handles these events with integrity, humility, and honesty, she will fare quite well with or without the fancy title. I pray she learns from this and continues to stand for truth. More importantly, I hope others will learn from her experience and seek to live lives beyond reproach so as not to give an occasion for their life's message to be called to question or jeopardize their personal testimony.

Finally, I think conservatives (or anyone for that matter) ought to be careful in rushing too quickly to anoint people as spokespersons for a cause. I agree with supporting someone who is being unfairly judged for his or her opinion, but don't be so insecure as to need to jump on the tailcoat of someone else's very public platform in order to validate what you believe. The voters of California quietly validated it on November 4th, 2008. Even if the vote had gone the other direction, that wouldn't change the beliefs of those who stand for traditional marriage. The National Organization for Marriage recently brought on Prejean as one of their spokespeople. That's a great opportunity for her. I just hope the NOM stands by their decision and doesn't backtrack now because of something they should've researched in the first place. Sometimes instead of crowning people as heroic, we need to just allow events to run their course and see how people handle the spotlight. Prejean did what many perceived to be a very brave thing when she declared her stance on national television. Really, she just spoke the truth. That's not brave; that's what "Christians" are supposed to do.

Previously
* Bikini Baristas & The Miss USA Pageant.
* The Cultural Relevance of Beauty Pageants

Posted by Ambra in Current Events, Marriage, Sex/Purity | Link to This Entry | Comments { 7 }