What Miss California says about the U.S.A.
Maintaining the integrity of free speech for emotionally charged subjects
Laura Dosanjh
Issue date: 9/15/09 Section: Perspectives
On April 21, 2009, Miss California stood in front of the world and answered a question so politically charged that it never should have been considered for a powder puff competition. Instead of shying away from the question, instead of relying on a politically correct, prewritten statement, Carrie Prejean gave a direct and honest answer. Personally, she believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
The media backlash was immediate and ruthless.
Pageant judge and gay marriage proponent, Perez Hilton, stated in his blog that Prejean lost the crown to North Carolina’s Kristen Dalton because of her answer to the gay marriage question, what he called the worst answer in pageant history. He even suggested a correct answer to the question, or rather a non-answer about the right of individual states to make their own laws.
I have to be honest when I say that the media response confused me. When did there become a right or wrong answer to a very personal question?
The situation reminded me of the Sandra Bullock movie, “Miss Congeniality,” in which she competes in a Miss U.S.A.-like pageant. During the interview section of the competition, she is asked what she wants most for the world. Her response, “harsher punishments for parole violators” is met by stunned silence from the audience. She saves herself only by quickly adding, “and world peace.” This anecdotal scene, meant to be a humorous caricature, is instead a startling mirror image of current events.
Even if we make the assumption that there is a correct answer to such a controversial question, then what authority decides what that one correct answer is? Certainly not public opinion, if the current statistics are any indication.
In a 2008 Gallup poll, 56% of Americans opposed same-sex marriage being recognized as equal to traditional marriage (40% supported same-sex marriage). In the most recent election, one of the most liberal states in the country put legalizing gay marriage to a popular vote. The residents of California voted against it.
President Barack Obama said, “I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,” an answer not so different from Prejean’s, “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 and that's how I think it should be; between a man and a woman.” Despite these facts, publicly declaring support for a traditional definition of marriage is apparently pageant suicide.
How is it that the opinion of so many is being muted? How is it, in a country that values free speech above issues like privacy and public safety, that the opinion of a beauty pageant contestant warrants such media-spawned vitriol?
The history of free speech in this country is based on a need to have a free exchange of ideas, the hope that such an exchange will lead to the discovery of truth, and the knowledge that such freedom is necessary to hold individuals or governments accountable. Suppression of a particular point of view, even one that I may disagree with, limits the possibilities of an open discussion and ultimately fails to create accountability.
In an attempt to become politically correct, we are forgoing, and forcibly restraining, one of the most basic freedoms promised by the Constitution. It’s time to start recognizing that an opinion has value even if it differs from your own. And it’s time to start giving those opinions the same sort of respect you should demand for your own.
It’s time to start heading the words of Beatrice Hall via Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”