Is the political climate in the US changing? Well, yes, but with progress comes a natural reactionary backlash. The whole Miss California incident is really highlighting some of the ongoing bigotry in the US.
An article on the CNN website dated today, April 30, 2009 documents the continuing plight of the bastion of moral purity also known as Miss California.
“WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Miss California Carrie Prejean, who declared her opposition
to same-sex marriage during the Miss USA pageant, will star in a new $1.5
million ad campaign funded by the National Organization for Marriage.
. . .
“Prejean was roasted by same-sex marriage advocates after she stood up for
what she called "opposite marriage" (marriage between a man and a woman) when
responding to a question from celebrity blogger and pageant judge Perez
Hilton.
"Prejean has also become a fresh-faced standard-bearer for the
same-sex marriage opponents, who have rallied to her defense.
"'She is attacked viciously for having the courage to speak up for her truth and her
values,' the National Organization for Marriage said in a press release. 'But
Carrie's courage inspired a whole nation and a whole generation of young people
because she chose to risk the Miss USA crown rather than be silent about her
deepest moral values.'
"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.'"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/miss.california.ad/index.html
I wonder how Miss Prejean would feel if her siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces, or nephews had to move out of the country because they did not have the same rights as their “heterosexual” counterparts? I wonder how Miss Prejean will feel if she has a child, that child grows up to be gay, and she has to see her child live as a second-class citizen in the US. Yes, Miss Prejean, we are well aware of that “gay marriage has consequences,” consequences such as equal rights.
Not too many individuals in society have the reputation for lack of intelligence as beauty pageant contestants. I’m not saying all beauty pageant contestants are stupid, but let’s be honest—we’ve all seen the video clips that show some of the brilliant commentary the contestants spout. Miss Prejean’s own statement of her undying belief in the sanctity of “opposite marriage” wasn’t remotely as eloquent a statement as someone used to appearing and speaking in public should be able to conjure—it barely made sense. The anti-gay bandwagon has historically been inexplicably eager to pull over and pick up the beauty queen hitchhikers on the road of intellectual ineptitude (i.e., Anita Bryant).
If you’ve never looked into the history of anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, the parallels with gay marriage are quite astounding. In the United States, it used to be illegal for people of different races to marry or even have sex. Like most other injustices in the history of the world, the validation for these laws were based on biased interpretations of religious texts (in this case, on Old Testament passages).
Shortly after the abolition of slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution was adopted in 1868, and Section 1 of this amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The fact that all citizens of the United States now had equal rights really worried some of those Americans who had previously been part of an exclusive and privileged class. One of their most nagging fears was rooted in the possibility that blacks would marry whites (especially black men marrying white women). The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment meant the anti-miscegenation laws on the books of some states that criminalized sexual or marital relations between individuals of different races were in danger of being nullified as unconstitutional.
Back in the day, the response of bigoted members of society, when confronted with the reality that all citizens are to be treated equally under the US Constitution was to attempt to change the Constitution. Wait—that’s the same response used today! Anyway, less than 100 years ago, in 1912, US Congressmen began introducing amendments to the constitution that would permanently prohibit “intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians,” effectivly overriding the provisions of the Fourtheenth Amendment.
The patriotic American who introduced this anti-miscegenation amendment, Representative Seaborn Roddenbery, a Democrat from Georgia, explained his rationale for the need for the amendment:
"I offer this resolution ... that the States of the Union may have an
opportunity to ratifty it. ... Intermarriage between whites and blacks is
repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent
and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of
social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy... Let us uproot and
exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman
leprosy"
Congressional Record, 62d. Congr., 3d. Sess., December 11, 1912, pp. 502–503.
While the adoption of the amendment was still being considered by the US congress, the governments of several states that did not already have anti-miscegenation laws were so moved by Roddenbery’s arguments that they began to immediately work to put such laws into effect. Even Wyoming, the so-called Equality State, enacted such a law the following year.
Fortunately, as of nine years ago, interracial marriage was no longer illegal anywhere in the United States. In 2000, the great state of Alabama finally removed from its state constitution the wording “The Legislature shall never pass any law to authorize or legalize any marriage between any white person and a Negro, or a descendant of a Negro.” Alabama isn’t an anomaly though—South Carolina only removed a similar prohibition in their state constitution two years earlier.
With the same amount of effort that it would take a beauty pageant contestant to flick her hair, I can take Mr. Roddenberry’s statement above, change only a few words, and come up with something that could be used today by some illustrious patriot as Miss Prejean or any one of the US’s so-called “conservative” lawmakers:
“I offer this resolution ... that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratifty it. ... Intermarriage between members of the same gender is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy.”
Funny how history can repeat itself, isn’t it? It actually isn’t funny—it’s spooky.
Going back to the tenets of the Fourteenth Amendment, I feel sure that I have been denied liberty and equal protection of the law. Laws were passed that have abridged my privileges. I can thank my fellow patriots, such as Miss Prejean, for making my second-class US citizen status possible.
Just think for a minute what would have happened if Miss Prejean had, during the Miss USA pageant, decided to use her freedom of speech to express a distaste for interracial marriage such as what I’ve quoted above? I can only hope that someday in the near future, people will read the words of today’s anti-gay activists with the same disgust and disbelief that we all (hopefully) feel when we read the racist comments and attempts at unjust legislation from those who sought to limit individuals’ rights to choose spouses decades ago.
