Thursday, April 23, 2009

In Kalifornia, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to Christians.

This exchange occured at the recent Miss USA pagent between the moderator and Miss California, Carrie Prejean.

Perez Hilton: “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”

Prejean: “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, 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 and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”


Carrie Prejean, Miss California, was the frontrunner and the favorite to win the Miss USA pageant...and then she committed the deadly sin of self-expression. She forgot where she was and what demographic comprised the majority of her audience. Hollywood is run and policed by the homosexual lobby.

(Note: I will not use the term “gay” to describe a male homosexual. Gay is a state of mind. It means to be happy. It was co-opted by a group with the full intention of twisting the dialogue to their terms.)

In the space of a few seconds, Miss Prejean went from crowd favorite to crowd goat, never mind that the same people loudly expressing their hatred were the same people with an extensive history of standing on the first amendment. The hypocrisy is that they don’t believe it extends to anyone who disagrees with their side of the issue. Some have actually called for Miss Prejean’s arrest and conviction on a hate crime charge. I doubt those individuals even know how to spell hubris.

The only group whose world view is affected solely by how they copulate is the homosexuals. They are the only people who insist on bringing what they do in the bedroom to the fore of the discussion. They the only people who use a sexual activity as the template for defining who they are.

Every group has its fanatics and the homosexual community is no exception. But the fanatics are controlling the dialogue which makes the possibility of a progressive, logical debate a non-starter, but someone has to try. One place to start is the hatred the homosexuals seem to have for Christianity while at the same time demanding that Christianity treat them as something other than what they are, same sex couples engaging in an activity the Christian Bible condemns.

This is typical of the homosexual lobby. They have mastered the “do as I say not as I do” gambit. What is dismaying is that nearly every elected official and media outlet has swallowed that lie hook line and sinker. They see no hypocrisy in homosexual couples demanding that a religion accept them as non-sinners while actively engaging in what that church views as sin. They see no hypocrisy in using the first amendment to further their aims while denying its protection to that church.

For the Christian church, marriage is to be a rite of commitment between a man and a woman. Not between a man and a girl, a girl and a boy, a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The secular world already has avenues for those arrangements, including such things as power of attorney and other documents that give a domestic partner all the access and privileges of a spouse. So what’s the problem with allowing church marriage to stand as it is?

The problem is the word “sin”. Anyone who has ever been involved in a discussion with a homosexual activist will have noticed the demeanor of unrepentant aggression that permeates the one they are speaking with. This demeanor is typical throughout the demographic. Whether the media and the politicos want to admit it or not, the homosexual community is at war with the Christian church. They view Christianity as one judging them and what they do. They consider Jesus’ admonition to “go and sin no more” as something hateful. The word “love” only means one thing, sex. The argument goes nowhere. When the terms of the discussion means different things to the participants, only confusion can result.

What this all comes down to is this: As Americans, we all have a right to express our opinions freely and without fear or repercussion...even if we happen to be a Christian living in Kalifornia.

6 comments:

amaurice said...

Bob

This is an absolute superb presentation on Carrie Prejean concerning the incident at the Miss USA pageant. Her stand on her convictions is to be admired and worth much more to her future and who she is over winning a beauty pageant.

Al Maurice

Bob Beers said...

What is also interesting is that those who wished to silence Miss Prejean wound up pushing her, and her views, to the front of the news cycle.

Chandler Levrich said...

Bob,
As a Homosexual who is absolutely gay over the Miss California affair, let me try to make a subtle point.

Before I was an active Sodomite, before I even knew what sex was, let alone the supremely satisfying permutation of positions where all the parts fit perfectly, before I became branded as a Homosexual I was a little boy attracted to boys. I was born homoemotional. Everything about who I am is based on my profoundly basic ability to intimately bond with another male. The homosex part, the part you hate being flaunted, is something that was created by non Homosexuals to describe us. Your, the greater heterosexist majority's, fixation on the mechanics of our lovemaking is more telling about you than us.

Also, Miss California gave her answer and was judged for it. Are you are not used to being judged by gay Homosexuals on the inappropriateness of your behaviors? Now isn't THAT the other side of the coin.

Bob Beers said...

This comment proves my poin As you will notice, the entire crux of the author's argument is "mechanics"-based and the entire point of my column, bigotry against what is supposed to be a first amendment right, was missed.

Chandler Levrich said...

No Bob it wasn't about the mechanics it was about the emotional basis for the orientation.

As for the 1st Amendment, she said her piece. Nobody censored it. But like shouting fire in a crowded theater, there are consequences to free speech. You are quite free to espouse your beliefs and nobody will censor you. But, my dear conservative, do not expect to escape criticism. And in some cases that may mean you lose your tiara. Just that simple.

Bob Beers said...

Actually...no. That part of the contest is to be about poise and the ability to express yourself with grace and clarity. Content, except when considered unladylike, isn't supposed to be part of the judging. The comments of the judges showed that they would have censored her if possible. Watch for the next column.