pages

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Miley Cyrus versus Miss California

original title: "the better answer of happiness" That was more appropriate but to the point but did not adequately served the context. If the message is so important I might as well package it to be adequate sent and received or I render my work an injustice.

I need to run through this quickly. The Miss USA Pageant was Sunday April 19th. The reason Miss California (USA), Carrie Prejean, was not declared the winner as the judges initially planned, was because when homosexual blogger and pageant judge Perez Hilton (God will this will be the last mention of that name on my weblog) inquired of Miss Prejean her beliefs regarding homosexual marriage, the answers displeased those judges.

Let us set aside the real meat of the story because everyone else is doing that. Carrie Prejean is the runner-up and certainly deserves to be called the winner. The young lady's background has been covered by others and certainly qualifies her to win. That there is a lack of justice here has been covered and her so-called friends abandoned her, revealing their status as not being friends at all, but opportunists.

I am not going to pursue the question of why a Sodomite is judging the beauty of woman in a contest and maybe in the future I will discuss whether a Miss USA contestant is more appropriate in serving as a representative or stand-in for the beliefs and opinions of the population of her home places, or truer to her purpose when she represents her own beliefs and convictions. I will say that the behavior of Mario Armando Lavandeira is deplorable, despicable, and certainly unacceptable for a responsible citizen, albeit no one holds people accountable for this minimum standard of responsibility. We should expect better. It is not appropriate to denounce "Hilton" and the other Miss USA judges for their liberalism because this sort of freedom of belief and expression and the limitations, condemnations, and punishments for the implementation of the expression of belief certainly fits more in the spectrum of fascism more than liberalism.

Mario Armando Lavandeira's states that it had less to do with Miss Prejean's beliefs being contrary to his than the quality of her answer.
Hilton said Prejean could have chosen an answer that he believed would have been less political. When he asked Miley Cyrus the same question on Twitter after the show, he was surprised by her response... Comparing Cyrus and Prejean, Hilton said, "A 16-year-old gave a better answer. If she [Prejean] had said those two sentences, that would have been a better answer."
I am not really interested in portraying (today) what the contestant's answer to the question was, nor am I interested in spelling out the specific question aside from it pertaining to "gay marriage" and being asked by a homosexual. I am willing to openly dispute Miley Cyrus's response. What was "the better answer"?
"I believe that EVERYONE deserves to be happy. That's all I'm saying."
She is wrong.

I do not desire to explore the Declaration of Independence's concept of "the pursuit of Happiness" and believe it is a very literal thing, quite clearly not including a guarantee of results (actually the right to the Pursuit of Happiness refers to a sort of property right). A promise that happiness or even contentedness are to be had simply because one is an American, and a citizen, (those to whom the Declaration quite clearly and enthusiastically refers) simply does not exist. Others have explored and explained these parsings better than I.

My assault on Miley Cyrus's brief twitter-treatise on happiness is simply thus. Not everyone deserves to be happy, and happiness is not unconditional. Many people are unhappy for the dumbest reasons and they simple do not have the right to impose their conditions for happiness over other people, who may or may not be in a position to be affected by those circumstances. I need to see this through a spiritual lens, as it is directly a triggered emotional response in those that clearly do not have a relationship with God, or are not running on their relationship with God at the time. Even with someone who is walking with the Lord happiness describes something that is not something one can just have. From a spiritual perspective, "joy" and "love" are elements that come from God, emanate from human beings and are not dependent on circumstances or external catalysts. To be happy means that a certain set of circumstances must be in place for that individual and conditions must be met. People cannot simply be happy and there is nothing wrong with that. Although I admit some people are happy because their brain chemicals are set just that way and that particular make-up has not been wrecked yet, this is all stuff that can be set one way or the other.

Since the happiness of your average American may depend on the state of affairs being such that is offensive, irritating, or uncomfortable to another individual, "happiness" is not a right, certainly not one that everyone possesses or should possess, because one man getting that right honored and respected instantly erases or tramples another's conditions for happiness. Besides that rather cynical or pessimistic assessment for how people maintain a good attitude, when people's happiness are only for dumb reasons, or they can be happy is someone is unhappy... then why should we appease the dumb at the cost of the wholesome? If Perez Hilton, such as he is called, is only happy standing atop a pile of tortured baby seals, then Miley Cyrus literally is wrong. I would apply this standard to even less extreme examples but I hate these wrong-headed open-minded absolute statements being taken as better answers to real questions and real issues.

My words that I emphasized are the ones I included as my reply to the ABC news article. What makes a practitioner of this sort of homosexuality a worthy judge is quite beyond me, especially since he later suggested a different version that he thinks she should have used.... a version that is quite clearly obfuscating or ducking the issue. Now whether the issues of homosexual marriage should be decided by the individual states is one serious matter, one likely beyond the terms and limits of what should be asked a Miss USA beauty pageant contestant. I believe that these sorts of legal contracts should be determined on a federalist basis, in the hands of the voting citizens through state ballot initiatives and perhaps (but not very comfortably) state legislative action. A defense of traditional marriage should not be mounted among the stalwart and ugly actors of the federal government, especially the judiciary. More importantly while I may be in line with activist judges on the right, on a state level, declaring that the public/government's recognition of marriage may only lay along the lines of tradition that we have honored from thousands of years before the Christian era began all the way to the early 20th century, it is abhorrent that activist judges on any level of government declare that the right of marriage, and the rite of marriage, and said recognition, belongs to any sort of combination/relationship that may suddenly become unfashionable to publicly condemn. Judges or the judicial panels that they sit on should not unilaterally declare a set of legal or moral values one way or the other simply to reflect a fashion or set of fashions of a time.

Oddly enough I think these marriage battles should be taken out of the hands of government but the civil union debate is an issue for another month. Whatever sort of relationship one has with the government bureaucracy does not involve a promise of happiness. If that fact alone is the case, the simplistic misguided utterances of a teenage pop star the endorsement of those phrases by a minor near-celebrity figure should have no relevance to how an utterly beautiful woman was or was not spiritually and rhetorically attacked by these people. Not one of these respective individuals should have been placed in their own respective positions.

Carrie Prejean's continued stand touches me.
"I wouldn't have had it any other way. I said what I feel. I stated an opinion that was true to myself and that's all I can do. It is a very touchy subject and he [Perez] is a homosexual and I see where he was coming from and I see the audience would've wanted me to be more politically correct. But I was raised in a way that you can never compromise your beliefs and your opinions for anything."
It also reminds me of the objectivist character from Watchmen, Rorschach, and his insistence on no compromise, even in the face of Armageddon. I certainly hope this is not that extreme, but a sort of professional and personal sort of glory and success was based on her performance and she decided not to compromise even when tempted with some level of reward.

No comments: