Shanna Moakler, executive director of the Miss California USA pageant, has resigned because of the recent events involving Carrie Prejean, the current Miss California who answered that she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman and was subsequently disqualified. Moakler had accused Prejean of violating her contract with the pageant by speaking out in support of organizations that oppose gay marriage and for posing almost naked in pictures as a teenager. Apparently, the contract does not allow a contestant from exercising their first amendment rights to free speech, at least when it comes to gay marriage. Donald Trump, the pageant owner did not disqualify Prejean for the photos or the comments she made saying that even the president agrees with Prejean on this issue. Moakler, oddly enough, said that she would be starring in an ad promoting gay rights.

What we have here is an individual in a position of “power” in this organization that seems to be unhappy about another person having an opinion that is shared by the majority of the United States. Moakler has the right to resign, but what she represents is a type of liberalism that is condescending and that ultimately undermines the rights of all Americans. What the judges and people in charge wanted from Miss California was a non-answer or a dishonest answer and when they did not get it, they tried to exclude her and attack her, releasing videos with profanity and invective against her. What I do not understand is how can the pageant allow that sort of political question coming from a seemingly biased judge and then punish the contestant for answering truthfully?

Prejean actually did get involved with organizations which are opposed to gay marriage and is featured on this video:

It is this sort of intolerance to speech and religion that our founding fathers wanted to avoid and that those calling for “gay rights” accuse others of doing. There is a word for this: hypocrisy.

In this country, there is nothing wrong with debating both sides of the question and in the guise of being politically correct we have certain elements that are trying to stifle this debate. Questions about such a fundamental social change must be raised before we take action, especially when more states are passing laws that expand the “traditional definition” of marriage like New York. What does it mean that marriage is no longer a contract between a man and a woman? Do we simply expand the definition to man and man or woman and woman? Or do we go further and allow man, man, and woman? In other words, do we allow polygamy, bisexual polygamy, etc.? Is this the society that we want? If America believes that there is nothing wrong with this, then so be it… but let there at least be a debate in the public square.

A word on “gay rights": Human beings are endowed by their Creator (God, nature, or whatever) with certain inalienable rights. All humans have these rights and are thus called human rights. I do not support any distinction between humans when it comes to human rights; they are universal. The only case where I would deny certain rights is to protect the rights of others, like in the case of criminals where society must make sure that everyone is safe from them. African-Americans have rights and they are not called “African-American rights.” Japanese-Americans have rights and they are not called “Japanese-American rights.” So why does a section of society, distinct only in their sexual preferences, need to specify a distinct set of rights? Are they not human? Let’s not use the term “gay rights” when referring to the issues affecting this one group. In a free society, there can be no “gay rights"… only “human rights.” And I (like all Americans should) support the human rights of all people, including gay people.

That’s how I see it and whoever wants to take offense, can.

-AG