QUEENS AND QUESTIONS

By Crystal Laramore and Deborah K. Martin


People are always asking me how I come up with stuff to write about week after week after week. Are you kidding me? I can barely contain myself sometimes. Especially in the cultural and political climate today!

My thoughts at this moment are:

I am outside on my patio piddling (a Texas word) around and listening to all the controversy surrounding a beauty queen, another kind of queen and a question. Last week the Miss USA beauty pageant was held as usual but the outcome was anything but normal. By the time it was over all hell had broken loose in the media over one question and its answer. What was the question? “Do you believe in gay marriage?”

Believe it or not this question does not have a right or wrong answer like “Is 2+2=4?” There are still quite a few subjects we have a perfect right to disagree on without fear of being criticized, ostracized or blacklisted. Aren’t there? Do we have to water down all our opinions these days for fear of offending someone out there???

The smarmy weasel who asked the question was none other than Perez Hilton, a BLOGGER, for Pete’s sake. His name isn’t even Hilton, its Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. Exactly what ARE his credentials for judging beauty pageants anyway? He asked a question whose answer he almost certainly already knew. The fact that Miss California is a conservative Christian was well known and he HAD to know this would stir up controversy but he asked it anyway. The little twerp didn’t really want to know what she thought. This was ALL about HIM, and his political agenda.

My gay friend Marty Morales said this: “Perez Hilton did not speak for the whole gay community when he verbally attacked Miss California. Miss California spoke her mind. Is there something wrong with that? Whatever happened to just being you? Good for Miss California for being herself, regardless if I agreed or disagreed with her answer.” Thanks, Marty. Your tolerance is showing, as well as your integrity.

Miss California valued her integrity and her faith more than she valued a crown and a title. Her reply was her opinion based on principles she believes in and frankly a lot of other Americans do as well. No offense to anyone, but marriage HAS a definition. In my New Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus marriage is defined thusly: mar-riage n. the institution under which a man and a woman become legally united on a permanent basis.

Now, being that it is 2009 and we are as tolerant as we are I did NOT find that definition on my Microsoft Word dictionary…hmmmm. Seems the definition has changed to “a legal relationship between spouses”. My favorite definition was number 2. specific marriage relationship: a married relationship between two people, or a somebody’s relationship with his or her spouse.

From where I sit high upon my writer’s pedestal I have a few things to say about this:

First of all if you are gay, straight or crooked, I don’t care. There are many gay people, male and female alike, in my circle of influence from family members to customers to great friends; NONE of whom care, or seem to care, what term is given to the union with their partner. So what is all the fuss about on the news and in congress and on the internet? Well, it’s just like anything, there are those on the fringes of all cultures, in all sectors of society, that just cannot relax and let folks be. They scream that they want us to be tolerant but that happens to be the last thing they are. Tolerant, I mean.

But here’s this guy on Utube calling Miss California a cu*t! Are you kidding me? And you wonder why our tolerance is dwindling away. Or do you really?

Once again, marriage has a definition. Let it go. Get another definition for a union between two people who happen to be of the same sex. WE DON”T CARE!!!! Most of us love you no matter what race, religion or sex you happen to be. And, as far as your sexual preferences we straight people really don’t care. Most of us. Again, there are some on the fringes…but don’t worry about the fringes. If you please them on one issue, there will always be another issue for them to gripe about.

You know, I've had a question for gay/lesbian folks for some time. Perhaps some of our readers are of the gay/lesbian persuasion and can enlighten me. Why is it that militant gay people seem to be so defined by their sexuality? I'm straight and no one cares about my sex life. Why should I care about yours? Aren't we ALL more than that part of our lives which takes up so little actual time? I'm just curious.

Back to other issues; I can see a legitimate issue for gay couples. When my gay friend Marty had surgery, the hospital staff didn’t want his partner, Shaun Carter, to come back to support him while he was waiting. Why? He wasn’t “family”. Actually, this can be an issue for straight couples sometimes. Sandra Bullock was asked why she married Jesse James and her answer was a light bulb moment for me. He had a motorcycle accident and as he was being put into the ambulance she realized just how powerless she was. Here they were, partners for life, but she had no legal rights whatsoever in determining his care, simply because they were not legally married.

That’s the complaint I hear from gay and lesbian friends and I have to agree. We can call the institution something else if we want to. We can disagree on whether it’s “right” to be gay. We can disagree on whether people were born that way or “made” gay at some point. Meanwhile, many people make a lifetime commitment without the ability to make life and death decisions for and with the person who means more to them than anyone else. Is that fair?

There are people of integrity on both sides of this issue and then there are others who use their status as a bludgeon against those who disagree. Seems like my friends Sean & Marty and Miss California have a lot in common even though they are on opposite sides of this issue. She stated that her answer was her opinion and though she didn’t wish to offend anyone and wasn’t angry with anyone, she had to be true to herself. Marty confirmed that he believed in her right to her opinion (and maybe even the crown?) even if he didn’t agree. He didn’t withhold approval of her just because he disagreed with her.

And in the end it doesn’t matter of Perez Hilton is gay or straight. He’s a sleazy opportunist and don’t we have those in every sector of society? Doesn’t sleaze cross all sectors of society? Likewise, don’t we have courageous role models who are male, female, gay, straight, black, white, Christian, Muslim, atheist? I haven’t always held a high opinion of beauty queens but this year I’m glad one had the poise and courage to speak up for what she believed in. We should all try to follow her example; gay, straight OR crooked!