America the Daft

There is uproar in the US. Not about the Middle East, or the price of oil (which is also about the Middle East) or the continuing threat of terrorism (erm... that's the Middle East again, isn't it?).

No, this is about something much more important to your average John Doe. Something as important as apple pie, soda pop, free guns for all and oppressing minorities: the Miss USA beauty contest.

This year the contest was won by Kristen Dalton - Miss North Carolina. But no-one cares about her, because she's as dull as you expect a beauty contest winner to be. Like Barbie, but slightly more plastic.

All attention this year turns to the runner-up: Carrie Prejean, Miss California.

The trouble started during the "judges each ask the contestants a question" round. Perez Hilton, one of the judges, asked Miss Prejean what her thoughts were on gay marriages.

Before we get to her answer, let us stop and consider Perez Hilton. As you might have guessed, that's a pseudonym - his real name is Mario Armando Lavandeira Jnr, which frankly sounds more made-up than Perez Hilton. Why was he a judge? Because he's a "celebrity blogger". A celebrity because of his blog. Which is about celebrities. Which probably means he can now get by simply by blogging about himself. Which he frequently does. This in some way qualifies him to judge a beauty contest, possibly in the same way that owning a lawnmower qualifies you to become an official Formula One race steward. When judgement day arrives, people like this will instantly disappear up their own arses, the world will instantly become a better place, and the human race will be saved.

But I digress.

Back at Miss USA, Perez Hilton asked Miss Prejean what her thoughts were on gay marriages. Her response was honest:

"I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offence to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

Unfortunately, this response got scrambled as it was broadcast live across the USA. What viewers apparently heard was:

"KILL ALL GAYS. MAKE THEM GONE! THEY MAKE ME PHYSICALLY SICK."

And so the US is up in arms about this. ABC News informs us that this comment was what cost Miss Prejean the Miss USA title. Perez "not as funny as my real name" Hilton accused her of "alienating millions of gay and lesbian Americans, their families and their supporters". The bloke who organises the Miss California contest put out a press release stating that he was disappointed by Miss Prejean's views on the subject of gay marriage.

Two important questions:

1 - Why do we give a shit? Seriously, why should a woman's personal opinion on a subject which has split the entire nation be of any great interest to anyone? She has no say in whether gay marriage becomes legal in the states where it is currently outlawed, or vice versa. She is a runner-up in a beauty contest.

Which leads me to:

2 - She's the runner-up in a beauty contest! A bloody beauty contest! The things that Europe gave up in the 80s, and that haven't really been remotely culturally accepted since the 50s. Why should we expect the sort of person who wants to enter such a contest to have liberal, 21st century views? They've just entered a fucking beauty contest! Did Germaine Greer ever enter a beauty contest? What about Sir Ian McKellern? No. Because there comes a point in some people's lives when they realise that, no matter how hard they try, they will never be "clever". They will never be able to hold an intellectual conversation because the man they're trying to talk to can't stop looking at their chest. They will never be taken seriously because everything that falls from their lips is unutterably banal, and makes most grown-ups want to drop them into a vat of battery acid. And at this point, and only at this point, do they consider entering a bloody beauty contest.

(If you want my own, personal opinion on gay marriages, here it is in two unimaginative words: They're good.)

Not that all rubbish about, or of, gay marriages stems from the US of A. Here in the UK of GB and NI we are pretty good at liberalised numptyness and spouting bollocks too.

After the civil partnerships law was passed in the UK, Liverpool Register Office took down all of the heterosexual marriage photos from the waiting room so as not to offend gays. This ridiculously stupid act succeeded in offending everyone. Straight couples complained that it made it seem as if the register office was suggesting that only gay couples were now welcome, and Stonewall (the UK gay and lesbian rights group) pointed out that, were it not for heterosexual relationships, there would be no gay people at all, because they would never have been born.

But my favourite piece of bile regarding civil partnerships came from that bastion of middle-England, everyone's favourite fearmongering cack-rag, the Daily Mail.

One of the columnists (I forget who, because I only remember useful stuff) suggested that civil partnerships were an abomination for one reason and one reason alone: he had a 41-year-old friend who had three children with his common-law wife, and owned a home with her. Now, gay couples could get all of the benefits such as inheritance tax avoidance and better tax relief, that were being denied to his friend.

He failed to point out one thing: in order to qualify for these benefits, the gay couple would need to get married...

...something that his friend had legally been able to do, but had avoided doing, for the past 25 years.

Perhaps the USA have the right idea after all - if all the narrow-minded morons are confined to beauty contests, it makes them much easier to ignore.