There has been a slew of coverage of Miss California’s statements that she does not support gay marriage laws and her belief that her comments resulted in a missed chance at being crowned Miss USA. For a summary of the in depth, extensive coverage of the incident, and to make sure I don’t misconstrue any of the critical details of this factually sensitive story, here is a summary from the Associated Press:
Carrie Prejean defended her views Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show, telling host Matt Lauer that she spoke from the heart during Sunday’s pageant when she said that “marriage should be between a man and a woman.”
The beauty queen’s response to a question from openly gay pageant judge and celebrity blogger Perez Hilton has received more attention than the winner, Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton.
Hilton, who also appeared on the “Today” show, said his question was relevant and that Prejean should have “left her politics and her religion out because Miss USA represents all Americans.”
For those of you who cannot hear the YouTube clip above, which has Prejean’s entire statement and Hilton’s reaction, it is important to note that she limited her comments to her personal views. She preceded the statement by saying that she thought it was great that in the United States there were options. Prejean also stated that she felt this personally because “that’s how I was raised.” I cannot believe I am parsing a statement in response from a question in a pageant.
As a commenter noted in submitting the story, there isn’t much discussion about how she was raised. None of the stories I’ve read mention what, if any, faith she maintained (her college’s Web site makes it pretty clear she is a Christian), but we’re left to presume that it was a typical denominationless evangelical Christian upbringing that was nothing like the portrayal in that wonderful 2006 movie Little Miss Sunshine. Apparently she was raised in a culture where beauty pageants are worth taking an entire semester off school. Someone needs to examine how that happens in today’s world.
Another aspect of the story that has received some attention is the issue of her sister and her support for the statement:
Days after Miss California delivered her controversial answer on gay marriage that she claims cost her the Miss USA crown, Carrie Prejean appears to be straddling the line in the debate, invoking a sister she claims is a “gay rights activist” while defending her “biblically correct” response.
“My sister is a second lieutenant in the Air Force and she is a gay rights activist,” Prejean told “Access Hollywood” Monday, adding that her sister is not gay. “She supports gay people, she supports gay marriage. My beliefs have nothing to do with my sister or my mom, or whatever,” she told the entertainment program.
Her statement Monday seemed to contradict her comments Sunday night when she said her family believed marriage should be between a man and a woman.
As a commenter noted, this may just be a pageant story, but readers would probably like to know a bit more about the background that “cost Miss California the title” because the way she was “raised” seems to be at the heart of the story.
 | Posted at 10:15 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (27) |
April 21, 2009, at 10:56 pm
I love that Hilton is quoted as saying that she should have left the religion and politics out of it even though he asked a question that at it’s root, at this time in our country is highly charged with both religious and political undertones. The coverage of this story seems a bit overblown, however, especially with Prejean saying she loved that everyone had options in America, and her option was a man and woman defining marriage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 21, 2009, at 11:11 pm
Donald Trump said “It probably did cost her the crown ..” See the video here starting at 1.50
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22044/
I think it is an interesting story because so many of us, especially in California, feel threatened by the political correctness police like Perez Hilton.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 12:10 am
Shame on this fellow Perez Hilton for bringing these types of loaded religious and political questions into the pageant. It’s a beauty pageant, not a presidential debate or theological discussion! I suppose Mr. Trump approved of this, however, and I bet they ALL knew Miss California was conservative in her views. I suspect that’s why Mr. Hilton was there, too. Want to venture whether it was a coincidence HE got to ask HER a question? Hmm?
His hateful reaction only showed how vicious the pro-gay marriage folks have been to opponents of their social engineering scheme out in California.
I’m sure this little stunt didn’t win anyone over to their side either. I bet it will only stoke the near-hysteria and fear of CA’s religious conservatives who fear they will lose their right to speak out if gay marriage passes there, or elsewhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 12:32 am
Check http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=30318 if you haven’t already.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 1:42 am
Question not asked: why is Perez Hilton judging a female beauty show? A drag show I would understand. But then, when I saw the video of Carrie Prejean, I seriously thought she was a drag queen. She appears to have an Adams Apple. The name alone belongs with Hedda Lettuce and Bertha de Blooz. And the earrings!
This has been all over the media today. Even on AC360, where AC did his deer in the headlights routine whenever gay news comes up.
What this probably amounts to is to place a human face on the Prop8 campaign. Carrie Prejean is now the image of the anti-gay movement in CA, the personification of what Conservative Christianity in this state looks like. Will her clothing, jewelry and pounds of makeup become the standard for CC women everywhere?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 2:11 am
She gave an incoherent feel-good non-answer. Unless the other contestants were equally idiotic (always a possibility), so deserved to lose.
Steven A. - given what has actually happened in countries that have normalized same-sex relationships, and has begun to happen here, the “near-hysteria and fear of CA’s religious conservatives” is well-founded. But Hilton’s hypocrisy and manipulation is not likely to change the prevailing media frenzy for all things gay.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 5:59 am
I know she wasn’t articulate in any recognizable way, but she kind of said that she was for gay marriage, although she thought it was wrong. She said that it was good that people had a choice (a choice that is only available in four states, but choice none the less), but that she thought “opposite marriage” was better. Being happy that the choice is there surely must mean that she’s for gay marriage. Or what?
And dalea, come on! A drag show? That wasn’t nice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 6:57 am
“Mr.” Hilton’s vile rant on the internet deserves more exposure if only to demonstrate the depths to which some gays will descend to bully, abuse, threaten and coerce anyone who will not support their agenda.
As for beauty contests being PC, that should come as no surprise. They’re not exactly occasions for intellectual or even thoughtful engagement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 7:53 am
Hilton: “Prejean should have left her politics and her religion out”
And we’re to presume that if she’d said, “I believe our government should continue using political means to legalize SSM”, he would’ve likewise complained about her injecting “politics” into her answer? Please. It wasn’t that he didn’t like any “political” answer (a convenient and increasingly meaningless label), but rather that he didn’t approve of her political stance.
I (sometimes) try to be wary of conspiracy theories, but I agree that it just seems too coincidental that it was specifically Hilton who asked specifically Prejean this specific question. Like most else in beauty pageants, it comes across as scripted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 8:41 am
No apostrophe’s in plural’s, plea’se.
Feel free to delete this comment when you have made the correction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 9:02 am
Feel free to delete this comment
NO! It’s fun see the professionals caught out like us mere linguistic mortals!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 9:32 am
Oh, the sacrifices of a journalist to ensure a well-governed republic! Now, get back to something less meaningful, like your course outlines.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 10:14 am
FW Ken: I meant “hysteria” in both a positive and negative sense. Some of the comments by anti-SSM folks have been ludicrous (the old “marry their dogs next” routine. Ugh.) But some of the hysteria is definitely justified. Legislation winding its way through the left-dominated House and Senate in my state would empower an unelected Human Rights Commission to slap fines of up to $50,000 on businesses who don’t want men in wigs and lipstick on the front line serving customers or using women’s restrooms. Some fear they could go after free speech from the pulpit, too.
danr: It’s true that the media response would have been WAY different had she answered in the “right” way for Mr. Hilton.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 11:55 am
men in wigs and lipstick
I really hope you mean “unconvincing cross-dressers” or something by that, and not male-to-female transgender types.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 12:14 pm
FW Ken (#6), I frequently see references on this board to horrible things happening to free speech in foreign jurisdictions that approve gay marriate, like your comments here. But I never see any documentation. Some links, please?
Stephen A (#13), same request regarding your vague warnings about what is working its way through your statehouse.
I emphasize this because both of you have negative opinions about the core matter, so I’m not likely to accept your superficial judgements.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 3:12 pm
As regards to the semester off, there are men who pretend to be students for a number of years in order to make coaches rich by playing football and basketball, so I won’t begrudge her that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 4:32 pm
A summary of events in Canada:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6000972/Canadian-Totalitarianism
Here’s one story with a happy ending, after a 5 year court battle. I wonder how much it cost the University:
http://www.culturalrenewal.ca/lex/lex-46.htm
A few incidents from England, involving Christians and Muslims both:
http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=22643&sec=13&con=55
The Swedish pastor arrested for “anti-gay” statements was convicted, but the conviction was overturned on appeal:
http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/article/353.html
I used to have mainstream newspaper articles saved for most of these incidents, but they were lost in a crash.
Wanting some MSM coverage of the Univ. of Toledo administrator fired for her views, I googled:
university of toledo administrator,anti-gay statement
no quotation marks. I got two pages of coverage from the gay press and finally something a little more balanced:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20945
An honorable viewpoint from the gay side:
http://www.365gay.com/blog/ruby-sachs-free-speech-revisited/
That’s particularly decent in view of a comment made on this blog, of all places, by a gay rights proponent to the effect that our First Amendment needed “review” in light of the gay issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 4:36 pm
Dave -
I posted a reply that appears to have disappeared, probably in moderation due to the number of links. Or… perhaps I’ve been spiked.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 5:12 pm
I totally did mean that. But I feared getting into a graphic description of one example I witnessed - a fellow who came into a bookstore where I was working a few years back (as a customer though.) He had an ill-fitting dress, unshaven hairy legs, a shaggy red wig and lipstick smeared over a full beard and mustache. It was a riot, and I think he was daring people to be offended to make a point. But I wonder whether these days we’d have the police (or the “thought police”) called on us for snickering behind the counter.
I think most people who are fair about things would not have a problem with a post-op transsexual who’s gone through a full sex change with the hormones and whatnot, i.e. “passable.”
Again, it’s a question of whether someone is trying to make a scene and force acceptance of something that’s pretty much unacceptable and untasteful, or is simply, and quietly, accepted for who they are - or in this case, who they’ve become.
These angles rarely get covered.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 5:37 pm
Dave, the legislation (HB415) puts gender identity under the Human Rights Commission, and another bill (HB686) keeps the complaint there on the say-so of the plaintiff alone, rather than in past cases, where either defendant or plaintiff could request a jury trial instead. This makes the HRC a potential “star chamber” without attorneys and without appeal.
Here are your links.
Search for “415” in the journal for the pro and con argument in the NH House Journal:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2009/houcal2009_22A.html
NH state law 354-A:21:2:d shows fines up to $50k, though on the first thought-crime offense it’s “only” $10k. Some comfort to a small businessman, though.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxxi/354-a/354-a-mrg.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 9:02 pm
Hilton: “Prejean should have left her politics and her religion out”
I’m not sure how Prejean was supposed to answer this question without politics or religion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 9:28 pm
FWKen said,
Um, have you ever seen a beauty pageant before? Incoherent feel-good non-answers are part of the package! We all remember this one, don’t we?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 9:43 pm
Darel, that was funny; thank you. The last beauty pageant I saw was (maybe) in the late 70s, possibly earlier, and remember I did allow for the possibility that her answer was notable only for the topic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 22, 2009, at 11:24 pm
FW Ken and Stephen A, I’ve gotten both of your responses via the email connection and will be checking out the links once this head cold releases its grip on my brain.
Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 23, 2009, at 6:26 am
Stephen: fair enough!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 24, 2009, at 1:52 am
Perez Hilton is such a hypocrite… of course it’s about personal belief, just look at how he’s reacting
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 24, 2009, at 2:11 pm
FW Ken and Stephen A:
I’ve looked over the links you sent me, as best my system can. Thank you very much.
Ken, I’m glad to see that the restrictions on free speech are at least being contested, with some victories already. I’m both proud and sad to see American freedom-of-speech/religion NGOs involved — proud that the American experience has given them the strength and sinew to take their show on the road, and sad that these countries have not come up with their own native responses. We’re not in the Third World or Central Europe here; these are Western countries, heirs to the Enlightenment no less than we, and should have their own ability to defend its core values.
I think you were being kind to call that gay response “honorable.” Its basic thrust was that restrictions on freedom can turn around and bite the restrictors on the ass. That’s the most primitive form of argument for freedom, miles below the position that civil liberties are an absolute value never to be compromised. Conservatives who objected to Bush’s torture policies while they were in play — that’s honorable.
Stephen, I wasn’t able to do much with the links you gave me, probably due to drawbacks in my system. If I understand your point, I’m not too distressed with “gender identity” being moved up to rank with sexual orientation, race, religion, etc, because I understand from Unitarian Universalist BGLT cyberspace that this is where most actual discrimination against gays and lesbians occurs these days, not specifically against their orientation but against their lack (or defiance) of gender conformity.
I’m not insensitive to the problems of a small business being pressured to put into public contact someone who is going to turn off the public. Eighty years ago my paternal grandparents ran a general store in downtown Cleveland, your classical Mom & Pop shop, and were pressured to hire African-American help who sent hopelessly contrary class signals to the regular clientele. In the modern era, a small business needs a watertight policy about employees in public contact being clean-cut, and it doesn’t need an HR department to have an HR policy. This is what small business coalitions like the Council Of Small Enterprises (COSE) are for. The more small businesses use them the better their advise will get and the more actual justice will be served. As my old boss used to say, don’t fight harder, fight smarter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0