Miss California Carrie Prejean, Gay Marriage | 04/24/2009 9:55 am
Miss California Carrie Prejean Becomes Conservative Darling Amid Gay Marriage Brouhaha
© AP
Carrie Prejean may have lost the Miss USA crown, but she sure won the hearts of conservatives. What is it with the GOP and beauty queens? Don’t forget that Sarah Palin was once an aspiring Miss Alaska! (swimsuit competition video here)
Miss California has been blasted since the Miss USA competition Sunday night, when she said on national television — much to the dismay of celebrity blogger Perez Hilton — she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. She later said that while she doesn’t regret voicing her beliefs, her stance is what left her in second place. But since then, Politico reports, Prejean has found a slew of supporters from conservative bloggers, talk-show hosts and others on the right.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins stated his "admiration and support" for Prejean and said she "has been victimized by this flagging production in a vain attempt to generate interest through controversy rather than substance." One Alabama state legislator even introduced a resolution praising her for speaking out against gay marriage; it passed by voice vote.
Others applauded her for speaking her mind, even if it may not have been politically correct enough for the pageant crowd.
"It was refreshing to see someone not give the politically correct answer," writes a Kansas City Star columnist. "Predictably, conservatives and some Republican politicians are embracing Prejean because of her comments. That’s fine, too, because she’s getting a positive reaction for speaking her mind."
Donald Trump, the owner of the Miss Universe franchise, told FOX News that he has received thousands of calls and letters, the majority of which support Prejean’s stance.
"Miss California has done a wonderful job, that was her belief … It wasn’t a bad answer, that was simply her belief," Trump said, adding that Prejean’s question was "a bit unlucky," and that no matter how she answered, "she was going to get killed."
Perhaps if Prejean’s current career plans don’t work out, she could find a niche for herself in politics. The GOP could use more women in its ranks!
Read more about: Carrie Prejean, Conservatives, Donald Trump, Gay Marriage, Miss California, Miss USA, News, Perez Hilton, U.S.
- Interview With an Angel: Anne Rice Catches Up With wOw
- Caption This!
- Liz Smith Confesses – Her Night of 'Broken Embraces'
- Liz Smith's Not-So-Secret Sweet Potato Pie (Recipe)
- Should Americans with the higher health-risk profile of obesity pay higher premiums for health insurance?
- Whoopi Goldberg Gets Realistic About Health Care
- Breadwinners in Burqas, by Gayle Tzemach Lemmon
- Margo Howard: Boycott the 9/11 Terrorist Trials!
- Liz Smith: Audiences Say 'Yes, Yes' to John Stamos in 'Bye, Bye Birdie'
- Liz Smith Wants to Know: What would you name this decade of '00s?
- Liz Smith's Not-So-Secret Sweet Potato Pie (Recipe)
- Breadwinners in Burqas, by Gayle Tzemach Lemmon
- Too Much Happiness: Alice Munro at Her Best
- Interview With an Angel: Anne Rice Catches Up With wOw
- Whoopi Goldberg Gets Realistic About Health Care
- Liz Smith Confesses – Her Night of 'Broken Embraces'
- Joan Juliet Buck Solves the Health-Care Issue
- Margo Howard: Boycott the 9/11 Terrorist Trials!
- Joan Juliet Buck Has a Few Options for Decade Names
- Should Americans with the higher health-risk profile of obesity pay higher premiums for health insurance?
- Caption This!
- Whoopi Goldberg Gets Realistic About Health Care
- Should Americans with the higher health-risk profile of obesity pay higher premiums for health insurance?
- Margo Howard: Boycott the 9/11 Terrorist Trials!
- Liz Smith Wants to Know: What would you name this decade of '00s?
- Interview With an Angel: Anne Rice Catches Up With wOw
- Breadwinners in Burqas, by Gayle Tzemach Lemmon
- Whoopi Goldberg's Take on the New York Times
- Joan Juliet Buck Solves the Health-Care Issue
- Liz Smith: Audiences Say 'Yes, Yes' to John Stamos in 'Bye, Bye Birdie'
wOw Features
Reader Voices
Caption This!
Dear Margo: When Dad/Gramps Just Ain't Interested
220 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
In an interview Prejean stated: "It did cost me my crown. 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."
i didn’t mean that she "blamed it on the gays" *chuckle* i should have re-read that before i posted. but she did blame losing the crown on that answer.
not a stretch at all. i’m glad she lost because of that. i would have hated to see her win with her intolerant, prejudiced and un-american beliefs.
As an American, Prejean is intitled to her opinions.
She was NOT showing intolerance towards gays. She was stating her opinion on GAY MARRIAGE. These are two different things.
You are un-American if you can’t be tolerant of her opinions.
Yep Nanchan….you hit it on the head…liberals are the most intolerant. She made it quite clear that she was speaking her opinion and from what she believed. She also stated that she was glad to live in a county where people had the freedom to their beliefs…
And for the record…she thinks that marriage is between a man and a woman….so do MANY.
you commented to say she wasn’t blaming that on losing her crown - well, she is.
As an American, Prejean is intitled to her opinions.
of course. i didn’t say anything to imply otherwise.
yes, they are the same things.
to be against the right of a person to marry the person of their choosing means you are disciminatory against those people - without the human right to marriage they are not able to make the same important life decisions opposite-sex couples can make, including medical care, childrens’ issues, property ownership, divorce situations and inheritance.
what if she said "i have no problem with blacks, but i just don’t think they should be able to get married, i’m sorry it’s just the way i was raised". would you think she is tolerant of blacks, just against their right to marry? there’s no logic, no sense in that kind of bankrupt argument - that is intolerance towards a group of people and their equal rights.
how exactly is it not intolerant of a group of people when you say you don’t think they should share the same equal human rights that you do? i’d like to hear that logic, please. i’m interested.
To begin with Lemon Tea…you are not interested in anyone elses point of view. Secondly, being against gay marriage is NOT the same thing as being against gays…but guess what…this type of ridiculous name calling does not help the gay marriage issue.
All the "rights" that you listed are available to the gay community. They just need to draw up the correct legal papers. They can have a civil partnership, living wills…the list goes on. There is NOTHING that they are left out of, or can not obtain to protect themselves and their property. NOTHING.
And to answer your last question…MOST people see nothing LOGICAL is same sex MARRIAGE. Marriage is betweem a male and a female.
There are bathrooms and gym rooms for males and for females. Everyone has the right to go to the bathroom or a gym. However, males are not to enter the females and vice a versa. That does not mean that they do not have equal rights, they just aren’t the same rights. Big difference. Common sense…for now that is….
There are differences in this world, and most people have that same belief about marriage. Marriage is between a male and a female. Gays can have civil partnerships.
being against gay marriage is NOT the same thing as being against gays
yes it is, and you have not explained to me how exactly is it not intolerant of a group of people when you don’t think they deserve to share the same equal human rights that you do?
All the "rights" that you listed are available to the gay community. They just need to draw up the correct legal papers
first, this isn’t even true. there exists no civil means, for example, to ensure that property can be inherited from someone to his or her same-sex partner with the same tax benefits as a married, opposite-sex couple. there are literally thousands of state-provided perks for heterosexual married couples that are not available through any means other than through marriage. you ignore the fact that there have been cases where even though a partner had power of attorney, he was still denied his right to hospital visitation; the term "marriage" carries with it an instantly understandable social connotation. this argument is essentially a straw-man, suggesting that one of the most-sought benefits- hospital visitation- were somehow the only benefit to be had from civil marriage.
furthermore, even if we supposed that this absurd statement were true, it is surely also an argument against heterosexual marriage! why should opposite-sex couples be permitted to wed if they can simply secure all of these benefits through contracts and power of attorney? the fact that those making this argument chose only to apply it to same-sex couples reveals the blatant anti-gay bias in their reasoning.
MOST people see nothing LOGICAL is same sex MARRIAGE.
that is not an answer, you are deflecting to a social norm and not giving a reason. so what, most people back when women had no rights thought this was logical and normal - give a reason.
and bringing bathrooms into this is just silly.
second, calling a two-partner union a "marriage" for heterosexuals but a "civil union" for homosexuals reeks of the failed doctrine of "separate but equal." see brown vs. board of education for what the supreme court thinks of "separate but equal" with respect to equal protection under the law - it does not work.
we tried that with blacks - they can have their own water fountains and bathrooms, see, it’s separate but equal! but no, it is not equal.
done with your hole, yet?
Perez Hilton look what you have done.
This woman may replace Elizabeth Hasselbeck. So HIlton did her a favor. She would have faded into obscurity and now she gets more than her 15 minutes of fame.
A person who really believes in god would not be so biased against another human. They would know that any judgement should come from God. If you don’t believe in Gay marriage don’t marry a gay person.
Starry did you actuall hear her response?
Prejean said: "I think it’s great Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be, between a man and a woman."
Starry did you actuall hear her response?
Yeah I read and heard it. You know what ? California is a state and not a country-yet. Did you read my post?
yes they did, and yes i am disputing the vote of the people, most definitely!
we as american citizens do not democratically decide on fundamental rights. the US Supreme Court ruled in loving v virginia that marriage is indeed a fundamental right:
imagine if we could democratically vote on whether to abide by one of the rights enumerated in the bill of rights. what would be the point of having a bill of rights at all if we could just vote to ignore it?
other civil rights issues have been unpopular, but ultimately prevailed by virtue of the unconstitutionality of suppressing them. most recently, the right for females to vote, the black civil rights movement, desegregation of public schools, and permission of inter-racial marriages were all unpopular ideas at the time, but prevailed because they were right, not because they were popular