Miss California Carrie Prejean, Gay Marriage | 04/24/2009 9:55 am

Miss California Carrie Prejean Becomes Conservative Darling Amid Gay Marriage Brouhaha

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

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!

220 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

can you marry the consenting adult of your choosing? yes?

then you are protected. calm down, and have some sympathy for those who are *truly* being victimized. the republican party is not vicitmized, it is a sore loser and keeps screaming and crying that it lost the election, and the elected official is daring to do things they don’t like.

but every single straight republican can marry the consenting adult of their choosing. they are protected.

By Amanda C on 04/27/2009 2:58 pm

e-mail alert

but every single straight republican can marry the consenting adult of their choosing. they are protected.

By Lemon Tea on 04/27/2009 3:58 pm Because they know marriage is for a Man and a Woman…..DUH!

By HA BIBI on 04/27/2009 6:55 pm

e-mail alert

excuse me, nanchan? are you seriously saying the United States of America does not protect its minority citizens?

the Bill of Rights outlines clearly the rights that every american citizen has - regardless of the popular vote.

are you truly implying that the US of A does not pride itself on protecting its minorities? what about the civil rights movement, or the fight for womens’ equal rights?? you think that’s stupid that the government stepped in to protect these powerless minorities from the tyranny of the majority??

By Amanda C on 04/27/2009 3:01 pm

e-mail alert

Heterosexuals have marriage. Homosexuals have legal civil partnerships and commitment ceremonies. Fair, equal but different. I would stand against anyone that would deny a homosexual the right to a civil partnership or commitment ceremony.

But marriage is between a man and a woman.

By Kelly In Texas on 04/26/2009 9:45 pm

e-mail alert

By Amanda C on 04/26/2009 10:13 pm

e-mail alert

as i said in my last post to you:

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. in many locations where two-partner unions exist that aren’t classified as "marriage" the actual set of rights, responsibilities, and privileges associated with those unions falls short of those recognized in marriage. not only are these unions separate, they’re also UNequal.

But marriage is between a man and a woman.

then take marriage out of the courts and put it back in church - make every couple that wants the legal benefits get a civil union from the government. thus, both heterosexual and homosexual couples would have legal civil unions through the government, and if they wanted to get married in a church, they can go to the church.

But marriage is between a man and a woman.

a quote:

The definition of "marriage" has never been static in any case, and at any given moment, different people already have different ideas of what it means. In some cultures marriages are still arranged. In the past, marriages have been used to end wars or seal treaties. It was once expected that the father of a bride would be paid a dowry for the privilege of marrying her. In the early 20th century it was unheard of to have two working parents, but by the end of the 20th century it was common. Definitions and ideas change over time.

By Amanda C on 04/26/2009 10:16 pm

e-mail alert

You just want the word marriage. Sorry, can’t have it!

By HA BIBI on 04/27/2009 6:56 pm

e-mail alert

i dont care about the word, i care about the rights.

you people can have the word marriage - give it back to the church. give everyone civil unions with the same rights and everyone will be happy - hell, there are churches right now that marry gay couples in the eyes of god. we already have marriage dear. nyah nyah nyah ;)

By Amanda C on 04/28/2009 12:35 pm

e-mail alert

And we most certainly DON’T care about the rights, but rather "The Word"!

By HA BIBI on 04/28/2009 1:19 pm

e-mail alert

then take back marriage to your churches and leave the government to its secular laws.

By Amanda C on 04/28/2009 3:39 pm

e-mail alert

Lemon, Lemon, Lemon…..It’s not "Where" a straight couple gets married, ever hear of Garden weddings, weddings on the beach, etc…. It’s a commitment before God, ordained by God and between a Man and a Woman. You’re reaching every which way you can, but only grasping at straws and comming up empty handed, sorry!

By HA BIBI on 04/28/2009 5:07 pm

e-mail alert

1% of the population. That’s it. Gays have rights as all other citizens do. Marriage is between a male and a female.

God made them male and female, and that just about sums it up.

By Kelly In Texas on 04/24/2009 2:19 pm

e-mail alert

All surveys are likely to underestimate the actual prevalence of homosexuality because, fearing discrimination and stigma, many gay respondents are reluctant to tell a stranger (even anonymously) that they are homosexual. Recognizing this limitation, most research with probability samples suggests that at least 3-6% of the US adult male population is homosexual, with somewhat fewer females (Fay, Turner, Klassen, & Gagnon, 1989; Hatfield, 1989; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, &
Michaels, 1994; Lever & Kanouse, 1996; Rogers & Turner, 1991)."

also…. it doesn’t matter how many gays there are, kelly - you don’t know much about american civil rights, do you? the US constitution is all about majority rule with respect for minority rights. one of those minority rights is the free exercise of religion or the freedom from religion with a government neutral to religion so as to prevent state endorsement of one faith or state persecution of another. what you are advocating is the idea of tyranny of the majority! what exactly about a gay marriage "persecutes" your beliefs?

the fact is that heterosexuals presently have the right to marry the person of their choosing (with reasonable limitations of age and genetic relationship). homosexuals do not, at all, under any circumstances. the two classes of people are clearly treated differently under the law.

this same intellectually bankrupt argument could be used to argue in favor of interracial marriage bans; after all, so long as white people can marry the other white people of their choice, there’s no problem, right? right kelly?

as for "god made blah blah blah…." the bible, nor the koran, is not the law of the land. period. the first amendment to the US Constitution, regardless of whether you like it, forbids entanglement of religion with the state. that is why it admonishes that congress cannot make laws respecting the establishment of religion. laws must have a secular purpose. laws may not cause excessive entanglement with religion. trying to limiting equal rights to homosexuals for the sake of something the Bible says would breach the limitations laid out in the first amendment.

*shakes head* the education in this country must have been declining for months for people to not understand the most basic tenets of american law… the tenets that set this nation apart from others. it’s disappointing to say the least.

By Amanda C on 04/24/2009 2:46 pm