INTERVIEW: Former Miss California Carrie Prejean
by Lynn VincentApart from the fact that she’s a smoking hot California babe and I’m a 47-year-old mother of two teenage sons, Carrie Prejean and I do have some things in common. We’re both from San Diego. We both attend The Rock, an urban mega-church pastored by former San Diego Chargers defensive back, Miles McPherson. And we’ve both been slammed as raging “homophobes” by the New Media left.
So when Andrew Breitbart asked me if I’d interview Carrie about her new book, Still Standing, out November 9 from Regnery, I chuckled and thought: The liberal faithful will think this is perfect: One “fanatical homophobe” interviewing another.
Except that they would be wrong.
In case you’ve been living under a rock this year, Carrie Prejean is the former Miss California who became an accidental lightning rod in the spring. At a glitzy pageant held April 19 at the Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, Carrie appeared poised to be crowned Miss USA. But during the final segment of the contest, a Q&A with pageant judges, Carrie drew as her questioner the gay gossip aficionado, Perez Hilton.
Ignoring the longstanding pageant tradition of steering clear of politically charged questions, Hilton launched this salvo: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”
Keeping her mega-watt smile picture-perfect, Carrie revealed no outward hint of concern. But inside, she writes in Still Standing, “it was as though I could feel time slowing down; as if silence was screaming in my ears…I had to break that silence with my answer – and I had to do it now…”
“Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other…” Carrie answered. “And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman…”
And with that, a 22-year-old lifelong athlete who works with developmentally disabled children became the global poster-child for virulent “homophobia.” Within 24 hours, a histrionic Hilton had called her a “dumb bitch,” then corrected himself, saying he wished he’d called her a “c**t.” Immediately, pundits and bloggers who use typically their media platforms to decry “hate” napalmed Carrie with every hateful invective from “bigot” to “Nazi.” One British politician even issued a televised death threat.
I know a little about what that’s like. In late September, HarperCollins announced that it had bumped up the publication date for Sarah Palin’s memoir, Going Rogue: An American Life, to November 17. As Sarah’s collaborative writer, I suddenly became a target (the left having running out of original ways to insult the former Alaska governor herself.)
Andrew Sullivan, who blogs at The Atlantic’s website, read my arguments in favor of traditional marriage, and summarily crowned me a “fanatical homophobe.” Others, to use Perez Hilton’s term, followed suit.
Had Sullivan bothered to reach out for a reasoned dialogue, I might’ve shared with him that my sister Lori, an articulate, politically active lesbian on the progressive left, has had with me some pretty productive discussions on gay marriage. That for me, it’s about more than “the Bible tells me so”; it’s about the collision of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
I might’ve shared with Sullivan that the maid of honor at my wedding was my best friend, CM, and her longtime lesbian partner. Sure CM looked a little athletic schlepping down the aisle in her 1980’s tea-length, peach satin dress with dyed-to-match pumps. But then neither one of us walks like Carrie Prejean.
…Who, incidentally, learned her sexy pageant walk from a gay man.
Let’s face it ladies, nobody can work a pair of pumps like the right gay man. And it was an openly gay man named Jim (whom Carrie describes in Stilling Standing as “wonderful”) who transformed her from lanky athlete to slinky siren, and taught her not to lope across the pageant stage like a giraffe. And it was also a gay man, Keith Lewis, who courted Carrie to compete for Miss California, then Miss USA – a man Carrie thought at the time had her best interests at heart.
See, the irony is that people like Carrie and I can be confidantes and even best friends with the gays and lesbians in our lives. We can be in mentoring relationships, like Carrie and Jim. We can collaborate on ideas, as I did with “Anlir,” a gay commenter whose ideas I often adopted when I managed World Magazine’s evangelical-focused blog. We can even be accepting of our family members’ sexuality.
But if we dare to differ on the issue of gay marriage, then the truth about our actual relationships with gays and lesbians is ignored, liberals’ clairvoyant “insight” into our hearts and minds is substituted as fact, and our protestations are filed mockingly under the “some of my best friends” defense.
If, on the institution of marriage, we say publicly that we believe the same thing as voters in 31 states – in every state, in fact, where gay marriage has been put on the ballot – then we become targets who must be defamed and destroyed.
Sadly, snap judgment and name-calling would once have been uncharacteristic for Andrew Sullivan. My good friend Anita Palmer, former managing editor of Eternity, an evangelical monthly, told me she was a huge fan of Sullivan’s laser-like reasoning back when he wrote for The New Republic.
“He was acerbic, but brilliantly logical, almost irrefutable in that succinct, British way that was just a joy to read,” Anita told me at Starbucks the other day. Her tone was wistful; she missed that Andrew Sullivan, she said.
Carrie and I both long for the Sullivan of old – and for more people like my sister Lori – who would be willing to chuck name-calling and personal destruction in favor of reasoned, civil debate.
*****
Lynn Vincent: Okay, let’s just get the “sex tape” elephant out of the room. When I read about this I thought, “You know what, this isn’t really a ‘sex tape’ as we’ve come to think of sex tapes when they break in the media.” What are your thoughts on that?
Carrie Prejean: Well, there is a video that is out there, and I’m not proud of it and I was very immature at the time. People can call it whatever they want to call it. But it’s definitely not a sex tape. But it’s still the worst mistake I’ve ever made.
LV: So I was thinking about this and I thought, “Okay, she was probably with her boyfriend and they were, you know, together and he was filming her…”
CP: Well, let’s just get that thing taken care of. There was no one else in the room with me. I was by myself. It was for a boyfriend at the time, who I trusted and we were dating at the time. So, I think that definitely needs to get cleared up.
LV: So you made the tape and you shared it with this boyfriend.
CP: Well at the time, I guess I thought I was being a good girlfriend.
LV: I think in the flap copy of your book and in other places, it talks about you being a role model for young Christian women, so there will be people who say that you’re a hypocrite. What’s your response to that?
CP: Well, it’s definitely not something that I’m proud of, like I said. And, you know I still think that I am a role model. I think that we’re all sinners – we all make mistakes. The only perfect person is God, and I know that He forgives me….I’m forgiven for the things that I’ve done and how many of us want to share the most horrible mistake that you’ve ever made with complete strangers? Even talking about this right now with you is extremely uncomfortable. And, you know, we all make mistakes, we all do things we’re not proud of. But what matters most is who we are now and who I am now is someone that is a strong, strong person and I’m still standing. The bottom line is who I am today, and that’s a strong woman who defended traditional marriage, and that’s the only reason why we’re really even discussing this right now.
LV: Right. And so, in terms of a role model, I think you could say that some of the lessons we teach as role models arise from mistakes we’ve made. That’s how we get our experience.
CP: Right. And I think that now I can definitely teach younger girls, don’t ever do something [sexually inappropriate], even when you’re in love and you think that he’s Mr. Right and you “know” nothing will come out, because everything that you do – all the choices that you make – will affect you in the long run. Did I think when I was seventeen that…when I was twenty-two years old and in the spotlight, that the choices that I made then would come out now? No. But, that’s why young women need to learn from this. They need to really think about what they’re doing and make the right decisions and don’t ever do something that you wouldn’t want your pastor, your mother, your father, or your friends to see. Nothing is private anymore in this world, unfortunately.
LV: How did you feel about your opponents in this lawsuit presenting you with material that you recorded when you were a minor, in order to secure a favorable outcome for themselves in this lawsuit?
CP: Well, I’m not really going to be discussing anything that happened in mediation because I signed a legal agreement. It seems as if I’m the only one sticking to that agreement, and I will continue to obey that agreement. So anything that was discussed I’m not able to talk about right now.
LV: Well, let’s move onto your book. I was sitting in Starbucks in Del Mar enjoying it the other morning and, at the beginning, you take us right into that moment Perez Hilton asked you the question about gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant in Las Vegas. Take us to that moment. What were you thinking then? What were you feeling?
CP: Well, I just remember being so excited, and that I felt so proud and honored to be representing the state of California. I’d worked hard for this job and I was ready to become Miss USA. I was very confident with public speaking and being able to handle questions under pressure, and I just remember after hearing the question that I couldn’t believe that it was even being asked in a pageant. But I knew that I had to deal with it…but when I began to answer the question I felt as though so much of the hard work and dedication…that I had put into this pageant was just – it was gone…There was no way I was going to win Miss USA if I gave the answer that I gave. And it was worth it to me. It was worth it to be honest and tell the truth rather than to back down to just win Miss USA for the year…I think that was a test. It was a test and we’re all tested at some point in our lives and, you know, I think that I did pass the test.
LV: And, you know it was interesting last Tuesday the state of Maine became the 31st state to vote “No” on gay marriage. This time the vote was a bit different in that the state actually repealed a law allowing gay marriage. And this was in a state where voters are widely considered to be moderates and independents. So if you support traditional marriage, and people in Maine support traditional marriage, and people in the thirty other states where this issue has been put on the ballot support gay marriage, why do you think you were so viciously attacked?
CP: Well, for one, I think it’s because I was in a pageant…the type of setting where there’s media and there’s the entertainment industry. And I’m a pageant girl – I’m not supposed to have an opinion and I’m not supposed to be intelligent and I’m not supposed to stand up for what I believe. I’m supposed to back down to win this tiara. And when I didn’t do that, I think people were shocked. And when I continued to defend the stand I took, people became frustrated. They knew that they were not able to take me down. They knew I was going to stand by what I said and I wasn’t going to take back what I said – that it was just an honest answer. There was nothing controversial about it. And it is mind-boggling to me that we’re still even talking about this seven months later. It’s not even a controversial issue. The President of the United States agrees with me. Sarah Palin agrees with me. The majority of people in the United States and my state agree with me — that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
LV: One of the things that has been personally dismaying to me is that I have had and do have great relationships with gays and lesbians. But instead of being able to sit down and have a civil discussion about the issues, about gay marriage, about domestic partnerships, about civil unions, with people who feel differently than you and I do, that it always goes into attack mode. It always goes into name-calling. So my question is, if you had a chance to sit down to coffee with some of your critics personally and it was you and them at Starbucks just talking about this issue, what would you say?
CP: Well, I want everybody to know that this is not a personal attack. It’s not me hating anyone. I don’t hate anyone. It was just that I was asked a question at a pageant and I had to give an honest answer. I had to be true to myself and I had to be true to the way I was raised. So I would just let them know that this is not a hateful thing against anyone. It’s just a personal opinion, and we are all entitled to our personal opinions. And we should have the right to express our personal opinions. Since when are we not able to give our own opinion when we’re asked?
LV: So you’re saying, you should be able to give an answer other than “world peace?”
CP: Exactly. You should be able to give an honest answer and not be attacked, not be called every name in the book, not be fired, and not have every single one of your boyfriends being called from your past to see if they’ll give up some dirt.
LV: Over the past seven months, is there anything that you would do differently if you had a chance to do it again?
CP: No, I really don’t have any regrets. I think that I’ve had a great support team. I’ve had people that I’ve surrounded myself with who are positive, people who give me great advice, who stand with me. You know, I’m not alone in this. My detractors would love to hear me say that I feel alone and I feel sad and I feel miserable. But you know what? I don’t. This was such a learning experience for me and I’m glad I learned these lessons at such a young age. But I’m happy now to just move on with my life. I hope that mothers and daughters and conservatives read my book and feel empowered to express their own personal beliefs and opinions… I hope that I was able to be used in a positive way to give other people encouragement.
LV: In your book you write about an old sports trick where you – as a basketball player, for example – you visualize sinking the shot. You said that when you were competing in the Miss USA pageant, you visualized the things you would do to win the competition.
CP: Yes.
LV: What are you visualizing going forward in your life?
CP: Well, I always have told myself, ‘you draw the line then you live above it.’ Hopefully other young women can learn from [my experience], not only with the stance that I took in standing up for what you believe, but also that if you do have an opinion, don’t be afraid. Don’t be afraid to say it and stand by it. And if people try and attack you, then so be it. Let them, let them attack you. Let them dig up things from your past. And if you’re faced with a controversy like this [tape], then admit to it. The truth will set you free.
LV: Now in Stilling Standing, you dish quite a bit on Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler [both of the Miss California organization.]…You’re pretty tough on them. What will be your response to people who say you used your book to settle scores?
CP: The purpose of writing my book was for me to tell my side. I think that was really important. I think the media definitely got a twisted version of what really happened. So it was important for me to set the record straight. As far as Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler, I wish them well. This was just my chance to tell my side of the story and to clear some things up.
LV: I want to touch on the issue of your faith since it’s obviously the defining thread that runs through your life. I was interested to read in your book that at the state level, at the Miss California pageant, the judges actually praised you for talking about your faith. And then you move on to Miss USA and you have your handlers, like Moakler, telling you, “Don’t talk about God! Don’t talk about God!” What was that like for you?
CP: That was difficult. It was very difficult. I was dealing with people who didn’t think the same way that I did. So from the very beginning it was a challenge, but I learned to deal with it.
LV: One of the things that really struck me in your book was when you describe Keith Lewis really putting his hands on you and sort of sizing you up and touching your body all over to see if he thought that you were in good enough visual shape to compete. It sort of reminded me of – I don’t know – someone sizing up livestock that they were going to buy. Was that humiliating for you?
CP: Yes. And I think that was when I really realized the business that I was in and the industry that I was in. And it was shocking to me but, you know, I had to deal with it because I had won the [Miss California] pageant and so I just thought, “Okay, this is just what they do.” Looking back, I think this was their way of telling me, “Okay, you’re ours now and we’re going to mold you and shape you to be who we want you to be. And you will listen to us.”
LV: I would imagine that it was a moment where you began kind of thinking, “Oh my goodness, what have I gotten myself into?”
CP: Right. Exactly. And that’s what I did think.
LV: One of the things that I noticed early in the book was where you talked about one of your early mentors counseling you to just be yourself in these pageants, Carrie. Just be yourself. And certainly you did that when Perez Hilton asked you that question. And yet on some other things, earlier in your pageant career, you sort of allowed yourself to be carried away from that early advice. You know, as though the pageant machine was sort of driving you forward. Can you talk a little bit about how you get caught up in that kind of thing and carried along?
CP: In my book you’ll see that I was tested twice. The first time was when they had asked me not to talk about God anymore and [I didn’t]. It made me feel really uncomfortable… I felt this guilt inside of me knowing that I had not stood up when I could have. I could have said, “No, that’s not right,” or “I don’t agree with you.” But instead I just kind of played it off and ignored the situation. So, I definitely learned from that.
LV: So in, I think in a very human way, in those particular situations you were…kind of going along to get along.
CP: Right. My main focus was winning Miss USA. I mean, that was my main goal. I’ve always been very competitive and I was just kind of going along with this and saying to myself, “I guess this is just what you’re supposed to be doing.” But there comes a point when you have to draw the line and you have to really be who you are and not let anyone else change you.
LV: Young girls are going to continue to look up to you as a role model. What’s your best advice for young girls who want to follow in your footsteps and become a strong woman who stands up for what she believes in?
CP: That wherever you get your courage from – mine comes from my faith, my family, my supporters – always have the courage not to be intimidated. Don’t ever feel like you have to be silent for standing up for what you believe in. And that’s what’s so great about this book, Still Standing, is that people will see that I am still standing after what anybody can throw at me. They can throw whatever they want at me. They can call up my old boyfriends and ask them if they have dirt on me. They can come up with pictures of me and attack me, attack my family. That’s fine, they can do all of that, but I am still standing. And I think it infuriates some people that I am. But my advice to young women would be to just be you. Just be who you are and stand up for what you believe.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
767 Comments
I wish she would've said, why is marriage a function of the State? Why not leave it to the church's, mosques, synagogues, where ever Hindu's go, etc to determine marriage? That should solve the entire problem. All the government has to do is enforce those contracts. (it's proper role in our lives)
Gay rights groups would argue over the tax benefits of being married. Fine, lets go to the Flat Tax or Fair Tax.
Stand up to the gay mafia and their collaborators the mainstream media will attack like sharks with blood in the water. I hope she continues to stand up for what she believes in. That’s the kind of roll model America needs.
Carrie seems like a level headed Christian and somebody who loves her country… she will continue to be a target of the left for being so real.
this is what happens when you cross the Gay mafia…
And you are hot to boot. Much of the loathing shown to her is reminiscent of yet another very sexy lady-
Yes, you know who we're talking about. Lady Sarah of Wasilla. The secular left cannot abide by having their 'dominion' -sex- being inhabited by conservative or (gasp) Christian women.
Makes em' crazy. As you all have seen. And with insanity comes relentlessness. Ergo the parod Palin book being released the same DAY 'Going Rogue' comes out.
Can you spell 'obsessive behavior'? We know you can…
And what about the fact that gay people are not considered the next of kin – and often times are not allowed to visit their loved ones in the hospital – nor are they allowed to make decisions about their care?
14:56 14:57 14:58 14:59………….
The loathing of Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean is not because they are good looking or conservative – it's because they are both complete idiots.
Palin said I wasn't a real American, because of where I live. Whatever her politics, you don't insult me that way without becoming my enemy. She could agree with me on every issue in the world and I still wouldn't vote for her.
In many parts of the world "civil partnerships" are legal. It is "marriage" in all but name and gives the partners legal protection in every facet of a relationship with no exceprtions.
Even Sarah Palin was clear about everyone having those rights, regardless of sexual orientation.
This is for you Lynn –
It's all nice and good that your sister is a lesbian and that you have a lesbian friend. It sure does make you sound quite progressive to all of your conservative cronies out there.
But the fact remains that you obviously have no concern for your sister and your friend. You don't care about their happiness or what they want from life.
Why do you have the right to marry the person you love, but they don't? Why are you more entitled to happiness than they are?
Why should a gay person have to fight for the right to visit his/her partner in the hospital?
Why should a gay person in a 50-year committed relationship have to fight to make decisions about his/her partner's medical care?
What makes you so much better?
Why are you people so afraid? And what are you afraid of?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mike Smith and Stephen Roberts, Alberto Rodriguez. Alberto Rodriguez said: INTERVIEW: Former Miss California Carrie Prejean http://bit.ly/3ZlmnV [...]
Remember Lynn – it wasn't that long ago that women weren't allowed to vote. Even more recently, black people were not allowed to vote. I know that some readers of this website and of your Sarah Palin book would prefer for that to still be the case, but unfortunately, you can't stop progress. As much as you want to, it's going to happen.
Wow….some people will bend over backwards to be "offended". I admire your willingness to show, in a public forum, your complete lack of decision-making logic.
So why the semantics with the word "marriage"?
What are you afraid of?
So why the semantics with the word "marriage"?
What are you afraid of?
Wait until you see the trolls this subject will bring out on BH.
Hey! You didn't read! Way to go to the bottom of the barrel there, sport.
*MissQuinn
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by BigTweeting: BigHollywood: INTERVIEW: Former Miss California Carrie Prejean: Apart from the fact that.. http://bit.ly/23BOM8 #BigTweet…
Hi Oily, haven't seen you around lately. Did you finally get rid of that annoying sex-offender bracelet you've been required to wear?
Do you know her sister and her friend? Who are you to say what is best for them? The gay community is NOT a monolith all clamoring for martial rights. Even Sir Elton John admitted to this, and it seems no one wants to talk about it. Go to a bisexual or transgendered forum. These groups are ALSO under the LBGT umbrella and not all of them want marital rights either.
She cited her reasons in the article if you read it. They weren't based on fear or perceiving herself as better, if you were paying attention (and it is apparent you weren't). She cited "a collision of the first and fourteenth amendments", If I can recall.
If she can be open minded enough to have these people in her lives as she continues to be active in theirs. . .I wonder, what are YOU so afraid of?
*MissQuinn*
Don't you dare compare being black or a woman to being gay. As an American woman who happens to be a minority who IS bisexual, this tired chestnut is always grating to hear it. Skin color does not dictate much beyond how much suntan lotion to use on the beach. Being gay goes to the core of who you are, if the theory about gay being genetic is to be believed. Just because they are all minorities, does not mean they require the same social redress.
And WTG on the assumptions there, buddy
*MissQuinn*
Remember, the further left started this one. I had all but forgotten Ms. Prejean if the tape hadn't surfaced, and I don't think anyone on the right let that cat out of the bag.
*MissQuinn*
you bet. And we expected, completely this kind of 'outrage'…
We'll take Sarah and all of her benign 'ignorance' over Obama, Clinton, the whole lot of these east coast establishment CFR/Bilderberg one world government types.
Any day of the week and twice on Sundays…
erosion of the nuclear family. By allowing 'gay' marriage one debases the union between man and woman, and allows the slide to polygamy and other habits that address the lower, more base aspects of humanity.
It is something to be wary of…
You do realize the logic you just used there could be used in reverse on your point?
Hey, realdeal44, why the semantics with the word "marriage" since a civil union has everything you want in it? What are you afraid of?
When the logic you use to defend a point can be equally used as well against you, then it is weak.
You do realize the logic you just used there could be used in reverse on your point?
Hey, realdeal44, why the semantics with the word "marriage" since a civil union has everything you want in it? What are you afraid of?
When the logic you use can be used equally as well against you then it is weak.
Can we have a national bitch slap a liberal day? I mean, liberals are like little kids who want their way all the time with this holier than thou BS. The whole gay rights thing is a sham just like health care and everything else. Too many of us see that the left is simply trying to destroy America, OK you liberals? We know what's going on, so stop pretending you care about gays, the poor, minorities, the environment and all that other crap-you just want power. Your solution to everything is shutting everyone else up, changing everything from American to liberal and government forcing your unpopular ways on the rest of us. I mean, it's getting so predictable…and monotonous.
What are you afraid of by leaving the definition of marriage what it has always been, which is a union between a mand and a woman. And then giving any couple equal rights via a civil union?
We're arguing over the definition of a word, not rights because civil unions make it equal, you want to change it, I don't. The burden of proof is really on the person who wants to change the definition of a word. So I ask you, what are you so afraid of by the current definition?
Pwnt.
You both should have said, "I am not gay, therefore I prefer not to pronounce on other peoples' lives." Simple as that. You may have all the lesbian bridesmaids that you want, it still doesn't give you a stake in the strangers' lives that you exercise despotism upon when you vote against them.
And the best part is… you are afraid of us, or you wouldn't be here to object.
You are a liberal obviously, so why would you be on a conservitive blog? Other than to object to us in the comments…. and the only reason for doing that would be fear.
So, you are afraid, of the people who as you claim are afraid of everything. Liberals lack of logic and hypocrisy are amusing.
[...] Prejean Sextape Free on the Web? Watch Out!Snark FoodEDGE Boston -Us Magazine -Big Hollywood (blog)all 837 news [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Rosemary Breen and Billions, Big Tweeting. Big Tweeting said: BigHollywood: INTERVIEW: Former Miss California Carrie Prejean: Apart from the fact that.. http://bit.ly/23BOM8 #BigTweet [...]
Lovely, American women learn how to walk from gay men now? There's part of me that isn't surprised by this. Is that why so many my age can't walk in heels? AHEM.
However, in order to spare the trolls I'll decide to refrain from further negative comments on American "culture" right now. (I imagine I've already said too much as it is.) Like Ms. Prejean found out, free speech is a thing of the past.
rawdeal, if you weren't so smarmy, maybe someone would take you seriously. You can't always get what you want…but most of it could be done legislatively without destroying marriage.
Normally intelligent people would take Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean (with all their weaknesses) any day over any encephalogically-challenged liberal (excuse my redundancy) foil the left could try to field. I guess some people are just not normal. *shrugs*
Yawn.
As if Carrie Prejean is news. C'mon – what she says is predictable, similar to Palin. This article's last sentence refers to "…reasoned, civil debate". That's not coming from Prejean. As anemic an interviewer as Larry King got her sufficiently miffed to just about walk off his show. It seems the standards change situationally – if she's feeling uncomfortable, then she gets to bolt. But if she says something that makes others uncomfortable, then they have to stay put, listen and not comment (God forbid).
Speaking of God… Please don't dredge up your religion and throw it in my face and expect me to respect that behavior. If you want to practice a religion, please do so outside of my house, or bedroom. In the United States, there are many interpretations of Christianity and Christian teachings, but not a lot of true Christians. It's fine to disagree (it adds to the "reasoned, civil debate"), but it isn't proper to foist it on someone. I think Perez Hilton is a fool and not really credible of representing anything or anyone but himself. Placing importance on what he says only makes it more important than what it is.
Similarly: If you don't like the "New Media Left" (who came up with that term, and how does it differ from the Old Media Left", or the "New Media Right"?) because of it's acerbic, hateful tone, should one expect you to not like the reports that (1) Obama isn't a citizen or (2) he's a Nazi or (2) he's a Socialist or (3) he's a Communist or (4) he's a racist? I think so; integrity is defined as consistency in thought and action, and I would venture to bet that you wouldn't have a byline on an article that slammed Glen Beck for all the crap that flows from his lips.
Kelsie's comment above really says it well: "You may have all the lesbian bridesmaids that you want, it still doesn't give you a stake in the strangers' lives that you exercise despotism upon when you vote against them."
Stating that you have lesbian friends is like saying that "Some of my best friends are black."
Marriage is debased by getting the government involved. Just as government intervention hasn't helped education in this country, it also hasn't helped marriage. The divorce rate is above 50% the last time I checked.
There is nothing 'limited government' about getting the government involved in marriage, and Republicans will never be taken seriously as a limited government party of they can't grasp that simple fact.
So, why is the word "marriage" so important to YOU? Can you not have some respect for other peoples' religious beliefs, and cultural history, and let them keep that word?
RE: So why the semantics with the word "marriage"? What are you afraid of?
Why don't we just redefine a MAN as a WOMAN (or vice-versa)? Then there's no issue! Just define one of them as the opposite sex!
it sure is easier than redefining marriage to mean "any type of arrangement that two or more entities want to use to get government benefits."
Because I live in the United States of America and I feel that all people should be equal – that's why.
I have the utmost respect for all religions – trust me. But your religion may not be mine – and again, in this country, we don't have a national religion. We have freedom of religion – which gives everyone the RIGHT to choose who or what they believe in.
Don't push your religion on me and I won't push mine on you.
Why the semantics with the word 'gay?' Why can't gay mean bad? Why can't i say, 'that movie was gay?'
If civil unions were the same as "state-sanctioned marriage," gay folks wouldn't be wrangling over getting married. There are legal differences, and that's the whole reason for the fuss.
Why the semantics with the word 'gay?' Why can't gay mean bad? Why can't i say, 'that movie was gay?'
Government benefits – basic human rights – I guess they're the same thing, right?
Exactly.
The fact that numerous important words have changed meaning during the history of this country shows how poor this argument is.
I think it is fairly clear that if the argument were going the other way, all the conservatives would be clamoring how the liberals can't get over simply changing a word, while the liberals would all be clamoring that the conservatives are trying to change the meaning of language to suit their nefarious goals.
This is clearly not just about the meaning of the word "marriage", and the fact that this is the only argument left standing against gay marriage (children of gay parents have been shown to be completely normal in numerous studies) shows that it is more a matter of it being the only argument that can't be refuted with evidence and logic. Previously everyone was saying that gay marriage would ruin families and make all the kids gay and make those kids get bullied in school, etc, etc, and that all turned out not to be true. So now all you can say is "We don't want to change the definition".
While I respect your sentiment, marriage is not a religious institution alone, it is also a matter of law. And in law all people must be treated equally. Therefore marriage must apply to both homo and hetero-sexual marriages. If a religious institution or place of worship does not want to marry gay people, fine, but religious institutions that DO want to marry gay people should absolutely be allowed to.
If we all stuck to the "traditional" definition of social words, women would still only be in the home without a job and deferring to the man for all financial decisions. Gay would still mean happy.
There once was a time not too long ago when segregation was legally considered "equal", as in "separate, but equal", yet now we all find the concept abhorrent.
Words change meaning all the time, and marriage has no reason to be excluded from changing times. I would accept "marriage" being defined only as a religious union, but then gay religious unions should still be called a "marriage".
There are numerous other words of social importance that have changed over the years, do you really want to be remembered as the people who got hung up on just this one?
Within a few decades (maybe only two) when gay marriage is legal across the country, a lot of you will be looking back and regretting your assertions about the importance of a word, because life will go on, gay and straight people will be getting happily married, and no one will notice a difference except for the people who finally feel like they are truly being considered equal, not "separate, but equal".
Because gay doesn't mean bad.
Here are a few definitions of marriage:
1. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
2. any close or intimate association or union
3. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
4. a blending or matching of different elements or components
5. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction
Oh, yeah, that's easy for you to say seven months after the fact and you're not the one on stage, on TV, and under that pressure. I bet you REALLY would say that, wouldn't you? Well, you wouldn't….you'd be standing there, not expecting that question (one that Perez wasn't supposed to ask), and your brain would turn to mush as you sputtered about. You're not as clear minded as you think you are.
Why the semantics with the word 'marriage?' I don't know. Why the semantics with the word 'gay?'
Why is it a sin to say, 'that movie was gay?'
It is also wrong for the government to force religious organizations to bestow religious rites. I cannot sue a synagogue and force them to give me a bar mitzvah, claiming equal rights.
George, what you're saying is predictable. You gotta come up with something better that makes sense. Why do you want to change the definition of marriage? It's bad enough people changed the definition of a perfectly good word like "gay".
Wow. The anger flies away and off target. George, you obviously do not know a thing about what you are saying. I could pick apart much of what you say, but I will through this one back to you: What in the world makes a gay person think they can change the definition as understood by the majority of people in this country? Why should they have to put up with you? You don't want someone messing up your "rights" but somehow you expect others to deal with you mishandling theirs. Odd. Not very open minded.
As a female bisexual minority, you should appreciate the fact that we should be all treated EQUALLY.
Not some rules for those people and other rules for these people.
EQUAL.
[...] it the truth. To balance your reading, Big Hollywood has an interview of Prejean by Lynn Vincent, a.k.a. Sarah Palin’s collaborator on “Going Rogue.” I recommend it, but more for [...]
OK….. So we should vote in favor of anyone we disagree with just to get along. How about you get along with everyone else? Another close minded person.
Ok… that line is sooooooo yesterday. I thought the "committee" had come up with a new sob story to 'share.?!?
The nineties finished a long time ago. Try to stay current.
Gay folks aren't looking to take away rights from straight people; they want the same legal rights as straight people. Folks who argue against gay marriage, on the other hand, want to deny equal rights to another class of Americans.
But again, the government shouldn't even have a role to play in "marriage." The government's role should be to enforce marriage contracts, legal mechanisms to which every American should have equal access. If people want to enter into a contract with one another with regard to inheritance, child custody, power of attorney, etc., they should be allowed to do so–and the government should enforce the language of that contract.
That should be the extent of the government's involvement in marriage. The government should not bestow certain privileges to one group and not to another. In no way can that be considered a principle of limited government.
I am finding it harder and harder to stand in her corner. I don't know a lot of Christian women who have to explain a sex tape. She knew it was out there and lied about it continuously until confronted by reality. Time to move on an find a real life with real reality.
SADs have the exact same right to marry that I have. They want extra special rights.
At some point you have deal with the reality that SADs are not interested in marriage – they want people to say they are doing right. They are not. Their lives are lives of perversion. Even Darwin could understand that one.
It must be difficult going through life always singled out as the most beautiful woman in the room. I feel for her.
Not to mention that topless photo session which she quite willingly took part in. Family values, my foot!
Carrie has been put in the peculiar position of being attacked…for believing that the thousands-of-years old practice of 1 woman + 1 man committed to each other for life is the way it should be. How hateful! Next she is ridiculed for being a hypocrite, because of a "sex tape". Rational people will understand that she is anything but, because all people, and that includes all Christians, are by nature imperfect. I hope that she just ignores the ignorant, the jealous, the insulters, and the angry haters.
The right couldn't afford to. They've invested too much in these vapid, symbolic "leaders" like Beck, Limbaugh, and this useless windbag. If they were smart, they'd dump these huckster ideologues and start reading their George Will, Bill Buckley, and Pat Buchanan. Then again, they only have to be smarter than the Democrats to retake congress, and right now the Democrats have completely forgotten then meaning of the word that is their party name. Their voting records make Nixon look like a liberal!
So straight people cannot have an opinion when it comes to a subject clutched by homosexuals?
Does that hold true for homosexuals making pronouncements on bisexuals? What about women making pronouncements about men on the floor of the legislature?
Should we prevent blacks from making pronoucements against whites? Should black public servants be restrained from making laws that might affect whites?
Perhaps "despotism" is just a *tad* melodramatic. Laws against gay marriage do not prevent someone from loving someone else… so folks ought to stop acting like that's what is at stake. Contract law solves this issue quite nicely.
I don't believe I mentioned anything about the definition of marriage. But since you asked… . It's a trivial exercise. Any gay person who gets married has no impact either on your ability to do so or, if you are married, the status of your marriage.
As for how words change over time – anyone who has studied linguistics, or better, historical linguistics, will tell you words change over time.
As for predictable – you don't know me, so you can't state what I say is predictable.
Both parties blow. Join us on the libertarian dark side.
Please do so – I welcome the challenge, though I doubt it will be a very fair fight. I don't know how I am mishandling anyone's "rights"; what you say is an assertion, not either a statement of fact or a hypothesis, or even a debatable point.
You're kind of like "farbar" in that you assert I said something I didn't. Don't read too much into what I wrote; your assumptions might be wrong.
I wish some conservatives (maybe you are, maybe you aren't – I don't care) were more libertarian in their world view. We'd have saner taxation policies and better government if they were.
"Bad" didn't mean "awesome," either, but Michael Jackson thought it did. Gay is just a word, and humans are always inventing new meanings for pre-existing words.
Except that Prejean is trying to capitalize on the controversy. Look, I think Perez Hilton is a tool and was disgusted by the virtiol and hatred directed at the Prop 8 proponents.
But, have you read the transcripts of the e-mails between Prejean and the pageant officials? Did you see any of the Larry King interview? While Larry kept fishing about the tape and didn't come across well, Prejean did herself no favors by acting the way she did. And any objective reading of the e-mail transcripts reveals she was being less than cooperative.
If you want to say she was wrongly denied the Miss California crown due to her views on gay marriage, fine. However, the constant praising of this woman by many on our side is not helping. She's not a great spokesperson. She's pretty and seems like a nice lady. But, she also lied about how old she was when the tape was made, going so far as to ask her ex-boyfriend to lie and say she was 17 rather than 20. Ask yourself, is this the conduct of a person with honesty and integrity?
Your point stands on it's own and I won't attack that.
I am continuously surprised though how much harder it is to espouse values that you may not have lived up to at one time or another (say when you were a teenager) than it is to attack traditional values.
If you are an adult would you consider your personal values and your standard of personal conduct the same now as when you were a teenager? If they have changed at all (and if they haven't for you then your a very rare exception) does that negate the values that you hold now?
I appreciate Darski's honest comment above though most of the people with the vapors over the "sex tape" and the photo shoot are only offended because of the values Prejean espouses now. They would not find one iota wrong with her conduct if she represented a different viewpoint. Andrea, I thought that you were too smart to get in that conga line.
YES YES YES I KNOW… It's 'you're' not your. Sorry for typing too fast.
You can't really believe that. Anytime the subject comes up the truth comes out. If you have read more than one forum discussion on this subject you would admit that legal equivalence is not the reason for the fuss.
It's about the imprimatur that the word conveys and nothing less.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by andrewbreitbart, Dan Collins and Wethepeople5, OCPatriots. OCPatriots said: RT @andrewbreitbart Great Carrie Prejean interview at BigHollywood. Explains all. http://tinyurl.com/ye4r4oa Get over it, H8ers. [...]
Frankly, I think I'm most guilty of perpetuating the very thing I'm condemning by even posting on this subject. Beyond that, I think that the inherent contradiction between espousing "traditional values" and participating in the whole sordid beauty pageant world speaks for itself. She just happened to pick a hot-button topic at the right time and place to send an otherwise totally forgettable person into the publicity stratosphere. And most people forget that our president espouses the same view that she does regarding marriage. Some liberal HE turned out to be.
Oh, and for the record, my personal values are much more lenient than they were when I was a teenager. I know that's upside-down, but it took me a number of years to finally loosen up from my strict Scotch-Presbyterian upbringing.
I'll keep voting for Nader, thanks. But I agree heartily with your first sentence. =)
I am not a fan of the "slippery slope" defense, but I will say that marriage is a religious ceremony, and no religion has ever looked favorably on gay marriage. If it were to pass, and a gay couple wanted to get married in a church or their religious equivalent, and the priest or etc didn't want to do it, the State would step in and mandate it. That is not freedom of religion. I am worried about governmental reprocussions, as they would be inevitable. Civil partnerships could be given the exact same rights as marriage and be conducted by a state or county official and be legal without religious coflict becoming an issue. Problem solved.
This is not a 'social word': "women would still only be in the home without a job and deferring to the man for all financial decisions" so it's not possible that it could have changed.
You are talking about the change in social institutions (and using a loaded, half-baked example to make the point that these changes are only for the good).
Words have power and meaning. Part of changing the meaning of a work is to borrow that power.
The Pink Hand can be very cruel to you if you stand in their way of normalizing what 50 years ago was aberrant behavior. I have no quarrel with gay folks, but when they want the government to mandate all people accept their lifestyle choice when legally they have no right is what makes me want to push back against the tide. Its all about freedom. You are free to do whatever you feel is right in your life behind closed doors, but you do not have the right to push that POV on everyone.
The President also holds the exact same view on Gay marriage that Carrie holds. Please try to be somewhat intellectually honest, and consistent.
Thats it, keep throwing that vote away. Nader is a moron who rarely has a POV that ANYONE can relate to.
Thanks for playing along George. You wrote: 'Stating that you have lesbian friends is like saying that "Some of my best friends are black."'
The author wrote that this is the exact tact her detractors would take. Now that doesn't completely immunize her from this line of thought but you think you could devise a better attack that the one she said you would use, eh?
We are concerned about the effect of Socialism on a country that was founded on RELIGIOUS principles and believe that it should stay that way. The lack of morality on the political/entertainment scene is ridiculous. We are concerned of the abuse of our Fonding Fathers and the documents they felt were important to write "to form a more perfect union." Besides, wasn't it a liberal who said "I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" ?
"Children of gay parents have been shown to be completely normal in numerous studies." Who did these studies? Gay advocacy groups? Let's keep it real. Would you want gay parents? Can you imagine having Rosie O' Donnell as your father? Comedian Eddie Griffin says "No kids want gay parents, and no parents want gay kids." Spin it how ever you want, but I think he's right. Taking into account that African Americans are not especially down with the gay community.
I'm gay, never made a sex tape, let alone had much sex in my life. Yet, it's okay to judge me if I were ever to enter a monogamous gay relationship and raise children more severely than her, purely because she follows your selective biblical teachings. You accept her imperfections more than mine. Sorry, but that's ridiculous in my book.
You didn't answer the question.You claim to respect religion, and then promptly trash it. Most Christians and Jews don't object to Civil Unions with all the legal rights and obligations of marriage, but we object to YOUR jamming YOUR demands to commandeer a word that is of great religious significance to us. Since it isn't of religious significance to you, the word shouldn't matter. Thus it is YOU who are doing the jamming, forcing, and demanding. We have conceded all ground on substance, and you none at all.
My, my, how you do get upset when it is YOUR word that is being stolen, and misused.
She can't handle Larry King. Watch her run to the arms of Fox News and other conservative outlets. "Opposite Marriage" told me all I needed to know about her intellect. It's embarrassing to be a Conservative and have to watch this nightmare go on camera. You know I'm right.
See, I knew you were too smart. You're first sentence makes the point perfectly. And regarding your change in values over time, whether they went north or south is irrelevant, they are your values now and can't be voided only because they are different now than then. For the record, I'm not a liberal nor a conservative. Those are political terms and they don't fit me. Still, you might want to watch that loosening up. Things get too loose they fall apart.
By the way, I'm not hitching my wagon to this woman anyway. Her choices show a pattern of narcissism from my point of view and your point about the 'sordid beauty pageant world' make a lot of sense to me. That said, I still think her convictions are valid and her own and she has at least the 'courage' of the truth-to-power-speakers and the edge-pushers that are often credited with courage for their antics.
Rhymes with "limbo."
She looked like a fool on Larry King. Bad enough to threaten to storm off on Grandpa Softball Suspenders, but then to not actually do it? Whoever's handling her now isn't doing their job.
I don't have much of an opinion on gay marriage. I voted against it out here in Calif. but it's one of those things that I tend to question (like capitol punishment). I don't think Gay people are on a mission to take over the world, and I don't believe in a God that requires me to dislike and persecute them (irony).
What I do have is an opinion on Perez Hilton. He should not have asked such a politically charged question in such an incongruous setting, and for crying out loud, why are people making this man into a spokesperson for gay rights? I can't imagine a worse image for gay rights than him. No class, or composure. She's a "bitch" for honestly stating her beliefs? YOU ASKED THE QUESTION, PEREZ. Don't ask the question if you can't handle the answer!
But, he makes his living off destroying the reputations of people in the limelight. Mission accomplished. Only thing is, Prejean is more famous than ever before because of his whining. So she stands to be better off in the long run.
I also heard that we have all sinned, none are perfect and homosexuals believe they should have absolute authority to change society to accommodate their behavior and like to hurt women who don't agree with them.
I thought the same thing about "opposite marriage", but then I thought about the position she was in and the pressure she was under (whether we find it important or not it was for Miss USA, which is kind of a big deal to somebody, right?). She is kind of stepping into the ring now I guess. Maybe a cage match with Natalie Portman? That would be fun!
Now I'm not specifically sticking up for Prejean, but I think intellect (or the trappings of intelligence) is overpraised sometimes. I know plenty of wise people with common sense and firm conviction who aren't always the most articulate and might be easy prey for the type of pretzel logicians we find on these boards. She is no worse than some of the more erudite Hollywood morons regularly lampooned on this site (which I guess means that she deserves to be lampooned too. Hmmm.)
My Rosanne Rosanna-Dana moment. Carry on.
I know how it feels. But I have spent a significant part of my life being pointed out as the coolest bald guy in the room. The pressure of being a bald guy role model really gets to me.
Also, that shallow, anorexic, fako should not be a role model for anyone. Let's make a collective decision to ignore her and she will slime her way back into dim-witted obscurity where she belongs.
Ms Prejean is a bad apple. was she 17 or 20 when she made the "sex tape?". when did she "get religion"? promiscuous sexually active 17 (or 20) year old. she's "only 22" now? (hard to call this "past" behavior). "wind" was to blame for the topless photos? really? it's sad the way she was treated, giving an honest answer that the vast majority of Americans agree with (including BHO). political correctness is so wrong and dangerous (Fort Hood). but Carrie…she is a bad apple and it's a shame she brought religion into this. it's a shame she appears to be a liar and frankly trying to cash in on her 15 minutes of fame. i was a supporter, but now i believe i (we) have been taken for a ride. it's time to throw her under the bus. she has disgraced herself and is disgracing all who continue to rally behind her. she has become the religious Rights Roman Polanski.
There actually aren't many problems the right wing can't solve. Limited government, more freedom for everyone to make personal choices.
The lefties are out in fine full force. Here ya go:
The Miss California pageant people and their legal team basically engaged in a form of legal blackmail to get her to drop the case. The reason is they knew their case was doomed without engaging in gutter tactics.
Miss Prejean was underage in that tape – if they dare show it or leak it …..it might just meet the legal definition of child porn.
.What is next ? Burn her at the stake ? They are doing a bang up job of crucifying her. The girl answered a question at a beauty pageant…..Truthfully.
As civil discourse dies, so does our society.
Out of full disclosure, I attend The Rock Church San Diego. I'm as conservative as they come, yet I would like to see the government get out of the marriage business. Sure, I can see the side of the argument where society and population levels are believed to be protected by government approving that marriage is between a man and woman only, but I believe these arguments are questionable and fall secondarily to the rights of the individual.
Government should offer equal protection under the law. In areas of public controversy, government should stand clear and at least appeal to the decision of the state. However, concerning gay marriage, NO government should take sides.
Marriage as an 'institution'? Where's the address? It's located in the heart of the individual.
As a Christian, I am a sojourner and according to the Word, my citizenship is in Heaven. The 'world' is going to do what the world will do. Enacting 'Christian' legislation in order to coerce the world to behave as it should is not a pursuit that the Body of Christ should take up. We are to be salt and light, but, in this case, using the 'gun' of government is certainly not Christian.
In the end, we know that human government will fail. Let's not help it along. Get the government OUT of the marriage biz.
Despotism? I love how Liberals sound like hysterical 9 year-old girls when they don't get their way. Try living in Venezuela or Cuba for a few years, then come back and tell us how "despotic" America is.
Moron….
You must be logged in to post a comment.