I’m sure you’ve all heard about the Miss USA pageant in which Miss California, Carrie Prejean, got nailed on a question about gay marriage posed by celebrity blogger Perez Hilton. It’s very likely that, had she not let her true hateful nature slip, Miss Prejean would now be reigning as Miss USA and thus in a position to spread her detestable, revolting belief in the sanctity of marriage around the country. Thank goodness Perez Hilton prevented this with his great big “ZERO” score. What a narrow escape.
It’s about time someone of Hilton’s noble and estimable character stood up to the disgustingly narrow definition of marriage that’s been hanging like a millstone around our necks since the days of Moses. We all know that marriage as an institution is outdated anyway, but if we have to labor under its constraints then the least we can do is broaden the definition to include any combination that makes us feel good. Me, I favor marriages between humans and llamas. My husband prefers cabbages. (He firmly believes in equal rights for vegetables and is a radical supporter of the Vegetable Liberation Front.)
In a CNN interview, Hilton scoffed at Miss Prejean’s answer and said she should have “left her politics and her religion out, because Miss USA represents all Americans.” I wasn’t aware the opinions of ALL Americans could be represented by ONE beauty queen, but maybe I’m missing something. I also don’t quite understand how Miss Prejean could leave her political and religious opinions out when Mr. Hilton asked her a political, religiously charged question. But hey, I’m just a simple north Idaho housewife and don’t pretend to be a match for Hilton’s intelligence, culture and sophistication.
But the issue here isn’t Miss Prejean’s prejudice or whether gays should be allowed to marry. The issue here is whether a person should speak her honest opinions in a public arena when specifically asked for them.
Of course not. Don’t be silly.
You’ll notice none of the other Miss USA contestants messed up like Miss California did. While some may have held the same opinions, they were smart enough to know which way the wind doth blow. Clearly it blew away from anyone dim enough to actually answer according to what she believed, instead of what the judges wanted to hear. If the judge had been Al Gore and he’d asked a question about global warming and Miss Whoever had answered that she thought global warming was a manufactured crisis designed by the government to seize power and wealth and decrease personal liberties … c’mon, what do you suppose her chances would be of winning the crown? Zilch.
A classic illustration of why Miss Prejean was a fool to air her personal principles comes from CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin’s criticism of Prejean. “She wants to be a spokesmodel, she should know enough not to make news, to avoid the sticky issue,” sniffs Ms. Yellin. Since the “sticky issue” was an in-your-face question posed on international television by a judge living a flagrantly alternative lifestyle, the only way for Miss Prejean to have “avoided” the issue was … to lie.
Yellin voiced support of Perez Hilton’s subsequent gentle and kindly remarks about Miss Prejean’s body parts, intelligence and parental lineage by saying no one ever advanced their cause by being polite. If Carrie Prejean had stood on the stage and used vulgar cuss words to sustain her belief in traditional marriage, I’m sure she would have changed everyone’s minds about the issue immediately. Instead she had the audacity to stand there and be dignified. Sheesh.
Personally I think there should be a new rule incorporated into the Miss USA pageant. Contestants must agree to suppress their personal opinions and only parrot the views of the judges. If the judge is a vegan, for example, never express support for the nutritional qualities of meat. The young ladies could memorize appropriate answers in advance, and the pageant can take on the air of the Stepford Wives. All the Thought Police would be happy.
In the CNN interview, Hilton explained the thorough and admirable logic behind his question. “I don’t think politics or religion should play into Miss USA,” he assured the interviewer. “However, I asked her a political question on purpose and so did the other judges. We wanted to ask tough questions to see how these women would answer difficult questions under pressure. And a good Miss USA can answer any question thrown at her at any time, gracefully.” (By lying.)
Much as I sympathize with Hilton’s scoring and subsequent compliments for Miss California, I feel compelled to point out that Carrie Prejean did answer Hilton’s question. Gracefully. She even elicited audience applause (granted, sparse applause from a few no doubt terrified closet conservatives). It was apparently Mr. Hilton’s understanding that he was to judge contestants not by the gracefulness of their answers, but by how closely their answers aligned with his personal beliefs. You must admit he was brilliant in regard to fulfilling this aspect of his judging duties.
The influence of the Thought Police is nearly universal now, so to have Miss California spewing her hateful truths is not only dangerous, it’s subversive. We simply can’t have innocent bystanders, like the pageant audience and television viewers, hearing this stuff. It’s a good thing Perez Hilton slapped her down before anyone could take her seriously. Perez is right; it’s imperative that we shut this woman up and discredit her as strongly as possible before anyone falls for her moral intolerance.
I am guessing it’s driving Mr. Hilton nuts that Miss Prejean is receiving all sorts of favorable media attention from a bunch of dimwit conservative talk-show hosts and bloggers. How dare these people applaud this woman? He’s the one responsible for her loss. He should get the attention, not her.
Evidently Mr. Hilton is clueless that Miss Prejean may have lost the battle, but she sure as heck won the war. And kept her integrity.