Miss California Carrie Prejean To Campaign Against Gay Marriage

**SCROLL FOR VIDEO**

NEW YORK - The reigning Miss California has gone to Washington to help launch a campaign opposing same-sex marriage.

Carrie Prejean told NBC's "Today" show Thursday that she'll be working with the National Organization for Marriage to "protect traditional marriages."

The 21-year-old says that marriage is "something that is very dear to my heart" and she's in Washington to help save it.

She says many people have thanked her for standing up for traditional marriage.

Prejean was named the first runner-up to Miss North Carolina in the Miss USA pageant April 19. Her response to celebrity blogger Perez Hilton's question about legalizing same-sex marriage may have cost her the title.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Comments

[WithInterest]

The question posed to Ms. Prejean, to me, was more of a State's rights issue, not a same sex marriage issue: "Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think that every state should follow suit; why or why not."

IMO, her response did not answer the question. State's sovereignty rights are quietly be eroded and without them, all of our rights are endangered. Further, Prop 8 is an example of the "people" making laws and we have a representative government for this reason.

In a nutshell... we are being distracted from the bigger picture!

[SworldPeas]

In the eyes of the GOVERNMENT there is no such thing as "Gay Marriage" you either married or your not. "Gay Marraige" is religious DOGMA. Two consenting adults should be able to enter a marriage contract irregardless of sexual orientation. Where Ms CumJeans failed was she asked a "political" question and gave a religious answer. We don't go to the same church but we do share the same government. So why is "our" government taking HER religious beliefs in to account over MY political freedoms???

[Piscivorus]

There two completely different definitions of "marriage". There is spiritual marriage, as it is defined by a religion, and there is legal marriage, as it is defined by law. The US Constitution prohibits Congress from creating any laws with respect to religion which means legal marriage has absolutely nothing to do with spiritual marriage. Legal marriage is just a contract between two people, nothing more.

To be fair and just, the law must apply equally to all individuals and groups and people should be free to enter into whatever contracts they wish, as long as they aren't hurting anyone. The government has the power to regulate contracts but only to protect people's rights and without respect to religion. So, what good reason does the government have for denying same-sex couples the right to get legally married? I never heard one yet.

Allowing same-sex couples to get legally married would not alter anyone else's marriage in any way nor would it require churches to spiritually marry them against their tenets. Marriage law is being used exclusively to coerce and discriminate. They are inherently unfair and unjust and need to either be corrected or abolished.

[cknapp1961]

Continuing my logic against gay marriage.

For those who say the Constitution does protect some choices such as religious choice, yes that is true it does protect some choices.

Civil Rights cover such things as traits as a human being you cannot change such as ethnicity and sex, and things that have no financial impact or cost to society such as religion, creed, speech, and thought.

But by legalizing gay marriage, gays would then be entitled to certain legal, tax, and wage benefit compensation packages that have a cost to the government, the tax payer, and employers as well as their customers.

Choosing a religion, a creed, speaking your mind, and thinking your thoughts do not place any financial burden on society, that is part of the reason they are protected under the Constitution. Your freedoms end when they infringe on others.

If gays cannot change the law here because they lack the vote, and feel discriminated against, they are of course free to move to another country.

[cknapp1961]

We hear so much from the left about gay marriage, let me explain my point of view on the matter.

gay marriage is not a Civil Rights issue. Whether born gay or becoming gay, once someone realizes they are gay they have a choice to remain gay or simply overcome their aversion to the idea of sleeping with someone of the opposite sex, thus becoming non-gay. Though being discriminated against for something you cannot change such as ethnicity is wrong and mostly corrected in America, choosing to remain gay is a personal choice not protected by the Constitution.

It seems that judges in some States cannot follow the will of "The People" and over ride the will of the people on this issue, partly because they fail to realize that this is NOT a Civil Rights issue.

gay marriage should not be elevated to the same status as opposite sex marriage status. Employers invest in employees by providing wage compensation packages sometimes including health care benefits for spouses and dependent children, in exchange for the married couples potential to produce offspring (future workforce) and carry our genetic code into the future thus ensuring our survival as a species. gays have no such potential to breed and therefore, if I owned a business, I would not want to be "forced" to give gays the same benefit packages.

[goodnightandgoodluck]

(part 1 of 3)

What utter crap!

First, this is absolutely a civil rights issue. Marriage, a civil arrangement, is offered to heterosexual couples and denied to homosexual couples. That is blatant discrimination. You claim that once a person realizes they're gay they can choose to ignore their feelings and be straight. If the roles here were reversed and homosexuality was the majority and the only legally recognized form of cohabitation, do you imagine you would be able to "simply overcome" your "aversion to the idea of sleeping with someone" of the same sex? Should you be forced to in order to be treated equally under the law? You say the choice to be gay is not protected under the Constitution, but that's not the question we're dealing with. Marriage rights aren't equal, they aren't offered to a distinct class of citizens thereby violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Next, judges aren't meant to "follow the will of the people", they're meant to decide whether laws abide by the Constitution. The will of the people is essentially the rule of the majority which has historically discriminated against and withheld rights from the minority. The will of the people in the 1960s would have kept segregation codified. The will of the people in the later 19th Century would have kept women from the vote. The courts stand to protect the minority, not to strengthen the majority.

[goodnightandgoodluck]

(part 2 of 3)

Your financial argument is one I've heard before and one you'd do best to discard completely. A hint of empathy would go a long way to avoid being called hateful or bigoted. You say employers invest in their employees in exchange for their offspring, which ensures our survival as a species and produces future workers. Employers invest in the health and well-being of their employees' families in order to create a healthy and productive workforce. I seriously doubt any employers are concerned about our survival as a species, especially since our world population of 6 billion diminishes any idea that we may be an endangered species.

Furthermore, you assert that gays have "no potential to breed" which is silly at best and highly offensive at worst. Homosexuals are not infertile by definition, they simply take part in non-procreative sex (like many heterosexuals). Modern science and simple ingenuity have given us a few options for reproducing. Your statement also offends more than gays and lesbians. You're essentially claiming that since we don't produce offspring we're socially irrelevant and our rights don't matter. But you don't distinguish between the non-procreative relationship between two gays and the non-procreative relationships involving the infertile. Your argument is inherently flawed since it would seem to advocate for the prohibition of marriage rights for the barren or infertile. Are we as humans only worth while if we are able to reproduce? Sounds rather Orwellian to me.

[goodnightandgoodluck]

(part 3 of 3)
Lastly, you attempt to distinguish between civil rights based on religious affiliation and civil rights based on sexual orientation by suggesting that choosing a religion has no financial affect on the government. Do you honestly believe the framers of the Constitution contemplated the financial cost of the rights they enumerated? "Speech is free, but food costs money, leave that out!" And you can't really believe that religion has no financial impact on the state. Church property has tax-free status, even though many churches are located on prime pieces of real estate. In 1976 one study estimated the value of U.S. churches at $118 billion. The average local government receives 64% of its revenue from property taxes. No financial impact on the government?

You end your post with a timeless piece of un-American garbage that amounts to "America: love it or leave it". I wonder if this motto has been used on other civil rights struggles. Don't like segregated schools? Leave the country. Angry that you can't vote? Go somewhere else. I was born in the United States of America. I love my country. I believe we are a beacon of freedom and liberty throughout the world. To suggest I should give up on this country is preposterous. I want to make it better. You want to live in a country that denies rights and liberties to portions of its citizenry, then you can leave! I'd suggest one of the Islamic theocracies.

[AllenFromAtlanta]

"Whether born gay or becoming gay, once someone realizes they are gay they have a choice to remain gay or simply overcome their aversion to the idea of sleeping with someone of the opposite sex, thus becoming non-gay."

As a straight guy, even I can see that this argument is utter BS. You shot yourself in the foot on this one.

[ohyah]

Oh hay, here's a little FYI for you-
Thanks to the wonderful world of science, gay couples CAN reproduce. They may not be able to birth it, but their genes will be carried on. If they wanted they can make children, and if not, there's enough little kids in the world now who don't have families.
Employers don't give out those packages to ensure you to reproduce more workforce, they give it so you'll work for them in the first place.

And saying that someone should force themselves to be something they aren't kinda goes against everything we tell our children when they're little, dontcha think? That's like saying someone who's straight should force themselves to be gay if it makes everyone happy.

[rkreyn]

Dixey Chicked by the left for her opinion. Who would have ever thunk it.

[suziwong]

does anybody else wish people would learn to spell before trying to prove to other people that they're smarter than everyone else?

[rkreyn]

No, because only a person who believes they are smarter than everyone would even worry about it.

[hotmom]

Right!! lol

[PhilipB]

I have no wish to get into a fight with the beauty pagent winner of California. I mean, I just do not. I do wish that for the last few days that the struggle for my civil rights was not characterized as my family against a beauty pageant queen.
I would hope that other gay couples could tell their story and why they want to get married.
I have told my personal story in other posts. I did this because I felt that in the prop 8 vote on my civil rights was that real people like me were not represented.
Thank you to all who have written so eloquently in support. It means so much to me.

[Dismas]

I'm a 100% heterosexual male! And, I think Carrie Prejean is in the top 5% of beautiful women on this planet. Bill Maher is a transvestite.

One thing I wish someone would explain to me . . . Why are we paying any attention to the opinion of a gay man, when it comes to choosing the most beautiful woman, in a group of beautiful women?

Isn't the idea of being a homosexual male, doesn't the definition of being gay, mean the man doesn't find women attractive? It just seems beyond absurd, to give any credence to the opinion of a homosexual, when judging women for beauty.

And, oh yeah, if you pose a politically charged question to a contestant, you should expect the answer to be politically charged. So all you turkeys, who are shocked and dismayed at Miss Prejean's politically charged answered. . . "Oh how could she inject politics into the Miss USA Pageant?" Are you for real?

Hey Perez Hilton, put down the crack pipe, and get back in the closet! Your a disgrace to the male gender. Carrie Prejean is the most honorable person in this clash of cultures, at the Miss USA pageant.

[WithInterest]

The pageant personifies the combination of beauty and intelligence. If she were intelligent than she would have answered that it is a state's rights issue. Instead, she went off-topic with an emotionally controversial response. In doing so, she pontificated morality and exposed her own hypocrisy. (She was provided breast implants by the Pageant to ease her poor self-esteem, this alone should have disqualified her.)

It is pretty simple: Displaying her vanity in an attempt to win a soft-porn pageant title (or Playboy prelude) she is in no position to judge others' morality.

[Silu]

IT IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE.
IT IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE
IT IS NOT A DESCRIMINATION ISSUE:
IT IS A COMMUN SENSE ISSUE:
MARRIAGE IS “THE UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN
FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE HUMANKIND”

Can any one of our governments explain HOW 2 PERSONS OF THE SAME GENDER CAN DO THIS?
This is a fundamental principle that nobody has considered in the definition.
If the definition has to be amended, it has to be in this direction.

[Lawliet]

Not discrimination? You refuse to allow homosexual couples the right to marry based on your narrow minded view of the issue and treat them like some kind of sub class because of their sexual orientation and you have the nerve to say its NOT discrimination? Your the very epitome of discriminatory thought.

[john95]

All the comments on here are so disrespectful. Calling her an air head just because she didnt answer the questions with your opinons but rather hers. I, along with her and President Obama and VP Biden OPPOSE gay marriage, legalization of drugs, prostitution, and child pornography. And we aren't airheads for it.

[BruceHNV]

Her campaign to prevent gays from enjoying equal rights is so disrespectful.

[research]

Right, who was FOR child pornography again? You are the only one to bring it up.

[research]

Come on, how many lesbians think she's cute?

[jeffgolin]

So what? She looks good. Breast surgery is not illegal. Anyone can get it. "Performance enhancements"? What's wrong with performance enhancements? Making yourself look nice is enhancing your performance? Maybe watching your diet or taking vitamins is performance enhancements, too. Then they are all enhancing their performance, all the contestants. How crazy is this going to get? Is there supposed to be an "approved," "normal" or "authorized" level of healthiness or attractiveness beyond which the authorities can judge us for "cheating" or breaking the rules? Really, really deconstruct this! Hormones are natural substances made by the human body, which are prescribed by doctors and legally manufactured by formularies. So it we can make it ourselves it's okay but if we ingest it somehow it's wrong? What is that? Eugenics?

It looks nice. It Nice? It looks TERRIFIC! Beauty is an ART. People tattoo themselves, they call it art. I can't stand the way that it looks but some people like it. Would you want to tell a painter what kind of colors to use, what kind of paint to use?

What is going on here is cultural dissonance. On one hand we make celebrities out of porn stars. Some people do. Then we parade half naked gorgeous babes on a stage for a whole audience to leer at. And that's okay, right? On the other hand we have this resistant strain of puritanism and prudery? THEN at the same time some people are trying to absorb same sex marriages?

[BruceHNV]

She looks "good?"

I disagree. Strongly.

[SILVANUS]

She should now join Defense for Sanctity of Traditional Implants.

[stophate]

Isn't it interesting that the christian right answers every comment exactly the same...."she just voiced her opinion"...but when I voice my opinion I am the intolerant one?? Historically christians opposed inter faith marriage, inter racial marriage and the mormon actually went so far as to call black people the mark of the devil!!! The only thing that bigoted religious understand is greed, money and growing their membership to increase their campaigns of hate. The reason they changes their positions on these other points was they started to lose membership there fore dues! the mormons changed their stand on black people because their tax exempt staus was at risk because of the (kkk) position on black people and discrimination. The religuious right attarcks people who have a need to discriminate and socailly segregate people they do not agree with. When the dollars are in jeopardy they change there tune. their campaign of lies and h8 in california is interesting they "recruit" door to door sending their youth and church member wondering around communities to drum up business for their churches then accuse gay people of recruiting?? It is the exact same tactic you see here when they express their bigoted hatered it is free speech when we counter with a balanced arguement it is attacking.....Thes are extremely dangerous groups, Amercian better wise up and control these out of control facists!

[SeattleDeadhead]

No need to worry now that Dems. control everything and will attempt to control how everyone thinks. I am sure your PC Cop in charge, Obama will do away with all those bad "fascists" and replace them with the more politically correct fascists on the left.

You have much more to worry about from islamic fascists than from Christians. Try living your lifesyle in China, Indonesia or Saudi Arabia. You'd last a day before you were jailed.

[writeminded]

I agree with SeattleDeadhead. Stophate is paranoid. Most of the vitriolic hate is coming from the gay and lesbian community. I guess you're a bigot if you don't agree with them. The name calling is childish and has lost credibility. We can agree to disagree. California has already voted down gay marriage twice. My advice to the the gay and lesbian community... have some tolerance and try to be open-minded, like you claim to be.

[Ceartas]

Apart from all the uproar about Ms. Prejean's homophobic attitudes and fake boobs, there is another issue: the value and credibility of beauty pageants in general, and the Miss USA pageant in particular. Was every contestant in the pageant offered free plastic surgery procedures, or was the fix on?

Has anybody raised these questions with Donald Trump, the owner of the pageant? Did he personally pay for the surgery?

Has anyone asked his opinion of Ms. Prejean's involvement with the National Organization (not) for Marriage?

Trump seems to be out of the public view right now, but he was certainly in the thick of things when Tara Conner was out drinking and doing cocaine.

I wonder if he considers bigotry to be moral turpitude, He certainly seemed to consider using cocaine as such.

[sandiegoman]

Ceartas,

From what I understand, a huge majority of the contestants have had breast jobs, nose jobs, veneers on the teeth, etc. The campain paid for many of them and some of the contestants paid for their own. Many of these women hope to one day branch into modelling or acting, so they see the cosmetic work as a career investment.

The fact that the organization released the information is what Donald Trump should be asked on. How about some privacy for the contestants? I wonder if she can sue for violation of her rights under the HIPAA law. I mean, isn't breast augmentation a medical procedure?