Miss California Pageant To Address Contract Violations, Make Crown Decision

LOS ANGELES — The Miss California USA pageant says its co-directors plan to address whether current title holder Carrie Prejean will hold onto her crown amid allegations of contract violations.

Keith Lewis said Friday that he and fellow co-director Shanna Moakler will make their case public Monday. He says they and Prejean's representatives are close to a resolution.

The state pageant is investigating whether the 21-year-old old violated her contract by making public appearances with groups opposed to same-sex marriage and by failing to reveal that she had posed in her underwear as a teenager.

Lewis says Miss USA contest owner Donald Trump will make the decision on whether to disqualify Prejean. She was named first runner-up in the Miss USA pageant on April 19.

Comments

[michel3777]

Yes, Janet absolutely, when you say you're against gays having the right to get married, you are in fact a bigot and yes you do have something MAJOR against gays. It's like if I said "Oh, I have nothing against blacks, but it would be immoral to allow them to marry white people, it would ruin the fabric of society, especially the innocent children. But other than that, blacks can continue to live and pay taxes".

When you agree to do appearances for NOM, you should expect some backlash because you're using your title to further a cause that is definitely not pageant friendly. She broke her contract and should be dethroned, but as usual, Trump was blinded by her fake boobs, bleached hair, and spray tan.

[BlackWidowPilot]

Michel,

Back in 1967 there was a married couple named Loving. Their marriage was *illegal* in sixteen (16) states, and the majority of Americans polled *opposed* their marriage many on the grounds of a heartfelt belief that the *Bible* condemned such unions.

Fed up with being harassed by police for no other crime than being a marriage comprised of a white man and a black woman, Richard Loving took his case to the Supreme Court.

That was 1967, and the Supreme Court ruled that those laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional. The justices did so in direct defiance of popular opinion, and solely on the basis of the cold, hard facts of the case, and the content of our Constitution, and simple human decency.

Prior to Loving vs. Virginia, the woman I am now married to, the wonderful, elegant, amazing, talented *soulmate* that God has blessed me with, well, if it were 1967 our marriage would be *illegal* in sixteen states and the *majority* of Americans would think our marriage *wrong,* and many would no doubt assert that "the Bible says so!"

Being gay is an *orientation,* not a "lifestyle choice," and any first semester Psychology or Human Biology student knows this to be a scientific fact.

To continue to discriminate against the fundamental human right of consenting adults to marry while denying the actual facts of the matter is the height of intellectual dishonesty in the service of a morally bankrupt authoritarian political agenda.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[billyboy2]

Without Perez Hilton 99% of the country wouldn't even have known that this stupid pageant still existed. Congratulations for making it mildly interesting.

[felisa11]

i, personally, do not know why carrie would try to hold on to the crown.

She will always be remembered for her inarticulate answer to the gay marriage question..
It will follow her everywhere; the conversation and bad press will continue.

I suggest she pursue other career opportunities and put this behind her.

She is still young enough to learn tolerance and compassion. I hope so anyway,

[ladycubsfan]

She should lose her crown for breaking her contract, and for no other reason. If Trump let's her off the hook, then maybe it's a good time for his business partners to break their contracts with him. He'll be setting a precedent that may come back and bite him.

[JumpDownTurnAround]

So did everyone hear the pageant officials say that this is NOT about her comment she in entitled to that, it is ABOUT VIOLATING THE TERMS OF HER CONTRACT.
The Picture
And promoting for NOM without written consent of the Miss USA pageant!

There. I hope that tells you what the majority of us have been saying all along.
Now, whether the Donald upholds the violating the terms of her contract or not, is a different story!

[Holmeystl]

Carrie will keep her crown. The Donald has the final say in this matter, 'The Donald' likes Christian ladies with fake boobs, teeth and hair. The Donald also likes ladies who adore comb-overs.
It will come as no suprise that Carrie will retain her Crown, tho she may have rug burns on those knees, but hey as long as she keeps it 'straight' waz the problem, right?

[JumpDownTurnAround]

I for one plan on making public any public appearances she is going to make - if she wants to see a protest....she's going to get one!

[AnotherTry]

Blondes with fake boobs are imbeciles. No offense to anyone out there, but that's how I was raised.

[Bobrobert]

roflmao

Sex... the final frontier... hee hee hee hee hee hee!!!

[SpaceboySD]

Here's an idea; lets let "Frankenhooker" decide between giving back the crown or returning her pageant-sponsored breast-implants? Her own personal "Sophie's Choice"...

[AlaninElkGrove]

a curious anagram for "republican" for this story is: "bra cup line"...

[citylife9]

SHES A CUPI DOLL THAT IS FORCED TO THINK. I DONT KNOW IF SHE SHOULD LOSE HER CROWN BUT I THINK OTHER THEN A FELENY OFFENCE NEXT YEAR THEY SHOULD DO AWAY WITH MOST OF THOSE DISQUALIFICATION RULES . JOE CAPRIO

[Jafo360]

they stripped vanessa williams, they should strip her...

that sounded dirty.

[Blueline]

LOL.

[KLMoore]

She flashed her goodies in the semi-nude which is against pageant rules.
She deserves to lose the crown.

[Fri Prevett]

Thoughts

1. Do away with beauty pageants altogether. That some segment of society still feels it needs to submit young women to parading around in evening gowns and swimsuits in front of judges is an anachronistic BS ritual that reinforces objectification of women.

On the other hand I'll credit Perez Hilton -- someone I pay little mind to seeing as how I don't care for or about celebrity gossip journalism -- for trying to make the proceedings interesting by not throwing a cliche softball question at Miss Prejean.

I point you to the following piece that appeared this past week at Feministing that makes some interesting points about "fighting bigotry with misogyny":

http://www.feministing.com/archives/015292.html

2. The word "marriage" needs to be stricken from governmental code when it is used to describe the recognition of cohabitating individuals that may (or may not) love one another, who may (or may not) have families and SHOULD BE equally entitled to the benefits and property in the event that one partner dies or becomes incapacitated.

The word "marriage" constitutes a religious ritual making a ceremony out of the union of two people (regardless of gender makeup). I believe it violates the mandated separation of church and state, but the use of the word marriage is what has made the theocracy-craving religious extremists go b.s. crazy.

[Q2]

I agree with most of what you said here, except for the point where you stated "the word "marriage" constitutes a religious ritual". This is not necessarily true - many people are married without the involvement of a church.

However, it is true that the word "marriage" does unfortunately IMPLY a religious overtone, which brings out all the bible-thumping crazies. I don't think we'll ever see the end of the word "marriage", but hopefully we'll see a more inclusive description in public usage, as well as the removal of any religious overtones.