Gathering Storm: Miss California Trying to Redefine Traditional Breasts for the Rest of Us
Miss California Carrie Prejean ostensibly lost the coveted first prize of the Miss USA Pageant due to an honest, but clumsily delivered, response to a question about same-sex marriage equality. Thanks, however, to the juvenile grandstanding and self-aggrandizing douchebaggery of Perez Hilton, she earned a seemingly more lustrous and lucrative crown: spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). NOM, of course, is the political organization made infamous by the countless parodies of its "Gathering Storm" ad, in which one desperate-for-any-work actor warned America in barely perceptible English that a "storm is coming" in the form of full civil equality for gay and lesbian Americans.
Prejean, for her part, has vowed "to do whatever it takes to protect marriage" and the newly crowned Queen of "Opposite Marriage" appears in NOM's latest ad entitled, "No Offense." She also reminded the nation at a NOM-sponsored press conference this week that her contemptibly ill-informed comments at the Miss America contest was "not about being politically correct, but about being 'Biblically correct.'"
Oops! Heaven, we have a problem.
A recent revelation -- and not of the Biblical variety -- surfaced this week that the prodigal princess had breast augmentation surgery, approved and funded by the Miss California Organization, just weeks before the Miss USA pageant. One has to wonder how the beauty queen has the credibility and moral standing to speak out against "unnatural" and "un-Biblical" marriage with the same breath that is weighted down by "unnatural" and "un-Biblical" implants filtered through $10,000 worth of "unnatural" capped teeth.
Of course, Princess Prejean has a right to her religious convictions and no one should ever lose a beauty contest over speaking those beliefs in earnest. Miss California also has the right to do whatever she chooses within the privacy of her own bra, but she doesn't have the right to redefine traditional breasts for the rest of us.
For many thousands of years, across every culture and continent, women have known traditional or "natural" breasts to be those that God -- or nature -- gave them. To think otherwise flies in the face of millennia of human history and spiritual doctrine. Prejean's Bible repeatedly reminds us we are made in God's perfect image while warning us against exchanging the "natural" use of our bodies for those deemed "unnatural." And, while one could argue the rights to privacy and personal freedom are inherent in our nation's founding democratic principles and that every American has a right to his/her own life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, organizations like NOM -- for whom she's now a spokesperson -- Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council repeatedly admonish us that life in America would be better if theology and biblical doctrine were the primary determinant of civil law and personal liberties.
With someone else footing the bill, Prejean made a choice to defy her God's perfect design and creation of her and to rebel against the intended and "natural" purpose of her mammaries: namely, the nursing of babies rather than the visual attraction sufficient enough to win a vanity contest. Moreover, if her teeth aren't capped, I'm betting they were braced; and I'd also put money down on the fact that Prejean, like all of us, has at some point performed other "unnatural" acts with her organs like chewing gum, wearing eye-glasses, enjoying a Diet Coke or two or... well you get the idea.
So, Carrie, you may find full civil equality for all Americans to be "unnatural" and not "Biblically correct," but, frankly, so are your Jugs4Jesus and your Caps4Christ. "No Offense!"
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It's astounding that this young girl would be subject to endless ridicule for making one respectful response that is politically incorrect.
The thing is how respectful is that response? It pretty much says screw legal terms and your rights because my religion is against your way of life.
I think a respectful response would be that legally same-sex marriage should be recognized because of the seperation between church and state. There is no clear cut legal reason why it shouldn't be recognized as these couples are fully functioning couples made of two consenting adults. She could have gone on to say that she is not for making churches do the ceremonies as each religion is allowed to follow their own path and their own rules and as a Christian she thinks it is against her religion and God's will to sanctify the marriage under God.
No need to bring religion into the discussion. There's the most clear-cut reason in the world not to give benefits to any couples except those capable of providing both the male and female influence on children, and that is the stability of society, which depends on that more than on any other single factor.
I have to disagree with the notion that Perez Hilton was engaged in "douchebaggery." He was guilty of actually asking a question of one of these augments, and her stumbling pronouncements about "her country of California" and "opposite marriage" showed Prejean to be the utter boob (2 of them) she is.
Not only that, but Perez Hilton is more attractive than she is anyway.
And not only that, but I understand Prejean went up to Perez after the show and asked if Perez could get her a "good discount" on a week's stay at the Honolulu Hilton. Assuming the Gideons had done their work at put a bible in the bedstand, of course. Jesus wept.
If you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't have a gay wedding.
Why do so many think gay marriage is a Civil Rights issue?
Remaining gay after realizing you were born or became gay is simply your choice to not overcome your revulsion to the idea of sleeping with someone of the opposite sex. This choice is not protected in the Constitution.
The Constitution is intended to protect people from discrimination for things they cannot change such as ethnicity, or that do not infringe on the rights of others such as your choice of religion, creed, your speech, and your thoughts.
Gay marriage will infringe on the rights of everyone in that they will be elevated to the same status as potential breeders who actually produce the next generation of workers as well as ensure our survival as a species by carrying our genetic code forward. Gay marriage will result in extended medical coverage for spouses in the work place (again for people who cannot breed, contributing nothing to our survival), as well as tax and other benefits.
The only people that fail to realize gay marriage is not a civil rights issue is the gays themselves and the liberal judges who keep over riding the will and common sense of "We The People". If gays cannot get gay marriage approved by popular vote and feel discriminated against in America they are of course free to emmigrate.
Keep your damn Bible out of my glorious and sacred Constitution.
Why do you-all immediately go and trash Christians? If you had any "stones" at all, you'd bash Muslims... after all, they kill Gays over there!
And, I don't see this person quoting the Bible??!! Then again, Christian values are at the foundation of the Constitution...
Lighten up.... try "Thinking" and not "Feeling" for a little while...
'people who cannot breed, contributing nothing to our survival'
'Gay marriage will infringe on the rights of everyone'
'The only people that fail to realize'
You are so wrong, and you certainly don't speak for everyone.
It's a Civil Rights issue because rights are given to married people to the exclusion of others. Frankly I think they just need to purge any rights given to married people and let that be a religous ceremony -- and let people with children have tax breaks, etc. Why should two people without kids (or as you say who can't breed) pay less money than someone who is single anyway? And BTW gay women are able to have children. . .
And BTW you need to read the Declaration of Independence -- all men are created equal under the law - period -no matter what the Bible and Fox News tell you. If you want to live in a religious extremist country - I think they have some slots open in the Middle East. . .
"Gay marriage will infringe on the rights of everyone in that they will be elevated to the same status as potential breeders who actually produce the next generation of workers as well as ensure our survival as a species by carrying our genetic code forward."
So by your reckoning, before someone is 'qualified' to be married, they have to prove fertility? I guess that means if my widowed, post-menopausal mother should want to remarry, she does not have that right because she can't get pregnant? Give me a break.
Let's just separate the church and state on this -- let those who want to get married do so at the courthouse so they receive the civil benefits of the marriage, then go off to their church for the religious 'wedding'...... and let the churches bless the unions they approve of....
Being gay is genetic--not a choice. No one choses to be gay, therefore all people have equal rights to protection under the Constitution.
nobody likes a bitchy queen.
Everybody loves a distressed princess.
You 'fellows' better rein it in or there won't be doo dah parades in Peoria any time soon.
The mainstream has had about enough of the snarky gay treatment. It gets old - unless you are an eternal prepubescent male....
Yep, and I bet you also think those uppity black folk should have sat at the back of the bus and kept there mouths shut. The only one being snarky here is you
Why do we have to destroy a person's rep just because they don't believe like we do. Please leave Miss California alone.
Personally, I am offended that "Gay" people have taken the word. I am gay...but I'm not homosexual. We use to "dawn our gay apparel." Wise-up! It means happy, not homosexual!
See Brian Normoyle's Profile
Language is fluid, of course, or we'd otherwise still be using "thee" and "thou" in common parlance; gay means homosexual in most modern contexts and, nowadays, the word only rarely implies "happy" or "jubilant."
Regarding the rest of your comment, I can only say that this piece is satire, not a destruction of anyone's "rep" and, for the record, apparel has never been "dawned"; It's always been "donned."
You suggesting that no one here (or elsewhere) is trying to destroy this person's "rep"?
Gay can still mean mildly happy, as well as mean not normal in some circles... the fact that Hilliray Duff doesn't like that 'it feels like a bad word...' well, tough. Those who wish to view that as some sort of insult, well... that's their problem I guess. Freedom of speech vs. your though police I suppose.
Oh and thanks for correcting our English.
It is nice to see that someone still has a dictionary and knows the meaning of words and how to spell them correctly. "Gay" in 1178 did mean "happy", and "full of joy or mirth," from the Old French gai "gay, merry," perhaps Old High German wahi "pretty". Howevr it became to mean "brilliant, showy" from c.1300. But since the 17th century the word "gay" has had various senses dealing with sexual conduct: A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, a gay house a brothel. This sexual world included homosexuals too, and gay as an adjective meaning “homosexual” goes back at least to the early 1900s. I would never tell a person I was "gay" when I meant to tell that individual that I was happy. Language, if it is to be used as a tool of expression, must be precise and exact or the wrong message is sent to the listener or reader.
Ridiculous. And it's "don we now . . ."
Hi,
Well all, if you go to the "gay marriage' page here on Huffington Post (which should be called marriage equality), you see three images of a bikini clad pageant contestant.
Now, I have No argument with people's personal opinion. I do not like my struggle for civil rights and respect by the state which treats us unequally somehow as a battle with my family and a beauty pageant contestant
Our struggle is so personal, and there are so many stories right now about states which have recognized our equality.
Stories about Iowa, Vt, Washington DC, Ct, even CA which the prop 8 story impacts my life, and now Maine!
i mean, really. This whole array of images and stories about the thoughts of a beauty contestant is so disrespectful to the real hopes and yearnings of my family to be treated with equality.
What's your struggle with Civil Rights?
There's no equality issue? There's a we over here want special or extra rights...
Your family is not being treated equally??? Huh?
Please read my comment. I have no wish to put anyone down. Not at all.
I do yearn for the time that my partner and I can be married.
Thanks,
Philip
People who consider gay behavior unnatural, believe that is at odds with nature, namely, they believe that it is behavior that nature did not intend people to engage in. By contrast, breast implants is considered to be behavior designed to optimize something that is natural, namely, enhancing something that nature does intend. Breast implants are one of many things that women do to enhance their looks, like lipstick, hair extensions, capped teeth, and high heel shoes.
The only shame that I see in Carrie Prejean's breast implants is that the Miss California pageant told it, and I think they did that to trash her reputation. I doubt very seriously that Carrie came to them and asked to have her breast enhanced. It is more likely that they told her that she could improve her chances in the Miss USA pageant if she enhanced her breast, and they offered to pay for that advantage. Who can believe them when they say that the public disclosure came about because someone asked if they did it, and they thought it prudent to answer in a press release that would expose her to all the world . . .
How is it that throughout the history of the world, men did not marry men; and women did not marry women; but all of a sudden, you can't even say that you believe that it should be that way . . .
Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Whatever happened to freedom of religion? http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/271346
Once again, freedom of speech and religion for all means freedom to question, criticize, and yes, ridicule it. 50 years ago and "throughout the history of the world" blacks did not marry whites. And "all of a sudden you can't even say that you believe it should be that way..." Hmm. How would this quote read in another 50 years?
I do not know what history books you have been reading, but men have been marrying men and women marry women since mortals existed--although no records survive of such gay marriages until the new era (CE). Study Juvenal 2.117-142 and Martial 1,24.42: "Barbatus rigido nupsit Callistratus". Even the Emperor Hadrian married Apollonius (Spartianus, Hadrian 1.7.23). The Roman Catholic church did not forbid homosexual love--just the sexual completion of that love (Homilia in Matthaeum 73.3 in Migne, Patrologia...Graec. 58:677; and Chrysoston, De inani gloria, 76),
"miss" california is really in the wrong industry to be anti-gay. Its not as if she has any beliefs that arent for sale. If shes getting any good advice, its that she needs to move away from right wing politics. there arent any big modeling or movie jobs that way. It would be worth paying her to change her mind just to make NOM look worse.
Are you saying she is not allowed to voice her beliefs, because some abnormal (yes, 10%, or 6% of the population qualifies as abnormal--or do you prefer atypical?) people want to get married and oppose her viewpoint? I must remind you that this is the United States and we are all entitled to free speech. The attacks launched against her have been and are dispicable and I, for one, no longer have an ounce of compassion for gays and the gay marriage issue, BECAUSE not one prominet gay has stepped out to defend her.
Nobody tried to snag the microphone away from her, or to ban what she said from being published, so stop with the "is she not allowed to voice her beliefs" BS. In fact, she's been "voicing" her beliefs ever since on every media channel available. Meanwhile, thanks for reminding us that "this is the US and we are all entitled to free speech", so I guess you would agree then that other people are allowed to voice their opinions about her opinion. Too bad not all of them will be complementary.
I hear photos of her in a bikini as a teenager have been leaked and she's crying foul. Gee, I'm sure all those gay couples she spit on really feel sorry for her.
It's purely simply
"Marriage" Is between One Man and One Woman
Are you nutz??!!?!?!
They don't get that here!!!!!!
HAHAHA... I'm with ya Brother (or Sister)!
I like your profile picture, as it's from the movie 300.
Which is the film adaptation of the comic book by Frank Miller.
Who has repeatedly made very pro homosexual comic books, in which characters who fight to uphold their homosexual lifestyles are portrayed as righteous and heroes, while those who decry them as immoral are depicted as bigots. Also, in his comics he almost always portrays religious figures as evil.
Also, did you know that in real life, among the Spartans, homosexual pairings were ENFORCED between men of higher rank and the youngest men who were new to the ranks? Frank Miller did leave that out of the 300 story, and was criticized for that. But in his defense, it's a very short comic book focused on one battle. In all likelihood he just didn't have the time to delve into that aspect of the Spartans. There were many other aspects of Spartan life he omitted as well, after all.
But in actuality, the Spartans were paired off in order to form bonding and to foster a mentoring relationship.
In fact, it was usually the older man who chose the wife of his lover when the boy became of age. These enforced homosexual pairs were actually one of the things Spartans were best known for, along from their ferocity, merciliessness, and amazing fighting skills.
I find it very funny that you are actually using a gay icon as your image picture
Yea But then Again I am Christain, So I must be
See Brian Normoyle's Profile
Yes, yes, we know... just like the Bible tells us and much-hyped (see article) "tradition" mandates. Here's the problem with that overly simplified logic:
At many points throughout history, and throughout the Bible, marriage included polygamist structures where it was "purely, simply" between one man and several women.
Traditionally and most often in history, marriage was a civil agreement or arrangement between two families whereby the wife was "purely, simply" sold off to the highest bidder as if she were so much chattel. She then became the property of her husband and, for most of history, had little to no rights.
A little over 40 years ago in our country, marriage was "purely, simply" between one man and one woman of the same race. In 1948, when California legalized it by way of the courts, 90% of the country opposed interracial marriage on moral grounds. In 1967, 74% of Americans still opposed interracial marriage, but those "activist judges" on the US Supreme Court overturned the "will of the people" by declaring marriage "a basic civil right" that included the right to marry the person of one's choice. Opposition to interracial marriage did not become a minority opinion until 1991, almost an entire generation after it was finally legalized.
(continued)....
Don't forget that according to the Biblical marriage laws, if a man rapes avirgin, he is obligated to marry her.
Where are all the people fighting for legislation that forces a rapist to marry his victim if she's a virgin? I mean, it's IN the Bible, people!
Thanks for the history lesson but you omitted / glossed over a lot.
The problem is the "M" word and the fact that traditional marriage = a healthy society in which to raise future generations, look up the numbers (key word not liberal blogs) yourself.
The trouble with you 'logic' is two things, to continue it, men/woman can marry anything as long as it's not against current law - such as a minor.
Also, to compare this to the struggle of Blacks in the US is an real insult to Blacks.
Finally, the People have spoken in California and across the US and we don't want it so just find another word, it's that easy...
Bravo, Brian.
Yea but they want to say, "Well, we know Blue is Blue but Blue should also be Green..."
Says who?
Well gosh. What's all the controversy about then? You had the answer all along!
How long do you think it'll be until a sex tape is "leaked"? I give it 2 years. How long till fox/nom etc rationalize it by saying "hey, at least its with a guy proving she really believes opposite marriage is right!" I give that about 1 day.
I want that tape,She is HOT
The said thing about all of this is that Miss South Carolina, who actually won, is getting no publicity - and frankly, she was the prettiest of the two anyway.
I believe it was North Carolina.
Wait a minute. Silicone isn't in the bible?
I'm very much FOR gay marriage. Have been in a straight one for over 30 years and gay marriage poses absolutely no threat to mine.
OK, that said. I am standing firmly behind this little blond, siliconed airhead. She was asked for and voiced her opinion about states' rights concerning gay marriage. She wasn't asked for a footnoted and researched brief that would take into account demographics of all types. She probably doesn't know what that means.
That these questions are randomly assigned to the judges is absurd. And the final insult, exactly what in the world does this celeb wannabe Hilton have to judge this pageant? Lots of shoes, I'll guess.
She never even mentioned states rights in her entire bs reply. People need to stop this crap and actually listen to what she said. She inserted her religious beliefs into the question, and made NO, I repeat, NO attempt to actually answer the question. Listen to what she said. Also, nice little gay insult there. Yes, all gay men are obsessed with shoes and fashion. With supporters like you who needs enemies?
That was a gay insult? More like a Perez Hilton insult. A shallow, celebrity gossip that has said much worse about innocent people with no remorse (as that is how he chooses to use his quasi-celebrity and make his money) deserves all the insults people throw at him.
I do agree with you that no actually listens to the terrible answer that Ms. CA gave in the first place. "Opposite marriage"? Where was the grace in that answer. Look at all sides folks.
The "dialog" on this tempest is a perfect microcosm of the lib eral/conservative dialog.
Conservative states her opinion (after being asked) and did it nicely.
Liberal Perez responds by calling her vile names.
The liberal press follows up with character assassination.
NICELY?!?! Have you seen the interviews she's done since? She flat out basically said she thinks homosexuals are unnatural and immoral. WTF is nice about that?!? Are you out of your mind?!? She thinks people CHOOSE to be gay. After the pageant she was involved in as many as 5 church services which promoted the idea that being gay was some affront to god, an unnatural choice that gays and lesbians made to spite god. And you think no one should say anything?!? I mean, do you listen to yourself. Substitute any other minority groups for "gay" in anything she says, and you'd be singing a different tune. But because it's about homosexuals, somehow her "opinion" is sacred and can't be disputed. I'm absolutely disgusted over this kind of crap.
Yes, because all liberals hate conservatives and dissenting views just like all conservatives torture every brown person they see and routinely slap children in the face so they can at least get something for their money in S-chip.
Oh no! The liberal media! I'm such a victim! Its me against the world/facts/logic and reality!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
