The issue for the umpteenth time is and never has been about whether Carrie Prejean violated the dumb, probably legally challengeable, and possibly legally winnable Miss California contract she signed. The two supposedly most glaring offending sections of the contract that Prejean allegedly sloughed off state that a Miss winner can't appear in a lewd, compromising, and sexually suggestive manner and that the pageant has exclusive right and control over all Miss's personal appearances.
The first clause is laughable. Compare the picture of Prejean in the skimpy bikini that she pranced around the stage in and the supposedly illicit picture, a picture which by the way that was taken ages before she or the pageant ever heard of each other, that rocketed around the internet of her in her pink drawers. Then decide which is the most lewd, compromising and sexually suggestive.
The second clause that gives the pageant the right to control any and all of her personal actions is dubious. The compelling words in the clause are "to me." The clause is there to make sure that Miss California doesn't rake in any cash or engage in any commercial promotional ventures or talent appearances that don't line the pockets of the pageant organizers. Plugging a message for a religious group hardly fits that bill. A message in which she expressed a belief that the world has heard and every one else has by now heard. The contract, though, gave the pageant wheels just enough of a legal cover they hunger for to dump her.
None of this changes the hard fact that the effort to boot her is about a beauty pageant winner who was asked about and then dared to speak her mind on one of the most polarizing, and divisive issues of the day, namely marriage between a man and a woman. The question smacked of being a set-up question if there ever was one. The political thought police earmarked for excision before the last of those ill fated words fell from her lips in response. The Prejean saga is also about a beauty pageant winner who innocently and inadvertently exposed the silly and hypocritical charade that beauty pageant sponsors delight in pawning off and that's that brains and talent trump a pretty face and bod.
Prejean's honesty in stating her marriage beliefs violate the most sacred canon of politically correct policing, and that is that anything that an advocacy group deems that smacks of their interpretation of bigotry must be swiftly and harshly banned in Boston. There is no room for debate or discussion. To defend Prejean against this view has absolutely nothing to do with agreement or disagreement with her views. This writer has written a Mt. Everest stack of articles, commentaries, and backed countless protest actions opposing Prejean's narrow view of marriage and gay rights.
But the fight against her views has never been waged by mounting a systematic and relentless hit below the belt, ad hominen, sneaky, back door campaign of character assassination, mud slinging, and lies. A campaign against her that even included a dim witted, juvenile delinquent effort at a Freudian analysis of the bedroom battles of the woman's divorced parents to explain her.
With or without her beauty crown, Prejean is an ad person's and a religious fundamentalist dream, in fact several dreams. She's young, photogenic, gutsy, and articulate. She can be spun as the imperfect soul who found redemption through a cause she believed in even when it meant kissing off the vapid glitter, glamour, and fortune of the beauty celebrity life.
To her backers, Prejean stands as the beauty queen who is more than just another pretty grinning face, sex commodity. She stands tall as the beauty queen who refused to be hacked up on the altar of political correctness. That's the Miss California that the beauty pageant and the hate on Prejean crowd unwittingly created.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard on weekly in Los Angeles at 9:30 AM PST on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and nationally on blogtalkradio.com
Miss California Carrie Prejean -- Take it Down! | TMZ.com
Miss California: I'll fight on despite nude photos - Beauty Pageants
It's about the hypocrisy. In an amazing twist, Ms Prejean's God approves of all she wishes to do and condemns everything that doesn't interest her. She has all the depth of a car finish, has silicone inserted into her body, places enormous value on her sexual appeal, poses for provocative photos and that's hunky-dory with God and consistent with her religious convictions. The Bible is inerrant, except for those parts that keep Carrie Prejean from doing whatever she wants. But gays? Oh no, God REALLY meant those parts, luckily for Mr Prejean since she isn't interested anyway. As the Church Lady said, "How conveeenient!" And how very consistent with other Religious Right ideologues who share her views.
You wrote 1000 words about contract law and you still fail to appreciate why some people are upset.
With as much that is obviously fake about her can't I conclude that her comment about gay marriage is fake also?
Shouldn't you be off in El Monte getting your face on television fighting against Police Brutality, or is stanging up for Christian Pornography, and lying about Miss Prejean's blatant violation of contract terms more important these days?
Uh, no, Mr. Hutchinson. She lied about having the pictures taken when she was seventeen. (probably just to get websites to take them down and make it all go away)
The pictures for theDirty.com were taken 4 MONTHS before the pageant and after her boob job had been paid for.
It seems that teens having babies is O.K. (their support of Palin) and just shows her strong family values.
Next, posing topless (or at least with our boobies exposed) and lying about it, means you can be a role model for the Chrisitian Right. Well, as long as you make a stand against gay rights.
But, if you show you boobies and DON'T stand up against gay rights, you are a liberal and a sinner.
Who knew?
So, showing your boobies is O.K. with the Chrisitian Right (and now Palin) as long as you stand up against gay rights?
Has the Christian Right ever defended a woman for posing topless and called her a role model? NO. It's only because Carrie speaks out against gay rights that they are supporting her. THEY would be crucifying her regarding her exposed t*ts if the were not "a Christian".
Follow that by a boob job paid for by the California pageant and a pious religious silliness, and you've got the problem.
She's an idiot and an embarrassment. Earl, you give yourself away in defending her. Shame on you.
And you call her articulate. I think I may vomit. Half the reason her opinion garnered attention was because she invented the phrase "opposite marriage". And in her recent press conference with all that "my grandfather fought in the battle of the bulge", she said "for which he fought for" - reading from a prepared statement, no less. If you can't see the grammatical flub, I guess you have a new oratorical role model to ogle. She's a few steps ahead of the Iraq-Africa pageant genius, but that's damning with faint praise.
Besides, remember that she contradicted herself by first saying it's great that people have the choice to choose between same-sex marriage and "opposite" marriage and then saying that that choice shouldn't exist.
She now has tried to explain that by saying the devil tempted her and she decided, mid-answer, that she should "witness" for God.
If someone equates the loving relationships of gay people to demonic contracts, that person, while she has every right to express her feelings, should realize that such ugly homophobia doesn't sit well with everyone.
How beautiful someone is is not just a matter of physical appearance. That she can't get over her bigotry toward gay people is a valid impediment toward her being crowned Miss USA.
Then she became more famous for the incident and is now representing the fight against same-sex marriage. Again, good for her. I can respect that, even though I disagree. But she put herself into the world of "fame and spotlight". Everyone will find out everything about you eventually. If she lied and/or broke a contract, then she should pay the price. We all remember Vanessa Williams. The pictures will be found. To me, this is the issue. She later said that there was only one picture taken as well, which was not true. So, I disagree with your article, although she wouldnt be under such scrutiny without her marriage view, but then, she wouldnt be so famous either.
Finally - a joke - I do find it interesting that marriage is between a man and woman is how god says it should be. But then god gave her a body too, but she decided to change that. Just a thought....
What changed was miss California going from someone responding to a question to being an activist crusading against same sex marriage. Californians are split amost 50/50 on the gay marriage issue. However most folks on both ends of the issue aren't activist for such a hot button issue. by stepping into the realm of activism, she's implicitly dragged the miss california pageantry into the fray and that's not a good place to be....
Lastly, knowing that she's fundamentally flawed as a spokes person on issues pertaining to the religious right, it's only a matter of time before she becomes a source of embarrassment to them...
embarrassment? -- not likely.
But, hey, equality for all. Send Ms. California packing.
She sets a bad example of hate an intolerance.