Miss. California

[Duke of York 23]

So....What just happened.....Did She express Herself in such a manor

to be criticized?Or is this a unfair attack on Her Freedom of Speech?

Or did you see it as something completely different? Let us know what

you think....

Just please keep this thread inside S.T rules....

[Jillybean86 38]

I absolutely think this is an attack on her freedom of speech.  I do not agree AT ALL with what she said, but she certainly has the right to say it.

The people that throw racist/anti-gay comments around are completely different than her.  She wasn't inflammatory, she was just stating her belief.  She was asked a question, and she gave her honest answer. 

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Can somebody explain please?

[Sam 163]

Yes, its kind of hard to tell when you don't tell us the story or give us a link to some information.

[JanYpe 17]

They had a miss competition, Miss USA I guess. Miss California said something boneheaded about gay marriage, instead of the usual boneheaded remark about the environment or world peace or about maps of The Iraq. The topic is supposed to be about whether she lost because of saying that, or due to one of the myriad other reasons one might lose a beauty pageant that can be conveniently ignored in favour of shedding some crocodile tears over Her Freedom of Speech.

It's a miss competition. What can you expect, other than inane nonsense like this, to come out of it? A practical guide for faster than light travel? A road map to eternal world peace and happiness for all?

But, as your friendly neighbourhood bookmaker, I will now accept bets on how long it will take before someone makes a post linking this to: "a slippery slope", "political correctness gone mad"or "the rise of the socialist/fascist/atheist/homosexual state".

[ShortStraw 1]

Miss California's comments on gay marriage produce controversy at Miss USA

Miss California USA produced the most controversial moment of the Miss USA contest in answering a question about gay marriage.

 

Last Updated: 10:00AM BST 20 Apr 2009

 

Carrie Prejean, who finished runner up to Kristen Dalton in the pageant, nevertheless produced the biggest reaction from the audience when asked about legalising same-sex marriage.

"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage," Miss Prejean said. "And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offence to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

Some in the audience cheered, others booed.

 

In mid-2008, California became the second U.S. state, after Massachusetts, to make marriage licenses available to same-sex couples. However high profile campaign against the decision and a number of legal challenges have left the status of the unions uncertain.

The Miss USA pageant had enjoyed a scandal-free year until earlier this month, when Miss Universe 2008 Dayana Mendoza was skewered for a blog posting from a trip to Guantanamo Bay. The entry described having "aloooot of fun" at a base that houses the notorious military prison; it was later deleted from the pageant's web site.

Contestants from all 50 states and the District of Columbia competed in the contest. They were judged by their performance in swimsuit and evening gown modelling contests and their responses to a question asked onstage; unlike the rival Miss America pageant, Miss USA contestants do not perform a talent.

The contest, which is owned by NBC and reality TV mogul Donald Trump, was hosted by "Access Hollywood" co-anchor Billy Bush and Nadine Velazquez of the NBC sitcom "My Name is Earl." This year's judges included "Saturday Night Live" cast member Kenan Thompson, "Dancing with the Stars" winner Kelly Monaco and gossip blogger Perez Hilton. quote>

From this site  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5186455/Miss-Californias-comments-on-gay-marriage-produce-controversy-at-Miss-USA.html

She expressed herself very politely and much more coherently than one could reasonably expect from a beauty pageant contestant.  Although who could be faulted for snickering at the "In my country. . . " bit, I mean it is the Miss United States of America pageant.

She took a risk and replied honestly to a loaded question from a (laughingstock of a) official contest judge.  She must have been assuming that since Gay Marriage is still illegal in most states that her answer would not hurt her chances of winning what she probably sees as the biggest popularity contest in the known universe (Well, other than the Miss Universe Pageant I guess). 

I didn't see the show or even research this story very closely but I'm going to assume the only reason she didn't win was because of her answer to that ridiculous mans stupid question.  And I find that perfectly acceptable.  I heard somewhere that she attended a conservative christian college.  Something the judge who came up with that question must surely have known.  I assume her Judges (an actor, a dancer and a gossip columnist) decreed that she was too conservative for further consideration . . . but then again maybe they decided that her answer was not sufficiently media saavy to qualify her for the TV commercial spots and "Grand Opening Appearances" that winning the contest would have guaranteed her. 

I don't think her rights were violated.  Her freedom of speech was clearly not suppresed or infringed upon.  She was judged on her opinion yes and perhaps unfairly so (not for me to say) but that's part of the rules in the game she was playing.  Fair doesn't really play into it.  It's a contest that judges people on shallow superficial qualities though and perhaps it would be best if contestants refrained from showing off any non physical attributes (No Talking. . . unless they have a pretty, melodic voice. . . ).

At the end of the day I think the real question we should be asking here is how can we make Perez Hilton go away?  Something gentle like deportation to a country with no media broadcast outlets?  Or something a bit more appropriate, like public execution?

 

 

[Duke of York 23]

Sorry for not giving adequate information with this Topic.....

 This should do just fine.

Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton was crowned Miss USA on Sunday, but the big story to come out of the normally politics-free telecast was Miss California's comments regarding gay marriage.

When asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, whether she believed in gay marriage, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FoxNews that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement.

"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."

There is also a Video Mr.Hilton made...But the comments have to much profanity for a PG.13 sight....That should

be self exspanatory as to how She was treated....

Reply to Janype,

Miss California said something boneheaded about gay marriage, instead of the usual boneheaded remark about the environment or world peace or about maps of The Iraq. The topic is supposed to be about whether she lost because of saying that,

To say it was boneheaded is a opinion....This is not to discuss Gay Marriage....It is to discuss if Her

right to Freedom of Speech was invaded by Political Hate or not..

....You have to admit that when one person is attacked when trying to state there beliefs...None

is safe from persecution...It doesn't matter what your beliefs are....Freedom of speech....is Freedom of speech.

[Duke87 1,070]

If you say you support it, half the country hates you. If you say you're against it, the other half of the country hates you.

So, yeah, why were they asking contestants that?

It would make sense in a political debate. But a beauty pageant? I fault the judge here.

Of course, she may or may not have lost because of her response. It's impossible to say.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Duke of York

...

To say it was boneheaded is a opinion....

quote>

Freedom of speech means people are allowed to have opinions and to discuss them.

Originally posted by: Duke of York

....It is to discuss if Her

right to Freedom of Speech was invaded by Political Hate or not..

....

quote>

Well its all over youtube now and I've seen the clip. I don't see in what way she was silenced or prevented from speaking her opinion, so I don't see how her freedom of speech was in any way denied to her.

Freedom of speech does not mean that people won't judge you based on what you say. It doesn't mean there won't be consequences for saying it. In this case, the specific purpose was to judge a contestant in a competition and that is what was done.

Public speaking and representing others (which she would be doing if she won the title of Miss USA and what was being tested) does require a certain ability to handle difficult questions that are not always fair, and are often designed to trap the unwary. She fell into the trap. I think she did pretty well except for one unfortunate phrase which was her undoing, and she could have done a lot better. I think the question was actually an opportunity and she missed it. I think it is quite fair to judge her on that.

And apparently she drew the judge's name out of a hat and was asked the question seemingly straight after. So I don't think she was singled out in any way. The judge was probably going to ask exactly the same question no matter which candidate drew his name.

And I don't know what you mean by Political Hate (with capital letters) though.

The judge was a sore loser and said some things he shouldn't have, but that doesn't necessarily constitute denying her freedom of speech. She had her freedom of speech and so did he.  And apparently she hasn't stopped since either. She seems to have done quite a few interviews discussing the incident and certainly hasn't held back in them, so how has she been denied freedom of speech?

 

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

It's a miss competition. What can you expect, other than inane nonsense like this, to come out of it? A practical guide for faster than light travel? A road map to eternal world peace and happiness for all?quote>

Good point, what a time waste these things are.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Duke of York

To say it was boneheaded is a opinion....This is not to discuss Gay Marriage....It is to discuss if Her

right to Freedom of Speech was invaded by Political Hate or not..quote>

No, it is not an opinion. Jan is an intelligent guy, and knows that if your input is boneheaded, the output is bound to be boneheaded. Ref. Mr Lewis commentary.

EDIT: And yeah, she probably did express herself in such a manor to be critisised. Unless the venue was somewhere else.

[PColumbus73 0]

I don't think that a beauty pagent is the correct forum for political issues. Miss USA is all about who looks good in a bikini, not if we would vote them into State Senate or Congress. Although I disagree with Miss California, I respect her opinion. Perez Hilton responded inappropriately to her comment afterwards by insulting her opinion.

[Duke of York 23]

Reply to Sam,

How did She fall into a trick question?....She stated what

She believed...I don't see that as falling into a trap....I think

that if you care more about what you believe,and less about

appeasing everyone to win a competition...that shows courage

and Backbone....

And yes, She had the ability of Freedom of Speech...And I do

agree that what you say can have positive and negative

repercussions...But there is a difference between dis-agreeing

and ranting...That is also what I mean about political hatred...

The bottom line is that She responded to the Judge in a polite,

but disagreeable way....But on the other hand the Judge Hated

Her for Her opinions....Now I could have respected the Judges

Response...If He would have just dis-agreed with Her....Instead

of attacking Her beliefs....He was just upset because He didn't

hear the answer He was looking for..

Yes She has done interviews....But She still showed some self-

Respect and Decensy and Responded to His slanderous comments

politely...

[Haljackey 17,259]

How is this a current event?

People are entitled to their opinions.

[Duke of York 23]

Reply to Haljackey,

Well for one thing the event this thread is about is current....

And none of us can control the question and answers in any thread....

And I do believe that the discussions so far do relate back to the topic...

Which I might add is reasonably current....

I am touched that Billy Maze approves it...

[richardhekimyan 0]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Duke of York

To say it was boneheaded is a opinion....This is not to discuss Gay Marriage....It is to discuss if Her

right to Freedom of Speech was invaded by Political Hate or not..quote>

No, it is not an opinion. Jan is an intelligent guy, and knows that if your input is boneheaded, the output is bound to be boneheaded. Ref. Mr Lewis commentary.

EDIT: And yeah, she probably did express herself in such a manor to be critisised. Unless the venue was somewhere else. quote>

It would be impossible, in a way, to answer that question honestly and straightforward without being critisised.

 

[fukuda 351]

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation.

Did someone censor what she said?

If not, what's exactly the relationship with freedom of speech? She's free to say whatever she wants to, but this is a contest and everything she does or says will be taken into account, even the silliest things. Freedom of speech grants you the right to say whatever you want without censorship, but it doesn't eliminate the consequences of what you just said

[saltandsauce 0]

at least she had the guts to be honest which is a virtue, rather than pandering to society's wants and desires (i.e. lying)

[Porter 68]

I have several opinions on this topic. Being openly gay myself, I do disagree with her opinion. However, I for one think that she is entitled to her opinion, and applaud her for voicing it in a honest and inoffensive matter.

The major problem I think around the matter, which is being overlooked, is the actions of the two gay judges. To tell a contestant that you're losing a competition solely because your opinion wasn't allowed or correct in their opinion is ridiculous. First, I personally think that her opinion on gay marriage should have had no place in the Miss USA contest. No other contestant had a question like it, and the judge asking it (Perez Hilton, aka the Stereotypical Whiny Gay Drama Queen) was in way too many ways biased on the answer to be asking it.

And really, with the public hissy fit filled with profanity that Mr. Hilton threw, I think that maybe a recall is in order to look into whether a fair judging went into play at the competition.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation.

Did someone censor what she said?

If not, what's exactly the relationship with freedom of speech? She's free to say whatever she wants to, but this is a contest and everything she does or says will be taken into account, even the silliest things. Freedom of speech grants you the right to say whatever you want without censorship, but it doesn't eliminate the consequences of what you just saidquote>

Exactly

As for the whole drama, its a beauty contest. If that's the most important thing people have in their head right now then they need a serious slap across the face and brought back into reality.

[Ntq€310 1]

I'm going have to agree with Porter on this, and in almost everyway.

I think the most damaging thing to this is Perez's blog video after wards. It does show you what his opinion was of her after her answer. In fact, agree with her or not, she should be applauded, since she gave her honest belief, a honest answer, and really, in these contests, thats something rare to come by.

[sedimenjerry 1]

Originally posted by: Duke87

If you say you support it, half the country hates you. If you say you're against it, the other half of the country hates you.

So, yeah, why were they asking contestants that?

quote>

Exactly, I think that was more of a mispaced question.

Had she answered the other way then the people booing may cheer and the people cheering may boo.

I do think she answered it as politely as possible. (I heard it on the radio)

She didn't call them any slurs or anything like that.

As far as freedom of speech, she was allowed to say it uncensored so I guess that doesn't exactly infringe on anything.

Really though, what's next? Asking what political party they support? Pro life or pro choice? Boxers or briefs? (Just kidding on that one)

But seriously though, let's avoid the politics in pageants

[Seji 0]

Hold on a second.

I hear some of you saying things like: "Miss California said something boneheaded about gay marriage..." blah blah, as though she just spurted it out. As though she just screamed it out at the beauty pagent.

First, it's her right to say whatever she wants. It doesn't matter who gets offended. I do the same thing and so should you. She didn't try to sway anyone's opinion and neither will I. I completely agree with what she said and so do 70% of the American people.

That being said, nothing would have been controversial about it if that idiot Perez Hilton had not asked the question in the FIRST PLACE.

Where does, and what does that have to do with a beauty contest? Are the gays going to use any and all venues they can to try and further their cause even though Americans have said, time and again, that we will not call them "man and wife" or whatever, nor allow them to destroy the traditional family with their bastardation of "holy matrimony".

Marriage is about making babies and there is no way in hell two people of the same sex can make a baby. You can't chance that. We were created that way.

Mr. Perez Hilton is the one to blame for all of this - NOT MISS CALIFORNIA. Put blame where blame is due and stop trying to make her out to be the bad guy. Mr. Perez Hilton is the one who asked the question and started the controversy and I find him and that, to be dispicable.

If Mr. Perez wants to mouth off about his views, as he is entitled to do, he should take credit for it himself and not try to blame it on some young girl.

[Odainsaker 2,133]

I don't see exactly how her Freedom of Speech was infringed.  Her views were shunned and denounced, perhaps, but that is also part of others' freedom of speech.  Afterall, if she was instead vilified for saying that she was standing up for Pure Beauty in the face of the vile mongel races, we would not be having this argument and everyone would be lining up to shout her down.  Constitutional freedom of speech involves your legal rights in relation to your government and the law; it does not in blanket fashion ensure fair, equal, or civil speech among your peers nor does it magically shield anyone from all the social repercusions of what they say, let alone govern the Q&A section of a beauty pageant.  Anyone mouthing off in public or working for an employer learns that very fast.

A trap for politic showmanship was set for her by a judge, and while some of us might champion the virtue of total honesty of opinions even if such opinions run afoul of the current trends, the truth is that such a stance does not win celebrity popularity contests or their activist judges, nor is there some unwritten, idealistic rule that it is supposed to win such contests.  Her smartest move would have been not to willingly step into the minefield of political controversy, for which she would have unavoidably antagonized someone somewhere, but to have actually answered with a wink, "I want to save the rainforest and the whales by helping our education system so that we can feed the starving children in Africa, and my personal views on the legality of gay marriage are hardly relevant to those ends."

This is merely making a Mountain out of molehill.  No prisons or mass graves here for saying political dangerous things...it's a beauty pageant for goodness sake!!!  What exactly is the legal remedy that we are seeking and from whom do we extract it?

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: Seji

Hold on a second.

I hear some of you saying things like: "Miss California said something boneheaded about gay marriage..." blah blah, as though she just spurted it out. As though she just screamed it out at the beauty pagent.

First, it's her right to say whatever she wants. It doesn't matter who gets offended. I do the same thing and so should you. She didn't try to sway anyone's opinion and neither will I. I completely agree with what she said and so do 70% of the American people.

That being said, nothing would have been controversial about it if that idiot Perez Hilton had not asked the question in the FIRST PLACE.

Where does, and what does that have to do with a beauty contest? Are the gays going to use any and all venues they can to try and further their cause even though Americans have said, time and again, that we will not call them "man and wife" or whatever, nor allow them to destroy the traditional family with their bastardation of "holy matrimony".

Marriage is about making babies and there is no way in hell two people of the same sex can make a baby. You can't chance that. We were created that way. 

Mr. Perez Hilton is the one to blame for all of this - NOT MISS CALIFORNIA. Put blame where blame is due and stop trying to make her out to be the bad guy. Mr. Perez Hilton is the one who asked the question and started the controversy and I find him and that, to be dispicable.

If Mr. Perez wants to mouth off about his views, as he is entitled to do, he should take credit for it himself and not try to blame it on some young girl.

quote>

Last time I checked people were WAILING about Freedom of Speech, that extends to the right of Perez to ask what he wishes and express his opinion. Unless you are under the illusion 'the gays' don't have such a right. Miss California in NO WAY had her freedom of speech limited, nor was she censored. So fail to understand the HYPERBOLE reaction to reported limiting of free speech.

Secondly, marriage is not about having babies nor is it 'holy' If it were holy then a majority of people would get married in a church or by a priest/minister. A MAJORITY do not, they instead have a civil ceremony.

Thirdly ( I completely agree with what she said and so do 70% of the American people) do you have figures to prove this? If not don't pull 'facts' from thin air.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Secondly, marriage is not about having babies nor is it 'holy' If it were holy then a majority of people would get married in a church or by a priest/minister. A MAJORITY do not, they instead have a civil ceremony.quote>

Out of curiosity, where did you get your facts, because there are no statistics that talk about religious vs. non-religious marriages in terms of the whole US.  There is, however, data that has been tracked by some of the states, and that data suggests that while civil marriages are going up, they are not a clear majority.  In fact, as of 2003, they weren't even a majority, but a minority.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Secondly, marriage is not about having babies nor is it 'holy' If it were holy then a majority of people would get married in a church or by a priest/minister. A MAJORITY do not, they instead have a civil ceremony.quote>

Out of curiosity, where did you get your facts, because there are no statistics that talk about religious vs. non-religious marriages in terms of the whole US.  There is, however, data that has been tracked by some of the states, and that data suggests that while civil marriages are going up, they are not a clear majority.  In fact, as of 2003, they weren't even a majority, but a minority.

quote>

Those are UK based. The term Holy Matrimony is not solely applicable to the USA, hence I used what I know from the UK. The point however stands. Marriage is not a solely holy or religious affair.

Edit: From the states that measure marriage, 40% were civil ceremonies in 2001. I'd assume the figure 8 years later is at, around or just over 50%

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Seji

Marriage is about making babies

quote>

A preposterous claim. Being married is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for reproduction to occur. Besides, by that argument, things such as love and comapnionship mean absolutely nothing so far as marriage is concerned, and two people that absolutely hate each other could be in a perfectly healthy marriage so long as they reproduce.

Americans have said, time and again, that we will not call them "man and wife" or whatever, nor allow them to destroy the traditional family with their bastardation of "holy matrimony".quote>

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont would like a word with you.

[hamsterTK 93]

I think the best thing to say is walking up on that stage as a contestant she was going to be judged by her answer. Too bad for her.

[Duke of York 23]

     Reply to Seji,

First, it's her right to say whatever she wants. It doesn't matter who gets offended.

Okay....Isn't there some way that we as a civilized society can Dis-Agree , Yet be polite

and non-offensive as possible....

I would have to take a stance much like porter66083....Even though I may fundamentally

dis-agree on the issue....I still respect His view....And apperently he respects mine through

His post.....To be quite honest I'm glad when someone expresses

there view....That is one reason why I liked what Miss. California said....