Carrie Prejean was destroyed for expressing her views on "same-sex marriage." But the Anointed One gets a free pass for expressing the exact same opinion.
We all know the story by now.
During the Miss U.S.A. Pageant last month, Miss California Carrie Prejean became a household name when she said she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman.
To be precise, of all the questions that pageant judge and gossip columnist Perez Hilton could have asked, he chose to ask Ms. Prejean about same-sex marriage. Noting that it had just become legal in Vermont, Hilton asked her, "Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?"
She replied that the United States was a place where one could choose such things. With regard to her own choice Ms. Prejean said, "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."
We all know what hit the fan.
Since finishing first runner up in the Miss U.S.A. Pageant, Prejean has been deluged with diatribes beginning with Perez Hilton who said, "She lost it because of that question. She was definitely the front-runner before that." Hilton went on to call Prejean "a dumb b*#ch."
Yet all things considered, it might have been the kindest thing said about Carrie Prejean in the mainstream media over the past two weeks. The Miss California U.S.A. organization is doing everything in its power to rid itself of its meddlesome beauty queen and the mainstream media is only too glad to lend a hand.
MSNBC was shocked – shocked! – to learn that Prejean had breast implants. How did it learn of such a cataclysmic development? Why the Miss California U.S.A. organization told them so.
When that didn't work, the Miss California U.S.A. organization moved to strip Prejean of her crown because of topless photos that were taken four years ago. Not to be outdone by MSNBC, CNN has obligingly made us abreast of the details.
Let's be clear. Breast enhancement and topless photos are de rigueur in Hollywood. If Prejean had told Perez Hilton she supported same-sex marriage would any of this have come out? Would there be anything to get off their chests?
It should be noted that I support the right of same-sex couples to marry. So I personally disagree with Ms. Prejean's point of view. However, the treatment that has been meted out to her has been atrocious and unwarranted. She said absolutely nothing demeaning towards gays and lesbians. Prejean was asked her opinion of gay marriage and responded in such a way that happens to represent the point of view of a majority of Americans including President Obama.
You might remember that when Obama was running for President he too was asked about marriage. During the Saddleback Forum in August 2008, Pastor Rick Warren asked Obama to "define marriage." Obama replied, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman."
Miss California believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The President of the United States believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Did Perez Hilton use an epithet against Barack Obama?
Did MSNBC and CNN report whether Barack Obama uses Viagra?
Did the Democratic Party make any effort to distance itself from Barack Obama?
So how did Carrie Prejean's views on marriage cost her the Miss U.S.A. Pageant (and quite possibly her current title) but didn't cost Barack Obama the Oval Office?
What does it say about our country when Miss California is held to a higher standard than Mr. President?
Could this have to do with race? Do white liberals have higher expectations of other Caucasians? Or is it simply a matter of white liberals being unable to bring themselves to criticize an African-American even if that person held views they would find abhorrent in other whites?
Let us remember that nearly 60% of African-Americans voted in favor of California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage while at the same time voting for President Obama. Yet instead of congregating outside black churches in Compton, white liberals are more comfortable casting blame with the Mormons, as evidenced by the complaint filed against the Church of Latter Day Saints with the California Fair Political Practices Commission.
Of course, one could also argue that it has little to do with race at all. White liberals certainly have no trouble casting aspersions against African-Americans if they possess a conservative, libertarian or center-right point of view. Just ask Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice or Ward Connerly. Interestingly, Connerly actually supports same-sex marriage and opposed Proposition 8. But when white liberals think of Connerly they think of his opposition to affirmative action. So Connerly gets no more love from white liberals for supporting gay marriage than Prejean does for opposing it.
This isn't to say Prejean is above criticism. She is entitled to her opinion and I am entitled to disagree with it. Prejean ought not to lose her Miss California title over an honestly given opinion but she probably will. The Miss California organization and the mainstream media will insist she was disqualified on other grounds. That being the case it would go to show how American liberalism and its institutions can rationalize but cannot reason.
“She replied that the United States was a place where one could choose such things.”
Which is exactly why she deserves to be mocked. At present, one (or, to be more precise, two) can choose such things in only a handful of states. In most parts of America, including California, a marriage apartheid regime dictates that one (or, to be more precise, two) may most manifestly not choose such things.
Didn’t Vanessa Williams (first black Miss America) lose her title because of racy photos? These pageants frown on such things.
Reasons gay rights proponents leave Obama alone over his traditional marriage stance: (1) prejudice. They like other things about him. (2) The alternative would have been Sarah Palin in the White House.
Not so difficult to understand.
Why don’t conservatives praise Obama for his traditional marriage stance? Same answer as #1 above (prejudice). They dislike him for other reasons.
Again, not too surprising.
Conservative do cite Obama’s stand on marriage, but like so many other things about the man, conservatives wonder when will he abandon his position to appease the extreme left.
It has nothing to do with prejudice. Oh, how the Left would like it to be about race! Rather, it is his reprehensible position on most issues.
Obama is turning out to be a disaster. This president will self destruct in one term, Mr. Phelps.
MM, I didn’t mean racial prejudice, I meant prejudice based on issues.
The left leaves Obama alone because, like the Reverend Wright explaining why Obama had to distance himself from 20 years of feeding on black liberation theology, they understand that Obama has to do and say certain things in order to be am effective politician.
Obama being a Christian who chose to favor abortion rights, surely calculated he had to stand against gay marriage, which polls very poorly by comparison. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
Everyone is discovering who Obama (a mystery in too many ways when elected) is by his actions and slips of the tongue. His famous “sometimes you have to spread the wealth” comment to Joe is an example.
To that point he had made it clear he wanted to raise taxes on families making $250,000 (needed for highways and infrastructure and such), but was careful never to suggest that he planned to redistribute it to people who did nothing to earn it. – nothing other than voting for Obama, that is.
We ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
In reply to post #1, I would imagine that, given the framing of the question (making reference to voters in Vermont passing a measure to recognize marriage licenses for homosexuals), the contestant was referring to the ability of voters in each respective state to decide whether or not they wish to license marriage contracts between homosexuals – like the voters in California did recently. One (or, to be more precise, any one (1) single individual in the country) can choose to vote on such issues in one’s state, or one can choose to locate one’s self in a state that better suits one’s needs and preferences in the same way that one can locate one’s self in a state where it is easier or more advantageous for one to, say, incorporate a business or manufacture automobiles. One (that is, one (1)) may manifestly choose to do such things. Two (that is, two one’s ((1)+(1) or (2))) may even choose to do such things. Even three (that is, three one’s ((1)+(1)+(1) or (3))) or more may do so!
What does it say about you that you couldn’t understand the answer given by a purportedly dumb bitch (or “dumb c**t”, if you prefer – both have been on offer)? With fake boobs, nonetheless!
I think this is a strange thing: a contestant can get in trouble for having had pictures taken in pink underwear (though the real issue is the answer about gay marriage) or another (Vanessa Williams) loses the crown over nude photos in the past.
There is the marginally plausible presumption that the pageant does not have a component of titillation to begin with. Swimsuit competition? Swimsuit Sports Illustrated Issue?
No disresect to the contestants! Everyone has to make a living.
First, Vanessa Williams did not lose her crown just because she was photographed in the nude. Her photos involved fairly explicit lesbian conduct that were good enough for Hustler Magazine to publish. Second, the reason Ms. Prejean is excoriated while The Annointed One gets a pass is because SHE is believable. Obama is not. For example, Obama states he is against the Fairness Doctrine but convenes a special committee comprised only of representatives from liberal organizations to discuss “diversity” in the media. Obama declares during his campaign that he will bring COMBAT troops home. But he said nothing of SUPPORT personnel (not that I disagree becasue total U.S. withdrawl will turn Iraq into a terrorist empire and the blood will REALLY flow!). No more earmarks? Obama meant NEW earmarks. Does anyone see a pattern here? Double-speak, lies, etc.? Count on Obama to declare his support for “states rights” as liberal activist federal and state supreme court judges legalize same-sex marriage in spite of DOMA (which he opposes). Or…watch Obama as he appoints liberal activist justices to the US Supreme Court on the grounds that they are to “empathize” with those who have been denied their American dream. I’m proud to be one of the 57 million that saw this POSER for what he is, deceitful and power hungry (in his own words, he is going to “remake” America).
Well OK I think this:
1. Carrie was treated badly. Why would you ask a question under the guise of getting to know someone when there is a “right” or “wrong” answer. You wouldn’t ask for example “how do you feel about shoplifting?” there would be no legitimate reason to.
2. Hilton, or anyone who lashes out and calls people names, shouldn’t have been there. The judges, not just the contestants, are supposed to have class.
3. Williams lost her crown while Prejean did not; Williams’ photos crossed the line more blatantly, so they were not treated unequally on that score. I merely opined that these tournaments have a thinly-veiled prurient aspect that could arguably challenge legitimate concern over racy photos in one’s background. The author of “…the Ugly Counterculture” alludes to some of this, perhaps. I don’t expect much progress on that bothersome point, no offense anyone.
4. Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. Politicians do that. You’re entitled to call them on it. Remember Mitt Romney on abortion?
5. This author does not say he feels Obama’s stance on traditional marriage is phony, and blames Obama for nothing, but wins us over with his disapproval of Hilton. But he supports gay marriage. Does anyone mind?
6. Has Obama said that he believes gay marriage threatens traditional marrige? I don’t remember it if he did.