She's Still a Miss California, If Not a Hit -- Now What?
Oh, man up.
Pageant officials should just have yanked the Miss California USA crown away from Carrie Jean Prejean.
Now they've been bigfooted by pageant owner Donald Trump, who ruled today that Prejean can keep her crown after all, in spite of semi-topless photos that he said he didn't have a problem with [no surprise], and her ''very, very honest answer'' to the ''very tough'' question of same-sex marriage. [She's against it.]
California pageant officials had earlier bowed to The Donald, even though, as they said, Prejean evidently breached her contract by not being available to deliver the Miss California USA message to the world, whatever it is.
What she had been preaching instead was her opposition to gay marriage, and preaching it to her new choir of fans, supposedly including Sarah Palin, and like-minded people who, according to a California pageant official, insulated Prejean with ''handlers and advisers.'' Now everyone's supposedly kissed and made up. Today's announcement by Trump also means that if Prejean wants to speak out on same-sex marriage, as opposed to, as she quaintly put it, ''opposite marriage,'' she has to go through pageant officials.
[I've been thinking that the Miss America pageant reps must be livid. By now most people must wrongly believe this Miss California is part of the Miss America pageant -- which prides itself as a scholarship program -- rather than what she is, a state title-holder within Miss USA, which is a beauty pageant owned by Trump. Surely a Miss California candidate for Miss America would be smart enough never, ever to open her pretty yap enough to say what she thinks about gay marriage. I believe one Miss America, decades ago, was asked which of the presidential candidates was better looking -- Richard Nixon or John F. Kennedy. She demurely demurred.]
Prejean gets to keep her crown and title. As a consolation to the runner-up who would have inherited the bling and the bragging rights, California officials gave the backup beauty queen the portfolio of ''Beauty of California Ambassador.'' Lousy title. Put it on a pageant ribbon and it'd be too big even to swag across Dolly Parton's chest.
Just give her the backup crown -- there must be one, like a backup Air Force One -- and her own title: Near-Miss California.
Credit: Timothy A. Clary / AFP / Getty Images
Folks, please keep the comments focused on Miss California USA's situation rather than rehashing the pros and cons of gay marriage or Prop. 8. The state Supreme Court will reignite that debate soon enough.
Posted by: Jon Healey | May 12, 2009 at 04:14 PM
Exposed breasts I have no problem with. A moralist, lying, hypocrite, I do.
I don't believe Miss Prejean expressed an opinion on gay men or women's right to expose their breasts, Annie. Oh, and if you have evidence of 'nipple exposure', be a pal and give us a link!
Posted by: Mitchell Young | May 12, 2009 at 04:03 PM
Jbrantow,
Where is my logic wrong? This has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with sound reasoning. Let's not get overly emotive but let's remain logical and reasonable. Here's another logical and reasonable argument. Are you gonna provide logic or mock me?
There is a substantive and profound natural difference between gay vs. straight sexual relationships. Hence, different terms to define the "relationship". Empirically, we know opposite sex unions are fundamentally different and functionally superior to the partnership of two identical genders. Obviously, opposite sex unions with the complexity of complimentary genders, husband/wife roles, ability to produce life, and the creation of father/mother relationships, sets them apart from same sex partnerships. It's comparing apples to oranges (i.e. "unequal"). Americans intuitively recognize that same-sex partnerships vs. opposite-sex unions are inherently separate and unequal.
Posted by: michael | May 12, 2009 at 03:54 PM
Is there anyone tackier and more useless than Perez Hilton?
This no-talent celebrity is invited to be a judge for a female beauty pageant, for some strange reason, and then paid good money and given free publicity with a national television appearance.
And he turns around and thanks the organization by a}using the show as a platform to push his political/social agenda, b}punishing a contestant because he didn't like her answer to his politically motivated question, and c)afterwards publicly calls her names, like a little brat.
Because Prejean is an adult, and graceful, she didn't return his namecalling in kind.
Donald, time to tell Perez, "You're fired!"
Posted by: Bill | May 12, 2009 at 02:15 PM
oops.....NAAWP
Posted by: jbrantow | May 12, 2009 at 01:55 PM
Bigoted opinions like the above by Michael...whine about the intolerance of the gay activists...What a joke....Intolerance comes from the majority who love to keep the minority opressed by silly and often false arguments. When proved wrong they cry....intolerance against them. (reminds me of white supremecist's creating the NWAWP)
Posted by: jbrantow | May 12, 2009 at 01:53 PM
This whole episode answers the question, "What is the harm of gay marriage?".
The continual gay activist intimidation, harassment, and open persecution of Prop 8 supporters reveals their "true colors" and their persistent intentions to restrict the free exercise of religion and stifle free speech. This is the future outcome of gay marriage facing America.
Let's be honest here - who can deny there is a fundamental clash of opposing moral visions?
Americans must choose between the two moral visions. Certainly, for gay activists, these two moral visions cannot "coexist" and gay activism will remain hatefully intolerant of an opposing point of view.
Posted by: Michael | May 12, 2009 at 01:22 PM
I approve of Ms. Prejean being "allowed" to keep her title. These pagents claim to support and empower women- what would be empowering if they were chastised for holding personal beliefs? Would we prefer all our beauty queens blissfully ignorant- like Miss Panama- saying things such as: "Confucious invented confusion and was the oldest Chinese person"?
Posted by: Kathleen | May 12, 2009 at 01:19 PM
Very surprising coming from Patt - usually more considered in opinion. Prejean's comments weren't "homophobic", nor were they meant to incite a reaction. Given the unscripted nature of the question, it seemed a simple, uncalculated response. Hilton, on the other hand, asked a highly politicized question expecting to draw attention to his cause. He succeeded.
If the pageant wants to kick her out because of titilating photos, or unavailability, good for them, but to say her opinion on gay marriage disqualifies her is shameful. If you don't want contestants asnwering those questions, don't put publicity hounds like Hilton on the panel.
Posted by: JS | May 12, 2009 at 12:49 PM
In response to some of the above comments.... did you not happen to notice that this article is listed under "Opinion L.A."? As in the authors are paid to write their OPINIONS? No wonder it is biased, as are your responses. If you do not like reading others' opinions, I suggest you read the news section and avoid sections of the newspaper that are clearly marked "OPINION." Just a side note....
Posted by: rachaelv13 | May 12, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Some of you obviously haven't seen/heard of the topless photos of Miss Prejean that surfaced - actual topless, nipple exposure and all. Taken last year when she was 20. She says her nipple is exposed because it "was windy." Even though she appears to be pulling her top aside and her hair isn't blowing at all. She signed a contract saying no such photos exist. That makes her a liar. Exposed breasts I have no problem with. A moralist, lying, hypocrite, I do.
That having been said, I'm glad she keeps her crown so the religious fundamentalists can't make a martyr of her, as they were hoping for. She's already gained way more from this than if she had won the Miss USA title and she's been milking her 10 minutes for all it's worth. She's no role model. She's a woman who can walk in stilletoues while showing off her fake tan and breasts and giving lip service to values she doesn't actually hold to. Hardly worthy of the press she's gotten.
Posted by: Annie | May 12, 2009 at 12:17 PM
I don't think the issue had anything to do with her views on gay marriage, it had to do with the racy photos and er not being available as she had promised to be in her contract.
Posted by: h.w. | May 12, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Who are you to say they should have yanked the crown from her? She answered a direct question with something I imagine you didn't like so now you are against her. As far as her photos, what's the big deal? There was nothing shown that was inappropriate. Maybe instead of going against someone for stating their opinion to a direct question you should have the good sense to applaud someone who made a stand. Even if you don't like it. "Here endith the lesson."
Posted by: Troy | May 12, 2009 at 11:35 AM
It is quite clear the author is either a Puritan or a bit light in his loafers. Give it a rest. Unless you have seen different photos than the rest of the world you need to lighten up. There are soap commercials more risque than this!
Posted by: J. Armstrong | May 12, 2009 at 11:23 AM
To people outside of California you seem like a foreign country populated only by ultra liberals and gay people.
Miss California was a beauty (skin) pageant. No one is really interested in their opinions. People just want to look at their beautiful bodies.
Posted by: Charles | May 12, 2009 at 11:19 AM
The right of Miss California to promote homophobia is held at a lesser level as racism or anti Semitic views in Donald Trumps world.
Mr Trump has every right to side with Homophobia but side stepping the issue by saying it came from Miss Prejean heart smacks of hypocrisy. Would he say the same thing if Miss Prejean was promoting a racist agenda?
It is my hope that Gay/Lesbian/BiSexual/Transgender People remember this Trump position when they come to bye or support capital investments on the Donald's deals.
I for one will not be buying a condo in the Trump Tower in Chicago.
Posted by: Joe Murray - Executive Director Rainbow Sash Movement | May 12, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Good for Donald Trump. It shows true courage in this day and age to stand up to the "conform or be destroyed" crowd that insists no one is allowed to express a personal opinion against the party line.
Posted by: Bob | May 12, 2009 at 11:15 AM
A very biased and liberal article. Had she spoken against her morals and for the homosexual lobby, this article would have been in complete praise of her. Amazing how intolerant the homosexual lobby is -- and they're the ones crying out tolerance. What a joke as is this article.
Posted by: Nick | May 12, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Um, what exactly did she do wrong - other than expressing an opinion which she was ASKED for and in which (as Trump correctly pointed out) she's in AGREEMENT with the President and the majority of Californians? Articles like this are why my husband and I no longer subscribe to the L.A. Times (and why, apparently, no one else does either).
Posted by: Christine Lehman | May 12, 2009 at 11:12 AM