The Marriage Movement’s Face Doesn’t Speak

Timothy Kincaid

May 1st, 2009

Earlier this week, National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher nominated Carrie Prejean as the “new face of the marriage movement.” And after meeting with Carrie, she went on to feature her in NOM’s new ad and to have her speak at their press conference.

But now Maggie has released a statement suggesting that the face of the marriage movement doesn’t speak for the marriage movement. How fitting.

A number of media sources have described Carrie Prejean as a spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage.

As we made clear at our press conference yesterday: Carrie appeared with NOM as a private citizen; she does not work for the National Organization for Marriage. She is a spokesperson for her own views, as anyone watching her can tell.

We are grateful to Carrie Prejean for her willingness to stand up for marriage. We would love to work with Carrie in the future if she chooses, and we wish her well in all her future endeavors whatever she chooses. We’re proud of her. Americans are proud of her. She is a remarkable young woman. Thank you, Carrie.

It’s hardly a surprise that Maggie is trying to downplay Carrie’s authority as the voice of the “marriage movement”. Calling in to Greta Van Susteren on FoxNews, it was quite clear that Carrie’s thoughts on recognition and rights for gay couples are less than thoroughly developed.

VAN SUSTEREN: What is your thought on civil unions?

PREJEAN: My thought on civil unions? You know what, Greta? I don’t have the answers to everything. I’m not running for political office. I don’t have the answers to everything, you know, in the world out there.

But I think that there should be rights for people, you know, especially in California. I think that people that are homosexual should have some rights, you know, hospital rights, and things like that.

But I would like to be more educated on that, so when I do have a better answer for you, I will get back to you on that one.

But so far I just support traditional marriage, and that’s my main focus.

VAN SUSTEREN: What about adoption?

PREJEAN: Greta, I am focusing on marriage right now, not adoption, not civil unions, just traditional marriage, and I’m going to do whatever it takes to promote that.

VAN SUSTEREN: I understand, and I understand your position on traditional marriage. I’m just sort of trying to figure out where you draw the line in terms of what kind of rights that you think that a man and woman should have that maybe two men, two women, shouldn’t have.

And that’s why I was asking the question on civil unions and adoptions. I was just trying to sort it out for myself what you think.

PREJEAN: Well, I’m not a politician, so I can’t give you an answer to that.

Richard W. Fitch

May 1st, 2009

How often does this airhead have to refuel? She has become the center of a major controversy. It’s sad that she can’t either research the facts or else keep her vapid mouth shut.


May 1st, 2009

Carrie Prejean is to the anti-gay marriage people what Sarah Palin was to the GOP in the last election, except even stupider.

Ben in Oakland

May 1st, 2009

and prettier, and more jugalicious.

not that I care about that sort of thing.


May 1st, 2009

I wonder how she’d react to the idea of abandoning Marriage licenses and everybody getting Civil Unions?


May 1st, 2009

“I wonder how she’d react to the idea of abandoning Marriage licenses and everybody getting Civil Unions?”

SHE’S NOT A POLITICIAN!… back to traditional marriage and she might have something to say.FOCUS PEOPLE!!!!

Jason D

May 1st, 2009

“Well, I’m not a politician, so I can’t give you an answer to that.”

I’m not a politician, and I have an opinion on that, cause, you know, I don’t come to a rock fight with a spoon.

Andrew Werling

May 2nd, 2009

Hey look! It’s Sarah Palin Jr.!


May 2nd, 2009

Everyone, go to the timeout corner. The idiot that caused this whole ruckus was the foul-mouthed Perez Hilton. She has the same opinion on gay marriage that Obama has, yet I am sure that Perez Hilton would would probably faint in the presence of Obama.


May 2nd, 2009

“But I would like to be more educated on that, so when I do have a better answer for you, I will get back to you on that one.”

This is definitely the same thing that Sarah Palin said to Katie Couric about reading newspapers, or something…

Priya Lynn

May 2nd, 2009

Swampfox, if Perez hadn’t responded at all to prejean’s answer her and the religious right would still be whining all over the airwaves how she lost the crown because she was good and pure to their bigotry. You can’t blame it all on Perez.


May 2nd, 2009

“You can’t blame it all on Perez. – Priya Lynn”

Hilton was, I think, way over the top with his language. As for the anti-gay foes, they are now whining over her imaginary lost crown and the foul mouth attacks by some gays.

Emily K

May 2nd, 2009

Yes, but I got to do an awesome parody of their commercial. :-) Perez is over the top but that’s how he gets viewers to pay attention. It works regardless of orientation. And the more this girl is out there, the more the right has to attach themselves to her, the more they have to back away from her when we become abreast of certain activities. :-D She’s like another Palin in that she’s great at making a fool of herself and those who ally with her.

Jason D

May 2nd, 2009

swamp, if it wasn’t Hilton, they would still complain. I am not a fan, nor do I care for the way he expressed himself, but it’s really absurd of you to lay this all at his feet.

She decided that a graceful loss wasn’t enough for her, so she threw her hat in the ring. A rather stupid maneuver for someone so ill prepared.

All that she’s demonstrated since the pageant is that other than her body, she is is NO WAY qualified for the crown. She’s an inept public speaker, fumbles her way through basic interviews. Seems to me she proves every day, in every way, exactly why she’s not miss USA — and it has very little to do with her opposition to marriage equality.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.