Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Carrie Prejean Loses her Crown

Timothy Kincaid

June 10th, 2009

Conservative Christian Values
At long last the saga of Miss California Carrie Prejean and her support for “opposite marriage”, canonization in the anti-gay movement, fake boobs, topless posing, and mindless babbling about God and Satan has come to an end. The Miss California Pageant has said “enough“.

Miss California pageant officials said Wednesday that Prejean was fired because of continued breach of contract issues.

“This was a decision based solely on contract violations including Ms. Prejean’s unwillingness to make appearances on behalf of the Miss California USA organization,” executive director Keith Lewis said in a statement sent to ABCNews.com. “After our press conference in New York we had hoped we would be able to forge a better working relationship. However, since that time it has become abundantly clear that Carrie is unwilling to fulfill her obligations under our contract and work together.”

And this time The Donald won’t rush to her rescue. Trump can forgive anti-gay animus and absolute trashiness (one might even think he prefers it), but he just can’t forgive failure to put a buck in his pocket.

To follow the trail of Carrie’s way-over-extended 15 minutes of fame, click here.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Bearchewtoy75
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

Oh, great. Now we have to hear about her some more!

Dave
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

Don’t cry for Ms. Prejean. Fox News will snap her up in a minute. They love attractive, blonde air heads.

Christopher Waldrop
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

Plus she’ll really be canonized by the anti-gay movement now because she’s sure to claim this as an attack on her beliefs. After all, her grandfather fought at the Battle of the Bulge for her right to attack homosexuals without any fear of being criticized.

jOHN
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

Does her replacement get a free boob job?

Alex
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

That poor, poor victim. This calls for a retrospective montage set to REM’s “Everybody Hurts.”

Ben in Oakland
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

Congrats on achieving opposite employment

David C.
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

This was almost entirely predictable. Missy P is a complete bimbo, but I think that even she realizes this is her best chance of a real career as some kind of right-wing shill. It’s very likely that she will start in six figures wherever she goes next.

It’s not hard to conclude that Trump had this in mind when he gave her a second chance. He just wasn’t going to pay her enough to keep her around, did not want to be drawn into the fray, and wanted to avoid the political implications of canning her the first time.

Priya Lynn
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

At long last the saga of Miss California Carrie Prejean and her support for “opposite marriage”, canonization in the anti-gay movement, fake boobs, topless posing, and mindless babbling about God and Satan has come to an end.

LOL, oh, you’ve far from heard the last from her. She’s going to be the next Anita Bryant.

Justin in Kentucky
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

This poor girl. Why isn’t she allowed to be against gay marriage? Doesn’t freedom of speech go both ways? And why is strutting in a bikini on TV okay, but when she does it on the internet it’s dirty and demeaning? We love to talk about love and understanding, but whenever someone is against us we jump all over them and completely disregard their opinions. I’m gay, and I’ll be the first to support our rights, but I’ll also be the first to support someone to have a different view than my own. C’mon, people!

Priya Lynn
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

Justin said “This poor girl. Why isn’t she allowed to be against gay marriage?”

Poor girl, nothing. She’s allowed to be against equality, but she’s not allowed to be free from criticism. You want to take an unjust position, people have a right to same something about it.

Justin in Kentucky
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

…has anybody ever heard exactly what she said? Her exact words were:

“I think it’s great that Americans can choose one or the other (referring to same/opposite sex marriage) …and in my family, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there.”

Not, “God hates fags!!”.

Does that sound evil and hate-filled to you? As for her opinion being “unjust”…. being raised all her life to believe that? Sounds pretty justified to me.

Trevor
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

Yeah…I guarantee this isn’t the last we’ve heard from her.

Trevor
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

“Does that sound evil and hate-filled to you?”

Why, yes, yes it does. But that’s only because it IS evil and hate-filled. Just because someone in a bathing suit says it nicely with a plastic smile doesn’t make it any less offensive.

Priya Lynn
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

Justin said “Does that sound evil and hate-filled to you? As for her opinion being “unjust”…. being raised all her life to believe that? Sounds pretty justified to me.”.

I don’t see how you can think wanting to deny equality to those who hurt no one is anything but evil and hate-filled. In another time people were raised to believe that blacks were inferior and deserved to be slaves. Do you think such a person was justified in their beliefs? I certainly don’t.

a. mcewen
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

Justin,

your points are MOOT. She was fired for contract violations. End of story.

Richard W. Fitch
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

Don’t miss the response from NOM in another new thread here. These folks know how to twist the truth to be entirely unrecognizable, asserting that the “contract dispute” is simply a cover-up for wanting to get rid of her from the first days. It would be interesting to see what is written into the contracts of those paid to do the business of NOM; and it is doubtful there is a clause allowing them to pursue other interests at the expense of NOM’s paid, contracted agreement.

Jason D
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

Justin, you’re misquoting her, here’s the real quote:

I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman.

So what’s wrong with that statement? Well, first, it’s factually inaccurate. We can’t choose one or the other. Not legally, not in most of the states and NEVER federally.
Secondly, it’s a rambling answer to a direct question — a question she KNEW about and had TIME TO PREPARE A THOUGHTFUL ANSWER TO.
Third, saying “No offense” and then saying “I think it should be…” doesn’t cancel one another out. No offense, Justin, but I think you should not have any rights—- does that sound non-hateful to you?

And no Justin, her statement wasn’t unjust because she was raised that way. It was unjust because it’s a prejudiced statement, and prejudice is unjust.

She’s certainly allowed to be against gay marriage. She’s certainly allowed to say she’s against gay marriage, but guess what? I’m allowed to criticize her for it. And so is anyone else. And they’re allowed to criticize me.
She was NEVER the frontrunner, the math just doesn’t show that to be true. She didn’t loose the crown, and she sure as hell wasn’t punished for her beliefs.
Freedom of speech doesn’t come with freedom from criticism. It sure as hell doesn’t mean you’re allowed to back out of your legal obligations with your employer so you can go on your own crusade.
At the end of the day Prejean is ignorant. As in uneducated. She hasn’t bothered to read up on the subject, as evidenced by follow up questions in interviews, but she certainly feels entitled to her opinion.

And I, someone for who this issue IS important and I HAVE educated myself on, am WELL within my rights to call bigotry, ignorance, and hypocrisy out for what they are.

Justin in Kentucky
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

I’ve never been kidnapped and put to work on a plantation for being gay, so I don’t think it’s fair to associate gay marriage with slavery. In fact, we can pretty much do everything straight people can, can’t we? And I think it’s entirely likely that Carrie couldn’t “perform her duties”…whatever those are (I’m sure there are a lot of equations and test fires involved) as a direct result of her bad publicity from her stance on gay marriage.

I guess I have a weird background to base my opinion on.

As I’ve already stated, yes, I am gay, but I come from an area that is very conservative and anti-gay marriage. When you say that anyone who isn’t on our side is evil and hate-filled, you’re talking about members of my immediate family. I can say without hesitation or doubt that with the exception of a few wackos, most of these anti-gay supporters are good and decent people. Most of them don’t even have anything against gay people, they just believe that marriage is a church matter and that if we gays want the rights of married couples, we can just call it something else.

Remember Obama’s Notre Dame speech? It was on abortion, but it can easily be applied here. He said that both sides will continue to state their cases with passion and conviction, but surely they can do so without reducing the other sides to caricature.

I don’t agree with Ms. Prejean in the least. And as Priya more or less put it, being justified doesn’t mean being right. But she’s not a horrible person just because she’s not on our side.

Justin in Kentucky
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

…I think I’m going way too far! I just wanted to get that off my chest, and this unlucky comment section was my means of personal catharsis. Feel free to ignore my rantings. :)

Priya Lynn
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

Justin said “I’ve never been kidnapped and put to work on a plantation for being gay, so I don’t think it’s fair to associate gay marriage with slavery.”

I wasn’t associating gay marriage with slavery, I was making the point that an unjust belief doesn’t become just simply because that was what you were raised to believe.

Justin said “And as Priya more or less put it, being justified doesn’t mean being right.”.

If that’s what you got from what I said you’ve totally misunderstood me. Being justified does mean being right. Carrie Prejean is neither.

Justin said “When you say that anyone who isn’t on our side is evil and hate-filled, you’re talking about members of my immediate family.”.

I wouldn’t say that someone like Prejean is entirely evil and hate-filled because of this belief any more than I’d say that “gay” describes the sum total of a person. However certainly that one belief of hers is accurately described as evil and hateful. She may kiss babies and cuddle puppies in her other life but that does not mean that I haven’t accurately portrayed the anti-gay part of her.

Few, if any people are completely good or completely evil, the vast majority of us are some combination thereof. That you may think of someone as mostly a good person should never override the fact that some aspects of them and their beliefs may be anything but good.

Priya Lynn
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

Justin said “But she’s not a horrible person just because she’s not on our side.”

By the same token, if you knew a racist, how quick would you be to come to their defense and say “She’s not a horrible person just because she thinks blacks are inferior and she wouldn’t hire one.”?

If you knew a person that said “I was raised to believe blacks are inferior, no offense to anyone out there.” do you think no one ought to be offended?

Justin in Kentucky
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

What I’m trying to figure out is, why does being against gay marriage mean being against gay rights? In a purely literal sense, can’t someone believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman while at the same time support gay rights in the workplace and personal life?

Priya, Jason, and everyone else: your comments were very well-written and passionate, and I respect you a great deal for your convictions. Remember, I’m on your side. But, and I hope I’m not making another uneducated guess here, I’m guessing that most of what you see of your opponents comes from news channels and the other side of the picket line.

Being against gay marriage does not equal hating gay people. I’m proud of being gay, but I’m also proud of where I come from, and frankly I’m sick of people demonizing us for appearing “less educated” and “ignorant”. This isn’t an issue of education; it’s an issue of morality and, though debatable, religion.

If I am uneducated, please enlighten me. Why are all people not for gay marriage lumped into a group that hates gay people? To me, that’s like saying that everyone who supports gay marriage must be gay.

Timothy Kincaid
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

Justin,

There are plenty of decent people who come from a background that makes it difficult for them to support equality for their gay neighbors. I understand that. They are not evil people and, like you, they include family members.

And we at BTB did not immediately jump on the bandwagon to criticize Miss Prejean.

However, once she alligned herself with the National Organization for Marriage, she earned our criticism. NOM uses lies, fear and demonization to try and harm the lives of gay people. They are not “pro-traditional marriage” nearly as much as they are anti-gay.

If Carrie wants to be left alone and not criticized, all she has to do is stop her participation in anti-gay activism.

Trevor
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

Its not that I have anything against Blacks, its just that they have been traditionally defined as 3/5ths of a human being. I think they should have many of the same rights as humans but they shouldn’t be allowed to use the term “human” to describe themselves. No offense to anyone, that’s just how I was raised.

Burr
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

You can’t be for gay rights and against same sex marriage, because it’s been thoroughly proven that all segregationist designations applied towards gay couples come woefully short. Now that doesn’t make you “evil” IMO, I’m loathe to throw that around but it does make you a bit ignorant and insensitive about the issue.

I really don’t care about her opinion. I don’t think she should have had her crown removed just for saying what she did, but as Tim pointed out it went further than that. She went ahead and aligned herself with an organization hurtful to many of her own Californians and broke many rules of her employment. She deserves what she got in light of that fact and the fact that Trump even afforded her a second chance. Well played Donald, BTW..

Jason D
June 10th, 2009 | LINK

“What I’m trying to figure out is, why does being against gay marriage mean being against gay rights?”

Because nothing short of marriage is equal.

Just ask these people
Bill Flanigan and Robert Daniel

Or this couple from the other day:
Kristin Orbin and Teresa Rowe

or this couple
Eric Rofes and Crispin Hollings

or this couple
Bobbi and Sandi Cote-Whitacre

Or this couple
Sam and Earl Beaumont

And sadly the internet is littered with more and more every day.

If someone supports equality for gays, that, by practical necessity, includes marriage equality.
It stands to reason that if you support gay couples having the same rights as straight couples then the simplest, easiest, fastest, most honest, and direct way is marriage equality. The evidence from the couples above, and so many more unfortunate couples shows this in painfully shocking detail.

A legally recognized marriage could’ve easily helped every single one of those couples.

We didn’t invent a new name so blacks could vote, we didn’t invent a new name so women could vote, we didn’t invent a new name so interracial couples could marry. All of which were traditional, and all of which were well supported by religious doctrine.

And when we did have a separation, a segregation, it was fundamentally unequal. This is no different, as the premise is the same. The separation is negotiated on the very clear bias that gay couples are not considered “qualified” for the title of marriage, so nothing offered to us in lieu of marriage can be remotely equal.

And no, I wasn’t calling Carrie ignorant because of her religion (nice intellectual slight-of-hand there) I called her ignorant because of her inability to put together a coherent sentence, and her answers to follow up questions which ended with her saying little more than this:
“Well, I’m not a politician, so I can’t give you an answer to that.”

To think that one has to be a politician to bother reading up on an issue BEFORE commenting on it, and then being completely unable to answer follow up questions related to your statement — yeah, I’d call that ignorant and uneducated, Justin. The only way you could say I was being harsh on her (and presumably your) faith, is if you point me to the passage of the Bible that says critical thinking, reading, research, and education are sinful.

Grant
June 11th, 2009 | LINK

As an aside, my sister used to work the child pageant circuit. You sign a contract when you sign up for the pageant. When you win, you have to make appearances at other beauty pageants, schools, ceremonies, parades, charity events, chamber of commerce stuff, even, yes, supermarket openings.

These appearances are booked months in advance, even if no one knows who will have the crown at the time. Pageants make most of their money off of the appearance fees. Carrie was fired because she thought her fifteen minutes entitled her to skip out on appearances that clients had paid for, including a recent statewide teen pageant.

Grant
June 11th, 2009 | LINK

To finish my thought, I’m sure her skipping out on these things cost The Donald a pretty penny in lost revenue and breach-of-contract fines and that’s why she was fired.

Priya Lynn
June 11th, 2009 | LINK

Justin said “What I’m trying to figure out is, why does being against gay marriage mean being against gay rights?”.

It boggles my mind that you would even ask that question, the answer should be obvious. If you’re against equal marriage you’re obviously against that gay right and against full rights for gays – case closed.

Justin said “I’m guessing that most of what you see of your opponents comes from news channels and the other side of the picket line.”.

Wrong. My family opposes equal marriage and I was quite surprised by that, I thought more of them then that. Unlike you I think this reflects very poorly on them and they’ve lost my respect. In fact I have very little to do with them now. I certainly no longer think of them as good people.

Justin said “Why are all people not for gay marriage lumped into a group that hates gay people?”.

The same reason serial murderers and car thieves are lumped into a group that is criminal. You can make the valid argument that some of the people who oppose gay marriage aren’t as bad as others who oppose every gay right and that would be valid, but it isn’t any more valid to put them in a non-hating category than it is to say a thief isn’t a criminal because he’s a “good person” unlike the serial killer.

Alex
June 11th, 2009 | LINK

Priya Lynn,

I disagree. While there are certainly a lot of people out there who genuinely hate us (the Pat Robertsons and Maggie Gallaghers of the world, etc.), I would venture to say that the average opponent of marriage equality does not. The vast majority of conservative Christians I have known throughout my life, including my own Southern Baptist parents, are extremely decent people and have nothing but good intentions.

Hearing someone say that all opponents of marriage equality hate gay people reminds me of conservatives who say that all gay activists are “anti-family” and that we “hate heterosexual marriage.” Both statements are unfair and untrue.

Priya Lynn
June 11th, 2009 | LINK

Alex, the difference is that when conservatives say gays are “anti-family” or that they “hate heterosexual marriage” they are demonstrably wrong. No gays are trying to prevent heterosexuals from marrying or trying to break up anyone’s family. On the other hand those opponents of marriage equality ARE trying to prevent gays from marrying and ARE in many cases trying to destroy gay relationships and families. That’s why its valid to say the latter are hate-filled, but not the former.

Timothy Kincaid
June 11th, 2009 | LINK

Priya Lynn,

I categorically reject your assertion that the majority of persons who do not yet favor legal same-sex marriages are “trying to destroy gay relationships and families.”

I also categorically reject your assertion that the majority of persons who do not yet favor legal same-sex marriages are hate-filled or even motivated by hatred.

You may believe this to be true but I am confident that you speak for a very very tiny percentage of gay people.

Alex
June 11th, 2009 | LINK

Priya Lynn,

You seem to harbor a lot of anger and resentment toward your family because they are anti-gay. I get that. My family opposes marriage equality too and it sucks. I feel betrayed by the very people who I thought would support me unconditionally. But at the same time, I don’t believe for one second that they hate me or wish to destroy my relationship with my partner.

I don’t know you or your circumstances. For all I know, your family may genuinely hate you. I really hope that’s not the case. But even if they do, that’s no excuse to make unfair generalizations about the rest of the “traditional marriage” community.

Priya Lynn
June 12th, 2009 | LINK

Timothy said “I categorically reject your assertion that the majority of persons who do not yet favor legal same-sex marriages are “trying to destroy gay relationships and families.””.

I never said the majority were trying to do so, I said many were. Whether or not that is the majority I choose not to speculate.

Timothy said “I also categorically reject your assertion that the majority of persons who do not yet favor legal same-sex marriages are hate-filled or even motivated by hatred.”.

You’re entitled to your opinion, your opinion however won’t change reality.

Alex said “I don’t know you or your circumstances. For all I know, your family may genuinely hate you. I really hope that’s not the case. But even if they do, that’s no excuse to make unfair generalizations about the rest of the “traditional marriage” community.”

Oh, I’d never make unfair generalizations abou the “traditional marriage” community Alex. People often have mixed emotions about their family, they may love some aspects of them and hate other aspects. To deny that is to deny reality.

Priya Lynn
June 12th, 2009 | LINK

Actually I’d like to make a partial retraction. I’d agree that people who oppose equal marriage aren’t hate-filled – that would imply that they are entirely consumed by hatred and I don’t think that is the case. At least a small part of them is motivated by hatred, however to sum up their being as hate-filled wouldn’t be accurate. People are more complex and ambivalent than that.

staci
June 13th, 2009 | LINK

Priya Lynn,

I agree with your comments. My spouse and I no longer associate with people or relatives who say that they love us or claim to be our friends and yet do not support our marriage. We surround ourselves with true friends and family that really do support us and keep away from the hypocrites and bigots. We just will no longer tolerate people who smile at our faces and vote against us behind our backs.

Timothy (TRiG)
June 22nd, 2009 | LINK

Hey, people. She’s writing a book.

Anyone planning to buy it?

TRiG.

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)
(Required, never shared)

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