I think the very idea of a beauty contest should be offensive to both men and women, but apparently it’s still okay for the tv networks to parade scantily clad teenagers around and claim it to be uplifting entertainment. Most of the women I know would be highly offended to be objectified in the manner that beauty contestants are, and would be even more highly offended that the male judges would use simple questions like the ones they normally use to show that these vapid airheads have some level of intelligence.

I rank them like this: Ms. Prejean is the third worst player in this. Ms. Prejean, whose IQ couldn’t be far above plant life, given the number of stupid things she’s done over a short period of time, should have known better than to actually give a straight (no pun intended) answer to any question that was asked of her. I mean, did she get no coaching at all? As much as I make fun of Dr. Newark and his 1928 prayer book, he’s right: She should have said something moderate and vague and inclusive and inoffensive. “I think it’s great that we live in a wonderful nation where people are free to disagree on things like this” would have done fine. If she didn’t know enough to do this, that’s either bad coaching, or she really is as dumb as I think she is. Beauty pageants are not about thinking big thoughts, they’re about thinking as few thoughts as possible. And for those who say that she was right to say what she thought, and damn the consequences, well, she did and she was well damned for it. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but everything you say carries consequences: Just ask Jeremiah Wright.

As an aside, you get some insight into what the right wing is interested in here, given that this girl (and presumably her parents, if she has any) thinks nothing of parading around in a bathing suit for middle aged men to ogle, or of taking photographs to allow them to ogle her in absentia, but blanches at the thought of two people who love each other getting married, because it’s not an “opposite marriage,” as she so wittily called it.

Dr. Trump is the second worst of all, by my estimation, because he is making money on the whole sordid mess. The worst of all, though, is us, the public, because we watch the spectacle on tv. (Well, I don’t, but somebody must, or they wouldn’t put it on.)

And Jose, I am always puzzled by your peculiar understanding of “rights” and “tolerance”. Of course everyone had the “rights” you mentioned… no one is suggesting otherwise. But that does not detract from the incredible self-serving and inappropriate nature of Hilton’s question and the vitriolic response by some “liberals” towards Ms. Prejean.

And none of us would be talking about this if she had been asked a question like the ones Frank mentioned, or gave a response like Dr. Newark Survivor recommended. So I hardly think its a “gross mistake” to think that this whole tempest in a teapot can be traced back to her answer to one question.

As to your foot being a litmus test… well, I guess that depends on the pH level of your metatarsals.

As for me, I gladly exercised my right not to watch the pageant at all, nor the many subsequent appearances by Ms. Prejean on talk shows. From what I have heard, though, it would be a gross mistake to assume that Prejean lost the contest merely because of her answer to one question, or that she was fired from her job because she continued to hold that opinion. Litmus test my foot!

It’s awfully hard to have much sympathy for these three personalities, each of which is using the others for personal gain.

“She should invest in some tweed, immediately.”

Dr. Newark, maybe you are a real Episcopalian after all . . .

The interview segment, as I recall, was always laughable. Questions along the lines of: “Some people say that what the world needs now is love, sweet love. Do you agree or disagree?”

The questions were never along the lines of: “Should busing be used to help integrate our schools” or “Give us your thoughts on Griswold v. Connecticut, the case that established a constitutional right to use birth control…”

Prejean was put in a tough spot. And it would’ve been a tough spot whether she said ‘yes’ or ‘no.’

However, when asked that divisive question, the lady should have had the presence of mind to say something conciliatory.

That is: isn’t America great, where we can have these discussions and still love our country?

Or: I respect all of our citizens, and hope to be Miss America for them all. You’re all wonderful: I love you!!

Or: America is the greatest country on earth, and we have always managed to work through our problems and differences, no matter how serious…

OK, I know you didn’t like that last one. But that’s the idea. She’d have the crown if she’d been handled the question with more grace and nobility. Even in America, we can tell a true queen from a false one.

Furthermore, Prejean has just gotten fired as Miss California for breaking her contract, and gallivanting off to support an controversial cause with her crown. Certainly she’s the one with the agenda–the litmus test. She didn’t need to be doing that on company time.

And nudie pix? And lecturing on sexual morality? My, my, what would Hosea say?

I think Mr. Lockwood is right in thinking that Prejean may come to be associated with Anita Bryant, and that her career may be over before it begins.

What would you all have had her do? “Suddenly” become as enlightened on this issue as some of you are? Lied? Been evasive?

I’m sorry, but these type of questions in such settings are manifestly unfair. And such tactics have been used against liberals so often that we ought to know better… What would we be saying if a liberal contestant had been asked about the War in 2003, and was berated off stage for peacefully opposing it?

So, what have we learned from this? That there is now a political litmus test for being in a beauty pageant? That it’s somehow unacceptable to hold a mainstream view of marriage (shared by many a politician and a majority of state constitutions)?

And comments like:

I doubt that this dyed blonde ever really thought about what came out of her lips beyond the diatribe she’d been fed–and after the nudie pix started showing up, wasn’t she quick to cry “mean liberal press”?”

Just demonstrate a mean, intolerant response. Somehow I always thought that being a liberal meant accepting diversity. And I have always been a liberal because I thought we had better arguments, were less authoritative, and tried to persuade rather than bash others….

I’d just as soon not see Prejean defended on the sorry grounds of “exploitation” and “women having opinions.” And my mother agrees with me.

Could she be upset that all that preening–all that anti-gospel vanity she gets rich from–doesn’t stir every single man in America? Is she feeling unappreciated? Does she feel a need to boost her base of support (and I don’t mean her outfit)?

The only thing separating her from pornography is a teeny bathing suit, and she feels morally superior to homosexuals?

This is precisely what Jesus Christ warns us against when He rails against the Scribes and Pharisees. At least then they had Scribes and Pharisees. What an unworthy opponent Ms. Prejean is.

She should invest in some tweed, immediately.

http://themoderatevoice.com/34682/gay-divorce/

I doubt that this dyed blonde ever really thought about what came out of her lips beyond the diatribe she’d been fed–and after the nudie pix started showing up, wasn’t she quick to cry “mean liberal press”?