Two days ago, the world learned that Miss California Carrie Prejean was stripped of her crown due to "breach of contract issues." Less than 24 hours after that, we all got a peek at a couple of leaked emails between Prejean and Keith Lewis, the pageant's executive director — correspondence that Entertainment Weekly said revealed an "increasingly hostile Prejean."
But this morning, Prejean appeared on the Today Show and told host Matt Lauer that she believes she lost her crown not because of her attitude or a contract breach, but because of her stance against same-sex marriage (video below).
I don't buy her effort to demonize the gay community while at the same time refusing to take responsibility for her own failures. And neither does Matt Lauer.
"If that were the reason," Lauer said, "then why a month ago at that press conference, did Donald Trump stand up, when all those comments that you had made were still in the headlines of newspapers across the country? ... By the way, those revealing photographs were still on shows like this and all over the internet. ... Why would he support you then, why would those comments [on same-sex marriage] suddenly warrant your firing now?"
"That's a good question, Matt," Prejean answered. "And you know what? I think Donald Trump was really tired of — he has a business to run and I think he was tired of being in the middle. ... I had to call him and ask him, 'Hey, can I volunteer for the Special Olympics this weekend.' 'Hey can I go visit the troops on the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan? ... Everything I'd brought to Mr. Lewis's attention of appearances that I wanted to make, he declined. Therefore, this is definitely, um, a one-way street here."
Lauer then told her that her story is the exact opposite of the story Lewis told — that there was "tens and tens and tens" of appearances that she was not available for, and that her no-shows were "not appropriate" for someone who was trying to represent the state as a role model.
Prejean replied, "Did he give you specific appearances that I've missed, Matt?... What are those tens and tens and tens? I'd really like to know. ... And I think a question that nobody's asking Matt... — this is very important — is, What did I do prior to this controversy, as Miss California? What were my duties and what were the appearances that Mr. Lewis had asked me to do?"
So Lauer asked, "What were those appearances?"
"You know what? Not many people are going to believe this, but I maybe did two appearances that Mr. Lewis had asked me to do. He said, 'Carrie, your job is to compete and win Miss USA. Do not worry about appearances. Do not worry about any of that. It's not about appearances. ... So, you know what, Matt? I took it upon myself and ... said, 'Hey, I'm Miss California, would you like me to attend your event?"
Lauer then asked if she thought it was all a set up.
"It is a set-up. ... I'm here right now talking to you because of the answer I gave on that stage. And this is just the proof and it's a test to Americans that tolerance needs to be a two-way street, and it's not. This is about me stating my beliefs about same-sex marriage. ... Keith Lewis, he has his own hidden agenda, he has his own personal agenda. He obviously doesn't agree with the beliefs that I have. Therefore, I am here today, dethroned as Miss California because of that, and I think Donald Trump was tired of being in the middle."
Yes, poor Donald, we all know how much he hates media attention!
Anyway, I doubt this will be the last we hear from Prejean. She's got a real gift for whining, and she''s certainly set herself up to be the next Anita Bryant.
I wonder how she feels about "fruit pie." (video below).
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Let me ask you something: would YOU be tolerant of someone who did not believe in same sex marriage? ... if you believe in free speech (it's obvious with this blog), then you have to say YES. Sorry if you don't agree with her... but it is her right to take a stand for what she believe... tolerance IS a two way street. To be honest, this girl has a good head on her shoulders.
Posted by: meredith | June 13, 2009 at 05:58 AM
This girl is looking for sympathy and work. She can believe whatever she pleases about gays, and she can blame Perez Hilton all she wants, but ultimately, she was supposed to represent her state and do what she was told. Now, if the Playboy story is true, she should have refused that. (However, since there are partially nude photos of her already, why WOULDN'T Playboy expect that she condones their work?) She reminds me so much of Palin...they spout these moralistic values, then do something not in line with their public stance, THEN get angry when they are brought to account. And have you noticed? None of this is HER doing? Just like none of the problems of the Republican Presidential campaign were ever due to Palin. Hard for me to believe either one of them is the God-fearing, moral person they want us to believe they are.
Posted by: Susan | June 13, 2009 at 06:11 AM
Meredith, the word 'tolerant' is an interesting word — one that I've never liked or thought appropriate in this circumstance. Prejean isn't playing loud music after midnight on a Sunday. She's discriminating against an entire group of American citizens. Her views have real consequences; they affect real people. She isn't claiming that red is her favorite color and it should be everyone's favorite color.
I'm 'tolerant' of Prejean's views to the extent that she's free to have an opinion without me taking unlawful action against her. However, my tolerance ends there. In other words, I'll do everything in my power to speak out against her legally. Wouldn't you, if you were being discriminated against? Or would you 'tolerate' someone who believes you should be a second class citizen?
Needless to say, I don't think she has a good head on her shoulders. I think her mind is poisoned by bigotry.
I also agree with Susan — Prejean needs to grow up and take responsibility if she wants to be any sort of moral role model.
Posted by: kim | June 13, 2009 at 06:41 AM
Reality check Ex Miss Cally don't ask us to believe you were offended by the playboy thing you already did semi nude photo's prior to pagent and lied about it. You just got caught and you do not represent what I want young girls to be like. As far as your stance on Gay Marriages you are using it as an excuse for all the problems you created when your lies started falling apart.Really your are nothing new or special on that subject. Many people feel that way you just got a national platform to pore your words on. I just wonder what your attitude would be if you had a sister or brother who announced they were gay, I'm wondering if your tune would change then, or maybe you would disown your own family? I really feel those words just tumbled out your mouth that day and not even in clear thought since it was a shocking question but had you stopped before you spoke and thought I do feel you could have made your point with out basically spitting in the faces of gay people. You need not act as if you are above it all since we all know what happens to everyone who becomes someone and you too will someday do things that will haunt you for all your days on this earth and lets see if then you are singing this say tune.
Posted by: catnip | June 13, 2009 at 08:43 AM
She is the one being discriminated against here. They asked her a question and she answered honestly. What did they expect. They picked her as the winner and she stuck to her own values. Not everyone believes the same thing and she has the right to her own belief system. She's not trying to change the law, she's just a pageant winner. And now she's the target of every angry blogger with an axe to grind.
Posted by: KJ | June 13, 2009 at 09:22 AM
I have one question to all...why is a homosexual politically charged community activist judging a competition for women in the first place?
I would think that that he is at cross purposes at least, not to mention that such events are supposed to be on the merits of the person. This guy has no business judging such an event with the bias of wanting to be a woman himself...go figure.
I feel that the morality of emptying your seed into a place where it was not designed to go is fundamentally wrong, especially a place where another man empties his bowels. And therefore, Perez Hilton is QUALIFIED to impartially judge a woman like her. Good God, I think not!
Therefore, again, I ask, what is a community gay activist doing on the judges panel for a beauty contest, when such a person contests women ('cause he mad at the world for not being one) in the first place.
Bottom line, a VERY POOR choice of a judge from the folks who put the pageant on in the first place. This really shows a deficit of intelligence over wanting to appease the immoral and abnormal quarters of our society.
Maybe I should go around shoving my heterosexual opinions on everyone else on national TV...how would that look.."Hey, I'm a straight guy, look at me"...oh, that would be considered too offensive no doubt.
Fools like Hilton have been allowed to flourish in Americas FREE society, a tolerant society that is increasing becoming more intolerant with fools like him.
If this such actions are considered normal or mainstream, God help America.
Posted by: Steve Jordan | June 13, 2009 at 09:38 AM
I think every one knows that she is right and the only reason she lost her title is becouse of being against same sex mairages . as far as i'm concerned she represents california more then any one else in the pagent does.
Posted by: howard | June 13, 2009 at 09:41 AM
Clearly those of use who support same sex marriage are far more powerful than we may have believed—we've been able to topple a national icon just because she opposes this cause.
Now, if we could only get the laws related to this issue changed... and the homophobic attitudes of people like Howard, Steve Jordan and KJ.
I'll begin to tolerate those who oppose same sex marriage when they back their opposition with well-reasoned arguments instead of vitriol, fear-mongering and flat-out bigotry.
Posted by: Elizabeth | June 13, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Let's see - a gay man is not "fit to judge" a beauty pageant? Funny, I always thought that beauty was in the eye of the beholder. Didn't realise that being gay meant you were unable to recognise beauty in the opposite sex. Thanks for the heads up.
Also - Prejean might represent those bigoted/homophobic Californians who don't mind discriminating against others, but heaven forbid it happen to them. Wait! Hold on, isn't that what Prejean is saying? That she is being discriminated against because of her views? Well, it has a bitter taste, doesn't it? Now she knows what her intolerance feels like - if that is the reason why she has been removed as Miss California.
To say that everyone knows that it is because she opened her mouth and voiced a very intolerant opinion, that's the reason she got fired. That's a very broad statement, unless of course some folk have the insight to know what everyone else is thinking. All we know are two different versions of events. I believe that somewhere in the middle lies the truth.
Think about this, if you will. You hire someone to represent your company. They do/say something which causes potential damage to your company. You stick by them, even though everyone thinks you are mad to do so. They show their gratitude by being beligerent, and refusing to represent your company - wouldn't you fire them?
Posted by: Karms | June 13, 2009 at 11:02 AM
"I'll begin to tolerate those who oppose same sex marriage when they back their opposition with well-reasoned arguments instead of vitriol, fear-mongering and flat-out bigotry".
Just listen to this logic...Bravo, but I disagree, if this sort of thing was supposed to happen, then every man would have been fitted with a WOMB from birth, and every woman a hermaphrodite. Its people like you that begun to lavish themselves on the plateau of American decency, little by little and bit by bit; you constantly chip away to make your abnormalities the norm, i.e. beginning with teaching kids this crap in schools. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
It's not right, and it never was right to be shacking up with someone of the same sex. It is ABNORMAL.
You know, God made us this way for a reason. That reason is to continue the species. Left up to you lot, the population would die off now wouldn't it, therefore confirming the rights of communion between the sexes, not some perverted abstract of what the liberal left is trying to make normal in this country.
Its people like you that give America a bad name in the world with your irresponsible diatribe of silly liberal nonsense that slaps the face of wholesome human decency incorrectly and falsely under the banner of normality. Period.
Now bugger off in your Prius somewhere else, and leave America to the Americans.
Posted by: Steve Jordan | June 13, 2009 at 11:09 AM
You're making a lot of assumptions, Steve Jordan.
I don't drive a Prius and my birth certificate lists my place of birth as the United States of America.
What does "therefore confirming the rights of communion between the sexes" mean, exactly?
Posted by: Elizabeth | June 13, 2009 at 11:25 AM
To Karms:
To fire somebody for them saying something potentially damaging, I agree. Now, explain if you will, how the thinking of marriage should be between a man and a woman is the wrong thing to say, and more so, how this is potentially damaging.
This country was founded on the implied morality given by God.
Again, this country was founded on morality, explain the morality here if you don't mind....
Posted by: Steve Jordan | June 13, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Well said Steve; I don't see why same sex marriage is so important to gays in the first place. a lot of men and women are living togeather now days with out marriage. you should be able to draw up a legal contract between two people with out marriage being involved, so what's the big deal. I think marriage between two people who has no chance of reproducing is a waste to begin with.
Posted by: howard | June 13, 2009 at 11:48 AM
This country wasn't founded on "morality". Our forefathers were seeking opportunity denied them by the reigning monarchy, a monarchy controlled by the church of England.
The revolution was triggered when England tried to increase it's influence and began excessively taxing the colonies.
The separation of church and state was fundamental also, because they recognized the church of england had too much power and influence.
Whew, that was off-topic. This girl is certainly entitled to her opinion. Many people feel (me included) feel that her opinion is bigoted, and called her on it (not me, not too passionate about what she said, again, she is entitled to her opinion and lots of people feel that way).
And please, she keeps casting herself as a "victim" in the whole thing. She calls claims to be a victim of her detractor's intolerance, as if they should somehow be required to be tolerant of her intolerant views. She does have a right to free speech, but by exercising her rights, she has to be prepared to deal with the consequences, she needs to toughen up. Notice, with the exception of a couple of mainstream high profile appearances, she only appears on religious and right wing shows... where she won't forced to defend her position, but instead receives commiseration. Last, listen to her, "opposite sex?" What she's spewing now has been spoon fed to her, she's not bright enough to form her own opinion.
Don't worry about her, she's a lovely girl and has a fine and comfortable future ahead of her. She will likely only be a pop culture blip, as she doesn't have much to fall back on but her looks, and we can all move on to someone else to obsess about. She will marry well and be well taken care of.
Posted by: sdgman | June 13, 2009 at 12:05 PM
I'm not too worried about her. Any day now she'll be a Fox New spokes-model.
Posted by: Mad Kane | June 13, 2009 at 01:01 PM
AMEN Brother!
Posted by: Steve Jordan | June 13, 2009 at 01:19 PM
Steve Jordan, read this blog:
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/02/miss_california_usa-2/
It was written over a month ago, by a contributor to Fox News.
Her answer WAS a bad answer. Not because she spoke from her heart, and not even because of the answer itself. It was because the answer was not diplomatic and representative of an entire population, which is the kind of answer Miss USA's job description requires. Granted, had she said "Gays should get married," while it would have been equally as divisive would probably not have hurt her in the pageant, due to today's political climate.
But I must say, Steve Jordan, you and Ms. Prejean are on the wrong side of history. Gays know it and march on in anticipation; Evangelicals (deep down) know it and march on in fear. I shouldn't make the assumption that you are an Evangelical Christian, but that demographic has become the most outspoken against same-sex marriage, which you seem to be.
Let me ask you this: imagine a person is born a hermaphrodite. "She" has all female organs, but her chromosomes are XY (typically a man's genetic code) rather than XX (typically a woman's) and is, therefore, infertile. Should this person be allowed to marry, since there is no chance of procreation? Further, are sexual acts considered by this person to be "abnormal" since this person, in scientific terms, is neither male nor female? Think on that.
Posted by: Adam | June 13, 2009 at 01:21 PM
Mr Jordan - I'll be polite, because my parents brought me up to be polite, and tolerant - my view is this. Not everyone shares in opinions that discriminate against others. Not everyone believes in God, or the God you believe in. It does not make them less of a person. Nor does it make them second class citizens, or even people who don't deserve to classed as citizens.
I believe that the whole idea behind the pageant is to make money (isn't that the American dream?) and if you lose sponsors, possible clients etc. because someone from within your organisation makes a statement that actively discriminates against others then that is potentially damaging to your business.
BTW - Just becuase someone doesn't come from the US doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to speak issues within the US. Americans having been telling other countries how they should be run for years. I know that Americans have been told to mind their own business, but it's never stopped them.
Telling someone to bugger off because they don't kow tow to you or your opinion is downright rude.
Posted by: Karms | June 13, 2009 at 03:20 PM
For me, it boils down to this. She is allowed to have her opinion, we all are. She voiced it, and got heat for it (to me, rightly so - it's a viewpoint I don't share). It was all a big news story, then it began to die down. Then the naughty pix turn up (some which she claims she didn't know were being taken...c'mon). She gets a free pass on that from Trump, which was hypocritical of him, as he took a harder line with another beauty queen with naughty pix (but we're dealing with Trump, not Socrates here). She does media to defend herself and starts developing what I would dub an "attitude." Who knows who was whispering in her ear about how she'd be "wronged" for her beliefs, etc. Then it appears she was refusing to do her beauty queen duties. That's it for me - take the damn tiara away! Now she's blaming the whole thing on her views on gay marriage. I don't know, seems like a combo of factors at this point. And really, does pop culture really need beauty pageants at this piont anyway?
Posted by: Mullen | June 13, 2009 at 08:09 PM
Time to move to Australia, this ship is sinking!
Too bad that so many gave their lives in in so many wars in order for this crowd to flourish. Wait until their dear leader begins to implement real socialism (currently well under way) and the country goes over the edge (cause we who work for a living cant pay anymore) and we end up like Russia.
Next up: Sex education for 3rd graders which includes same sex "sex", baby killing in the third trimester as being a convenient way to "off the problem", the correct was to use a strap-on and other ingenious paraphernalia,... and I am, and people like me, the ones here with a morality problem?
I suppose the dummies who hopped into bed to make the kid in the first place have no responsibility right? They are not accountable, right? Opps, just figured it out, if we all turn gay, and lesbian, gues what, no babies to worry about anymore, Cool, the republicans would have to love us then, right. Perfect logic.
The problem is, y'all have gone to far, and it is at the expense of this great country.
And one final statement, it was wrong to place a flamer like Hilton on that Judge panel...errr, the fox watching the hen house...only the fox is a bit jealous that he was
1. born ugly,
and
2.with something a bit extra downstairs.
Did I mention ugly too....yes I did, OK.
Result...no way should that ever have been allowed with such vile political (parsed as freedom of statement) ever, ever been allowed in the building, let alone the capability to judge. The fact that this flamer USED the padgent to "publically further the cause" I know was a carefullt planned scam, and the dummies who run that thing fell into the trap of allowing ...whatever Hilton is, to make such statements. Don't you clowns realize that there are CHILDREN watching such programs, again I guess to hell with morality as long as we can further our cause. Sick dude, sick.
I can leave this earth with a very clear mind...
Posted by: Steve Jordan | June 14, 2009 at 06:51 AM