No Offense–No Way! Pageant Officials in Miss CA Backstab Fest

Getting out the long knives for Miss California

Miss California is continuing to defend her position on marriage, and yet the opposition has only increased.  Isn’t it interesting how many have taken offense to the response which meant no offense?  Religious liberty, the ability to freely speak your mind…..isn’t this what it’s all about?

Religious liberty is the free exercise of beliefs and ought to be respected.  Carrie Prejean hurt no one with her honest opinion, yet the public vilification continues.

Carrie’s response to Perez Hilton has been made into a new ad for the National Organization for Marriage, as the reactions get hotter.  Now even pageant officials are coming after the beauty queen for her stance.

See this from NOM:

On the Today Show this morning, Carrie Prejean appeared to help the National Organization for Marriage get the ad’s message out: Respect marriage and respect the people like Carrie who stand up for marriage! [Click here to watch Carrie’s entire Today Show appearance.]  What happened? Carrie was viciously attacked again by pageant officials who said:

“In the entire history of Miss USA, no reigning title holder has so readily committed her face and voice to a more divisive or polarizing issue. We are deeply saddened Carrie Prejean has . . . solidified her legacy as one that goes beyond the right to voice her beliefs and instead reveals her opportunistic agenda.”

Wow. A judge chosen by pageant officials asks Carrie a hot button question, which she answers honestly; this judge then proudly videotapes himself cursing her out and saying he wants to “rip the tiara off her head.” And it’s Carrie’s behavior that is unprecedented?

Attacks continue as pageant officials who openly disagree with her views on marriage, strive to publicly undermine Carrie’s stance by attacking her:  Miss California vs. pageant officials: It’s war

Even at the risk of damaging their own organization, the bloodletting continues as the attacks from within pageant circles get personal:  Pageant official: We paid for Prejean’s implants

Can anyone seriously imagine that if same-sex marriage were universally accepted as national law, that this woman’s enemies would live and let live?

–Beetle Blogger

Sorry Mario “Perez Hilton” …..we’re REPOSTING the video here:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Religious Liberty – National Organiza…“, posted with vodpod



  1. Euripides said,

    April 30, 2009 at 9:39 am

    So, the idea from the pageant directors is: “We bought your breasts, so you need to say only what we want you to say?” Isn’t that extortion?

  2. Euripides said,

    April 30, 2009 at 9:39 am

    Albeit, a strange and convoluted extortion. :-)

  3. April 30, 2009 at 9:55 am

    actually, i fail to see exactly what was so bad in what shanna said:

    “The night of the show, I wrote Carrie and I congratulated Carrie and I also told her her answer, for me, did hurt feelings,” Shanna told Billy.

    that’s just her opinion, which she has a right to.

    We’ve tried really hard [to get in contact] and she keeps referring us to her mother and her PR person,” Shanna claimed. “That’s also sad for me… because, you know, there’s no hate here. I don’t hate Carrie Prejean. I supported her and I still stand behind her.”

    Shanna outright states there is no hatred from her end and that she stands behind Prejean.

    “I don’t want to fire her! I think she’s a great, young girl, and I got into pageants, because I want to help young girls. I want to guide young girls. I know what pageants [did] for me and I know what it can do for young women and also working within the community,” Shanna said.

    Shanna states she has no desire to fire Prejean, and that she thinks Prejean is a great person.

    It is not unreasonable for the pageant to ask Prejean to fulfill her duties as Miss California. Ms. Prejean may prefer to run off and work for NOM and others, but if she is contractually obligated to perform certain duties for the pageant, contracts are what they are.

  4. Chino Blanco said,

    April 30, 2009 at 10:40 am

    I’m no fan of beauty pageants and take a dim view of anyone associated with their production (as a contestant, judge or in any other role). So, when it comes to issues as important as marriage and civil equality for all families, the last people I want to hear from are pageant participants like Ms. Prejean or Mr. Hilton, no matter what side they might claim to represent. Whether it’s his condemnation of discrimination or her defense of religious principle, both are tainted by association with the degrading spectacle that is The Miss USA pageant.

    And now NOM are spending money to draw further attention to the debased “debate” between these two purveyors of trash culture?

    What a waste.

  5. Mel said,

    April 30, 2009 at 10:46 am

    This just makes me crazy; the way they twist things around…

    In the article you sited, Miss California vs. pageant officials: It’s war:

    “While not attacking her views, the Miss California USA pageant organizers have blistered Prejean for using the pageant stage to promote her political and religious views.”

    That is SOOO ludicrous! The pageant judge asked the question. He asked a politically/morally charged question! If they don’t want their pageant to deal with political or religious issues, why ASK THE DARNED QUESTION!?!?!!! She wasn’t using the stage to promote her political or religious views, she was answering the question honestly. That should be obvious to anyone who watches the video….that she didn’t have an agenda.

    Now, fast forward to where we are now. If Miss California had strong feelings about protecting marriage before, they’ve only been strengthened by what she’s been through. She’s seen such ugliness from the other side; such hatred. NOW Miss California is fired up, and I don’t blame her! NOW she has an agenda–because of what happened to her! Look at what has happened to her for simply honestly answering a question.

    What kind of role model would Miss California be to our young women if she answered the question dishonestly, just to be politically correct? That kind of reminds me of the old days, when women should be “seen but not heard.”
    You’d think some of the feminists would be jumping all over that!

  6. beetlebabee said,

    April 30, 2009 at 10:55 am

    Mel, you have a great point. If they didn’t want controversy, they shouldn’t have had Perez Hilton for a judge, and they should have given the judges guidelines for their questions that weren’t controversial. The irony is that Miss USA pageants have been losing steam for years, and here they get a girl with some pluck, and they decimate her. It’s not only the “independent” judges either, but the people actually promoting Miss USA who are doing some of the worst damage to their reputations. You’d think they’d be pleased with the media attention her comments have brought them.

  7. April 30, 2009 at 11:42 am

    Looks like you and I, are thinking along the same lines today…

    Thank heaven, that Mr. Hilton asked his question of someone just like Carrie Prejean. A person that has values and is willing to take a given opportunity, and use it for good. Much of her power, comes from the fact that she did not seek this platform. I’m thrilled to hear, that she is not willing to allow these liberals to bully her – and she will now on a national level, be defending traditional marriage!

  8. Yours Sincerely said,

    April 30, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    A light is shining in the darkness, and the darkness just cannot comprehend it.

  9. beetlebabee said,

    April 30, 2009 at 3:58 pm


    Mario Lavanderia (aka Perez Hilton) issued a copyright claim against NOM’s (Nation for Marriage) new video defending Carrie Prejean! YouTube withdrew the video. Guess Hilton doesn’t want the truth to spread around, huh?! You can still see the NOM video here:

    Perhaps he’s feeling a little embarrassed….

  10. beetlebabee said,

    April 30, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    OK the video is back UP!

  11. Liberty Belle said,

    April 30, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    I guess he’s had enough negative press for a while. Perez Hilton is the new Mayor Newsom of the marriage movement.

  12. Chairm said,

    April 30, 2009 at 6:03 pm

    Shanna Moakler, a former Miss USA, spoke frankly about her opposition to the California marriage amendment:

    “I find most people have a problem with the word marriage. What I hope for is helping others understand ‘civil union’ and then one day helping people learn ‘marriage’ is something not God, not the state or country can solidify, but between two people who love each other”. [sic]

    * * *

    The current Miss America, who won the contest that Carrie lost, has stated her beliefs on national tv. The reaction?

    Anyway, the above quote needs to be unpacked so I did. And I’d encourage the pro-SSM beautry queens to keep on talking about what appears to be a meaningless type of relationship that they have in mind.

  13. beetlebabee said,

    April 30, 2009 at 6:10 pm

    Way to go Chairm. Scratch the surface of their ideas, and there’s nothing left but pixie dust. Marriage and society have to be based on firmer stuff.

  14. N Waff said,

    April 30, 2009 at 9:27 pm

    It’s amazing that Carrie Prejean is labeled by the Miss USA organization as “divisive and polarizing” which is only true if you learned your morals from Sodom and Gomorrah. The homosexual agenda is supposed to promote tolerance and anti-hate but they are filled with the most intolerant and most hateful hypocritical people. Homosexuality is “divisive and polarizing” and it’s getting worse and worse. “After the Ball” told us we’d get used to the stench of the homosexual camel after it’s nose was stuck in the tent long enough but the stench is getting worse and worse.

    The attacks on Prejean is another example of how filthy and ugly liberals always get. Assassinate the character of someone because they stand-up for time-honored traditional values. Liberalism will bash the conservative about the head and face until they will shut-up from the profuse beating

  15. May 1, 2009 at 2:13 am

    There is no tolerance for those who disagree with same sex marriage.

  16. beetlebabee said,

    May 1, 2009 at 9:41 am

    Carrie Prejean’s Statement at the National Organization for Marriage launch of “No Offense” April 30, 2009

    Thank-you. It’s been a very strange week for me, as you can imagine. This was not exactly what I planned, or asked for or wanted. But nonetheless I am grateful.

    I’m grateful for all the prayers and well-wishes I’ve received from all different kinds Americans who believe as I do that America is a place where people should stand up for our values, for what we think is right.

    I’m grateful for the outpouring of support from the great majority of Americans who know in our hearts that Americans should treat each other with respect even when we disagree–especially when we disagree about important moral issues like marriage.

    You probably know by now. I believe very strongly that marriage IS the union of a husband and wife. What’s more I believe with millions of other Americans: This vision of marriage is not hateful or discriminatory—it’s good.

    Marriage is good. There IS something special about unions of husband and wives. Unless we bring men and women together, children will not have mothers and fathers. I do not want to raise my own children in a world where this traditional view of marriage is considered hateful or discriminatory, especially not by my own government.

    I am not affiliated with any organization; I’m speaking my own views. But I do appreciate the many people who stand in the front lines to fight for marriage, including the National Organization for Marriage. That’s why I agreed to appear today to support NOM’s important message: Respect marriage. And the people who support it.

    It’s not about me, it’s about the future of marriage. But I’m honored to do my part.

  17. Clay A. Sacramento said,

    May 1, 2009 at 5:08 pm

    Whatever happened to freedom of speech and the first amendment? Carrie held her ground, and spoke her opinion. So I guess free speech ONLY applies to those who support gay marriage, and NOT to those who support marriage only between a man and a woman?

    Does the Miss USA pageant, half the media & Mr. Hilton NOT understand the fundamental principle of freedom of speech? Or have we been allowing our children to be brainwashed in schools to be “tolerant” for so long now that they grow up to be like Mr. Hilton and think that if someone does not agree with them, then they are bigots, etc…

    The pageant is now punishing Carrie for having the “wrong” opinion??

  18. Nikki said,

    May 2, 2009 at 9:06 am

    I’m just gonna say it like it is, and not pussyfoot around it. Is it plausible that I might take offense at Carrie Prejean’s comments, being that I am a lesbian? Of course. Does that mean that she should be denied the right to say them? NO! I think discrimination is a sad thing, but like calorie-rich foods and rainy days, It’s not going anywhere. Although many laws, institutions, governments, etc disagree with me, I firmly believe in the right to free speech, and it is something that we are rapidly losing. If someone wants to express their view that homosexuality is immoral and that gay marriage should be banned, a certain degree of criticism is sure to follow. But if someone expresses the view that the best environment for raising children is a home with one man and one woman of the same race, the outcome would be quite different. I may be wrong on this, but I think to a certain point it is actually illegal to express on radio broadcasts, television, etc the viewpoint that marriage should be between one man and one woman of the same race. The reason that this happened is because interracial marriage was legalized, which socially enshrined this degradation of marriage. Of course this opened the door to gay marriage. I’m surprised bestial marriage isn’t legal yet, considering Americans used African-Americans as our beasts of burden in the Old South, but were later forced by the courts to allow this marriage. (hmm…Courts shoving the redefinition of marriage down peoples’ throats…sound familiar?) Once gay marriage is legalized it will have the same-status as interracial marriage and we won’t be able to have opinions anymore. Again, on a personal note, from my gay perspective, this is the way I see it. If I walk into a restaurant or a doctor’s office, and you don’t want to serve or hire me, it will hurt, but I fully support your right to do so. On the same token, if I want to refuse to hire a black employee because I am aware of the statistics regarding their higher rates of crime, incarceration, rape, drug abuse, and child abandonment, I’m prohibited from doing so by the law. I support freedom of association in all regards and believe we should have the right to discriminate against whom we please, not just some special groups. Because if you say “we should have the legal right to discriminate against gays but not blacks” then that mentality will make it okay to make it illegal to discriminate against gays once they get marriage and all the other rights. We must protect our rights to free speech in all regards, not just to certain groups. Especially when it comes down to common sense. I don’t support gay marriage. I don’t think I’m worth less as a human being, I just think that a marriage between one man and one woman of the same race is what God intended, and there is just so much statistical evidence in favor of it. It makes for better families. Yet to voice this opinion on a forum that’s not the internet would probably get me put in prison for hate speech. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if I wasn’t allowed to post this comment on this blog. Then good ol’ Carrie Prejean and I would have something in common other than our birthplace: we would both know what it feels like to try to have others silence our beliefs in honesty and freedom of speech.

  19. beetlebabee said,

    May 2, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    an entertaining if flawed way to support Perez Hilton’s vitriolic response, Niki. Yet advocating the position that anyone who speaks against homosexuality is guilty of hate speech and ought to be silenced is exactly what this controversy is about.

    In the arena of ideas, what is so intimidating about marriage that it’s supporters have to be shouted down, bullied and persecuted? It speaks more of you as a person that you would support and defend such actions, even while at the same time claiming to seek “equality”. How does tramping on the free speech and beliefs of another help your cause?

  20. May 2, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    Nikki, the ban on interracial marriages was a social construct and so can be changed by society. The both sexed nature of marriage is not a social construct, it is part of human nature. Therefore it cannot be changed by society.

    I’m surprised bestial marriage isn’t legal yet, considering Americans used African-Americans as our beasts of burden in the Old South, but were later forced by the courts to allow this marriage.

    The courts can change the racial thing because it is a social construct. Without mutual consent a marriage would not exist. Non humans don’t have reason therefore they cannot consent to marriage. Same sex unions are consensual but are not both sexed therefore marriage is impossible.

    Governments could deform marriage from a man woman arrangement to a man man or woman woman arrangement. This would then make it easier to introduce the man animal arrangement since the core meaning of marriage would have been changed. This is a bit like redefining a triangle to include both 3 and 4 sided objects.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: