So a contestant for what is in large measure a popularity contest says something unpopular and doesn't win. Why am I having a hard time getting worked up over this?
I'm talking about Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA, who when asked by Miss USA judge and gay celebrity blogger Perez Hilton whether she supports same-sex marriage, cheerfully and politely said no (or something like it-her answer wasn't terribly clear). Specifically, she said,
"Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much."
Not the most articulate answer (what's "opposite marriage"?), nor the most original ("that's how I was raised"). But I give her credit for grace under pressure, and for owning up to her convictions knowing that they might cost her the crown.
That doesn't mean that her answer was in any way acceptable. Her answer was wrong-badly, painfully wrong.
But disagreeing with her answer doesn't prevent me from acknowledging and admiring her integrity. Generally speaking, I prefer people saying what they believe-even if I disagree sharply-rather than merely what they think others want to hear. It's a trait desirable in both friends and foes.
No one knows for sure whether she would have won with a different answer. But her 15 minutes of fame are stretching into 45 (at least) thanks to the predictable backlash.
Perez Hilton, demonstrating the gravitas, nobility, and calm judicial temperament that doubtless explains his selection as a pageant judge, promptly thereafter called her a "dumb bitch."
This in turn prompted right-wing cries of victimhood. Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage (which released the laughable "Gathering Storm" ad) described Hilton as "the new face for gay marriage in this country." Gary Schneeberger, vice president of Focus on the Family, wrote in the New York Times,
"What has happened to Miss Prejean over the past few days is nothing short of religious persecution. No, it is not violent persecution - but that does not minimize its existence or its danger."
Religious persecution? Because Perez Hilton is calling her nasty names? Oh, gag me with a tiara.
Perez Hilton is a gossip blogger known mainly for posting celebrity pictures and then adding juvenile scribbles to them. (His favorite embellishment seems to be ejaculate dripping from people's mouths.) It's not for nothing that his nom de plume resembles that of someone else who is famous just for being famous. Being obnoxious is what he does for a living.
So it's no surprise that the religious right latched on to him. They've got nothing plausible to say in response to the serious marriage-equality advocates, so they make Hilton the face for the movement and then complain about what a nasty movement it is. Their intellectual dishonesty in doing so eclipses whatever integrity I admired in Miss Prejean.
Why, for example, didn't they cite the letter to Prejean from Geoff Kors at Equality California, a letter which seeks "open, honest dialogue"? Let me guess: it's because gracious letters from true movement leaders don't support their victim narrative.
Even Gallagher concedes, "I don't believe the response-hatred, ridicule, name-calling-by Perez Hilton is supported by most gay people or by most gay marriage supporters."
But then she backtracks by adding, "But, sadly, it is increasingly the visceral and public response of the gay marriage movement to anyone who disagrees with its views."
Sorry, but Perez Hilton's blog is not the gay marriage movement. By Gallagher's own admission, it is not even representative of the gay marriage movement. It's a straw man, which is about the best that they can hope to knock down anymore.
18 Comments for “Tempest in a Tiara”
posted by TS on
As articulate as I have come to expect from my hero JC. “Oh, gag me with a tiara.” Heh.
It is a shame to have a rude, ignorant product of modern times like Perez Hilton sullying our side, but hopefully our opponents feel the same way about Fred Phelps.
posted by Bobby on
Sorry Corvino, but for a Ms. America judge to call a contestant a bitch and a cunt just because she doesn’t have the “right” views on gay marriage is beyond the pale.
I like Perez Hilton, but he went too far this time.
posted by TS on
I think Capt. Corvino agrees with that, Bobby. He merely points out that Ms. America is just a popularity contest. She expressed an unpopular opinion in an inarticulate way and got axed. Hilton was clearly out of line, as he often makes a point to be. But, on the other hand, if it hadn’t been him it would have been some other miraculous mouthed moron. His point is that, like all political rhetoricians, our opponents are engaging with obnoxious straw men rather than reasoning with our reasonable folks. And I suspect he’s right to say it’s because they know they’ll lose against bright, morally rigorous people like my scholar crush JC.
Honestly, I’m surprised you have any respect for Perez at all. I sure don’t.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Religious persecution? Because Perez Hilton is calling her nasty names? Oh, gag me with a tiara.
I’m not sure that Our Community? has any business pointing fingers at Ms. Gallagher’s over-the-top language — I mean, gay people practically invented this kind of hyperbolic victim-speak, by means of which educated adults encourage other educated adults to think of themselves as “oppressed” by unfavorable opinions, and to say that they’ve been “bashed” when someone calls them rude names.
posted by Bobby on
“Honestly, I’m surprised you have any respect for Perez at all. I sure don’t.”
—I like his blog, I like how he puts down celebrities, but with Ms. California he went too far, he stoped being funny and became a hater. Like the time on Celebrity Apprentice that Joan Rivers referred to Annie as Hitler, and later on said all poker players have no class.
I love Joan Rivers and Perez Hilton, but when they’re wrong, they’re wrong.
Ms. California is not a stupid bitch, she gave a perfect answer, an answer that was both compassionate and truthful. Perez was a judge, he’s supposed to be objective and not let his personal biases get in the way.
posted by hazemyth on
I’m incredulous regarding the praise that Prejean has received, even form her opponents, for the ‘integrity’ or ‘courage’ of her opinions. Frankly, it strikes me as vacuous. Standing up for one’s beliefs has only as much merit as those beliefs per se. Sure, I understand how people can admire the courage of someone with which they disagree — but even that has limits. After all, some beliefs are so reprehensible that we would balk at praising their advocates, regardless of the integrity or conviction evinced. (Insert argumentum ad nazium, here.) Yet, even with gay marriage advocates, it seems that Prejean’s prejudice (wanton, received and ignorant) is not beyond the pale.
Now that she’s NOM’s spokesperson, no doubt any counterpoint to that organization’s invidious campaigns will be cast as the cruel bullying of a hapless mid-western Christian woman who simply stands up for what she believes.
posted by TS on
Yes and no, Thorbert McGee.
Yes, hyperbolic victim-speak is stupid and damaging.
No, gay people didn’t invent victimese. Who did? Idunno. Some members of every distinctive (minority and sometimes not) community practice victimology. Others do not. To be unimpressed by the victimists in your own group is indicative of rigor and critical thinking, so good. But don’t forget this problem is not even remotely unique to LGBTs.
posted by EssEm on
If a straight conservative judge asked that question and got a pro-gay marriage answer AND then flunked the contestant because of it AND then went on to publicly label her a bitch and cunt…Any clue as to the response?
What galls me is that Hilton, who embodies a hemisphere of revolting gay stereotypes, gets an almost total pass from the “LGBT” community for behaving in a way that, were he on the “other side” would have had the usual suspects screaming “Nazi!” in a heartbeat.
posted by Bobby on
“I’m incredulous regarding the praise that Prejean has received, even form her opponents, for the ‘integrity’ or ‘courage’ of her opinions. Frankly, it strikes me as vacuous.”
—That’s because our society has become so politically correct that anyone who tells the truth is revered as a hero by freedom loving people. I hate how PC our society has become, I hate how you can’t disagree with Obama without someone calling you a racist, or how you have to use words like chairperson and police officer instead of chairman and policeman. I hate how leftwing speakers are protected while rightwing speakers are protested. Progressives only care about tolerance and diversity when it comes to their own views. It’s no different than Henry Ford saying “you can have it any color you want as long as its black.”
Prejean had the guts to speak her mind. That’s why people are defending her.
EssEm understands it perfectly, if one of our kind had been victimized for his or her answer, we would be rallying in his or her support. But because Prejean is not one of us, only real lovers of the first amendment stand for her.
There was nothing wrong with her answer, she gave her opinion in the most polite way. If the question had been about gun control and she had said “While I think it’s wonderful you can choose whether to carry a gun or not, my personal belief is that I support gun control” I wouldn’t have been angry.
Of course, now that she’s a member of NOM she’s become a political person and more vulnerable to attack. But I would like to remind the lefties that their arguments would be stronger if they spent more time attacking her arguments instead of her person. Personal attacks are a sign of desperation and unsophistication.
I’ve never seen Bill O’reilly call Michael Moore a big fat cow, but I’ve seen Al Franken call Rush Limbaugh a big fat idiot. Think about it? This is why people hate progressives so much.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
I find it interesting that Ms. Prejean is being vilified while Obama, Saint Hillary and her hubbie, Mr. No Morals-Happy Pants, continue to receive endless support and largesse from a majority of our community, even though they all have EXACTLY the same position . . .
At least the Republicans don’t bother to hide their dislike for us . . .
posted by Bobby on
Hey Last Of, did you catch Keith Olberman discussing Ms. Prejean with Michael Musto? It looked like a meeting between Hitler and Stalin, it’s hard to tell which was the most hateful bastard of the two.
posted by esurience on
For the last time, Obama does not have the same position as most Republicans who oppose marriage equality.
Obama was _against_ proposition 8. He supports a _repeal_ of the defense of marriage act. These are real, substantive differences.
And of course in 1996 Obama said he supported marriage equality. It’s pretty obvious his current position is out of political expediency. What does that mean for us? It means that while he feels obliged to personally say that “man and woman” stuff when asked directly, at least he doesn’t go out of his way to demagogue the issue. The last time we had a President do that (Bush), there was an actual backlash in public opinion on the issue of marriage equality.
Again, these are _REAL DIFFERENCES_. Yes, it’d be great if Obama would come out in support of marriage equality, but guess what? We have to do the groundwork to allow him to do that. He wants to. We need to make it possible.
posted by teejaywah on
I can’t take beauty pageants too seriously. Perez Hilton is not to be taken seriously. Nor is Maggie Gallagher. There’s absolutely nothing serious about this whole insignificant kerfuffle inside a bauble. If news were still being printed, I’d put this one on the bottom of the birdcage.
posted by Pat on
I can’t take beauty pageants too seriously. Perez Hilton is not to be taken seriously. Nor is Maggie Gallagher. There’s absolutely nothing serious about this whole insignificant kerfuffle inside a bauble. If news were still being printed, I’d put this one on the bottom of the birdcage.
Teejaywah, this has to be the most rational thing I’ve seen about this whole ordeal.
posted by Bobby on
“I can’t take beauty pageants too seriously. Perez Hilton is not to be taken seriously. Nor is Maggie Gallagher. There’s absolutely nothing serious about this whole insignificant kerfuffle inside a bauble. If news were still being printed, I’d put this one on the bottom of the birdcage.”
—That’s what Obama’s spokesman said when asked about his president bowing before the King of Saudi Arabia. “Oh, it’s not important, the American people care more about other things.”
Sorry, but I think it’s important. Ms. California was victimized for giving a politically incorrect answer, this is outrageous, if she can become a victim anyone can become a victim of political correctness. This insanity has to stop. If she had said “Well, I have always hated %$#%$ and I don’t think they should marry.” Fine, don’t let her win, but the way she answer the question was way more polite than the jokes Johnny Carson used to tell about gays.
posted by Greg on
“Ms. California is not a stupid bitch, she gave a perfect answer, an answer that was both compassionate and truthful. Perez was a judge, he’s supposed to be objective and not let his personal biases get in the way.”
You call saying opposite marriage, and saying mc country instead of family perfect? I would hate to see what you think was a bad answer to the question. People Perez Hilton is famous for drawing cum dripping from celebrities mouths, no one on any website except Bobby has even admitted to liking him. It’s hard to develop outrage over someone you’d rather just pretend didn’t exists. Also no one has said Miss California doesn’t have a right to her opinion, they just want the right to say something was a stupid answer when a beauty queen gives a stupid answer.
posted by Bobby on
“You call saying opposite marriage, and saying mc country instead of family perfect? ”
—Opposite marriage because that’s the way it used to be, you married the opposite sex. My country because her family is obviously against same-sex marriage. Her answer was perfect because 1. She expressed support for federalism (each state deciding their own marriage laws). 2. She said “no offense” reminding people that this is a very controversial issue. 3. She spoke from the heart and came off as authentic and honest.
As for perezhilton.com, I don’t expect people in a political site to care about gossip, however, among those who like gossip we know that perezhilton.com gets hundreds of thousands of views, he is famous, his blogi is popular, he’s had several TV appearance, Donald Trump himself invited him to critique a web commercial. What else can I say? He came from nothing and achieved fame. You think he has no competition? Google “gossip” and see how many thousands of pages come up.
The fact that so many people are angry at him shows his power. He is an “uppity gay” which society fears. Instead of being a “nice gay” like Ellen Degeneres or Suze Orman, he’s not afraid to get nasty just like the breeders get nasty. In a way, he’s a sort of gay Malcom X, except that he’s funny.
posted by Greg on
Bobby I actually do like gossip, but often Perez Hilton far to trashy even for me. I watch TMZ on an almost daily basis so I know trashy celeb gossib. Seriously this event is now a total non issue when it comes to gay rights. People are only paying attention because they want to know what messed up thing will happen next.