Miss USA Contestant Booed

www.samesame.com.au
  • 45
  • 32
  • 9986

Perez Hilton was one of the judges of the Miss USA pageant, held on Sunday at the Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino in Las Vegas. During question time, Perez asked Miss California, 21 year old Carrie Prejean, about same-sex marriage. Perez says that her answer was “the worst answer in pageant history”, evoking boos from the audience.

Perez asked, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalise same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”

“Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other,” answered Miss California. “We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offence to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman. Thankyou.”

California is currently still locked in legal action over whether same-sex marriage will be legalised again.

Miss California came first runner up. On a video blog on his website Perez said, “She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage, she lost because she’s a dumb bitch!”

Perez also said that she could have answered the question in a more diplomatic way, along the lines of “Perez, that’s a great question and that’s a very hot topic in our country right now. I think it’s a question that each state should answer for themselves because that’s our forefathers designed our government. The states rule themselves and then there are certain laws that are federal.”

The winner of Miss USA was Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton.

During a radio interview on Monday Prejean defended her answer, but said that it did cost her her crown.

“I wouldn’t have had it any other way. I stated an opinion that was true to myself, and that’s all I can do. It did cost me my crown. It is a very touchy subject and [Perez] is a homosexual, and I see where he was coming from and I see the audience would’ve wanted me to be more politically correct. But I was raised in a way that you can never compromise your beliefs and your opinions for anything.”

Prejean says that she feels like she won. “I feel like I’m the winner. I really do.”

Here’s footage of Miss California’s answer:

And here’s a video of Miss California telling (or perhaps being) a joke:

Social

  • kath_white
  • naive83
  • hazyinseptember
  • mrLance
  • orsman01
  • DavidL
  • Travis de Jonk
  • seanstar
  • stitched
  • sarahanne
  • merman87
  • girlsOngirls
  • beatricec
  • Asherbella
  • PJM1
  • gold_femme
  • kurvy
  • ishvari
  • Lauren-J
  • Christian Taylor
  • WEE MAN
  • superspace
  • robbie
  • mickel_23
  • Junior
  • Dexter Ramone
  • PonyClub
  • angy
  • GeeWhy
  • CB9000
  • Cameron M
  • Tim D

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
8648
orsman01

orsman01 said on the 23rd Apr, 2009

Weeeeeeeellllllll... at the risk of getting my head lopped off, I'm putting my hand up to say that a) I agree with her - sort of - and b) by focussing on the issue of marriage, I believe we're missing the bigger picture!

Why do I agree with her? Cos in my humble opinion, marriage can be for men and women... but not because same-sex attracted people aren't "good" enough for it. Because marriage is an institution that comes from a dying part of society - a society that accepted patriarchal, dictatorial, guilt-induced dominance and control. I.E. the church! More and more people are moving away from the idea of superpowers (the Bright network is one example of this shift). And in my experience so few younger people seriously believe that there's anything out there... So who CARES if the church minded, fancy big building goers want to keep marriage for themselves.

The bigger picture stuff is that, if we give up the idea that we MUST have the big building and the fancy clothes and the blessing of some weirdo (and mostly a MAN!) in a dress (and for the Catholic church read predominantly "paedophilic-leaning, dress-wearing weirdo") we CAN have relationships that are every bit as legally binding and self proclaiming as the straights. New Zealand got this right and ultimately I believe that the rest of the world will follow their lead.

What is the big deal about doing it in a church??? Seriously. Let's get our priorities right - let's get the legal and societal recognition and let the "wedding planner" (for those rich bitches that can afford one) worry about the venue. Speaking for myself, if I was to ever contemplate tying the knot, it would be in a garden or some other such natural place, where I would be far more likely to feel closer to some god (if I believed in such nonsense) than in a big building built by people whose forerunners thought it was all right to torture, murder, maim and sacrifice to their gods.

Oh that's right - some of them still do!!!
:-(

hazyinseptember

hazyinseptember said on the 24th Apr, 2009



lol.. chop away :D

Why do I agree with her? Cos in my humble opinion, marriage can be for men and women... but not because same-sex attracted people aren't "good" enough for it. Because marriage is an institution that comes from a dying part of society - a society that accepted patriarchal, dictatorial, guilt-induced dominance and control. I.E. the church! More and more people are moving away from the idea of superpowers (the Bright network is one example of this shift). And in my experience so few younger people seriously believe that there's anything out there... So who CARES if the church minded, fancy big building goers want to keep marriage for themselves.

What is the big deal about doing it in a church??? Seriously. Let's get our priorities right - let's get the legal and societal recognition and let the "wedding planner" (for those rich bitches that can afford one) worry about the venue. Speaking for myself, if I was to ever contemplate tying the knot, it would be in a garden or some other such natural place, where I would be far more likely to feel closer to some god (if I believed in such nonsense) than in a big building built by people whose forerunners thought it was all right to torture, murder, maim and sacrifice to their gods.

Fair enough points, here's some food for thought..

1) there are gay and lesbians who believe in/practice religion.

2) Marriage in the US where this debate is raging entitles the joint filing of tax.

3) the point of all this is not where what building we get can get married in, but the fact its not an option at all.

4) if couples were not allowed to get 'married' because they were not caucasian, it would be shot down in a second. Instead its gay's and lesbians.

5) why are we not entitled to the same rights as everyone else? Marriage is no longer strictly a religious institution, it has become a government contract.

6) our own government is very quick to cut any government benefits to gay and lesbian couples on welfare, yet we DO NOT have an option of getting our relationship recognised.