I Disagree With Carrie Prejean’s Views But Defend Her Right To Express Her Opinions And Pose Nude

carrieprejean

I disagree with Miss California USA’s homophobia and opposition to gay marriage, but I’m hardly going to become very concerned about what one person says in a beauty pageant. Today semi-nude pictures of her have wound up in tabloids and on line. She vows to continue speaking out, but now she is facing opposition from the pageant as well as supporters of marriage equality:

…Alicia Jacobs, a judge at the April 19 Miss USA pageant during which Prejean made her highly publicized statement opposing same-sex marriage, said the pictures go beyond what the Miss California pageant says are appropriate.

“I can assure you they were quite inappropriate, and certainly not photos befitting a beauty queen,” Jacobs, a reporter for NBC’s Las Vegas affiliate, told NBC News.

I have not posted the topless picture of her because of questions as to her age at the time it was taken, but after reviewing the picture (posted here) I personally consider it to be befitting a beauty queen. Regarding her age:

Although Prejean said the pictures were taken when she was 17, others have alleged that they seem to have been taken after she underwent breast-enhancement surgery six weeks prior to the Miss USA pageant. That surgery was paid for by the Miss California pageant.

If they are going to pay for them, the pageant shouldn’t object to her showing them off!

Update: Carrie Prejean Keeps Title But Can’t Keep Her Shirt On

Now that more nude pictures have surfaced of Carrie, and it is clear she posed topless after turning eighteen, I have posted both the original picture and one from the new set.

Be Sociable, Share!

25 Comments

  1. 1
    muffler says:

    Why do we care what a pageant contestant wants to believe in?  It is not news.

  2. 2
    HP Stevens says:

    If they are going to pay for them, the pageant shouldn’t object to her showing them off!

    That’s the best line I’ve heard about this so far.  (I hear Letterman’s paying by the joke these days if you’re looking to supplement your income.)

  3. 3
    Ron Chusid says:

    muffler,

    Regardless of the significance, we must defend the right of all people to express their views, and the right of all beauty pageant contestants to pose topless.

  4. 4
    Fritz says:

    She should say thanks for the mammaries.

  5. 5
    MsJoanne says:

    I could care less if she shows her goods in pics.  I do care that she is a hypocritical POS.  I don’t know where she got those Christian Values, because those are not the values of any Christian I know.  So, for her to espouse those values in support of inequality, I take serious issue with her hypocrisy.

  6. 6
    Chance says:

    Good for you, finally, a liberal actually defending her right to speak her opinion instead of attacking her because that opinion isn’t in line with the views of the left.  I don’t see how not supporting gay marriage makes you a homophobe though.  This is more of a typical liberal tactic, if you don’t agree with a left wing policy,  you get called names.  If you don’t support gay marriage, you are a homophobe, if you don’t support affirmative action, you are a racist.

  7. 7
    Ron Chusid says:

    MsJoanne,

    I don’t really know if she is a hypocrite as I don’t know enough about her views beyond her opposition to gay marriage. Opposing same-sex marriage doesn’t necessarily mean someone is opposed to pictures of this nature–especially as the picture was actually quite tame by today’s standards.

    Supporting “Christian Values” is pretty vague. If she has condemned others for nudity of this nature she could be called a hypocrite, but I don’t know that she has done that. Not all Christians oppose nudity. After all, some studies claim that porn sells the most in conservative and religious areas. The pictures posted of Carrie show far less than pictures of models often published on the covers of mainstream magazines.

  8. 8
    Fritz says:

    The creation of the phrase “opposite marriage” makes this whole kerfuffle worthwhile.

  9. 9
    Ron Chusid says:

    If you like such “creative” use of the English language you must have loved the Bush years.

    I wasn’t interested in the uproar over “opposite marriage.” I’m all for opposite marriage to members of the opposite sex. I also support the rights of those who choose differently.

  10. 10
    Ron Chusid says:

    Chance,

    Pretty much all liberals would agree she has the right to speak her opinion. Those who disagree with her also have the right to express their views (but I will agree that in some cases this has gone over the top considering how little consequence she is).

    Liberal tactic? I love how conservatives love to whine about how victimized they are. Sure, there are always insults in politics coming from both directions, but when you exclude the nuts on each end of the spectrum, it is the establishment Republicans who are most guilty. It is the Republicans and mainstream conservative pundits who regularly hurl insults of socialism, communism, and fascism against Democrats, including in the last presidential campaign.

    The issues of gay marriage and affirmative action are quite different. Regardless of where someone stands on affirmative action, reasonable people should be able to see arguments on both sides. I’m sure there are cases of people on the left calling opponents of affirmative action racists, but the vast majority realize there are numerous reasons to oppose it. Not even all liberals support affirmative action.

    Prejean’s views on gay marriage is not analogous to opposing affirmative action. Opponents of affirmative action have real arguments as to how others are being harmed if some are given preferential treatment. In the case of gay marriage, if you oppose gay marriage then don’t get one, but don’t use your biases to restrict the rights of others. Prejean isn’t only opposing gay marriage but is actively campaigning against gay marriage with an organization with a history of promoting homophobia.

    Returning to affirmative action, most liberals would agree that opposing affirmative action alone is evidence of racism. However many (but certainly not all) opponents of affirmative action do show other signs of racism. You aren’t going to deny that the Republicans have primarily relied upon racism, along with hatred of other groups such as homosexuals, to build their party are you? It is hardly a coincidence that a map of the red states before 2008 looks almost exactly like a map of the old slave-owning states. That doesn’t mean that all Republicans are racists, but they certainly took advantage of racism and therefore whining about being called a racist isn’t going to get any sympathy from me.

  11. 11
    Chance says:

      I wasn’t saying that affirmative action and gay marriage are similar issues, I was saying that opposing them gets similar results, name calling.  I oppose gay marriage but I do not hate gay people, fear gay people or have any other form of phobia of gay people.  I simply think marriage has been a traditional institution of the church that the state should stay out of as much as possible.  As for most liberals agreeing that she has the right to speak her opinion, you are the only one I have seen or heard of.  Every time I have seen a “feminist” or liberal talk about or write about Carrie, it has been an attack on her breast implants and now on her topless photos.  As for racism, wasn’t Robert Byrd the leader of the Democratic party at one point?  I don’t recall states like Montana, Nevada, Utah, being slave states.

  12. 12
    Ron Chusid says:

    You do not hate them or fear them but you wish to deny them rights.

    Hiding behind saying the state should keep out of it is no answer. If a church is willing to marry two gay people they should be allowed to. What you are apparently advocating is not keeping the state out of marriage but using the power of the state to impose your views upon others. Often marriages are performed by government officials rather than in a church. The state is already involved, so there would be no reason not to allow them to perform same sex marriages. While there are rational arguments on both sides of affirmative action, the same is not the case when dealing with people like Carrie. You can whine about name calling, but Carrie is expresses homophobia.

    Other liberals have expressed their right to disagree with Carrie (and I agree some have gone over the top). They might not have addressed the issue of whether she has the right to express their views, but that does not mean they do not acknowledge that right.

    Both parties have had their share of bigots, but in recent years it has been the Republicans who have intentionally used racism to build the party. Not every red state was a slave state but there was a high correlation. It also looks like Nevada and Nevada are becoming more blue. Utah will probably stay red but it is ironic that other Republicans are ostracizing the Republican governor of Nevada for his support for gay rights.

  13. 13
    Fritz says:

    On the other hand, I get annoyed at the same-sex marriage proponents who think that the exact same arguments don’t apply to three adults who want to all be married together.  They derisively laugh at the social conservatives who say that a marriage *must* be between a man and a woman, but then have the same level of uncritical belief that a marriage *must* be between exactly two people.

  14. 14
    Chance says:

    Actually, I just did a post in my blog about the law recently passed by the Maine governor.  Since states already perform civil marriages, if a state wants to recognize a civil marriage between a same sex couple that is fine.  The problem I see is when other states may be forced to recognize that same union or when a church may be forced to recognize it.

  15. 15
    Chance says:

    Oh, and was it members of the right or members of the left who did a racist cartoon about Condoleeza Rice and who referred to Colin Powell as an Uncle Tom?  I guess it is only racism if it comes from the right.

  16. 16
    Ron Chusid says:

    Chance,

    Are you capable of discussing things without falsely attributing views to others and resorting to straw man attacks? Nobody is saying that racism is only racism coming from the right. There is racism from both the left and right. You are talking about things from isolated elements on the left. I’m referring to mainstream Republicans. Incidentally, it is now Rush Limbaugh who is attacking Colin Powell, saying he should be a Democrat.

    Your concerns about gay marriage are poor reasons to oppose it. Whether a church recognizes a marriage is an internal decision by the church. Legalization of gay marriage would have no bearing on any church’s views. Marriage laws are determined by the state. I hope that all states both legalize same-sex marriage and recognize marriages from other states but legally this remains an issue for each state to decide.

  17. 17
    Chance says:

    Going to bed now, but to recap, I have produced several examples of “isolated elements” where the left has resorted to name calling when someone disagrees with them (which was my original point) and you have made the accusation that Republicans have built their party using racism.

  18. 18
    Fritz says:

    Chance, who should a civil union contract be the only contract not covered by the “full faith and credit” clause?

  19. 19
    Ron Chusid says:

    Chance,

    It doesn’t mean anything to bring up a handful of isolated cases. There are lots of  bloggers and people on the fringes. You can make arguments of this type against any group for anything when you resort to tactics such as this.

    There is a tremendous difference between an independent blogger and party leaders.

  20. 20
    Joe says:

    Why is it that when ever someone doesn’t support the leftist agenda, they often become targets?  I don’t seem to remember anyone in the crowd booing her.  Because, one of the judges is gay and asked a politically charged question we have all of this controversy!  There obviously was nothing else going on to report about.  I don’t see where the photos even rise to the degree that the left is portraying them. 

  21. 21
    Ron Chusid says:

    “Why is it that when ever someone doesn’t support the leftist agenda, they often become targets?”

    While there is some truth to your comment, it is rather hypocritical considering that the right has been practicing the politics of personal destruction far more than the left. If she had spoken out in support of gay marriage the right would be tearing her apart.

    The lesson here is not that someone has become a target for not supporting the “leftist agenda” but that we should separate political views from the individual. Carrie is wrong in her views and it is legitimate for liberals to point this out. A beauty pageant contestant is otherwise a pretty trivial person and there is no need to be concerned with demonizing her personally.

    She was asked her opinion and, although I totally disagree with her, on one level I do support her for speaking her opinion even though she knew it would be unpopular. Perhaps a beauty pageant was the wrong place for this. Most people would find a way to answer without taking a firm stand or being controversial.

    In some ways this is analogous to many incidents of liberals speaking out at the Academy Awards presentations, where it also might be said it is the wrong place. In those cases we see liberals typically supporting their expression of opinion and conservatives responding with attempts at personal destruction.

  22. 22
    Fritz says:

    Ron, I am not sure how one could get decent data to confirm or deny your assertion that conservatives have been more active in “politics of personal destruction” than liberals.  I can think of a lot more communities where one would be hassled for identifying as conservative/Republican than ones where one would face similar problems for identifying as liberal/Democrat.

  23. 23
    Ron Chusid says:

    This might be hard to measure, but if you were to take the arguments coming from party members and people closely associated with the parties (including people like Limbaugh) I don’t really think there is any comparison between how frequently the Republicans and their supporters resort to politics of personal destruction compared to the Democrats. In politics both sides engage in this, but the Republicans have turned it into their primary strategy. 

    This is certainly seen in the media. There are far more people like Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and Savage than there are Keith Olbermanns. The right wing noise machine thrives on personal attacks. This extends through the parties to the highest levels. Compare the recent presidential campaigns, both McCain v. Obama and Bush v. Kerry for a considerable difference in tone and tactics.

  24. 24
    Fritz says:

    So maybe the Republicans abuse globally and the Democrats abuse locally.  That seems quite possible.

  25. 25
    Ron Chusid says:

    In terms of locally it depends upon where you are.

2 Trackbacks

Leave a comment