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


Carrie Prejean has created a considerable amount of controversy over two things which seem somewhat incongruous: opposing gay marriage based upon her religious beliefs and posing topless. Oh well, as an opponent of restrictive religious codes I’m certainly not going to complain about a religious perspective which permits pretty girls to pose nude. Hopefully she has come to be offended by those who tell her she should not pose topless, and will extend this to understand why homosexuals are offended when told by others than they cannot marry. Unfortunately the concept of individual liberty and freedom of choice in one’s personal life has been forgotten by far too many conservatives.

Prejean was threatened with losing her title over the controversy. While I disagree with her views on gay marriage, I did not agree with such action. Pageant owner Donald Trump has decided she can keep her title:

At a press conference addressing Carrie Prejean’s disputed title in the Miss USA competition, pageant owner Donald Trump compared Prejean’s stated views on gay marriage to Obama’s.

“It’s the same answer that the president of the United States gave,” Trump said. “She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her heart.”

On one level I do have some respect for Prejean for saying what she believes, despite my disagreements with her views. Beauty contest contestants are expected to avoid saying anything controversial (sort of  making them the opposite of bloggers). Besides, if they don’t want a controversial answer the pageant shouldn’t ask the question.  If only she hadn’t gone from there to actively campaigning against gay marriage. There is no way to respect someone who devotes such effort to restricting the rights of others.

I agree that giving her opinion, as well as posing semi-nude, should not be a reason to deny Prejean her title. While I agree with Trump’s decision, he was being rather simplistic in his comparison to Obama’s views. While Prejean is now campaigning against gay marriage, Obama at least is supporting civil unions. Prejean’s view on gay marriage comes from religious conservatism. Obama’s opposition unfortunately comes from political pragmatism. While Prejean is wrong on the issue, I guess she did do better than Obama in at least sticking up for what she believes is right.

The initial topless picture of Prejean (top of post) was rather tame. TMZ found another set of topless pictures of Carrie Prejean which were taken last year:


Carrie blames the wind for unintentionally exposing her breasts during the photo shoot.  As conservative lies go, that’s hardly as serious as blaming Saddam for 9/11. Besides, if the pageant is willing to forgive Carrie for lying about having posed nude, who am I to complain? The pictures do raise one unanswered question: Why did the pageant think it was necessary to pay for breast-enhancement surgery for her?

Update (June 10): Prejean fired for breach of contract

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. 1
    b-psycho says:

    In her fake-sobby speech after The Donald she equated disagreement with her views to being censored, claiming her 1st Amendment rights were being assaulted.  Too bad the pageant people couldn’t have sprung for a brain implant too…

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    What is it with conservative beauty pageant contestants and the First Amendment? It really isn’t that hard to understand. At least that’s not as bad as Sarah Palin, who though it was a violation of her First Amendment rights for the news media to criticize her.

  3. 3
    Fritz says:

    As for your last unanswered question — and a damn good one it is, I might add — I think that as objective and empirical scientific researchers we need current post-op photos for comparison and a government grant.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    To hell with photos. There’s no substitute for a  complete physical exam. This can even be accomplished without any government grants.

  5. 5
    cosanostradamus says:

    I will defend to the death Ms. Prejean’s Second Amendment right to bare arms.

    And legs. And back. And front. And top. And bottom. And…

  6. 6
    Fritz says:

    Ron, I like the way you think.  But you can’t walk away from stimulus grants under these circumstances.

  7. 7
    myiq2xu says:

    Obama’s opposition unfortunately comes from political pragmatism.

    IOW – Obama is lying when he says he doesn’t support gay marriage based on his religious beliefs?

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:

    No, Obama is not lying at all. Religious beliefs are not a valid basis for deciding matters of law. As a teacher of Constitutional law, Obama is quite aware of this and has pointed this out in the past.

  9. 9
    Fritz says:

    This might be splitting hairs, but I have never seen anything to indicate that there is a Constitutional prohibition against using religious belief as your basis for deciding whether to support or oppose the passage of a law.  That is a political matter.

  10. 10
    Ron Chusid says:

    It might be splitting hairs, but I’m not saying there is a Constitutional prohibition against using religious belief. Short of Vulcan mind melds we might never know for certain what one’s actual reasons for voting on a law.  That is different from dismissing religious beliefs as a valid reason for supporting law.  Many religious  liberals might believe that abortion is wrong or that marriage should be between a man and a woman based upon their religion, but still support legalization of abortion and same-sex marriage, recognizing they should not use these religious beliefs as basis for law.

  11. 11
    Fritz says:

    Ron, you mean you have never heard a liberal use religious belief as the basis for supporting a law?

  12. 12
    Ron Chusid says:


    I am clarifying Obama’s position. A statement such as “never heard a liberal” is nonsensical, considering that labels such as liberal and conservative include people with a wide variety of views and are very fluid over time.

  13. 13
    enid says:

    Carrie Prejean is a victim of liberal overkill. I believe in civil unions/inheritance/social acceptance and even anal sex – I do not believe in experimenting with destruction of “marriage” by a rich and petulant segment of society for the hell of it.

    Yes gays should be able to adopt – kids need all the loving parents they can get – but should there be a social “guarantee” or quota of children for gay married families?* Are young sterile heterosexual couples supposed to wait in line now? There’s no denying such “empowerment” will reshuffle the deck.

    Until all of us are raised in incubation tanks, leave us “breeders” alone a bit goddamit.

    Prejean is catching hel for stating the opinion on the street. Gay males love/hate women, especially beautiful ones. We’re ok as Barbies/friends only.

  14. 14
    Ron Chusid says:


    I agree there was overkill, and she certainly has the right to express her opinion, but the fact remains that what she (and you) are advocate is discrimination based upon irrational biases. There is no reason to think that allow gays to marry will in any way contribute to the destruction of marriage. It certainly is not being advocated for “the hell of it.” It is supported as a simple matter of eliminating discrimination.

    I don’t know of anyone calling for a social guarantee or quota for gay adoptions. I also can’t say what gay males think of beautiful women but expressing an opinion as you did sounds like it is based upon prejudice rather than any facts.

  15. 15
    henrik john says:

    she is a very pretty girl – but a liar, hypocrit and a fundamentalist

5 Trackbacks

Leave a comment