Miss USA pageant a sad reminder of PC gone wild
Posted by Wellsy on April 21, 2009
Last night, the Miss USA pageant turned ugly when one of the judges, celebrity fluff-blogger Perez Hilton, asked of Miss California, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalise same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”
Miss California Carrie Prejean responded, “Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. 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. Thank you.” (Hot Air has the video.)
Not terribly impressive, but at the same time, not that big of a deal, right? Wrong. The sleazeball Hilton, who apparently got the gig out of some sort of misplaced sympathy, while thumping his cyber-chest, slammed her answer on his widely read celebrity fluff blog as the “worst answer in pageant history” and said she lost, “not because she opposed gay marriage, but because she’s a stupid bitch!” He later doubled down on his disgusting behavior by retracting an apology and saying he was really wanting to call her the “c-word.”
(A quick refresher to Mr. Hilton: This is probably the worst answer in pageant history. And, in my own opinion, I heard way more cheers than boos for Miss California’s answer.)
A couple things: I could not normally care less about beauty pageants as I consider them vapid excersises in popularity for people who can’t get over high school. And I fully realize that this is just a minor blip in the MTV/VH1/People/Us Weekly parade of celebrity non-issues that are waved in front of our noses at the supermarket and in the breakroom as if they matter in the slightest. That being said, this episode bothers me. The main reason doesn’t have to do with gay marriage, homophobia, or any of the other reasons you might think of. I’m bothered because this has to do with a politically loaded question being asked and when an appropriate answer isn’t given, it’s full-on smear time. And the problem has been multipled one-thousand-fold because the story and its discussion is racing across the Internet, the blogosphere, and cable news, and when Mr. Hilton is being interviewed on Larry King over the episode, you know it’s gotten to ridiculous levels.
Whatever your views on gay marriage, it bothers me that someone can’t express a view that’s not for it in a fairly non-offensive manner without vulgar name-calling and silence from the host. And I submit to you that Miss California’s view isn’t really a fringe opinion, that view of marriage consisting of a man and a woman, but allowing that you can disagree in this great country (and she didn’t “denounce it” or say a “slur” as I’ve seen on high-level news sites). On a wider level, it bothers me that political correctness has taken such a foothold in this country such that any manner of disagreement on social issues draws labels and accusations. Can we have an honest discussion in this country on anything without being called “racist”, “homophobic”, “bigoted”, and so on? In the world of the mainstream media and pop culture, I’m beginning to think not. A narrative has been established, and if you hold an opinion on one issue, guess what? You neatly fall into a category that we’ve set for you.
The saddest part is that Mr. Hilton will undoubtedly get his wish of further traffic to his overrated blog to massage his ego (indicating underlying psychological problems I won’t delve into), and Ms. Prejean will still be the nationally smeared loser. It’s something that we ought consider when someone dares to question what is politically correct. The left spent the last eight years reminding us, sometimes quite rightly, that dissent should not be feared or ostracized. How quickly that lesson is forgotten.









Matt Ralph said
I didn’t really get why this was a story when my wife told me about it last night and I don’t get it anymore now.
It’s amazing how easily we as Americans are supposed to be offended these days.
Wellsy said
You’re right that Miss California’s answer is basically a non-issue. What I reacted to was the unhinged personal attack by one of the judges on the Internet based on that answer. Is it celebrity pop culture fluff? No doubt, but it bothered me, and I had to express how I felt about it.
Matt Ralph said
I’m totally on your team on this one. I was responding to the initial reaction to the non-issue, not your reaction to the reaction. I think you make a compelling argument in your remarks.
Lauren said
Great take on the issue. It’s not the fact that she’s for or against it; it’s the fact that she can’t even express her views (along with the views of over 7 million Californians last November) without being labeled a bigot, hatemonger, and judgmental person.
Whatever happened to free speech?
Shanna Moakler & Keith Lewis are Pieces of S***! « Mark Epstein said
[...] one pundit noted, the Miss USA pageant is now another hostage to the PC “gone wild” antics of the left in its support of the gay [...]
teplitz said
Wonderful commentary. Now, should these poor girls next be subject to their stand on abortion? Why are these questions allowed to be asked? It smears the Pagent’s reputation, since in this case it was allowed to get so ugly (as well as unfair). Reverse discrimination should not be allowed in a judge, which strains me to understand why they had Perez on in the first place. Even so, that being *okay*, they should NEVER have allowed him to use it as HIS platform, that questions should not have been approved by the committee.
Nomad said
Perez Hilton makes a living off of destroying other people. He’s a social parasite. For him, maligning Miss California is simply business as usual.
Wellsy said
I very much appreciate that, but even if you had been talking about my reaction, I would have been OK with you responding to that. If I came off as a bit too bristly, I surely didn’t mean to. In any case, I’m glad we can agree that an opinion simply expressed doesn’t warrant such unhinged smearing.