Ms. California

I’ve held off blogging about this woman since I thought the whole thing was just ridiculous.  Here you have a woman, parading around on stage in bikinis soon after her breast implant surgery was finished, and soon after posing nude (or semi-nude) for photo shoots and lying about it.  She then stands up and makes it sound like she is some saint that has been wronged by Satan for being asked a question.  Jesus Christ!  Is anyone else laughing about this?  How can a woman who pretends to be a good role model for girls (but has to enhance her body to do it and then lie on top of it) be a role model for little girls?  If I had a little girl, there is no way I would let her be part of these pageants, especially when it really isn’t about beauty in the case of Ms. California.  It isn’t about natural beauty.  It is about beauty enhanced by surgery and the pretended to be natural.  That isn’t being a role model.  That sure as hell isn’t about being a good Christian.  That is about being a fake who now pretends to be a victim once all the lies have been exposed.  It is also ridiculous that this woman who stood up to all those little girls and lied about not only her ‘beauty’ but her nude pictures, is now telling me that my marriage shouldn’t be.  Can’t the anti-gay crowd find someone, anyone, who is real and genuine?  It seems they just can’t do it.  Luckily, hypocrisy makes for some good news.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Ms. California

  1. Cassie says:

    Well calm down Kevin. She gave her opinion and whether or not we agree we must grant her the right to express hers without fear or favor. It\’s what we call "Freedom of Speech"–and it\’s not just for those we agree with (or who agree with us) it is for all.As for where it has gone from there—see my blog entry "Carrie in the Hands of an Angry God" here: also my blog entry "Do Christians Believe in God" here: had ya covered while you were laid up, my friend 🙂

  2. Robert says:

    I\’m with you Kevin, i found this woman to be a complete hypocrite. She did exercise her freedom of speech, and she has ever right to believe what she wants, no problem there…..however part of freedom of speech as well, is responding to things we disagree with, I disagree with Miss California, as do many people, and we have as much right as her to voice our opinions about what she said, all part of freedom of speech.

  3. Deb says:

    You know, I was all for someone making an honest opinion in front of millions of people, and I even commended her on that – BUT – then I found out she is actually going out of her way to support banning gay marriages. Why even bother? Why go through the struggle of making people who are different than you unhappy? I agree with "freedom of speech" but disagree with people tinkering into other people\’s business meanwhile having nude photos coming up to the surface. I can\’t stand hypocrites.

  4. Kevin says:

    Hi Cass! I\’m pretty calm about all of this. I figure part of \’freedom of speech\’ is saying what I think too–she is a hypocrite! :)Hey Robert! I totally agree.Hey Deb! I agree as well. She can say what she thinks. But then to turn around and try and prevent me from remaining married was just way too much–especially after she gets caught posing semi-nude and then lying about it. So much for a role model!

  5. Jeffrey says:

    How can this woman be surprised that she didn\’t win? This whole BS pageant thing is glorified job interview. Who goes to a job interview and says anything politically incorrect. Yes, she has freedom of speech. We all do. But who would go to an interview with say, RJ Reynolds tobacco and tell your honest opinion about smoking? Well, I for one would, but I wouldn\’t expect to get the job. Most people would skirt the issue, like a politician, and answer another question or change the subject. That\’s the point of these question (usually) – not to hear your true opinion. In any event, freedom of speech / personal opinions are not like freedom of religion. You can have both, and while everyone is expected to respect your choice of religion – no matter how stupid it is, no one is expected to respect your opinions. Wave them around at you own risk. The more you have to lose the more caution and restraint you should exercise. So now she\’s lost her Miss USA podium, and she\’s in search of another. She needs a cause to remain relevant. And now she\’s a martyr. Lucky us – the next Anita Bryant.It\’s truly sad how much of a hypocrite this "christian" is.

  6. Cassie says:

    @Jeffrey—interesting that in the same breath you would advise her to lie and then attack her for being a hypocrite. Drop the stone, Jeffrey—the walls of your house are a little on the glass side.

  7. Cassie says:

    One other point—it seems to me that what gets lost in all this is Carrie Prejean\’s original response—you can view it here:\’ll notice that she doesn\’t actually say that LEGALLY marriage should only be between a man and a woman…she says that in this country you can choose both but according to HER upbringing she personally believes that it should be between a man and a woman. She believes that this honest (but pefectly legitamate nd proper response) cost her the Miss USA win and after that a couple of rather unscrupulous antt-gay groups got hold of her and the whole thing got really effed up from there. Her resentment at the (basically unwarranted) response to her original statement led to some immature (but understandabke to anyone who has ever been human) lashing out against the GLBT Community who she felt (and to be fair had some reason to feel) were using her for target practice.To be fair in this–I\’d have to say we who ARE GLBT share some of the blame for how this thing went after her original statement. She has only just now turned 22, after all, (Wednesday) and hasn\’t yet acquired the ability to take the personal attacks in stride—that only comes with the maturity that comes with age.As for what defines a "good Christian" that depends on which school of Christianity you follow, Kevin. And as for all those "lies" being exposed—what was it motivated those who were searching out those lies—-if it was not a rabid desire to "get back" at a then 21 yuear old girl who just gave an honest and fairly reasonable answer to Hilton\’s question? Those who exposed all her "lies" were only out for revenge—-that isn\’;t very "Christian" either, now is it?

  8. Jeffrey says:

    @Cassie: I\’m not advising her to do anything except realize that you can\’t make inflammatory remarks and expect to win. I never said to lie. I said, in summary, that she should have been PC and used common sense. Are you implying I\’m a hypocrite by the glass walled remark? I would have to disagree with that. If Miss CA was interviewing Keven for a religious advisor position, and she asked him if he were gay, then he would say yes. And he wouldn\’t get the job. No lies. If he said he makes it a policy not to discuss his personal life with employers (i.e., it\’s non of her business), blah, blah… Then he might stand a chance of getting it. Did he lie? Not in my book. The point is that she is spouting off her principles and backing them up with the bible. But I imagine she also has principles about posing naked… And it\’s true – there is nothing christian about a backlash. Tough cookies – god knows those who have suffered…

  9. Cassie says:

    Yes but there\’s nothing in her original response that is incorrect. Listen with open ears sometime. She didn\’t say marriage should LEGALLY only be between a man and a woman…she said her personal beliefs (her religion) says that is so. She wasn\’t ORIGINALLY telling anyone else how to live—only saying by what principles she felt herself to be governed. Nothing inflammatory in that. Not really.So why all the backlash? Because nobody heard her. They only heard what they wanted to hear–and then the feeding frenzy was on.

  10. Jeffrey says:

    OK – I’ve reread it again. And I still read it as “be happy you live in a country where you can make the wrong choice.” I’m sorry – I still find it offensive, and I do not want her in a position representing an organization where she can further inflame the public or the gay community. "I will tell you that I don\’t believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them," said Obama on Sunday. "So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don\’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.That statement is also offensive to me. But that one is progress. Ms. CA’a is not.

  11. Cassie says:

    REread it where? I give you a link so you can haer and see her say it and you\’re reading it off someone;\’s blog? Listen, according to the Bible it IS the "wrong choice" and there are one hell of a lot of people who happen to believe that book is the Word of God.This is not going to change any time soon so you can plan to live a large part of your life being offended if that is what you are into. But considering the movement ot outlaw gay marriage Ms Prejean\’s statement acknowledging that persons should have the right to choose (even though she personally doesn\’t agree with the choice) is about the best you are going to get from most non-gays.Be damn glad of it. I grew up in the 1950s and \’60s when gay and transgendered persons were regularly being arrested and locked up either in jails or mental institutions because we were different.Maybe you don\’t see any progress, honey—but I do.

  12. Jeffrey says:

    I expect to see a lot of change in my lifetime – I already have and so can all those bible thumpers. And I watched your link, and I REread it from a reputable news source. Does it matter where? Is this what 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.”

  13. Cassie says:

    That\’s what she said. And I see nothing wrong with it. Millions of Americans believe the same and they are the same people who are voting in different states to ALLOW same-sex marriages. They don\’t "agree" with it. They don\’t "approve" of it. But they respect the rights of the minority.If approval is what you demand in addition to the right you\’ll be waiting a LONG time.

  14. Jeffrey says:

    Cassie – there\’s a big difference between approval and legal right. Frankly, I don\’t care about other people\’s approval. I don\’t approve of divorce. Do you think they care? Hell no – they do it all the damn time – cause they have the "legal right" and my approval is not needed not required. Now, if I was the President or the Pope or Ms. USA do you think they might care about my opinion? I think it\’s quite clear where I stand. Now can I ask you a question? Are you one of those millions of Americans that don\’t "agree" with it, that don\’t "approve" of it – with or without the "respect of the rights of the minority?"

  15. Cassie says:

    I\’m a male-to-female transsexual, jeffrey I AM the minority. As Kevin could tell you I approve of same-sex marriage and have defended it more times than I have time to tell—both here on Kevin\’s space where I got inviolved in a dandy discussion with a Christian Conservative while Kevin was away on vacation somewhere and on my own windows live space. I also approve of divorce (you didn\’t actually specify which one you were asking me about) since I consider that a better solution to "irreconcilable differences" than, say, murder—which used to happen MUCH more frequently between spouses back when divorce was more difficult to get.And let me add this: "Freedom of Speech" is a hard won and easily lost right. The Bush Administration attempted to destroy it by branding everyone who disagreed with the President as "traitors and friends of terrorists" and I see, now, that my own side of the political spectrum is not above using the same tactics to try and silence dissenting viewpoints. This is a shameful thing. WE must respect another\’s right to disagree with a view or an idea. We must repect their religious beliefs and values. Else how can we expect them to respect OURS? Respect must be a mutual thing and I am willing to offer it first. That way a dialogue can at least BEGIN. Screaming and name-calling and character assassination don\’t really help to bring people together—understanding, love, and a willingness to meet each other half-way just MIGHT.

  16. Jeffrey says:

    First – I should point out that I don\’t disapprove of divorce – in reality I\’m rather neutral on the issue. That was meant to be a rhetorical device. I should have pointed that out. Second, wow – bombshell of the day! I didn\’t know and I appreciate your sharing. Happy to make you acquaintance! Third, I pretty much agree with your freedom of speech statement and regarding Bush. And I respect you and your honest dialog. I respect your right to have an opinion as I respect Ms. CA\’s right.But I, as do millions of other GLTB and straight people do not respect Ms. CA actual opinion. Thirty years ago it would be OK to say that blacks had a lower IQ – just because, well, it’s obvious, can’t you see? It certainly freedom of speech, thought and opinion to make such a statement, but when you write a book about it, such as “The Bell Curve” then you can expect a proper backlashing! It’s your right to make such a book! But don’t call me Bushian because I refuse to purchase it and publically chastise it. This is 2009. Things are changing. I expect you’ve been through a lot in your life. I have too. But I’m not old school. She is a public figure, and as such, I expect her to behave like one. I don’t care if she is 21 – she has millions of people watching her on TV. Little girls will grow up espousing her opinion because they saw it there first. If she really wants to air her opinion publically, then she needs to be prepared to face the consequences. This could have gone either way. If she supported gay marriage, the fundies would be framing up a cross for her. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with right to be popular. So, the bottom line, I guess we don’t see eye to eye on this. I respect your right to have your opinion, but I don’t agree with it. Nor would I compare this to GWB’s efforts you mention. I see this simply as how the chips fall. I see this, by her own admission, as not necessarily her own well thought out opinion, but the one she was raised with. She is herself perpetuating such harm not just to some little kid of hers, but to the whole world. This is her right. And you can certainly respect her for exercising it. But, in this modern age of our, the dissenting opinion also has a voice that can be heard around the world. Let freedom ring!My whole point has been that it was the wrong answer – that is if she really wanted to win. I have never said anything about the “other side” and haven’t condoned or chastised them. My point has always been about her.

  17. Cassie says:

    I think the area where we differ describing it as an "opinion" rather than as a religious belief. The opinion part of her statement is that people have the right to choose who they marry. Her faith dictates that for her (and millions…nay billions…of Christians, Jews, and Muslims same sex marriage is wrong—at least for THEM. Comparing this to a book like "The Bell Curve" is like comparing chalk and cheese. The Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) especially the Pentateuch (the first five books that were supposedly written by Moses and dictated—to a greater or lesser extent—by God HIMSELF) form the basis for these Three Great Religions and in everyone of them the words of Leviticus 18:22 are considered to proceed from God. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Deuteronomy 22:5 is also considered tp be a command from God: "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman\’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."Now these people BELIEVE this so they will NEVER say "Hey, there\’s nothing wrong with it!" They can\’t. The best they can ever do is agree that CIVIL marriage has to be a right of all. And then have believers make sure they marry in the Church, Synagogue, or Mosque to show that THEIR unions are blessed by God, Yahweh, Allah and so on.(I happen to believe that the Divine blesses all unions where love and devotion are present but everyone knows I\’m weird).But this is the battle you have set yourself to fight. It isn\’t just Christian Fundamentalists…it is almost all Christians who FEEL this way and BELIEVE this way…it is the Muslims and the Jews (especially orthodox Jews) also.This so-called "opinion" about same-sex marriage is part of an abiding religious faith and cannot be separated from it. So the answer lies in the Separation of Church and State and the COMPROMISE that allows that the same CIVIL rights must be afforded to ALL (which is pretty much what Miss California agreed to) while maintaining the Believer\’s right to consider it a sin in the eyes of God for that is what their Holy Book(or ONE of their Holy Books) says. For the Christian this is reinforced in the New Testament by Paul (among others) writing in his First Epistle to the Corinthians 6th Chaptyer 9th and 10th Verses: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

  18. Cassie says:

    addendum to what i wrote below: people in the GLBT movement (just like people in the "Save Marriage" movement) have a similar problem. They listen to each other too much. The "Save Marriage" people are losing because most people do not agree that allowing same-sex couples to marry in a civil ceremony is wrong (although the voters in California were panicked into agreeing with that temporarily—that POV is already out of favor and if the vote were taken today the decision would have gone the opposite way). But, on the other hand, GLBT people think this means that people are agreeing that it is not MORALLY wrong for same-sex couples to marry. They still believe same-sex relationships ARE morally wrong because the Word of God says so. The President has articulated that position fairly well.SO—when you ask ANY of these people what THEY PERSONALLY believe you are going to get about the same answer Perez Hilton got from Carrie Prejean. "You have the right to choose but according to my religion it is wrong—no offense."

  19. Jeffrey says:

    Cassie, I’m not religious. And no offense, but you say my comparison is like comparing chalk and cheese, but all these biblical quotation are like fingernails scratching across a chalkboard. LOL! Perhaps, I agree with you, but from my point of view, religion is simply the problem. Anyway, I wasn’t comparing the book to her. My comparison was temporal – comparing thirty years ago with today. It compared the same situation, then to now, where a personal “opinion” is widely disseminated. I don’t see that as chalk and cheese, but rather, just an easy thing for you to say. I could make the same type of freedom of speech statement about flag burning, or abortion, about wearing fur, or atheism or… Thirty years ago you could (or could not) do things, say things or subscribe to certain ideas in the same manner you can now. Things change. And it’s called PC. I have only suggested that she exercise a little of it.And this isn’t about my battle to “fix” someone’s beliefs. This is my support for the dissenting voice that is heard around the world. She is a symbol of an unacceptable idea. She has made herself the poster child of religiously justified intolerance. And the counter point has a right to be heard, and in fact, has proven to be more than she bargained for.

  20. Deb says:

    Not to mention she can\’t even put a sentence together. "I think I believe" is not a good answer. Sorry, had to vent. Moving on, right? And…I can go on and on.

  21. Cassie says:

    @jeffrey but you aren\’t even arguing the merits of the situation. What people believe is not going to change–certainly not what religious people believe—it hasn\’t in over 2,000 years. Not really. There is more freedom as people accept that others have certain rights in a free society–but the core belief doesn\’t change and it would be simple self-delusion for us to even suppose otherwise.But I would like to ask another question: why the huge focus on one young woman. She\’s only Miss California, after all not Miss USA (that is Kristin Dalton who was Miss North Carolina) and she was crowned back in April,@deb Public speaking can be very stressful and it is not unusual for anyone (no matter how practiced) to flub a sentance or two.But what is clear here is that GLBTs and Christian Fundamentalists are very much the same–neither are very good at practicuing love, forgiveness, mercy, or understanding.

  22. Cassie says:

    byw if you want to continue this come to my space\’t keep clogging up kevin\’s

  23. Kevin says:

    Hi Jeffrey, Cass and Deb–whew, I am away for a bit and there are now 22 comments!Let\’s see–Cass, my definition of a good Christian is one who takes the Bible seriously. Lying is a sin. If you lie (as she did), then she is, by my defintion, not a good Christian. I don\’t know of a single Christian who would say lying is good–but there are lots of Christians who lie. Hi Jeffrey–I agree with your first comment in part (about the lying on the job interview). I\’ve only watched a couple of these pageants years and years ago and I do believe that they give answers the judges want to hear: "I want to save Africa from starvation" and so on. Right. And I also find Obama\’s statement offensive. 50 years ago people like him couldn\’t marry a white woman because of religion. He just doesn\’t get it–or he is so politically tied up that he isn\’t allowed to \’get it.\’Cass–about your comment on her original answer. She states everyone has a choice–but that is not true! How many glbt can make the choice of getting married in this country? More and more states are allowing this, but the choice has been taken away by people like this \’beauty queen.\’ She may have a choice, but I don\’t. And she now has joined the National Organization of Marriage to make sure that the glbt community does not have the choice she thinks they have! It is ridiculous and she deserves all the bad press she is getting. I think that if someone wants to stand up on a stage and try and be a role model can be investigated to see if she/he is really a true role model–or only one when it is convenient. Her nude/semi-nude pictures were found after her opinion was given, but that, to me, was fair game. And you aren\’t clogging up this space–I really didn\’t want to blog about this woman, but when she joined the National Organization for Marriage and those racy pictures of her showed up–then the gloves came off. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s