Trump says Miss California USA can retain crown
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Reuters
First runner up to Miss California USA 2009 Tami Farrell (left), who will be taking on some of the responsibilities of the role following the controversy, and Miss California Teen USA 2009 Chelsea Gilligan
In pictures: The New Miss California and the controversial figure she replaces
Miss California USA can retain her crown after questions arose about semi-nude photographs taken of her as a teenager and her association with an anti-gay marriage group, pageant owner Donald Trump said.
Carrie Prejean's comments about her opposition to same-sex marriage ignited a media firestorm after a celebrity judge suggested her response may have cost her the Miss USA title; she finished as first-runner up. The photos surfaced later and led to the review of her title.
"We've reviewed the pictures carefully," Trump said at a packed news conference at Trump Plaza in New York City yesterday. "We've made a determination that the pictures taken were acceptable. Some were risque, but we are in the 21st century."
Trump also defended the answer Prejean gave at the April 19 Miss USA pageant. She was asked her view of marriage by celebrity blogger Perez Hilton. Prejean said she believes marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Trump only briefly addressed questions surrounding Prejean's association with the National Organization for Marriage, a group that opposes same-sex marriage. He dismissed them as a "communication problem" between Prejean and California pageant officials.
Before competing in the Miss California USA competition, all prospective contestants are required to sign a detailed 12-page contract prohibiting Miss California USA from making personal appearances, giving interviews or making commercials without permission from pageant officials.
The contract also contains a clause asking participants to disclose whether they have conducted themselves "in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards." It asks participants whether they have ever been photographed nude or partially nude.
After Trump spoke, Prejean, who was accompanied by her parents, took her turn at the lectern, defending herself against "hateful attacks, despicable rumors and false allegations."
"On April 19 on that stage I exercised my freedom of speech, and I was punished for doing so," said Prejean, who described Hilton's question as "politically charged" with a "hidden personal agenda."
"This should not happen in America."
In an interview with The Associated Press, Prejean said she was briefly tempted by Satan to answer Hilton's question in a way that would please the judges.
"I had worked so hard for this," she said.
Instead, she decided to give her honest opinion, even if it cost her points.
"The Lord was in my heart and in my head just saying, 'Carrie, how bad do you want this? Are you willing to deny me?"' she said. "I will always continue to not compromise my values."
Trump's senior executive assistant, Rhona Graff-Ricci, said Trump wouldn't answer further questions about Prejean's dealings with the marriage group. Officials at the Miss Universe Organization, which runs Miss USA, didn't immediately return a message Tuesday.
Prejean told the AP that she was not working with the National Organization for Marriage.
After the pageant, Prejean revisited the same-sex-marriage issue in interviews and televised talks, including one at her San Diego megachurch and another on behalf of the marriage group.
On Tuesday, the group featured a photo of Prejean on its Web site and said it had launched a new advertisement against gay marriage featuring footage of her at the pageant. The ad also features video of Hilton referring to Prejean with a profanity.
The Miss Universe Organization has demanded that the group remove the ad. Brian Brown, the National Organization for Marriage's executive director, said the group did not plan to comply.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Sexual congress is intended for the perpetuation of the race: this cannot happen in same sex relationships, so therefore they are a perversion in nature as well as to the Church.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; this is what happens to a person, who would otherwise probably be a nice, decent human being, when the mind-virus of religion gets inside their head and takes over their brain.
Tragic, really tragic.
"Sexual congress is intended for the perpetuation of the race"
You clearly don't know anything about zoology or human psychology, ouldbob; sexual congress is used by both humans and other animals, not just as a means of procreation, but for pair bonding, group coheasion and conflict resolution. The procreation thing is just an occasional by-product.
No animal has sex with the CONSCIOUS INTENTION of reproducing; they have sex because they LIKE IT. And the same goes for most NORMAL - i.e. non-religiously indoctrinated - human beings, too. In the light of this fact, homosexual sex performs ALL of the same functions as hetersoexual sex - conflict resolution, pair-bonding, etc. - with the SINGLE EXCEPTION of procreation. And that single exception is not a valid reason to discriminate against and condemn it in such self-righteous, holier-than-thou tones.
Oh, by the way, zoologists now believe that the most common form of sexuality in the animal kingdom is BIsexuality, which adds more weight to the idea that the PRIMARY role of sex is social and emotional, and not simply for reproduction.
And. ouldbob, I must ask: Have you NEVER, EVER had sex just because you ENJOYED it? Or have you ONLY had sex wfor the EXCLUSIVE PURPOSE of procreation?! Be honest, now - your God is listening :o)
Agree with your points regarding the stance on this subject by the Abrahamic religions.
God provides guidance, arrogant humans think they know better than the creator.
God provides guidance, arrogant humans think they know better than the creator."
"God provides guidance"? Another *unfounded and unverifiable BELIEF* inserted into your brain by the mind-virus of your faith.
The TRUTH is that certain arrogant HUMANS try to impose their narrow-minded sexual morality on everyone else, and then try to claim it is 'guidance from God' in order to (a) give it a spurious - and supposedly surpreme - authority that cannot be questioned, and (b) excuse them of any personal responsibillity or blame for their narrow-minded prejudice.
It's so easy to HATE someone for being DIFFERENT, and then say 'It's not me who's a narrow-minded bigot; God hates people who are different and I am just doing his bidding' i.e. that you are 'only following orders', eh? That was probably the same lame excuse that was used by Nazi DEATH CAMP guards as they shoved homosexuals into the GAS CHAMBERS, let's not forget: 'I was only following orders', my arse!
Pathetic! Have the courage to admit that it is YOU who is narrow-minded and bigoted - don't try to hide behind your imaginary God!
Its not about being against people who are different, its about going against natural order, its immoral and against the laws of God.
Much in the same way as incest. Just because we have condoms, doesnt make incest between consenting adults ok. It goes against nature and the laws of God. Its immoral and wrong - pure and simple.
Fact 1: Zoologists recently reported in the New Scientist that thousands of studies of animal sexuality indicate that the most common form of sexuality in nature appears to be BIsexuality. I.e. that homosexuality is no more 'against natural order' than heterosexuality, as both are just different aspects of the same underlying BIsexuality.
Fact 2: YOUR GOD DOES NOT EXIST. (There, I've said it - if you want me to believe he does then the burden of proof is on YOU.) And how can a nonexistent entity make any laws? 'Laws of God' is just a code word for 'My own irrational bigotry'.
"Much in the same way as incest. Just because we have condoms, doesnt make incest between consenting adults ok. It goes against nature and the laws of God. Its immoral and wrong - pure and simple."
There are perfectly good biological reasons why incest is inadvisable - i.e. the probability of birth defects due to doubling up of recessive genes. We therefore passed laws aganist it, DEFINING it as 'immoral and wrong', in order to discourage people from it. But, I repeat (and will continue to repeat untill I am blue in the face if necessary), it has nothing to do with 'laws of God', it is simple common sense from a biological perspective. And given that sex per se is not just about reproduction (see my first comment), you cannot claim that homosexuality is against biological common sense, because there are other functions that sex serves in human culture - functions with which homosexuality is completely compatible.
Now stop trying to defend your bigotry, because you - and people like you - are as transparent as glass. And the fact that you think you can fool us about the true source of your bigotry (i.e. yourself, not your imaginary God) only goes to prove that you are not only narrow-minded and bigoted, but also incredibly stupid! So admit it, here and now - declare on this thread that *YOU* are bigoted, that *YOU* hate gay people, and stop telling your stupid, self-deceiving LIES about 'laws of God'!
Just because you dont believe in God, doesnt mean He doesnt exist. You cannot simply wish God away - what will happen, will happen. We will all know the truth when we die.
But I also know that faith is not given to humans in equal measure - each to his own destiny, some become believers, some disbelievers.
And likewise, just because you DO believe in God, doesn't mean he DOES exist!
"You cannot simply wish God away "
And you cannot simply wish him into existence, either!
"We will all know the truth when we die."
Have you never stopped to consider just how utterly ridiculous and unconvincing that statement is? i.e. 'I am going to make a fantastical assertion about the nature of the universe, but unfortunately you will only know the truth of it when you are dead!' Personally speaking, I think it is much useful to be able to check the truth of assertions while one is still alive - at least one could then justify one's belief in them...
"But I also know that faith is not given to humans in equal measure "
And nor, tragically, are intelligence or common sense. You can have no idea just how lonely it can be for intelligent, sensible people in this world, when the vast majority of the human race are ignorant, irrational idiots...
"each to his own destiny, some become believers, some disbelievers."
And the aforementioned believers will waste their entire lives believing in things that don't exist, while doing their damndest to impose their childish, delusional, nasty, intolerant beliefs on disbelievers. And that is the real injustice.
Explaining faith to you would be like putting "pearls on swine" - a waste of time, resource and effort.
Translation:
I realize I cannot win this argument, because my position cannot be rationally defended, as sickofstupidity has clearly exposed - damn him.
Added to which, sickofstupdity has seen through my pathetic religious justifications for my homophobic prejudice - damn him - and if I continue to debate with him I risk being made an even bigger fool of.
So I will exit this debate in a huff, but with a sneerily condescending put-down, in the hope of convincing at least *some* (gullible/co-religionist) people that I have actually won it.
Did I get that right, corporeal4now?
Spot-on (in your mind). Good job, pat on the back for sickostupid [in a patronising way].
I'm glad Satan and Trump have cleared up all the confusion about what constitutes beauty:
1. Not getting your tits out when you were younger (though risque is allowed)
2. Conducting oneself with the highest ethical and moral standards (having opinions that may be construed to be homophobic are not regarded as unethical)
3. Being prepared to sign over one's tits, ass and all in between to Trump Inc
4. Having stage money for brains
5. Being able to spout some pseudo-religious claptrap about the Lord (by which I interpret she means Jesus and not Mandelson) and Satan
None of this strikes me as being particularly beautiful. If we are still to have "beauty pageants" can we not have something that judges real beauty instead of looking for a walking cliche that is:
1. Airhead
2. Skinny Barbie type who also looks mad of plastic
3. Has no character
4. Spouts nonsense about Jesus and how she wants to be kind to animals
5. Hasn't done much shagging so can fulfill judges teen virgin fantasies
6. Smiles all the time, does not know why
"I had worked so hard for this," she said. Oh yeah? In what way did you work for it? Shopping for a new bikini does not constitute hard work...
those that should be stripped of their rights and crown are people that use her and then try to make a victim out of her.
think about this - would she strip if good looking female form were not considered beautiful or desirable or in demand? go sue those that created that business in the first place instead of harrassing the young lady.
you guys in the West behave like you live in pretentious India when you do this kind of thing shame on you.
A beauty pageant winner is in no way intended to uphold your moral values but the very premise of her win, the entire process hinges on how much value YOU assigned to physical beauty and sex appeal!!!! So WHY PERSECUTE her eh?
She is pretty - we like her, we have given her the crown, she gets to keep it. We didnt give it to her for what she does or does not do socially, or with her self, we gave her the crown because of what she has been endowed with, and she has every right to use that the way she bloody well pleases. PERIOD.
I just feel it is pretentious and insincere and wrong to do this to a young woman - if she were my daughter I would have taught her what to choose in the first place! My daughter would know that when she participates in a beauty contest she is going there to SHOW how lovely her BODY is, how much sex appeal she can muster and how well she can dress and fall in with the hoi polloi and submit to the system. but if she made the choice I would take care to protect her rights and respect it. :) Simple really.
Well, good for you, in that case, and I stand corrected - though my original comments were half in jest, of course...
"I just feel it is pretentious and insincere and wrong to do this to a young woman - if she were my daughter I would have taught her what to choose in the first place! My daughter would know that when she participates in a beauty contest she is going there to SHOW how lovely her BODY is, how much sex appeal she can muster and how well she can dress and fall in with the hoi polloi and submit to the system. but if she made the choice I would take care to protect her rights and respect it. :) Simple really."
While I appreciate your sentiments, I think you are beng a little too forgiving of the whole beauty pageant scene. It's really just flesh-fest at the end of the day - the 'acceptable' face of (heterosexual) soft-porn, whose main audience is probably sexually-frustrated middle aged men with frumpy wives (or sexually repressed Christian men with secret sexual fantasies).
Prejean's flirtation with 'glamour' photography simply exposed the unflattering truth of this, and that is what caused the supposed 'scandal'.
But her real crime was to use the competition as a platform to voice her nasty homophobia, knowing full well that in doing so she would appeal to a strong undercurrent of homophobia in the Christian constituency of California (as shockingly revealed in the recent Proposition 8 vote), and thereby increase her popularity and her votes as a result.
In short, she shamelssly flaunted her Christian homophobia, knowing it would be a vote-winner with the judges. Very cynical and exploitative - but then, that's beauty pageants for you.
And it would not surprise me if sweet lil' Tami has not knowingly met a homosexual person - remember, Queen Victoria refused to ban lesbianism as she said such a thing was absolutely inconceivable... Of course with her grandson's sexual proclivities she could not say the same for male homosexuality!