Perez Hilton created Carrie Prejean.
Miss Prejean entered this contest in order to become famous. Why else would you be Miss USA except you're chasing fame as either a model, actress or news anchor?
Perez asked her the question. She answered the question. It could have been left at that. Yes, shockingly, there are people out there in the world who are personally against gay marriage. Did she go into this contest with the express purpose of becoming an anti-gay marriage advocate? I think probably not.
Perez is also in the business of getting famous. (As a songwriter, I understand the value of fame in terms of ticket sales and paychecks).
He served, here, the same function that Fred Phelps provides for gays. Phelps utters religious profanities, gets the spotlight, and everyone feels sorry for the gays he's attacked. We win.
Perez used his public forum to call her some profane name, thus giving her martyr status, and she, still in the business of getting famous, saw the opening and now has a bank of lawyers, no doubt an agent, and they are currently crafting a career for her. ("She's up for Elizabeth's pregnancy break on 'The View!'")
It's just show business.
Whether or not she loses her meaningless title, she gets more headlines which makes her more famous. The best thing that could happen to her is for her to lose her title. She'll become even more of a martyr. Then, the anti-gay spokespersons can parade the argument, "Look what happens if you even DARE to express your opinion on gay marriage!"
The whole thing is ugly and what makes me angry is that real lives are being debated. For all I know, Carrie Prejean might be a "nice" person. Hell, even Perez Hilton might be a "nice" person. But these aren't the voices I want to have dominating the debate over civil rights.
13 comments:
I respectfully disagree. I'm of the belief that she would have martyred herself regardless of what happened.
Her appearance at the Rock Church seemed to comfirm my suspicions, FYI.
The comparison to Fred Phelps is a bit over the top, no?
Er, yeah, a bit over the top. LOL.
But you honestly feel she went into this hoping to raise the issue of gay marriage?
But you honestly feel she went into this hoping to raise the issue of gay marriage?I believe she was going to launch into an anti-gay agenda regardless of the circumstances.
Whether that would have included appearing on The Today Show....?
Whether that would have included appearing on The Today Show....?And that's kinda my point. Her fame was a direct result of Perez' actions AFTER the contest. Otherwise, she would have just been another blow-up doll with fake tits and a pointless pageant title, which exists only to make money for Donald Trump.
Being Miss USA is not an achievement, except on the most superficial of levels. But the position of MARTYR! Now THAT one has legs, especially among the religious folk whose entire religion is based on a martyrdom.
But one can't blame for Perez for that; the blame would have to go toward either NBC or Pageant Officials who figured quickly they could get some mileage out of the controversy.
With Perez, it's WYSIWYG.
The Carrie Prejean people saw or see on The Today Show spent hours being prepped on what to say.
And one of the people who helped was Miles McPherson; He, coincidentally, just happened to be in NY, and reportedly rushed to be by her side.
There's just too many coincidences at play here.
I agree completely that she managed to mysteriously and immediately surround herself with the exact people who could tell her exactly what to say, and how to milk this for the Ann Coulter set.
Steve, AMEN! Preach on brother. I totally agree. Especially with your last statement: these aren't the two I want being the representatives during this debate... as much as I reallly wish my rights weren't up for a debate at all.
I'm not a Perez fan either; However, the notion that people are picking and choosing who it is they would like to see or hear representing the gays on radio and tv is problematic.
NG, the media picks our voices for us, so your point makes no sense. There's ALWAYS someone picking. And they prefer whoever is the loudest, most shrill or whoever makes for "good tv." Until Rachel Maddow, there were no out gay voices in the media at all.
these aren't the two I want being the representatives during this debateThat's J's comment, not mine.
If that doesn't suggest he doesn't like his current choices...
I'd also remind you, Steve, that it wasn't that long ago, when certain people were attacking Rachel Maddow for not speaking out on LGBT issues, particularly when she invited certain people on her show.
NG, that's actually my quote. It's the last line of my blog entry.
The whole Perez thing reaks of hypocrisy. That said, there's no way of knowing for sure whether those out there bashing Perez are really on our team.
At the end of the day, Perez is still one of us, like him or not. As such, I'm of the belief the GLBT needs to defend him against the likes of the two Barbies or that crooked mouth ex-gay apologist from Coral Ridge, Robert Knight.
When it's over, then we'll all go back to criticising Perez for what he does, not for what he is.
Hi. I followed a link over from Mark Evanier's site. I'm not gay and I haven't been following this story all that closely but I liked your piece. I particularly liked your line in the comments, "...the media picks our voices for us." That's so true on many, many levels but I never really considered it. Think I'll come back and check your blog more often. Makes me THINK! Thanks!
Post a Comment