Miss CA in hot water

[The Silver Thong]

Man I can't believe women still let themselves get involved in these popularity contests. It's sad really.

[Lord Umbarger]

From what I understand of the issue of the right of gays and lesbians to marry, religion is not core to it. Yes, I've no doubt that there are gay and lesbian couple who wish a church wedding, but religious organisations are not going to drop their doctrine overnight when they have been able hold sway for hundred or thousands of years. However, it seems that the main issue with homosexual marriages is that the partners were not being given the same legal rights as heterosexual marriage partners.

I think that most all here pretty much agree that what ever two consenting adults choice to do in their own homes is of no concern to anyone else at all.

I would also ask those who oppose same-sex marriage, how would it change your right to marry whom you wish? If it wouldn't, then why are you opposing it?

I'm not opposed to it at all but, I do sort of see how it could threaten some people though. If I owned a large company and had insurance programs that spouces could use, allowing gay marriage as well as traditional marriages would cost me additional money, hence, large corperations are generally not in favor of it for that reason alone. It would cost them more money! Also, there is the "slippery slope" argument as well. If gays can be legally married, why not allow polygamy? Then, a man with a good benefits package could have ten wives and thirty kids and the company would have to pay for it. In the long run though, it could become detrimental to non-traditional marriages as some companies might start prefering to hire only the person of male/female couples. In theory, that would be descimination but, how would a non-hired person prove it?

To make this relevant to the thread, Miss CA is a bigot. She may have made her excuse as to why she is a bigot (her upbringing), but that does not allay the fact of her bigotry. Being a bigot, her suitability to represent "The Land of The Free" must be questionable.

Bigot or not, anyone that has been in the pagent circuit long enough to get to the "big time" should know better than to spout out some kinds of trash like that. Of course, the flip side of that argument would be that, unless this is some sort of attention getting scheme devised by the high command, she and her traditional views would most likely have been selected out of the running long before getting to this stage in the pagent pyramid.

Personally, I think that she has the right to answer the question any way she wanted to and they have the right to either vote for her or not. Still, it just seems to me like some sort of made up controversy devised for the sole purpose of drumming up interest for a pagent that is getting swallowed up in a tele-world of awards shows, pagents, reality shows, and a dozen other things that are more modern, more watched and maybe even marginally more interesting. There are so many of these "give me a trophy" shows on TV as well and literally tens of pagent shows, it seems more likely to me that this is just a ploy to get the show noticed.

[Leonardo]

I think it would be very wrong to strip her of her crown. The pageant wasn't about her personal politics and she has a right to state her opinion (also I must say that I personally think her opinion in unconstitutional)

I agree with Fluffy.

Beauty Pageants are not a public service, they are a business and if you disagree with the business practices, you're out.

You are right about the pageant not being about her personal politics, so she shouldn't make it [her personal politics] an issue in whether she has abided by the terms of the business.

[+DieChecker]

That is sort of the point that I was originally making in refernce to the intollerance to Ms. California and her opinion on gay/lezbian marriages. Why should I accept someone slamming a X-tian for their beliefs if the slammer won't accept a X-tian slamming their non-X-tian beliefs? Or, to put it another way, why should one group have the right to slam my values and then get all hurt and upset when I slam thiers? Even if science seems to be on their side, there is 2,000 years of history on mine that indicate that my set of beliefs, although unpopular today, have worked for generations.

This is exactly right. The issue is not if she was wrong, but weither Perez is for pushing it.

Marriage has never been a religious convention - it is simply that religion has co-opted marriage for its own purpose that has caused us to associate the two states.

Are you sure about that? Never?

I, also, was married at a civil ceremony and also considered I was 'just as married'. If a person means what they vow, then it doesn't matter who they address that vow to.

I am now thinking we should not stop with gay marriage, but should allow any group of people in a semi-permenant relationship to get a civil union. So collage buddies could get married and take care of each other and get tax breaks. Girlfriends living together could do the same. We should even allow multiple partner marriage, as who are we to tell people what to do. I am serious, not being sarcastic.

But on the same vein, this is a private contest, with private funding and sponsors who have a right to say where they feel comfortable investing their funds. If Miss Whateverstate decided to say, "I hate them Ni_____ ... or something totally off the wall" then no one would hesitate to fire her, or dethrone her, or whatever they do, because it is obvious that she would have offended viewers right?

And yet gays still rail against the Boy Scouts and their gay ban. They are a private institution also.

How is expressing your beliefs harmful to anyone? What if she said she supported communism, or she supported pot smoking and was eliminated for that? I guess that is the judges perogative, but did he have to go on, and on, and on about how ignorant it is and blah, blah, blah. Perez is such a Hollywood fop now. A sell out.

[Lord Umbarger]

Friday morning a Miss California Pageant official confirmed previous reports that controversial contestant Carrie Prejean received free breast implants, organized and paid for by the pageant, weeks before the Miss USA competition.

They are not fake! If I can feel them, that's as real as they need to be! LOL!

Man I can't believe women still let themselves get involved in these popularity contests. It's sad really.

I'd hate to think that my whole life revolved around what someone else thinks my value as a person is and bases that opinion on what I look like in a bathing suit. What they should do is ask the contestants to write out their answers to a series of questions and then have the responces read by a third person who would read all the answers and let the judges rate the girls on that. To me that makes more sense that rating a womans value as a person on who has the perkiest falsies.

[Leonardo]

Personally, I think that she has the right to answer the question any way she wanted to and they have the right to either vote for her or not. Still, it just seems to me like some sort of made up controversy devised for the sole purpose of drumming up interest for a pagent that is getting swallowed up in a tele-world of awards shows, pagents, reality shows, and a dozen other things that are more modern, more watched and maybe even marginally more interesting. There are so many of these "give me a trophy" shows on TV as well and literally tens of pagent shows, it seems more likely to me that this is just a ploy to get the show noticed.

This is true, Lord U, but I suspect we aren't hearing the full story. I wouldn't be surprised if she had previously implied her impartiality and tolerance - qualities which would seem attractive to a representative candiddate such as she is trying to be. Perhpas she would not have implied those things about same-sex marriage specifically, but in general gave the impression she is a tolerant person without bigotry towards any particular group.

Such an announcement as she then made would suggest she (perhaps unwittingly) deceived her way to her title. Not that I would be surprised that deception was not par for the course in such competitions.

Still you may be right also and this might simply be a way of drumming up publicity.

[Lord Umbarger]

And yet gays still rail against the Boy Scouts and their gay ban. They are a private institution also.

Not just a private institution but, also a Christian institution. If my wanted to join them, they'd expect him to pray to Jesus. Being that we are Jewish, he wouldn't do that so, he'd be out. Since I could not in good concience teach kids to pray to what I consider a dead guy who was no more a G-d than any other one of the hundred of would be messiahs, I'd get the boot too. Of course, I know that to be a part of that organisation I would have to either follow their rules or just not join.... I have selected the latter.

Simply put, if you are going to have religious values, stay out of the pagent curcuit and Hollywood. If you are going to be anything other than a X-tian, stay out of the scouts! LOL!

[Leonardo]

Are you sure about that? Never?

I think a quick study of anthropology would suggest that marriage was originally an evolutionary tactic for the continuance of one's genetic inheritance. In more remote places on the planet 'marriage' is still undertaken without any recourse to religion or divine intervention.

Religions co-opted the ceremony of marriage both for the reasons other have outlined (that people wanted to feel 'secure' in their relationship - good health, long life etc) and also becuase the religious authorities took the opportunity to exert further control over the population by making marriage a 'religious' compact. In doing so they could not only control the general population, but those who ruled.

Marriage - that being the devotion of two people to each other with a vow to spend their lives together caring for each other - was not invented by any religion.

[__Kratos__]

Certainly not. I was just pointing out that when ANY major change to the basic values of virtually every group in history, the group either disappears or completely changes so as to no longer be recognisable to the inhabitants of the earlier culture. One could say the same in refernce to the advent of modern factories and cars as well. Someone from the Roman times would be able to function in Italy of the 1700's but, would be totally out of place after the industrial revolution. A Roman would be just as capable of plowing behind a mule in the year 0001 as he would in the year 1899, a mere 1,898 years removed. He'd have a lot of adjusting to do when it comes to putting him on a modern factory type farm like in the U.S. circa now though, even though there is only a ceturies difference there.

That's the price of change and moving forward. This country is constantly changing and it wasn't the same country it was in 1776.

Very good point but, I don't beleive that one could really say that the culture of the European nations is the same as it was back then. The "culture" of the pagan ancestors is no longer the dominant culture of modern European nations. There are few, if any, totally isolated and self sufficiant villages.

I don't think it is. Just an example of change. There are probably isolated villages but their is also people that look to the old ways to learn them.

I can see why one would say that. I mean, it does seem a little out dated to "buy a wife" or to forbid the consumption of certain foods but, there are other aspects that are pretty solid in the older times as well as todays. For instance, the injuction against killing, raping, child sacrifice, eating the meat of an animal that you found dead by the side of the road, extra-marrital affairs... all of these have negative consequences even in our day. Also, most all of the commandments are even more rational when you consider the common knowledge and level of education and science of the times.

Wait, what?! I've eaten road kill before. Fresh road kill mind you. Tasted just as good as shot venison. Better then letting the deer go to waste.

Anyways, the picking and choosing of morality from religion is only a weak justification for its views. Morality isn't a strictly religious idea, but predates religion and is found in many different species in the animal kingdom.

Rational because it was to be a code of morality that was taken from our natural being. And look how irrational the rest of the codes are. I mean, you guys aren't even suppose to eat bacon. I made a BLT for brunch (I was still craving it this morning from last night's post ) and it was fantastic.

That is sort of the point that I was originally making in refernce to the intollerance to Ms. California and her opinion on gay/lezbian marriages. Why should I accept someone slamming a X-tian for their beliefs if the slammer won't accept a X-tian slamming their non-X-tian beliefs? Or, to put it another way, why should one group have the right to slam my values and then get all hurt and upset when I slam thiers? Even if science seems to be on their side, there is 2,000 years of history on mine that indicate that my set of beliefs, although unpopular today, have worked for generations.

Well christians are slamming nonbelievers just for being nonbelievers and not their words or actions. And all nonbelievers are different, so to generalize and entire group of people who don't believe in a set book or code seems grossly unfair. But to pick out the ones that do bad, then I can support that because I bash other nonbelievers when it arises.

Christians however rely on the bible, jews the torah and whatever else the subgroups want to add in there to look at and point out.

Well to be fair then, I have since the dawn of mankind and before for my nonbelief. And really, the time an idea is around and used doesn't necessary mean it's the right course. Humanity has shed a vast many beliefs and practices over the centuries that we feel no longer is the right path. Our morality isn't a constant but a fluid line chart. Even those religions you mentioned have changed over the years to custom fit the modern ideas. Religions that don't do that, are now pretty much solely found in textbooks and old parchments.

That is true... sort of. Most all of the founding fathers, (actualy, I think that it is all of them), held some sort of western Judeo/X-tian faith that they lived by in their day to day lives. At the time, it was the only world anyone knew. But, it WAS their intention that no one faith should have any more sway than any other or power over those of other faiths. We currently incorperate Atheism into that as well and although that probably wasn't on the minds of the founders back then, I doubt they'd have a problem with that concept were they brought back today.

Sometimes I think that I really should write a book about the "Kosher Laws". Not that I think that I am totally right about all of it but, I dpo think that i could maybe explain some of them in a better way than just saying "Thou Shalt Not...".

It wasn't the only word they knew. They were a bit cultured and Jefferson even had a koran. But they specifically denied religion to be a part of the founding and gave everybody a freedom of choice because they didn't want what happen in England to happen here. Freedom of belief doesn't mean immunity to criticism either.

That we do. We try to keep a secular government. People like to say secular means atheistic though.

That'd be a way to do it. *looks over my books* "Companion to Judaism" from Blackwell publishing is on my queue of books to look at.

[Siara]

Miss California's Breast Implants Funded By Pageant: CONFIRMED

Friday morning a Miss California Pageant official confirmed previous reports that controversial contestant Carrie Prejean received free breast implants, organized and paid for by the pageant, weeks before the Miss USA competition.

Carrie Prejean on the "Today Show" 4/21/09: "The way that I answered might have been offensive ... but for me, it was being biblically correct."

1 Timothy 2:9 (American King James Version)

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with modesty and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;"

I guess those perky new double D's were part of her effort to be "Biblically Correct".

My personal opinion: This women is a nasty, ignorant bigot who wants to force the entire country to conform to her shallow lifestyle. She's a controlling b**** with a superiority complex and a lousy education. Her brainless cruel intolerance defines her as a real bottom feeder. The only thing that could-- and does-- drag her even lower is the way she twists a great 2,000 year old spiritual tradition of compassion to justify her nastiness. She is scum.

Political beliefs were not initially part of the beauty contest. She got an award for her surgically enhanced body. You can't change the rules of the contest AFTER a winner has been determined. If they want to change the rules of next year's contest-- good idea. As of now, she was the winner. Period.

[+DieChecker]

My personal opinion: Perez is a nasty, ignorant bigot who wants to force the entire country to conform to his shallow lifestyle. He's a controlling b**** with a superiority complex and a lousy education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_Hilton

He says he started blogging "because it seemed easy."

Hilton's angle on celebrity gossip includes an unapologetic desire to mingle with and be a part of celebrity culture.

on his video blog remarked "She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage, she lost because she’s a dumb b****!"

During the Q&A portion of the contest, Hilton's question came to the Miss California representative, Carrie Prejean. Hilton asked:

“Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”

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 offense 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.”

Hilton called the answer “the worst answer in pageant history"

This answer is hurtful HOW? I don't see her HATING people here. She merely stated her belief.

The worst judge in pagent history

Edited May 5, 2009 by DieChecker

[__Kratos__]

This answer is hurtful HOW? I don't see her HATING people here. She merely stated her belief.

A belief of hatred. Maybe you should check up on where sinners and heathens go in christianity.

[Lord Umbarger]

A belief of hatred. Maybe you should check up on where sinners and heathens go in christianity.

Yeah, X-tians do have a rather spotty history when it comes to dealing with people of other opinions/beliefs. But, I don't really see how one woman saying that she is against gay marriage really hurts anyone other than offending their belief system. People have been pointing out that X-tianity is a made up faith for right at 2,000 years and the only ones that have gotten hurt by that are the Jews that were within reach. Well, and a few muslims but, they generally had the numbers to fight back.

As far as I am concerned, she could worship a garbage can and as long as she didn't try to force em to worship it or try to sacrifice me to it, I really couldn't care less what she did.

She's spent most of her life working towards this pagent and all so, you almost sort of have to respect her for throwing that all away over one silly question posed by what is probably just an angry little gay man who was spoiling for a fight and enjoys the controversy because it makes him feel like a victim and all. I just don't see all the hubub, Bub.

[momentarylapseofreason]

I think Mr. Perez & Miss Prejean are both wrong

Perez is acting like a drama queen (Prejean is entitled to her opinion!)

-and Beauty contests and boob jobs seem like a superficial business for a Christian to be involved in-it just doesn't seem like something bible god would approve of.

Just keepin "abreast" of what's going on in her biblical state of mind

I hope they never ask a "set up" question like this again-look at the drama it causes

that's why we have these forums

Edited May 5, 2009 by momentarylapseofreason

[psycho619]

she gave her opinion and recieved a lot of ***** for it freedom of speech come on people let her talk haters. shes a decent chick who aint afraid to speak her mind. sounds like a 10.

[Lord Umbarger]

...and Beauty contests and boob jobs seem like a superficial business for a Christian to be involved in...

I was thinking the same thing.

Just keepin "abreast" of what's going on in her biblical state of mind

Good one! LOL!

I hope they never ask a "set up" question like this again-look at the drama it causes

Ah, the judge was just trying to make a little statement probably. Some people thrive on finding ways to get offended.

Still, I sort of think that this is just a ploy to try to drive up ratings for the show. It's one of those outdated programs that no one really pays attention to anymore anyway and they are grasping at straws to try and seem relevent in the modern world of far more vulgar programming.

[Leonardo]

I guess those perky new double D's were part of her effort to be "Biblically Correct".

My personal opinion: This women is a nasty, ignorant bigot who wants to force the entire country to conform to her shallow lifestyle. She's a controlling b**** with a superiority complex and a lousy education. Her brainless cruel intolerance defines her as a real bottom feeder. The only thing that could-- and does-- drag her even lower is the way she twists a great 2,000 year old spiritual tradition of compassion to justify her nastiness. She is scum.

Political beliefs were not initially part of the beauty contest. She got an award for her surgically enhanced body. You can't change the rules of the contest AFTER a winner has been determined. If they want to change the rules of next year's contest-- good idea. As of now, she was the winner. Period.

Bravo on the most of your post, Siara, but I wanted to ask about the part I highlighted.

Have you checked the small print?

[Siara]

Perez is acting like a drama queen (Prejean is entitled to her opinion!)

Yeah, it's obvious that this is the highpoint of Perez's life. He's milking it for all he can get.

[Princess Serenity]

Perez is acting like a drama queen (Prejean is entitled to her opinion!)

He is.

She is. If you don't want an opinion and it happens to be what you want to hear. Don't ask.

Yeah, it's obvious that this is the highpoint of Perez's life. He's milking it for all he can get.

=_= Again he is.

<<

[+HerNibs]

she gave her opinion and recieved a lot of ***** for it freedom of speech come on people let her talk haters. shes a decent chick who aint afraid to speak her mind. sounds like a 10.

Freedom of speech doesn't resolve her of consequences. She can say what she wants and people can respond any way they want.

(Outside of FIRE in a theater or physically harming her.)

HN

[aquatus1]

Freedom of speech doesn't resolve her of consequences. She can say what she wants and people can respond any way they want.

This is absolutely true, and I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. I'm just a little taken aback by the level of hatred in the replies I have seen, that seem fairly over the top.

“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 offense 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.”

She thinks it's great that people can choose, which means that she thinks it's great that gay couples have a choice. She has her own preferences, and even though her own preferences are contrary to gay marriage, she still supports it. I find that to be an excellent attitude, indicative of an intelligent, open-minded person comfortable with her own beliefs.

But what of these responses?

This women is a nasty, ignorant bigot who wants to force the entire country to conform to her shallow lifestyle. She's a controlling b**** with a superiority complex and a lousy education. Her brainless cruel intolerance defines her as a real bottom feeder. The only thing that could-- and does-- drag her even lower is the way she twists a great 2,000 year old spiritual tradition of compassion to justify her nastiness. She is scum.

Really, what sort of response is this? How hypocritical is it that the person making this response is accusing someone else of being nasty, of being ignorant?

Even a milder version,

A belief of hatred. Maybe you should check up on where sinners and heathens go in christianity.

I haven't been keeping with this topic, so I need to ask...has this lady expanded on her reply? I've seen a lot of people claiming that she does not support gay marriage...is this true, because it is contrary to what she replied. Is she the type of Christian that believes that sinners go to Hell? Is she the type that hates those who do not believe as she does?

A lot of very heated things are being said about her. How accurate are these accusations? We have to be very cautious when we start condemning others for the beliefs they hold.

[+DieChecker]

A belief of hatred. Maybe you should check up on where sinners and heathens go in christianity.

I'm a Christian. I've read the Old Testiment front to back.

You obviously are having a problem reading.

“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 offense 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.”

Nothing there is about hate. It is just that she does not think gays should marry. I don't see her saying gays need to be driven out of town or jailed.

But, I don't really see how one woman saying that she is against gay marriage really hurts anyone other than offending their belief system.

Exactly.

Yeah, it's obvious that this is the highpoint of Perez's life. He's milking it for all he can get.

I really don't see him being a judge next year. And why not? Because he brings too much controversy.

A recent government survey found that 4 percent of adults aged 18-45 identified as 'homosexual' or 'bisexual.'

http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm

Should all 300 million US citizens be controlled by the PC desires of 4 or 5 percent of the population?

Let's try putting something different in for gay in the quote:

“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-religion marriage or differnt-religion marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be of the same religion, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be of the same religion. Thank you.”

Change the quote around however you want, and it is just her belief, her opinion.

“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 to be a Republican or Democrat. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that we should be Republican, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that we should be Republican and not Democrat. Thank you.”

Man, she sure is full of hate! (Sarcasm)

[+HerNibs]

This is absolutely true, and I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. I'm just a little taken aback by the level of hatred in the replies I have seen, that seem fairly over the top.

*snip for space*

A lot of very heated things are being said about her. How accurate are these accusations? We have to be very cautious when we start condemning others for the beliefs they hold.

Oh, let me clarify. I agree that the reactions are just as out of line as what she said. Perez Hilton is semi-famous for being a drama queen. I just keep seeing people slamming either him or her. It just seems to me that people are losing sight of the idea that they each have the right to say what they did and the right to react. Just wish it wasn't between two mensa candidates like these two.

Yeah, she expanded, again and again. I'll find the links. She really doesn't come off as very bright during an interview with Greta what'shername, Van whosits. (I'll find that one.)

She can't seem to figure out WHY she is against it other than it is the "Christian" thing to be. (Christian in quotes because not all are of the same opinion.)

Whoo - found the clip/transcript

CARRIE PREJEAN, MISS CALIFORNIA 2009: I think any of the top five girls that were up there that were asked that question had a choice to go this way or this way. And I think that I was the one that was blessed enough to get this question. I am so blessed that I was able to speak my mind, my thoughts, my convictions in front of millions of people. And it's been such a blessing in disguise, this whole process. So thank you, Perez!

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST, "CAVUTO": But you said you're not against gays.

PREJEAN: No. This has absolutely nothing to do with it.

CAVUTO: Explain. What is your position?

PREJEAN: My position is that I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And the way that Perez asked me the question that night, of course, I was extremely nervous. I was up there at Miss USA, if you can imagine, being called into the top ten, top five, you know, having to answer your question. You're nervous, and you see Donald Trump sitting in the front row, your family and friends, millions of people are watching and...

Source

Miss California at church

Not too say that Perez isn't stirring up the hornets nest as well.

HN

Edited May 5, 2009 by HerNibs

[aquatus1]

I'm a Christian. I've read the Old Testiment front to back.

You obviously are having a problem reading.

Yes, yes, obviously, but anyhow, I know a lot of Christians, and not all of them subscribe to the notion of damnation for all sinners.

I'm not asking about what you believe. I'm asking what her beliefs are.

Nothing there is about hate. It is just that she does not think gays should marry. I don't see her saying gays need to be driven out of town or jailed.

So you don't think that her's is "a belief of hatred"? Like I said, I'm a late-comer to this thread, so I may have seen that out of context.

What I'm saying is that I've seen a lot of vitriol in the response to her comments, but I'm seeing a lot of assumptions in those responses too. I agree that people Have the right to their opinion, and have the right to express, and have to accept the consequences of that expression, however I do think that there needs to be some accuracy in reporting as well. One cannot condemn others for what they believe that others think.

[aquatus1]

Whoo - found the clip/transcript

Excellent...although I'm not seeing too much of an expansion here...

CARRIE PREJEAN, MISS CALIFORNIA 2009: I think any of the top five girls that were up there that were asked that question had a choice to go this way or this way. And I think that I was the one that was blessed enough to get this question. I am so blessed that I was able to speak my mind, my thoughts, my convictions in front of millions of people. And it's been such a blessing in disguise, this whole process. So thank you, Perez!

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST, "CAVUTO": But you said you're not against gays.

PREJEAN: No. This has absolutely nothing to do with it.

CAVUTO: Explain. What is your position?

PREJEAN: My position is that I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And the way that Perez asked me the question that night, of course, I was extremely nervous. I was up there at Miss USA, if you can imagine, being called into the top ten, top five, you know, having to answer your question. You're nervous, and you see Donald Trump sitting in the front row, your family and friends, millions of people are watching and...

She's basically repeating herself. She supports gays (or, at least, she isn't against them), but her beliefs are that marriage is between a man and a woman. I'll need to check into the links and see if she clarifies whether she supports gay marriage or not.