Miss California Pageant Director Resigns
Shanna Moakler (below), has resigned as the director of the Miss California USA Pageant.
“I cannot with a clear conscience move forward supporting and promoting the Miss Universe Organization when I no longer believe in it, or the contracts I signed committing myself as a youth,” she continues. “I want to be a role model for young women with high hopes of pageantry, but now feel it more important to be a role model for my children. I am sorry and hope I have not let any young supporters down but wish them the best of luck in fulfilling their dreams.”
Pageant officials said Monday the Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean, violated her contract by lobbing for an anti-gay marriage group and by failing to disclose the existence of revealing photos. They named Tami Farrell, the runner-up, as “Beauty of California Ambassador.” But pageant owner Donald Trump decided Monday to allow Prejean to keep her crown.
So she’s not tolerant (or smart) enough to realize that when a fairly inappropriate political question is asked of a contestant AND said contestant gives a fairly pluralistic answer, but it is not EXACTLY to her liking, it is not immediately bigoted or anti-gay?
deeznuts Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Opposition to gay marriage is inherently bigoted and certainly anti-gay.
flap Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Homosexuality is not an ethnicity or inborn status. It’s a behavior.
Wanting to preserve marriage as a religious or societal tradition is not bigoted and certainly not anti-gay.
Um Cara Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Homosexuality is not an ethnicity or inborn status. It’s a behavior.
How is being attracted to the same sex, and not the opposite sex ‘behavior’?
If I prefer brunettes to blonds, is that a behavior?
Wanting to preserve marriage as a religious or societal tradition is not bigoted and certainly not anti-gay.
Not wanting to grant homosexual’s marriages the same civic rights heterosexual’s enjoy in their marriages is bigoted and anti-gay.
Having a religious belief that precludes your church from marrying homosexuals is not bigoted or anti-gay.
Lee Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 4:54 am
“Not wanting to grant homosexual’s marriages the same civic rights heterosexual’s enjoy in their marriages is bigoted and anti-gay.”
I definately agree if you substitute the first use of ‘marriages’ with ‘civil unions’. However, I think although there are a minority of ‘anti-gay’ people, I would guess a large proportion of the folks against gay ‘marriage’ are more against the perceived destruction/degradation of their marriage concept versus actual antipathy towards homosexuals.
I agree this itself does not constitute bigotry.
flap Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Um Cara, the point is it’s not bigotry if I disagree with a certain behavior. It’s not white, black, female, male…which are very, very basic anatomical/physiological inborn characteristics.
A propensity to like people of your own sex is most certainly partially inborn. Acting on that behavior is a choice, just as deciding to have sex before marriage, etc., is also a choice. We’re all born with certain drives and motivations, and many Christians believe that acting on a homosexual motivation is wrong. You may disagree, but it ain’t bigoted and it’s only anti-gay in that it’s anti-gay behavior.
So it’s only bigoted and anti-gay if I don’t want the government to support it and it stays in the church? Your logic should extend to churches, Um Cara. If a church doesn’t want to marry a white and black person, that’s not bigoted?
trees are people too Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Preference, to prefer or choose one over the other…to make a choice…to decide…I can decide to use drugs or not, I can decide to eat meat or not, I can decide to drink beer or wine…
All of these are behavioral in nature. To use drugs…behavior…to eat meat…behavior…to drink alcohol…behavior…to engage in sex…behavior…
What you prefer in regards to your choice does not change the activity…
Homosexuality is a choice and to practice it is to engage in homosexual behavior….
goliath43 Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
How can you say her answer came anywhere near being bigoted or anti-gay. She believes in a marriage between a man and a women where did she say I don’t like gay people I don’t like gay people I wish they would keep to themselves. She never said not to grant the gays marriage rights she said what she believed in.
It was a loaded question to bait her by that freak of nature to bring attention to himself or itself whatever.
Epiphany Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
goliath43 Reply:
“It was a loaded question to bait her by that freak of nature to bring attention to himself or itself whatever.”
Oh no, she’s not bigoted or anti-gay. And neither are you, right?
goliath43 Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
She is definitely not bigoted or anti-gay whatever that means. I never said anything about myself and I too share the same rights to freedom of speech as anyone else living in the USA. I neither approve or deny anyone’s descision to be gay. I don’t care what they do behind closed doors as long as it doesn’t affect me.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 3:54 am
DEEZ,
Opposition to gay marriage is inherently bigoted and certainly anti-gay.
Watch out now…Obama is anti gay marriage…or didn’t you know that?
Daddio Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 7:08 am
“Opposition to gay marriage is inherently bigoted and certainly anti-gay.” Deezuts.
Jared is right. Watch it Deez. Obama does not believe in gay marriage. Are you calling him a bigot and anti-gay? How about Hillary? She believes the same.
TDro319 Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Hey if Obama and Clinton are opposed to gay marriage, then they’re bigoted and anti-gay. Simple as that.
May 13th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Opposition to gay marriage is inherently bigoted and certainly anti-gay.
The it should be a requirement of the pageant to hold such a view. It should not be a question.
But I do agree that with holding the Civil Right of marriage based on sexual preference is wrong.
Question: If it is “un-Christian” to marry gay people, why is it okay to marry Jewish people, Muslim people or atheists?
Um Cara Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
The it should be a requirement of the pageant to hold such a view. It should not be a question.
Well, you should start your own pageant, if you disagree with the way these folks are running theirs! ;^)
–Seriously, can’t they run their pageant however they want?
TDro319 Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
“Question: If it is “un-Christian” to marry gay people, why is it okay to marry Jewish people, Muslim people or atheists?”
Because Pino, you are mistaken. The church will marry anybody, Muslims, Jews, athiests, goats, elephants, etc. – if they have enough money.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:47 am
TDRO…you are an anti-religious bigot.
Daddio Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 7:10 am
My thoughts exactly Guido. TDro is a very intolerant individual, unless of course you agree with him.
TDro319 Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Guido and Daddio:
You are most definitely correct. I AM anti-religion and bigoted against organized religion.
Organized religion breeds intolerance.
TDro319 Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I forgot to add….organized religion is also big business.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
TD said: Organized religion breeds intolerance.
K: So does organized atheism…
VegasLib Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
TDro,
If you’re anti-religion, then you’re intolerant.
TDro319 Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 9:32 am
I’m not anti-religion. I don’t care who worships what. I’m anti-organized religion. Churches who prey on people’s fears in an effort to extract money from them.
And Kregg, you may be right about atheism. However, I don’t know too much about atheism to offer an intelligent well thought out opinion.
May 13th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Seriously, can’t they run their pageant however they want?
Sure. But don’t get mad at the answer to a question. If any answer other than the one you want to hear is grounds for “not winning” then you should disqualify candidates in kind.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
The church will marry anybody
And they should be able to continue to marry anybody they want.
But we’re talking about the State here.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
God created gays and lesbians to teach ersatz “Christians” what Christianity is all about.
trees are people too Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
God created conservatives and Republicans to teach ersatz “Liberals” what Liberalism is all about….
Hunh?? Exactly what I said Rocky……….
May 13th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Rocky you’ve been in the Kitty litter again
May 13th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Alan,
Make it stop…make it stop, please….
This all is temptest in a bikini top. Sure, she’s an antigay bubble brain whiner who lies and cries…..so, this is new?
Sure, now someone else snags a headline on the same tired theme of beauty pagent mental botox…..it’s like listening to Dick Cheney….some of the words change, but it still smells the same.
Make it stop, please….help make it stop!
May 14th, 2009 at 3:33 am
Sure. But don’t get mad at the answer to a question. If any answer other than the one you want to hear is grounds for “not winning” then you should disqualify candidates in kind.
Maybe the content of the answer to a question is important with regards to how they evaluate potential winners?
I’ll admit to not being particularly well versed on the arcana of these type of contests, but maybe giving an answer to a question that would offend large segments of the dwindling number of people who watch these things is considered relevant criteria.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:50 am
The government should NOT have the power to intervene in what personal choice an individual (or two) makes. The government should NOT have to power to intervene in something that is NOT going to hurt the rest of the public. The government should not have the power to deny somebody the pursuit. The government should treat EVERYBODY equally.
trees are people too Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
C’mon now Vegas, let’s get it right…….
The government should not have the power to intervene in what personal choice an individual (or two, or three, or however many) makes.
If you’re going to cheerlead and champion the causes of some, (homosexual marriage), then cheerlead and champion the causes of all…… i.e. polygamy….
If three or four guys want to get married to each other in one committed relationship then you support em’ all the way…..OK?
To not support polygamy is to be an intolerant bigot, right?
Welcome to the real world…….
VegasLib Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Trees,
I don’t see a problem with several sound minded adults making the choice to marry several other individuals. If they concent, then they are making the choice. I, personally, would not opt for that choice myself, but it’s not MY business what you, or him, or her over there decide with THEIR own lives. The government should not have the power to intervene in ANYBODY’S version of the pursuit. ANYBODY’S.
trees are people too Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Hmm….interesting choice of words…..
Sound minded adults……….
And why wouldn’t you??
Because you are of sound mind and they are not??
VegasLib Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Trees,
Yes. Sound minded adults. We all have our own way of pursuing happiness. As long as I or you or they are not hurting anyone, then who are we to decide for someone else what way they can pursue their happiness? I see, though, that you are incapable of understanding that. May God give you the wisdom to understand that not every individual in this world is like you, Trees. Somebody’s version of sound-minded can be very different from yours. It’s none of our business, though, what their version is if they are not hurting anyone else. The government should NEVER interfere in ANYONE’S version of the pursuit because the pursuit is one of our God-given rights, whatever YOUR God may be.
trees are people too Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Vegas, lots of people engage in behavior that they see as harmless, or as of harming only themselves.
But c’mon now….is this true?? Do they really harm no one else but themselves??
If I and others use drugs, then we support a dealer, and by way of this support he is provided access to still others….and so we see a twofold incursion….Mine by way of peer pressure or friendly introduction, and the dealer’s by way of accessibility…
If I engage in a polygamous relationship, then by example I encourage and stimulate others to also pursue this same endeavor……
The bigger question is…….does this benefit society??
No, it doesn’t, and this is exactly why these societal behaviors historically have not tolerated…..
Correct?
Um Cara Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
If I and others use drugs, then we support a dealer,
I thought conservatives were all about small business owners?
Dealers deserve to earn a living too, what, you think pot grows on trees or something? Erm.. well… never mind.
But congrats on converting Vegas to a pro polygamy position!
Lee Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
I partially agree with Trees here in that I’m against polygamy.
The problem I have with polygamy is although I’m no expert, the anecdotal evidence I’ve seen suggests that the women in those relationships are more vulnerable and often end up being unhappy. To me it’s along the same kind of lines as to why I would not support marriage involving minors although at least on polygamy I would be open to persuasion if I knew more facts.
On the other hand, there is no evidence like this for homosexual unions and it makes no sense from a social perspective to ban them. On the contrary, there is lots of scientific evidence that suggests for example homosexual couples are just as effective parents as hetero’s etc
trees are people too Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
I converted you too if my memory serves correctly.
You see, once you accept redefining marriage for one group, with the sole basis for redefinition being an individual’s feelings, you are then obligated to redefine it for all other groups as well…and there is no logical argument to be made in opposition….because the determination was made based upon feelings, and feelings are subjective.
As long as the participant’s feel comfortable and desire the arrangement, then no one can make a case to prevent it, because you have determined that feelings trump all else…..
Welcome to the real world my polygamist friends……………….
trees are people too Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Lee, the truth of the matter is that most homosexuals are vulnerable and unhappy as well…homosexuals are emotionally unstable and suffer from poor decision making, and this in large part is why it has been historically classified as a mental illness……..
This classification was changed in 1973 due to political pressure placed upon the APA, and had nothing to due with real psychiatric evaluation…..
Um Cara Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
I converted you too if my memory serves correctly.
Nope, I was being sarcastic (remember, we talked about this) – but I’m pretty sure Vegas is bonafied converted! Way to go!
You see, once you accept redefining marriage for one group, with the sole basis for redefinition being an individual’s feelings,
Individual’s feelings? Nah, it has more to do with all the civic rights that go along with the religious component of marriage. Stuff like husbands having full access to their dying husbands, and being able to make medical decisions and whatnot (to give just one of many, many, many examples).
because the determination was made based upon feelings, and feelings are subjective.
Again with the feelings? You haven’t been listening to Rush Limbaugh again, have you? His whole ‘liberals base everything on feelings, while us conservatives base everything of facts’ rap?
Trees – Rush is just an entertainer, he doesn’t expect you to believe him, he just wants you to have a good time, you know – thinking (feeling, really) that you are better than other people.
Lee Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Trees,
“Lee, the truth of the matter is that most homosexuals are vulnerable and unhappy as well…homosexuals are emotionally unstable and suffer from poor decision making, and this in large part is why it has been historically classified as a mental illness……..”
Utter nonsense..
trees are people too Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Dude, I don’t listen to Rush. I sometimes watch O’reilly, and I haven’t watched Sean much since Alan bailed, but I will watch Neil Cavuto……..
I enjoy listening to Frosty hyperventilate, and reading you and Kregg and the rest of the gang online…….
I watch the travel channel a lot, and I read, but I haven’t listened to Limbaugh in probably 14 years, and that’s the truth………
Um Cara Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
I sometimes watch O’reilly, and I haven’t watched Sean much since Alan bailed, but I will watch Neil Cavuto……..
Ah… second hand Limbaugh. The surgeon general has found that second hand Limbaugh can be as cancerous as direct listening.
(Actually, that’s not a fair characterization of O’Reilly – he is pretty much his own guy)
I watch the travel channel a lot, and I read, but I haven’t listened to Limbaugh in probably 14 years, and that’s the truth
I believe you, I definitely don’t think you fib. You seem like a pretty sincere dude.
trees are people too Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Thanks, Um. I know my views have upset more than a few on here from time to time, but they are my views, and I appreciate being able to freely express them.
I also enjoy reading your opinions, I disagree a lot, but I am interested in hearing your opinions, and I think you are also sincere as well.
VegasLib Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Trees,
Apparently you STILL fail to understand my message. I’m not championing polygamy. I’d rather people not practice it, but should I really have the power to disallow others their version of the pursuit? I had been against homos getting married until a couple years ago. I simply began to understand what this country is all about: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This issue is about liberty. This issue is about the pursuit. My way of pursuing MY own happiness is by accumulating me as much money as I can. Then by getting married to the perfect woman. Then by having me some beautiful kids and showing them how important life and liberty and the pursuit are. Showing them how this world is made up by so many different views and opinions to which we might frown at, but nonetheless have to respect. Denying someone their version of the pursuit is against the whole idea of the pursuit. Let the gays go get married. May the consequences be good ones for them. May their pursuit bring them happiness. Let the polygamists get married. (frown) May their consequences be good ones. May their pursuit bring them happiness.
Remember: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It’s in the Constitution, is it not?
May 14th, 2009 at 11:46 pm