WASHINGTON (CNN) – The recent dust-up between a celebrity blogger and a California beauty queen is at the center of a new ad from a group that opposes same-sex marriage.
The new ad, titled "No Offense," spotlights the controversy that erupted during the Miss USA pageant earlier this month when Miss California Carrie Prejean said she did not believe in same-sex marriage in response to a question from blogger Perez Hilton, who is gay.
"Gay marriage activists attack people for supporting marriage because they don't want to debate the consequences of same-sex marriage," the ad says. "They want to silence opposition."
The spot is the second ad in a $1.5 million campaign recently launched by the National Organization for Marriage.
"Our mission is to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it," the group's executive director Brian Brown said Tuesday. "We want to highlight the very real effects on our liberties and especially on religious organizations, businesses, and individuals."
Brown also said Tuesday that the group is concerned that people of faith who oppose same-sex marriage are being cast as bigots in much the same that people who opposed racial integration were during the civil rights movements of the 1950's and 1960's.
During the pageant, Hilton asked Prejean about same-sex marriage. "I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," Prejean said in response to the blogger, who was one of the pageant's judges. "No offense to anybody out there," Prejean added, "but that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be."
Prejean took second place in the pageant and some observers believe her answer cost her the crown.
She is set to join Brown at a press conference Thursday afternoon in Washington for the formal release of the new ad.
In an anticipation of the press conference, the producers and co-executive directors of the Miss California USA pageant issued a statement critical of Prejean's involvement with the National Organization for Marriage. "In the entire history of Miss USA, no reigning title holder has so readily committed her face and voice to a more devisive [sic] or polarizing issue," the statement says. "We are deeply saddened Carrie Prejean has forgotten her platform of the Special Olympics, her committment [sic] to all Californians, and solidified her legacy as one that goes beyond the rights to voice her beliefs and instead reveals her opportunistic Agenda."
As a heterosexual man in a committed relationship with a woman, I would like to hear any and all reasonable comments about the supposed dangers of gay marriage. I have not heard a single credible danger cited, despite my sincere interest in learning......Our culture complains that gays are too promiscuous, but finds it consistent and reasonable to simultaneously prohibit them from engaging in loving, life-long committed relationships. This is based upon fear and loathing, and is clearly not based upon any thoughtful, logical, sincere concerns. What are the real dangers of gay marriage? Can anybody actually cite a single, serious danger? If not, why would we want to prevent anybody in our country from committing to a life-long partnership of love and respect?
And to Miss California. Please, go back to school and learn more about science. Maybe one day you will see things differently.
How can the anti-gay marriage crowd not understand why people are against them? They say gay marriage will "force" people to endorse homosexuality. NEWS FLASH!! Allowing gays to marry won't force anyone to do anything. You can keep on living your lives just the way you did before, and you can still talk bad about gays all you want. It doesn't take away the rights of heteros to marry. All it does is give all adults those same rights. See? You are trying to take away their rights, and they are not trying to take away yours. How can you not see the difference here? Legal marriage is just a legal partnership between two consenting adults. Sex and/or the ability to have children are not required for marriage and indeed many hetero people have marriage without them. Gay couples are going to exist whether you allow them to legally commit or not, so the anti-gay marriage crowd is really just causing less committed couples and less stability in society. As it cannot be illegal to BE gay, there is absolutely no moral benefit to preventing these people from committing to each other.
Their specific opinions do not matter. Perez Hilton was disrespectful and rude. Carrie Prejean was polite and honest.
Hey, the Republicans can make her their new poster girl. She fits them like a TEE!
Eureka! It looks like the GOP has found their 2012 candidate; afterall, she's about as qualified as Palin with her beauty title isn't she? And on top of that she has a mind of her own, she doesn't need a teleprompter.
All kidding aside, regardless of anyone's views, Miss California is still entitled to her opinion and it's refreshing to see a woman who isn't afraid to stand behind her beliefes (again, people can disagree); I would rather have this young lady as a role model then some talking head they throw out there. Finally, Perez Hilton should not have asked the question if he wasn't ready for the answer.
Peerez Hilton is causig more harm to his gay marriage efforts by his questioning and dicrediting the California contestants personal views on the issue. Perez feels he can stuff his ideas down everyones throat and they will follow his insisted opinion on the subject. In my opinion, I agree wholehardly with the California contestant that same sex marriages are not acceptable from a religious standpoint and only looked upon as OK by those gays it effects. Not all gays go into same sex mariages, but simply live as one in a cohabitating manner without all the publicity or advertising.
Where is the tolerance that the left keeps screaming about? You want Christians to be tolerant of your beliefs but you don't want to be tolerant of theirs? Talk about hipocrisy! Have you heard her entire statement. She did not condem anyone. She only said what she personally believed, which is what she was asked. There was no malice or anger...unlike the response from the left since then.
Laughable. They religiuos right would have us think that being gay is something that is condoned more in the bible than anything else. It's mentioned at times but the one thing that is most often referenced is that "those who have should help those taht don't have". Why doesn't Miss California preach about the poverty in this country? It's a more serious issue than gay marriage yet like her religious right backers, they seem to have ignored that part of the bible. Shame om them. Their personal possessions mean more to them than their own moralities.