April 30th, 2009
02:09 PM ET
5 years ago

Group's new ad features beauty queen, celebrity blogger

Carrie Prejean and Perez Hilton are prominently featured in a new ad from the National Organization for Marriage.
Carrie Prejean and Perez Hilton are prominently featured in a new ad from the National Organization for Marriage.

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."


Filed under: Popular Posts • Same-sex marriage
soundoff (309 Responses)
  1. Cincinnatian

    Can someone please explain the "consequences" of same-sex marriages? ...other than fairness, equality, justice, liberty...

    What are people so afraid of?

    Live and let live, dammit!

    April 30, 2009 10:44 am at 10:44 am |
  2. Why is Perez Hilton not attacking.....

    Obama and Hillary? They have the exact same view as Carrie.

    OBAMA SAYS MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN-PERIOD.

    April 30, 2009 10:44 am at 10:44 am |
  3. Alan

    This is so twisted. If Miss CA. would have come out and said she not only supported gay marriage, but also marriage between humans and animals, or humans and reptiles, or even trees, she would have been hailed as a wonderful, understanding person that should have won the crown.

    April 30, 2009 10:44 am at 10:44 am |
  4. Susan Walters

    I've long wondered how we (the US) can justify the government controlling marriage and marriage rights in the first place. It is a clear violation of the division of church and state. If we want civil unions - when you go down to the court house and get your marriage license - to determine legal rights, tax status, etc. fine. But how someone seals that union, " be it in a church or on a hillside, is none of the government's - or anybody else's business. Unfortunately, there are Americans whose religion beliefs require the impose those beliefs on others. They condemn extremist religions/sects/cultures for those same principles but support them within their own religious communities. We have to get back to the respecting the division of church and state. We have gotten dangerously off track.

    April 30, 2009 10:44 am at 10:44 am |
  5. Melissa

    Just another sign of desperation by the Republican party. They're hoping that by dressing up their prejudice and discrimination in a pretty pkg it will make people forget how morally reprehensible their ideas are.

    April 30, 2009 10:46 am at 10:46 am |
  6. a southern progressive

    what..do they think that gay marriage will hurt their 50% divorce rate?

    instead of focusing on the "consequences of same sex marriage" maybe they should be focusing on the "consequences of divorce" and the follow up can be the "consequences of multiple marriages"

    these people are fighting to protect something that most heterosexuals do not hold any value to it, proven by the 50% failure rate among hetero marriages

    April 30, 2009 10:46 am at 10:46 am |
  7. Hotti4BHO

    The Dems got Spectre the Repulicans got Prejean 1 1

    April 30, 2009 10:46 am at 10:46 am |
  8. Thomas A. Marcetti,Sr.

    Shame on the Miss USA pageant. They should apologize for the judge that asked such a “decisive” question, not for the young lady who was unwilling to deny her core values even in the face of ambush media. Miss Prejean was not being an opportunist, she was being honest. Maybe what this event truly reveals is that the Miss USA pageant only people who are cardboard cutouts to wear the crown and people of main stream morality need not apply. Once again the media would have us believe the “tail should wag the Dog.”

    April 30, 2009 10:46 am at 10:46 am |
  9. bobby

    this is idiotic. the reason her response was problematic was that she didn't make any sense, not because she opposed equal rights for homosexuals. what the hell is "opposite marriage" anyway? it's impossible to decipher what she was trying to say. of course the media has misrepresented the whole issue just like they always do, allowing bigots to feign being offended by an overly PC society.

    personally, i think government should get out of the marriage business anyway. give everyone civil unions with the exact same rights and leave marriages up to the churches (pretty much what erik in pennsylvania said).

    April 30, 2009 10:46 am at 10:46 am |
  10. Classy 57

    Refreshing to see an American voice an opinion that isn't in sync with Hollywood and a minority of Americans. We need more Americans like this beauty to speak out and not be afraid of a few in the minority who have loud voices and big pocketbooks - after all, they're not afraid to speak out.

    April 30, 2009 10:46 am at 10:46 am |
  11. Ori

    Does the National Organization for Marriage have equally strong views regarding pre-marital sex, as harmful to the institution of marriage?

    April 30, 2009 10:47 am at 10:47 am |
  12. Tom

    Let see what could you do with $1.5 million?
    Help those in need or promote intolerance and ignorance – Nice to know where this group places its priorities.

    April 30, 2009 10:47 am at 10:47 am |
  13. Steve

    I don't see the controversy about her statement, really... I don't agree with her stance, but lots of flat-earthers hold the same opinion, so it's nothing new. And the judge embarrassed himself by throwing a fit about it. If he couldn't handle the (admittedly ignorant) answer, he shouldn't have asked the question.

    I'll just be glad when Prejean slips off the news, because she's painful to listen to. She starts every sentence with "You know what..." and it starts to feel like some form of torment. You think "Surely she's not going to start the next sentence with 'You know what...' this time... but then she DOES. She's about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.

    April 30, 2009 10:47 am at 10:47 am |
  14. President Obama could walk on water and the Party of NO would still complain that he left footprints!

    It shows total intolerance and calling her a B was just a bad as someone calling us a f@&&*t. As a judge if he thought he could not handle the answer then he should have asked a question so she could give the age old answer of "I want world peace".

    His intolerance has given the gay marriage issue a black eye, she did nothing wrong and is entitled to her opinion, I just wish Hilton would STFU!

    April 30, 2009 10:47 am at 10:47 am |
  15. Mike- Kansas City MO

    The ad that states "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."

    As someone who fully supports same-sex marriage, I would welcome a debate this. What exactly are the consequences? From what I have seen, and read in court documents, I have not heard any VALID consequences to allowing same-sex marriages.

    I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me on this matter. That is their right! However, if you are going to disagree, give me a good solid answer as to why!

    April 30, 2009 10:48 am at 10:48 am |
  16. G NO P

    Our mission is to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it,"

    Then why aren't you running ads suggesting that divorce be made illegal? Hypocrites.

    April 30, 2009 10:48 am at 10:48 am |
  17. J

    Look at how pretty bigots can be

    April 30, 2009 10:48 am at 10:48 am |
  18. Tim

    if you think about it this way, marriage, in the context of this argument, is an issue of Law, which is overseen/controlled by government. Why would ANYBODY, want to bring the government in on their personal relationships either straight or not.? Marriage itself is just a legal certificate, or a religious rite. The bond or union between 2 people is formed through partnership, commitment, loyalty, unconditional love, etc. not legal or religious matters.

    April 30, 2009 10:48 am at 10:48 am |
  19. SHIRLEY "60"

    Ms. Perjean should not allow these people to use her the way that they do everyone else to create a problem when there is not one. Most people have their own opinion about gay marriage, and I believe her doing ads for fading, outdated conservative organizations doesn't sway anyone to think or not think as she does.

    April 30, 2009 10:48 am at 10:48 am |
  20. Expat American

    Why are Conservatives so concerned about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry? If their argument is that gay marriage will contribute to the eroding of the 'moral fabric' of the United States, then there are many more 'eroding factors' contributing to that other than just gay marriage. The uneducated bigoted Palin mob proved that; as they held their Holy Bibles close.

    And did we not just finish 8 years of a Republican Bush administration?

    April 30, 2009 10:49 am at 10:49 am |
  21. drea

    I would like to know why we are STILL hearing about Carrie Prejean and her divisive and distasteful tactics. It's good that her closed-mindedness opened the debate about same-sex and "opposite" marriages, but honestly, it's the same old song and dance: she appears somewhere (churches, in the media, commericals) to voice her opinion (which, by the way, doesn't matter). She needs to shut up and go back to her duties as Miss California.

    April 30, 2009 10:56 am at 10:56 am |
  22. BL

    The Miss California title is NOT one for promoting a political agenda. It is one where the winner support very worthy causes and brings attention to those causes, such as the Special Olympics. These not for profit or gain organization, especially in these economic times need that added attention so they may continue the good work they do for everyone, regardless of their political offiliation or color or gender or religious affiliation or sexuality. She should be striped of her crown as she will not be promoting those organization, worthy and in need of the support.
    Well, my partner and I must go to work now, pay taxes to help support kids and special programs of which we don't get any benefit from, as we have no children. We should at least be able to share the same benefits that other married couples do, such as being on each others health insurance, filing joint taxes, etc. I don't care what you call it, Civil Union works fine for me. Marriage is just a word. I want the same rights given to any other committed married couple.
    ENOUGH SAID........

    April 30, 2009 10:56 am at 10:56 am |
  23. Sam Sixpack

    What's the difference between a marriage and a partnership? People of the same sex have been forming partnerships since the dawn of civilization. Two people can form a legal partnership without knowing it. Without the opposite sex distinction, is there any difference between a marriage and a partnership?

    Is this entire hullabaloo because some queen wants to make me call him a “wife?” Isn't this really about changing the definition of words? Why do gay couples get to commandeer the word "marriage" from heterosexuals? Why should gay people get to dictate to me what English means? Form a partnership and get your own word.

    April 30, 2009 10:57 am at 10:57 am |
  24. Dave in Albuquerque

    Beauty pageants are the antithesis of religious values - they're meat markets. Contestants strut their barely covered bodies for the erotic pleasure of male viewers, and for the vicarious pleasure of female viewers who wish that they, too, could be sex objects. And we're supposed to listen to a contestant expound on what's moral and what's not? Yeah, right. Lady, please shut up and put your clothes back on - I'm not buying any part of what you're selling.

    April 30, 2009 10:57 am at 10:57 am |
  25. Justin, ny

    he's right- people think you're a bigot because you are.

    April 30, 2009 10:57 am at 10:57 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13