Tuesday, April 28, 2009
I'll make this quick -- mostly because I've tried my damndest to avoid talking about this subject at all but, astonishingly, it refuses to die the news cycle death it so richly deserves.
No, of course Carrie Prejean, AKA Miss California, shouldn't apologize for her remarks about gay marriage, as some are still insisting she do.
By now you know the story, so I'll do you the favor of not rehashing it. Suffice it to say, being painfully stupid isn't a crime; if it were, that shameless little turd Perez Hilton would this very moment be on the business end of a shower rape in a Supermax facility somewhere, rather than milking this "controversy" for all it's worth in an effort to extend his inexplicable 15 minutes of nano-riety. On the contrary, I actually think it's kind of refreshing that Prejean answered the inarguably loaded question about same-sex marriage honestly, rather than trying to duck it or, worse, cobbling together an innocuous response that was short on anything resembling an actual opinion. (Although, to be fair to anyone not dumber than a sack of gravel, as Prejean seems to be, I'm not sure she knew she was taking an actual position while she was doing it.)
Speaking of which, is anyone surprised that Prejean -- like Sarah Palin, and, I don't know, maybe Forrest Gump, before her -- has suddenly become an inadvertent icon of the religious right? She has all the makings of the next martyr for their cause: She's cute in a harmless sort of way, not very bright; she unquestioningly embraces mildly ignorant values and pisses off the elitist liberal element in the process, simply by nature of the status she's achieved through no real work or talent. Hell, I'd be shocked if someone hasn't already printed up "Palin-Prejean 2012" stickers, which will soon begin popping up on the bumper of every pick-up blasting Big & Rich from Orlando to Ojai.
The bottom line here is that Carrie Prejean's views on gay marriage may be less than cosmopolitan, but they're her views. The last time I checked, people didn't have to apologize for their opinions, and anyone who thinks otherwise in this case is guilty of the kind of draconian political correctness the left is often accused of trying to enforce. I wouldn't call Prejean's remarks "intolerant," but even if they were -- so what? Doesn't the entire concept of tolerance naturally imply a certain amount of magnanimity toward the intolerant?
Besides, would another one of those ridiculous, Burson-Marsteller-approved forced apologies -- which by their very nature aren't apologies at all -- really satisfy anyone screaming for Prejean's pretty little head?
And don't answer that like a beauty pageant contestant.