If you’ve seen the news anytime since last week you’ve probably heard about Carrie Prejean, the openly Christian Miss California, and her answer to a question posed to her by one of the judges, the homosexual activist blogger Perez Hilton, at the Miss USA pageant.

Hilton, who’s real name is Mario Armando Lavandeira, Miss California whether “every state” should legalize “same-sex marriage.”  Prejean’s response was (in part) this:

“In my country, in my family…I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman.”

Needless to say, Hilton didn’t like her answer.  In fact, he gave her a zero for a score.  That would have been bad enough considering her answer didn’t deserve a complete zero (no matter if you agreed with her or not).  Hilton, however, took it way past the score on the card which likely cost Miss Prejean the title (she was runner-up).  Afterwords, Hilton got in front of the television cameras and publicly called the pageant contestant a “dumb b****”.

Ralph Reagan has written a great article on the whole thing called Perez Hilton: The foul face of ‘gay’ activism which I recommend you read.  It gives more details than I’m giving now.

The point I’m getting to is the heart of the issue really.  We all know that Perez Hilton is a loud mouth basher who is a gay activist and we expect he will do things that many of us don’t agree with.  But at what point do we start calling a spade a spade and say that this man went well past the point where we can just give him a free pass because he’s Perez Hilton?

The media largely agreed with Hilton, it seems.  Many of the stories leaned towards defending his point of view some even claiming that the 70% of Americans who think that marriage should be between a man and a woman are “bigots” therefore implying that Hilton had the right to lash out at Miss Prejean.

However, even if you were to agree with his point of view and say that Miss Prejean is bigoted and narrow-minded for her belief (despite the fact that most of the country feels the same way), how can you possibly defend Hilton’s actions after the fact?  Perez Hilton was a judge of the contest yet he let one part of his personal belief system (which is no bigger or no smaller than the part of Miss Prejean’s belief system that caused her to answer the question the way she did) determine that this woman would NOT win this contest.  He CHOSE to give her a zero based on her opinion which ultimately cost her the crown. 

Even worse, however, were his actions after the scoring.  Had Hilton left it at that we would have been left to argue his scoring never knowing for sure the reasons why he scored Miss Prejean so low for her answer (although we’d have a pretty good idea).  Yet, like a petty child, Hilton couldn’t keep quiet and couldn’t maintain any sort of professionalism or dignity in the matter.  He had to get in front of the television cameras and call Miss Prejean a vile name and then go even further later by stating that he was actually thinking of the “c” word instead of the “b” word that he used.  How much more vile and disgusting can a person get on a professional level before we cast him aside and are done with him?

By giving credence to his actions the media may have shown support for homosexuals but women’s rights just took a couple of steps back.  I can’t believe that more people from the feminist movement weren’t utterly appalled at what happened.  Oh, but then again, I guess I can.  Feminists would never stand up for a woman who was in a beauty contest and certainly not a Christian woman who spoke out against homosexual marriage.  So, instead, Perez Hilton goes on his way without even an ounce of remorse while those who support Christian morals and family values are once again silenced by a vocal and belligerent minority.