And what the fuck, exactly, is a Perez Hilton?

In another example of free speech for me but not for thee, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, apparently lost the crown at the Miss USA 2009 Pageant because of an answer she gave on the subject of same-sex marriage. She chose to answer the rather strange question honestly, giving an answer based on her own beliefs. For this she was booed (there was also some applause) and has been roundly vilified in the ever vigilant-to-"wrong thinking" press.

Here is her answer:

"Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. Um, we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that 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 that it should be between a man and a woman."

Notice, too, how every "um" or syntax error is accurately reported. A bit mendacious, don't you know.

Jumping on the bandwagon is someone named Perez Hilton, though I am fairly certain you won't find that moniker on his birth certificate. And what the fuck, exactly, is a Perez Hilton?

He's a celebrity blogger. Wow, in the words of the Dude from The Big Lebowski, "That must exhausting."

And, being a celebrity blogger qualified him to be one of the judges at the pageant. It must also give you license to dress like a rodeo clown. Through Mr. Hilton we are actually (I'm breathless!) getting inside information.

A twerp co-opts a variation on the name of another equally worthless human being who is famous for being famous and suddenly he is the arbiter of how we must all think?

First, in fairness, let me say that I don't watch the pageant, nor did I watch Perez Hilton's video blog. I read about both.

What troubles me is the tilt towards a flagrant disregard for the First Amendment. I don't agree with Perez Hilton and his ilk, but I can respect that he has formed an opinion based on...well, I'm sure something, critical thinking perhaps, or deep study, reading, maybe. That someone in their early-20s should be held up to such excoriation for expressing her opinion is just plain wrong.

Tolerance, and her answer demonstrated tolerance, is what is called for, not the abandonment of one's own morals, values, and beliefs.

(Not that it is any one's business but I believe that any two people who truly care for and love each other should be able to get married. Doesn't matter the gender or permutations. That is, of course, not the point. The point is, and remains, free speech.)