Not being a fan of beauty contests, except when they involve babies at county fairs, I can't say I have a great stake in the controversy over the fact that Carrie Prejean's answer to the question of whether she supported same-sex marriage apparently cost her the Miss USA crown. But I can't help making a couple of observations.
The first is that the judge who got on TV and said Prejean, Miss California, didn't lose because of her expression of disapproval of same-sex marriage in answer to his question, but rather because she was a "dumb *****," hasn't exactly demonstrated he's a rocket scientist.
Since when is the Miss USA pageant an intelligence contest anyway? In fact, anyone unfortunate enough to actually watch one would conclude pretty quickly that, if anything, intelligence seems to be a disqualifying condition.
A measure of the judge's level of mental activity is that, after he asked her the question, and she gave an answer, he then criticized her because she "should have left her politics and religion out of the question."
If she wasn't supposed to say anything political or religious, then why did he ask her a political and religious question?
And then, joining in the general insipidity, gay rights groups came to the defense of the judge, saying that her opposition to same sex marriage should have disqualified her. Why? Because her answer was "controversial."
With who? The judge? Gay rights groups? If she had answered the other way, in contradistinction to the beliefs of most Americans (and apparently many of the people in the live audience, who applauded her), would that also have disqualified her? It would have been controversial with them.
Most answers given by beauty contestants to questions are insipid and shallow--and geared exclusively to pleasing judges. All of a sudden a contestant gives an honest answer.
Ironically, Prejean's answer is now being broadcast all over the news programs, and you have an attractive, intelligent-sounding woman making the case for traditional marriage.
I say, let it happen again.