As a former Miss USA, Shanna Moakler does possess a smidgen of credibility when addressing the controversy regarding Carrie Prejean and this year's pageant.
The former contestant wrote on her MySpace blog that Prejean did NOT cost herself the crown with what she said in response to Perez Hilton's gay marriage question; rather, the issue was how she said it.
"She lost the crown because she wasn't able to convey compassion for ALL the people that, as MISS USA, she would be representing," Moakler wrote. "And if YOU like it or not, gays and lesbians make up this country as well. THIS is why we have judges, so they can find the RIGHT woman who obtains these qualities."
Moakler has no problem with Miss California standing by her convictions, however.
"[I don't] have any issue with her stating her opinion... I agree with the majority that this IS what makes our country great... freedom of speech. She was asked a question, and she answered it."
Carrie Prejean was seeking a crown. Instead, she found controversy.
Share
7 Comments
April 21st, 2009 11:20 PM
Ms. Maokler's comments are nonsense and hypocritical.
April 22nd, 2009 10:03 AM
I guess Ms. Moakler approves of free speech as long as what is said is in agreement with her personal opinions. As far as judges go Perez Hilton is about as far as you can get from someone qualified to judge anyone as is shown by his immature outburst.
April 22nd, 2009 11:45 PM
It's too bad that conservative minded Christians, Muslims and Jews do not deserve the tolerance, respect and compassion that Shanna speaks of. Let's make this really clear. If you DO NOT have the RIGHT opinions you can't represent America. IRONIC!!! since President OBAMA said the SAME!!! thing and HE represents US. I do support gay marriage but I also support the right of individuals to have opinions that differ from mine. Interesting how women are abused on a program that is supposed to empower women.
April 23rd, 2009 6:02 PM
The problem with all this so called celeberties is the preach about how great it is to have freedom of speech.But only if you agree with them. They are the biggest hypocrites on this planet.
April 24th, 2009 1:40 PM
Perez, Shannon, Travis are all hypocritical wanna be's. First, don't ask a question of a person if you don't want "their" answer not yours. Secondly, contrary to the position promoted by this libnut trio and the minority gay community most people in the U.S. agree with Carrie's position. We recognize that gays should be treated like others on a personal level but when they try to force "marriage" i.e. a religious ceremony vice a civil union they are wrong. No theological based doctrine (Christian, Muslim, et al) advocate gay marriage. Only the Presbyterians and some other liberl protestant movements trying to bolster attendance have been swayed by the political not religious philosophy of the gay position. No, "marriage" the religious ceremony shouldn't be between two men or two women or a man and his mule or any other sexual deviation.
April 26th, 2009 12:30 AM
I wonder: has Moakler condemned what Perez said about her supposed 'friend'? Or is she too busy complaining about how Carrie answered the question?
April 26th, 2009 9:59 PM
Shanna's statements are as convoluted as one can get. Carrie lost not because of her answer but lack of compassion in her answer? Either way you put it means she lost because the judges did not like her answer. Period.
And it is idiotic to demand someone take a stance that agrees with all Americans on a divisive issue, where the majority do agree with Carrie and not with Shanna, Perez, and Alicia, the three judges who took time to attack Carrie.
It is funny that she passes herself off as being tolerant of Carrie's views but back Perez saying she agrees with him 100 percent despite his ugly attacks on the lady she called her friend.
If that is her friend, I would hate to see how she treats her enemies.
Read what Shanna wrote on twitter. The contents of it reveal her true attitude towards people of faith like Carrie that disagrees with her views. It is ugly.