Some Things Just Aren't About Same-Sex Marriage

Carrie Prejean's teenaged sex life is one of them

As the political left continues to drag Carrie Prejean's kicking and screaming personal life into the spotlight, a somewhat surprising figure has entered the fray.

Writing on the Daily Beast, Meghan McCain complained that Sean Hannity didn't rake Prejean over the coals enough in regards to her sex tape.

"This was Prejean's first stop on her book publicity tour, and when the sex tape came up, he proceeded to ask her if she was 'in love with her boyfriend at the time that she made [it].' I'm sorry, why would being in love matter when it comes to filming yourself in a sexual context?" she asked.

Sadly, one would expect that the answer to this question wouldn't so elude a woman who describes herself as pro-sex.

The better question, for McCain and for those who intend to use the video in question for rhetorical advantage, is this:

What does Carrie Prejean's video have to do with same-sex marriage? Or even with her position on same-sex marriage?

The answer, or course, is simple: the answer is "absolutely nothing".

McCain's confusion over this topic became evident as she continued writing:

"The problem I have with my fellow Republicans is why gay marriage is the trump card in any situation," McCain continued. "It seems that as long as you are against gay marriage, any scandal in your life can be overlooked or overcome. When you are in favor of it, however -- and I have been very vocal about my support -- that position defines you."

Many conservatives understand what Meghan McCain evidently does not -- that while the Prejean tape certainly serves the purposes of the scandal-mongering attack machines of the political left, it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand: same-sex marriage.

McCain's support for same-sex marriage, however, very much is relevant to this issue (duh. -ed) and, rightly or wrongly, this is one of the issues that is causing McCain such difficulties within not only the Republican Party, but within conservative circles as well.

Meghan McCain certainly isn't obligated to agree with Carrie Prejean -- this author, in particlar, certainly doesn't.

But if anything, McCain ought to sympathize with Prejean. After all, it wasn't even that long ago that the left-wing hate machine heaped its vapid attentions upon her.

The What the Fuck!? Files Vol. 7: Keith Olbermann Rips Me Off

Keith Olbermann recently debuted a regular segment on his show that seems to suggest that Olbermann may be a Nexus reader.

In a segment entitled the WTF!?! Moment -- which seems very similar to the Nexus' What the Fuck!? Files -- Olbermann takes some time out to complain about Carrie Prejean's recent complaints that her freedom of speech had been violated.

Olbermann rightly notes that the United States Bill of Rights, as entrenched in the United States Constitution via Ten Amendments, only provides decisive protection from governmental oppression of free speech.

Olbermann continues to argue that her employer could deny her the right to freedom of speech, noting that his own employer, CNBC, could deny him freedom of speech. As such, nothing Prejean said about same-sex marriage is actually subject to protection.

But Olbermann's argument fails on two key tenets.

First, Prejean made her comments in the course of a question asked by Perez Hilton, a question she was obligated to answer as part of the contest she was participating in. Olbermann's employer may be justified in taking him off the air if, indeed, he made comments that were deemed outside the realm of professionalism.

But the matter would be very different if Olbermann's producer asked him a question about a political issue and was given a question they decided they didn't like.

Second, Constitutional convention has treated the First Amendment very differently from the manner in which Olbermann describes it. There are countless cases of individuals suing for retaliation against them after the exercise of their free speech.

Amusingly, if asked, Olbermann would likely describe himself as a progressive, or at least as a liberal.

Yet Olbermann's depiction of freedom of expression as applicable to Prejean puts him distinctly at odds with the kind of free environment that is needed for liberal pluralism to survive. Robert B Talisse has noted that in order for liberalism to be truly viable, more is needed than simply legal protection of free speech. Rather, a culture of free speech -- in which public deliberation on matters of import, such as same-sex marriage -- is actively encouraged of people regardless of whatever opinion they may hold on the topic.

If Prejean were someone being censured for supporting same-sex marriage one can fully expect that Olbermann would react very differently to her plight. This is the base hypocrisy at the core of Olbermann's stance on this particular matter.

One should expect better from someone who is supposed to be a respected journalist, but Olbermann strays from the ill-conceived directly to the comical.

In addressing the recent "scandalous" photos of Prejean, Olbermann insists that the photos couldn't have been taken without Prejean's authorization because she's looking at the camera in each photo. Except, she isn't. In one of the photos -- the one with the clearly visible pre-implant breast -- Prejean is very clearly looking away from the camera.

She even has her hands up as if she's been adjusting her hair, for fuck's sake! For fuck's sake, Keith!

In the other photo, the exposure of the nipple is actually so slight that it's clearly more attributable to a Janet Jackson-esque "wardrobe malfunction" than to any willingness on Prejean's behalf to submit to a risque photo.

The utterly comical thing about that aspect of the entire affair is that very few people honestly consider the finished product of these photo shoots to be scandalous or risque. Aside from those milking these photos out of political motivations, one would have to travel to the most conservative depths of the Bible belt in order to find someone who would find them scandalous.

But it's amazing the extent to which Olbermann is willing to mortgage his journalistic credibility -- then default -- in order to contribute to the personal destruction of Carrie Prejean.

It's really the kind of thing that makes a person scratch their head and say "what the fuck" -- and we were doing that here first.

Opportunism Defined

American left out to crucify someone -- and they've chosen Carrie Prejean

For anyone who ever bought the myth that only the right-wing in America delights in destroying people who provoke their ire, the events that continue to swirl around Carrie Prejean prove differently. In this event the bloodthirstiness of the American left is on full display, and it seems very much equal to the non-mythical bloodthirstiness of the American right.

The Huffington Post rather gleefully jumped on a recent revelation that Prejean has had breast implants.

These people have slipped so deeply into folly that they've even managed to make one of America's perrenial wrong clocks, Laura Ingraham, right about something.

Substituting for Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor, Ingraham contronted feminist Gloria Feldt over the body image-oriented attacks on Prejean.

At issue was a segment of Keith Olbermann's Countdown in which a gay writer launched into a long tirade of personal and body-oriented attacks on Prejean.

"I am thinking to myself, where are the feminists?" Ingraham asked. "Are feminists not going to say, wait a second. You do not go there with a young woman."

"I think now she is fair game. She is now fair game because she is a national spokesperson for a group that opposes marriage equality," Feldt replied. She evidently failed to perceive the irony.

But Ingraham did.

"This is great!" Ingraham said. "A feminist is attacking a woman for how she looks. This is great. You guys have come full circle here in the United States of America. Now it is OK for feminists to ridicule women for the way they look."

Just as many American feminists threw thousands of pregnant teenagers under the bus in order to get at Sarah Palin through her daughter, many American feminists -- certainly not all and hopefully not even a majority of them -- are now throwing the thousands of women who are insecure enough about their body image to get breast implants under the bus.

But an even deeper irony seems to rest on the Miss California organization's inability to properly define "opportunism".

In an April 30 press release, Miss California spokespeople wrote: "We are deeply saddened Carrie Prejean has forgotten her platform of the Special Olympics, her commitment to all Californians, and solidified her legacy as one that goes beyond the right to voice her beliefs and instead reveals her opportunistic agenda."

They may want to double-check the meaning of opportunism.

Levelling charges of opportunism against Prejean suggests that she went looking for this controversy. Yet those familiar with the overall story know the truth is very different. Prejean didn't go out of her way to find an opportunity to voice her opinion on same-sex marriage.

Rather, she was asked that question by Perez Hilton, who was looking for an opportunity to politicize the Miss USA proceedings.

While no one is obligated to agree with Prejean's opinion -- this author has previously expressed his disagreement -- one at the very least has to respect the fact that Prejean chose to answer the question honestly. She gave her true opinion, and has since been unflinching and unrepentant about that.

Certainly, one could raise the argument that Prejean could have offered the same "no comment" answer as she has used to respond to questions about her breast implants. Then again, one also has to keep in mind that one of Hilton's complaints is that Prejean allegedly didn't answer the question.

As soon as Hilton asked that question, there was no way that Prejean could escape the onslaught of public attack she's been subject to ever since with her integrity intact. She could either lie about her opinion and escape unattacked, or tell the truth and endure it.

She chose to do the former, and history has since largely spoken for itself.

Now that their elected representatives are firmly in control of the country, the American left is out to absolutely destroy someone. They've chosen Carrie Prejean.