A reader responds to my Prejean column:

You guys on the right are making the same mistake about Prejean that you did with Joe the Plumber. Elevating someone who happens to have been involved in a political/cultural moment into a spokesperson for the political/cultural point even though they have no special talents or qualifications for the job. I am pro-gay marriage, but I had no use for the Perez Hilton question, no problem with her respectfully stated position (even though it differs than mine), and don’t think that answer should have had any effect on the outcome of the pageant. And I have no problem with those involved in the gay marriage debate criticquing what occurred. But that doesn’t make Prejean an important voice on this issue, any more than Joe the Plumber was regarding economic policy. But the anti gay marriage movement had to cash in on her notoriety by turning her into a celebrity spokesperson for the cause, and now she is exploiting that celebrity to sell a book (I cry for all the good books in the world that will not be read because people waste their time on this one). All of this dumbs down the discussion of this issue. She can say whatever she wants, but I think you are foolish to hitch your cause to her wagon.

I think the reader has a point. I don’t blame NOM for taking the opportunity the Prejean incident provided. I don’t blame Prejean for stepping up as a spokesman. She saw an opportunity for a cause and for herself. My main point though is that it’s really quite outrageous that Prejean was wronged and vilified for giving a perfectly respectable answer to the question. That tape is a shameful thing. And she’s ashamed. And it doesn’t change the injustice that the “tolerant” unleashed on her.