There’s more trouble for Carrie Prejean – the Miss USA runner-up might be stripped of her Miss California crown because of violations to her pageant contract. And it’s not just about the racy photos, or Carrie’s subsequent sanctimonious statement about how taking her top off for cameras is okay for good Christians. Apparently, the California pageant committee has pretty strict rules about what their Miss California can and cannot do, and Carrie Prejean has made some serious violations.

The two directors of the Miss California USA pageant committee – Shanna Moakler and Keith Lewis – met Tuesday to discuss whether Carrie should be stripped of the crown. The pageant committee has to give the Miss California permission to do interviews, public appearances, and any kind of endorsement deals. So far, since the Miss USA pageant, Carrie has violated the terms of her contract several times over:

The directors of the Miss California USA pageant — who met early Tuesday to determine whether Carrie Prejean violated her contract by working with a national group opposed to gay marriage and by posing semi-nude when she was a teenage model — have yet to decide if Prejean should be stripped of her crown.

Pageant spokesman Roger Neal told Usmagazine.com that pageant directors Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler have been in closed-door meetings all day regarding this issue.
Neal said Tuesday that Prejean had run afoul of several parts of the 12-page contract that all prospective contestants were required to sign before competing in the November state contest.

The detailed document — which gives pageant officials nearly unlimited control of the title holder’s activities — prohibits Miss California from making personal appearances, giving interviews or making commercials without permission from pageant officials, Us confirms.

In the last two weeks, Prejean, 21, has made televised appearances at her local church in San Diego and on behalf of the National Organization for Marriage, a group opposed to same-sex marriage.

The contract also contains a clause asking participants to acknowledge whether they have conducted themselves “in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards.” As an example, it asks if they have ever been photographed nude or partially nude.

On Monday, racy photos of Prejean — wearing nothing but pink underwear and covering her breast with her back turned — were leaked on the Internet.

“As you can see from the contract, she violated multiple items,” Neal said in a statement to the Associated Press.

Prejean, however, insisted the pics were just modeling shots and that she was only 17 years old — a minor — when they were taken.

“I am a Christian, and I am a model,” she said in a statement Tuesday. “Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos.”

She objected to the photo’s release, claiming it was an attempt to humiliate her because of her religious faith and conservative views.

“My comments defending traditional marriage have led to intimidation tactics that seek to undermine my reputation and somehow silence me and my beliefs, as if opinion is only a one-way street,” Prejean said.

[From US Weekly]

I’m sure many people will bill this as “Carrie Prejean might get dumped for nudie photos” but it’s a lot more than that. It is a contractual violation that involves much more than topless photos. Carrie Prejean’s biggest mistake might have been trying to launch her career as a conservative poster girl, rather than those photos.

But speaking of the photos, the whole “I was underage” argument is little weak. If she was only seventeen when the “racy” photos were taken, why in the world did she pose like that? For someone underage, a professional photographer would need to get all sorts of releases and perhaps even her parents consent to take those kinds of pictures. She really might have been 17 years old, but Carrie’s argument is basically “don’t judge me, be tolerant”, when she has shown profound intolerance towards homosexuals.