By now, almost everyone has heard about the Miss California gay-marriage controversy. But how many people have actually heard what Carrie Prejean said over the deafening roar of her critics? Asked whether she “believed in” gay marriage, she responded, "I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what? I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised." This has got to be one of the most bland and inoffensive statements it is possible to make about this issue. Prejean made no moral judgments; she did not even use any evaluatory words like “wrong,” “sin,” or “bad.” On the contrary, she says it is “great” that we have a right to choose. And by using the phrase “I think” several times in her answer, it seems she may not even be totally committed to her position. She even qualifies it with, “no offense to anybody.” A milder statement of belief could hardy be imagined.

Prejean’s feelings are not unique; many Americans feel that marriage should continue to be defined legally as being between one man and one woman. While this is a religious and moral issue for some, others simply feel that making the definition of marriage more inclusive will make it impossible to exclude any other unions – such as those between multiple spouses, relatives, even people and animals. Pageant officials encouraged her to apologize, but she refused. And why should she apologize? She answered a direct question with an honest expression of her personal opinion, and she did it in a very kind way. Furthermore, the beliefs she expressed are by no means weird, outdated, or unusual. The effort to legalize gay marriage failed in California as recently as 2008.

Her critics, however, are determined to act as though she is a total deviant. The first major attack came from Perez Hilton, a judge in the pageant, whose “job” is to blog about celebrities on his gossip site. He called her a “dumb bitch.” He was immediately backed up by the pageant’s co-chairwoman, Shanna Moakler, who said his criticism was “well-spoken…clear and precise.” Moakler’s credentials are even less impressive than Hilton’s: she was a Playboy Playmate of the month, involved in a bar fight with Paris Hilton, and threw herself a divorce party featuring a cake with a bleeding groom and a knife-wielding bride. That these two people have such influential positions in the Miss California pageant is slightly disturbing, but it is absolutely ludicrous that their ridiculous over-reactions to Prejean’s statements have garnered so much support.

In an effort to mitigate any damage that might have been done to California’s reputation, former pageant winners filmed a public service announcement to promote diversity. The credo they promote is: “I believe when I express my opinion I have a responsibility to do it in a way that respects others who may not agree.” Perez Hilton and Shanna Moakler must not have seen the announcement yet. And obviously, neither has Micheal Musto, a columnist for the Village Voice. If he had watched it before his interview on MSNBC, he certainly would have found a more tactful way to say that Prejean had to “cut off her penis” in order to win the pageant. He might even have skipped the bad joke that “she thinks innuendo is an Italian suppository.” He would have refrained from saying she is “dumb and twisted,” and he definitely wouldn’t have called her “Klaus Barbie” and likened her to a Nazi war criminal.

On The Today show, Matt Lauer asked Prejean if she wished she had held back instead of expressing her opinion about gay marriage. She said she did not, and that because people are so passionate about the issue, “that regardless of our opinions…I think that we just need to respect each other, even when we disagree.”

Throughout this scandal, it seems clear that Prejean is the only one heading the call to express opinions in a respectful manner. The very people who are the biggest proponents of free speech and expression are grossly misrepresenting her comments, making inferences about her beliefs that are totally unsupported, and are acting as though she is a truly deplorable villain. They are falsely equating her non-support of gay marriage to “rabidly advocate[ing] depriving gay people of equal rights,” (again, Micheal Musto’s overwrought analysis.)

This scandal should be disturbing to every American because it reveals increasingly successful attempts to silence political discourse in this country. Whatever Washington, Hollywood, or the media decides is the “right way” to think about an issue is fast becoming the only way to think about it. Anyone who expresses a different opinion – even if their opinion is actually fairly commonplace – is shunned and demonized. Personal insults have no place in real, honest discussion, and those who use them are simply revealing their own ignorance and intellectual laziness. The climate in this country should encourage debate, not make people afraid to say what they think. When one way of thinking is presented as the only right way, you have propaganda. And when propaganda succeeds, you have tyranny.