Putting it in the context of miscegenation, because the arguments of the group she joined, NOM, are all of the same arguments that were used back then.

Would you be writing the same thing about her had she said a black man should not be allowed to marry a white woman? Or a black woman to marry an asian man? Etc.?

Know Your Marriage History

Here is a great piece on the history of miscegenation laws and how they parallel the fight for the basic Civil Right that is Marriage Equality:

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
By Peggy Pascoe

Ms. Pascoe is Associate Professor and Beekman Chair of Northwest and Pacific History at the University of Oregon. She is completing a book on the significance of miscegenation law in United States history.

We are in the midst of an attempt to ground a category of discrimination in the fundamental social bedrock of marriage law. I would argue that it is virtually impossible to understand the current debate over same-sex marriage without first understanding the history of American miscegenation laws and the long legal fight against them, if only because both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage come to this debate, knowing or unknowingly, wielding rhetorical tools forged during the history of miscegenation law. The arguments white supremacists used to justify for miscegenation laws--that interracial marriages were contrary to God's will or somehow unnatural--are echoed today by the most conservative opponents of same-sex marriage. And supporters of same-sex marriage base their cases on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, echoing the position the U.S. Supreme Court took when it declared miscegenation laws unconstitutional in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Both sides confront the structures of marriage law exclusion that were also forged during the history of miscegenation, including, as I show below, the legal maneuvering over the seemingly minor bureaucratic practice of issuing marriage licenses.

A Brief History of Miscegenation Laws (continue reading)

Also...

A little more basic facts on the origins of the Marriage License in the USA and its use as a tool for BIGOTS & RACISM.

Declarations Of Pride has a great piece up on this subject, from a very personal point of view, that includes some really good observations:

Yet, so many don't understand that rights in America are to be universal; guaranteed to every citizen under the law. Equal under the law is the other way it is expressed. Somewhere along our journey a percentage of Americans got confused, brainwashed, left-behind, whatever...And began to think of marriage as a religious doctrine not a civil construct. This misunderstanding of the nature of marriage is what has gotten us to this point.

Now, combine our need for salvation with our hate for things we don't' understand, and you have a straightforward American debate; rooted in puritanical history, conflated by individual moral superiority. This is a classic cycle we have played out over and over in our history. Whenever we are afraid of something or someone we don't understand we isolate them. Americans are not the fair-minded individuals they always claim to be. There is always some class of people unworthy of what the others have. We have lost our way, and that is why I speak on this so much.

Consider this: Marriage gets to party at the church. It gets a dress. It gets guests in pews. When the party is over, people will turn to God for guidance, but they turn to the state for a divorce!

To review; you come to the government to get married, and you go to the state to legally dissolve your marriage. You may go to church in between to help you nurture a loving relationship, but that is about as far as the relationship between faith and marriage goes.

Hadn't seen you for a short while; figured you were having too much fun somewhere. ;)

There is a difference between passing a law banning racial intermarriage and say something like I don't think that a white and black couple should marry.

Similarly its one thing to say abortion should be illegal and another to say I would never have an abortion.

I agree with Eric that we should defend free speech. Certainly I don't think it is appropriate to denigrate the women in the way that apparently is taking place. She was asked a question and she answered it.

Eric I differ from you on the question of femininity and the workplace etc. It is very important to fight for women's right to equal treatment in the work place which means an environment in which she is not expected to trade sexual favors in return for a paycheck. Women are frequently the sole support of their family and it is intolerable that they should be paid less than a guy doing the same job. (And of course that is even if she has no dependants.

Children need to be nurtured by loving parents and good teachers. As is neither is too often the case. There is no reason that we can't have extended parental leave with pay, as is done in France for instance, and time off for either parent to deal with family emergencies. We need smaller class sizes. A good public health care system. The works! I think that divisiveness on issues such as how women best meet their own and their family's needs, what your personal views are on questions of race or sexual orientation, and so on (as long as you don't deny others their freedom) is a diversion. People have a right to go to church or stay away; to marry or remain single -- although I personally endorse the idea of civil union for everyone. IMNO Any other ceremonies or rituals should be a private matter.) That's just my two cents.

My concerns today are that kids are going hungry right now in the United States. People are losing their jobs and homes. People are dying for lack of timely medical care. Most people are scared about the future a nd what it holds for themselves, their families and their friends.

I think Eric are views are not that far apart even though I really miss the Michelle Obama we saw at the beginning of the campaign who was slammed for telling it like it was (when she said that now with her husband running for president she was proud of her country forthe first time, or wrods to that effect.) I was so proud of her. And like her I was proud of my country for the first time.

One thing that's important to remember is that it was the willingness of many having a mindset similar to Prejean's that were willing to allow the narrow social view they hold to be used to leverage hate-mongering as ammo for the political weapon of the Rove politics/policy machine over nearly a decade.  

I can't blame too many falling to the left of center for responding reflexively to such viewpoints although I'm sorry that the hatemongers controlled our social context for long enough that it hardened such reflexes among people who'd normally be the most thoughtful.  

When Americans can return to a tableau that permits meeting somewhere in the middle, once again, I'll no longer have to qualify my statements with the preface, "I used to be moderate".  You express many ideas that I used to embrace whole-heartedly (and, perhaps, hope to return to) but operatiing on their basis for the last ten years was essentially a way to commit political suicide.  

Certainly, it was, against a machine that ate those ideas as appetizers before using full-fledged hate to move the masses as the GOP wanted 'em moved.  

The masses that moved in concert had leaders who were fully in line with the agenda and THEY are responsible for the reflexes they set into the neuromusculature of knee-jerks on the left.

With all that said, however, I agree that her willingness to voice her opinion was a courageous thing no matter how substantially differently that I see things.  

It's only been six months, remember, and Rush Limbaugh is the ostensible leader of the sheeple.  Like I said, I hope that someday we can return to a social context where there can be a middle ground, but with conjobs like Limbaugh around, the reflexes of too many lefties may take a long time to recondition to 'moderation' any time soon.