Peter Sprigg accuses Perez Hilton of having 'a known interest in children'

Gossip columnist Perez Hilton

Those who read this blog know that I'm not necessarily that much a fan of gossip columnist Perez Hilton.

I will admit that at times I look at his site, but mostly he is a bit too juvenile for my tastes. And his unnecessarily crude comments towards beauty pageant contestant Carrie Prejean started a controversy which made Prejean a religious right cause celebre (that is before those pictures came out).

However it seems that in light of the situation involving lgbt teen bullying, Hilton is attempting to soften his image. And that includes writing a children's book entitled The Boy With Pink Hair.

The news of this has elicited many comments - some positive, others negative.

But for my money, none are more negative than that of Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council. Sprigg, who usually busies himself manufacturing inaccurate studies about lgbts, took the time to make a sly suggestion in The Washington Times regarding Perez and "an interest in children:"

Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council

“He does have a known interest in children,” says Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for Family Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, “having published a photo of teen star Miley Cyrus that could have been considered child pornography.

The picture Sprigg is speaking of is that of Cyrus which Hilton published in 2010 while she was getting out of a car while supposedly not wearing any underwear. Cyrus at the time was 17.

Hilton asserted that she was in fact wearing underwear and he published the picture "to teach her a lesson about getting out a car in a ladly-like fashion."

For all of the talk  about Hilton and "child pornography," the controversy died out. And that's because it was a stupid controversy pushed by a stupid need by Hilton to gain attention for his blog.

And I am by no means defending Hilton's actions. But for Sprigg to assert in any fashion that Hilton is a pedophile is nasty. Of course Sprigg never came out and said the word "pedophile," but we all know what he means by "interest in children."

Hilton is a gossip columnist and subsequently he publishes salacious items and pictures regarding celebrities. The credibility of him writing a children's book is definitely subject for discussion. But Sprigg's assertion of pedophilia seems to be more directed towards Hilton's sexual orientation rather than his vocation.

It only goes to prove that no matter what the situation may be regarding the lgbt community (like this morning's post about GLSEN), members of the religious right just have to work in a dig about lgbts wanting to "harm children."

It's like a sickness. They can't seem to help themselves.