FREEP CBS for False "Gay Marriage" Claims on Amazing Race

Self & Worldnetdaily | 6/4/2003 | Andrew Ainsworth & Joe Kovacs

[Vitamin A]

Friends,

The Amazing Race is one of the most popular TV shows. Unfortunately, CBS has chosen to use the term "married" to describe the relationship of two males from California who are featured on that show. As such, CBS is effectively broadcasting to the nation that "marriage" between two men is valid and exists, despite the fact that NO state in the U.S. recognizes two men as being "married" to each other. At most, Vermont has recognized a "civil union" between two males, but that law was expressly designed not to use the term "marriage" or "married." California and Hawaii have given rights to "domestic partners," but likewise have expressly NOT used the word "marriage" or "married" to describe them.

CBS's intentional use of the term "married" to describe two males from California is an outright misrepresentation--i.e., a lie--for political purposes. I have friends whose children have been confused and questioned their parents when they see the "married" word come up under the male couple as they appear on the TV screen (not to mention the male couple's kiss in the show's intro). My friends, and I, certainly do not appreciate CBS's decision to turn marriage on its head during primetime viewing just to push a political agenda.

Below, I've posted an article which details CBS's lamest of lame non-excuses for using the "married" term.

I am writing to encourage you to take just a minute to express your opinion on this matter to CBS. You can do so by going to www.cbs.com. Go to the bottom of the homepage and click the "Feedback" button. An email frame will pop up on your screen and allow you to provide a comment.

Please pass this along to friends if you feel so inclined.

-Andrew

Culture: CBS Married Gays in Race?

WorldNetDaily May 29, 2003 Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32814

MEDIA MATTERS CBS television thrusting 'married gays' on public Network's 'Amazing Race' promotes real-life men as joined in matrimony Posted: May 29, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Joe Kovacs © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

CBS Television is promoting tonight's debut of "The Amazing Race 4" by proudly proclaiming a male homosexual couple on the show to be married to each other.

The primetime reality show features 12 teams of two people with a pre-existing relationship racing around the world in a quest for a million-dollar prize.

'Married' male couple on CBS

In current promotional ads on the air, the network touts one of the teams - consisting of two men - as ''The Married Couple.''

"Yes, they are a married, gay couple," a CBS spokeswoman tells WorldNetDaily. "They're married and they're gay. Is there an issue?"

On the show's website, viewers are encouraged to click on biographical links for the teams, to learn more about their personal lives. The write-up on the "married" male couple includes the following:

Twenty-eight-year-old Reichen is a pilot and teaches at a flight school in Los Angeles. A former U.S. Air Force officer and a graduate of the U.S. Air Force academy, he is married to his teammate Chip. He loves skiing and flying and is very into being physically fit. He describes himself as "detail-oriented, caring and thrill-seeking." He speaks French and has traveled internationally quite a bit. Reichen's views on relationships are much more liberal than Chip's - He enjoys flirting with other guys, but that makes Chip upset. Owned by Viacom, CBS says "Amazing Race" has previously featured "gay" contestants, but this is the first time it's trumpeting homosexuals as actually being married to each other.

"They bring a tremendous amount of enthusiasm into the show. They're great!" says the network.

When WorldNetDaily pressed CBS to find out more about the alleged matrimony of its contestants, the network explained that's what Reichen and Chip had written in their application to be on the program.

"Why can't they say they're married? What's the difference?" said the CBS spokeswoman. She went on to state she "believe[d] it's legal in certain states," though she did not specify where the Californians had any binding ceremony, if in fact they had one at all.

Family advocates are blasting CBS's marketing move, saying there's no such thing as legal homosexual marriage in the U.S.

Robert Knight

"Two men is not a marriage. It's pretend marriage," says Robert Knight, a former news editor at the Los Angeles Times who is now director of the Culture and Family Institute.

"This is profoundly dishonest and is intended to persuade Americans that so-called 'gay marriage' is already a reality, when no jurisdiction in America has legalized it."

While there's no government sanction for homosexual marriages, the state of Vermont has approved what it calls civil unions, the legal equivalent to marriage in everything but name. Two other states - California and Hawaii - have approved laws regarding benefits of domestic partners.

But many other states are passing legislation to resist the status of homosexual marriages.

On Tuesday, Texas became the 37th state to approve a law preventing the legal recognition of same-sex unions that have been sanctified by a government elsewhere.

"Like the vast majority of Texans, I believe that marriage represents a sacred union between a man and a woman," Gov. Rick Perry said in a statement.

For broadcast television, homosexuality is not a new concept.

Sean Hayes portrays homosexual on 'Will & Grace' (NBC)

Sitcoms like ABC's "Ellen" and NBC's "Will and Grace" have been among the first programs to put "gays" and lesbians in the limelight, and just this week, the cable channel Bravo - owned by the NBC division of General Electric - announced its summer launch of TV's first homosexual dating series, "Boy Meets Boy."

"As bad as 'Ellen' and 'Will and Grace' have been, ['The Amazing Race' married-homosexual promotion] is an outright lie," said Knight. "This is the worst we have seen from the broadcast networks. ... It's another reason why the big networks are losing viewers, and people are gravitating toward alternative news sources such as WorldNetDaily and the Fox News Channel."

Knight suggests people objecting to this and other programs log onto websites like OneMillionMoms.com and OneMillionDads.com, which provide links for viewers to contact broadcasters and advertisers.

American Express is one of the advertisers to have had high-profile tie-ins with "The Amazing Race," and while the company no longer has its "Moment of the Week" promotion, it says its current slate of commercials will continue to appear on CBS.

"We are a global company and advertise on a wide variety of programs through a number of different media to reach a diverse audience - current as well as potential customers," American Express spokeswoman Monica Beaupre told WorldNetDaily.

Other large companies which have had special advertising segments on previous "Amazing Race" series include Royal Caribbean Cruises, T-Mobile and Kodak.

As WorldNetDaily reported in October, Kodak is proud of its commitment to diversity, which includes homosexuality, even firing a 23-year Kodak veteran after he objected to a pro-homosexual memo circulated in the company's e-mail.

Leslie Moonves, president and CEO of CBS-TV says the network is committed to displaying diversity in the shows it airs:

As broadcasters, we aim to ensure that our national viewing audience is reflected in our programming and our people. We recognize that a workforce comprised of a wide variety of perspectives, viewpoints and backgrounds is integral to our continued success.

This is not a campaign, but rather a fundamental way of doing business at CBS, and we continue to be steadfast in our goal to become more diverse and more representative of the public we serve.

Tonight's season premiere of "The Amazing Race" airs at 8 p.m. Eastern Time, in what's considered to be the family portion of primetime. Officials say previous episodes have drawn an estimated audience of 9 million viewers.

"There's a buzz about the show, but we have not received any calls one way or another about the participants," said Joe Barnes, director of marketing at KOIN-TV, the CBS affiliate in Portland, Ore.

In San Francisco, a market with a large homosexual population, the CBS owned-and-operated station KPIX-TV speculates more people will be talking about the "gay marriage" angle once the program is broadcast.

"We've heard nothing from gays saying 'Thanks,'" said KPIX spokeswoman Akilah Monifah. "We've also heard nothing from homophobic types saying, 'How could you?' either."

* * * * * * * * *

[Vitamin A]

There is more than just monetary or physical injury. The nation was founded on the defense of intangible "rights." Here, an overwhelming majority of voters have said across the country that two men cannot be "married." Under the Constitution, the citizens of each state have the right to determine matters like marital status. Here, CBS is effectively depriving citizens of that right by saying marriage between two men exists regardless of what the voting citizens have said.

[day10]

You mean somebody actually watches this?

[mrustow]

As broadcasters, we aim to ensure that our national viewing audience is reflected in our programming and our people. We recognize that a workforce comprised of a wide variety of perspectives, viewpoints and backgrounds is integral to our continued success.

Except that is, for coservative, Christians, orthodox Jews ... Who are they kidding? They permit only one perspective -- pc.

[Salman]

Well, I went and FReeped it on general priniciples, but all FReeping polls does is discredit the concept of web polls (including our own).

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Vitamin A]

It wasn't a poll, Salman, it's a complaint form to CBS.

[ChicagoGuy]

"Here, CBS is effectively depriving citizens of that right by saying marriage between two men exists regardless of what the voting citizens have said."

Pure victimology. An argument worthy of a liberal. They aren't 'depriving' anyone of any right. Don't like what they have to say? Don't listen. That's what 'free speech' is all about. They can call it what they like, and you are free to have your own opinion.

[beckett]

Funny I did register some irritation when I noticed they were being referred to as "married." I think I commented, "Well, where's their marriage license?" But other than that I didn't get too bent out of shape about it. Now that I think about it some more, though, it is a deliberate deception and quite misleading.

But I was even more irritated about the Bible-believing young couple who have dated for some years but have decided to hold off on sex until after they take their vows. The little descriptor that pops up almost every time they appear on screen is "VIRGINS." Now who wants to have their sexual history displayed as the prime descriptor of their status as human beings? I think it's offensive and unnecessary. It's almost like a taunt, or a Scarlet Letter. Like "Ooooh -- look at the virgins. The virgins are weird. Very weird. Go on - go up and talk to them. They won't bite."

Now I know CBS will deny that the desgination "virgin" is a taunt. They will say that it's just the opposite, a championing of virgin status, or some other such nonsense. I don't believe it. It's a put-down. It's makes a mockery of the couple to continually refer to them as virgins, as if that is the one interesting and noteworthy trait about them.

[Vitamin A]

I guess if you voted for Bush and he got elected as president, but CBS went around broadcasting that Gore was president, you wouldn't mind that?

Pure victimology? Nah, just don't appreciate lies, distortions, and intentional ignorance of reality.

[Vitamin A]

As a follow up, are you arguing, ChicagoGuy, that CBS has the "free speech" right to disseminate intentional misrepresentations to the public? Brush up on your constitution, buddy, First Amendment does not protect fraudulent speech. Otherwise, false advertisers everywhere would enjoy constitutional protection under "free speech."

[ChicagoGuy]

If CBS went around saying Gore was president, I'd say they were wrong, and they would lose credibility with me (to the extent they ever had any), but I wouldn't whine that they were 'depriving me of my right' to have them call Bush the president.

[Vitamin A]

Sounds like you're a very unique individual then, ChicagoGuy. Most people I know don't appreciate it when major broadcasters make intentional misrepresentations, and expect them to honor the law by representing it accurately.

[Dilly]

I just don't like being lied to...

But whose to say they're lying? The men's relationship may not meet your definition of marriage or even the state of California's definition of marriage, but maybe they had some sort of ceremony and they consider themsleves married. CBS is not claiming the men are entitled to state or federal benefits incident to a state-sanctioned marriage. They're just using the word married in a way you or I may not approve of. How about a woman who affectionately calls her best friend her "sister" even though the two may not be children of the same parents. Do you want the government to punish them? I just don't like people crying to nanny government everytime someone does something they don't like.

[Stentor]

I watch the show for the comedic content of the players and the great footage of their travels all over the world.

Agreed. There's nothing funnier than watching an excessively emotional, fat, middle aged couple roll down a snowy hillside.

[Vitamin A]

Who's to say they're lying? I guess you'd have no problem with CBS putting an incestuous mother-son team on the Amazing Race and calling them "married"--because who's to say they're not? Or how about two 14 year olds? Any problem with calling them "married" on TV as long as that's what they call themselves? Do you have children? Aren't you concerned that children will be at least confused by it? Maybe your kids are ok, but many many others may not be.

[ChicagoGuy]

As Dilly points out, just because these guys don't use 'marriage' in the same way you do doesn't rise to the level of 'fraud' that would be outside the First Amendment's protections. (And skip the 'brush up on your constitution, buddy' crapola. I was valedictorian of my law school class, so I've read it a time or two.)

[Tempest]

The ratings don't actually tank unless you have a nielsen's rating box in your home.

[Vitamin A]

Yes, thanks for pointing that out Houmatt. Hollywood isn't connected to your personal TV at home, folks, hence the need to write in and tell them about what you think.

[RonF]

The point is that "marriage" is not a term whose definition is mutable. If their relationship doesn't meet some state's definition of marriage, they're not married. It's that simple. When people hear the word "married", it's a universal presumption that somewhere there's a legal document with the names of both parties and a legally authorized third party defining the two as married. The CBS spokesperson certainly seemed to think so. Of course, by her own words she reveals her own brain to be hermetically sealed.

To compare this to a woman calling her best friend "sister" fails on two counts. For one thing, there's no multi-billion company trying to get publicity for and consumption of their product on the basis of that statement. And there's also a tradition of the use of the words "brother" and "sister" to sometimes symbolize a relationship based on shared experiences of a highly emotional nature rather than blood that cuts across cultures back into antiquity. And when such a thing comes up, if the people involved are not actually blood related, it's made clear. There is no such tradition for the word "married". Anyone seeing the word "married" presumes a legal relationship as well as a social one.

Fine, forget the lawsuit. Perhaps the government shouldn't be involved. I accept the criticism. But this is still deliberately devious and misleading on the part of CBS, and they should be ashamed on that basis, regardless of how you feel about gays and marriage.

[Vitamin A]

This "using the word marriage the same way you do" crap pretends as if there is no established definition for the term--as if it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. That is pure B.S. It has a legal definition. It is a legal designation. Its validity depends upon legal sanction. Just like a corporation. Am I a corporation just by saying I am? Can I be married to my boss's wife by just saying I am?

I expect more from a law school valedictorian. Which law school by the way?

[Dilly]

Your "think of the children" argument falls on deaf ears because a parent who doesn't want their children "confused" by this should not let their children watch the show. People who expect television to raise their children for them get what they deserve: screwed up kids.

And, frankly, any child who is old enough to notice and question why two men are captioned as "married" is old enough to have a discussion about the issue with their parents. A parent should welcome the opportunity to discuss how they feel about the issue with their children.