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

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

[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.