« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

01/27/2010

Video: West Virginia, southward discourse

by Jeremy Hooper

The following interview is one of the most epic FAILs of a marriage "debate" we have ever seen on any sort of television. For starters: The interviewer, Bray Cary, begins the piece (and what a piece it is) by comparing same-sex marriages to those which might exist between "a pig and a cow" or "a man and his brother." No, we're not kidding. And we all know that once the pigs fly out of a mouth, one knows that objectivity is going to fly right out the window. Which is exactly what happens in the clip, with Cary showing an obvious hostility throughout the segment.

But beyond that: The two men who are defending marriage bias, the aforementioned Cary and the West Virginia Policy Council's Jeremiah Dys, seem to operate under the flawed idea that West Virginia should be controlled by mob rule rather than fair representation. There is not even a minor consideration given to protecting minority rights. Or when they do address rights at all, it's as if West Virginia's LGBT people are peasants waiting outside their village doors for whatever scraps of crusty bread the local heterosexuals might pull out of their pockets (extra bonus if we get some lint too!)

Yes, their thoughts do trip up the ACLU's Seth DiStefano at points. But that's likely because he is so outnumbered and realizes that nothing he says is going to matter anyway that he can't help but stop and ponder how he can mind any kind of productivity out of this pugnacious forum! TV itself is nerve-wracking. Living out the kind of TV that you'd be screaming at if you were at home in your PJs in a whole other beast!

Here, have a look for yourself:



Marriage Debate [WOWK TV 13]

Thoroughly flawed from the beginning to the "Why should I not be able to marry my sister?...It's the same exact thing." (9:32 mark)

But wait, there's more! For the West Virginia Family Policy Council (a Focus on the Family affiliate) has taken this clip and made it even worse, if you can believe it:





Ooh, scary music! What, was the pig grunt button broken or something?

OY! What a truly disturbing effort all around.

Your thoughts

My answers as a prelaw major Answer to question 1

Well, the answer to that is multi facited first we live in a constitutional republic. This means that we live with a legislature, executive, and judiciary. The most important of these branches is the judiciary. This is because the court determines the constitutionality of laws this right of the court to review the constitutionality of laws s set forth in Marbury v. Maddison. So even though the legislature/people may enact laws if these laws violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment the are not only unethical they are Anti-West Virginian and Anti-American.

Posted by: Jeff Chang | Jan 27, 2010 6:42:28 PM

The Perry-v-Schwarzenegger trial has provided the perfect primer for all of us in answering some of Cary's questions. Is this a government of the people? Certainly. And, the people long ago passed the 14th Amendment stipulating that all citizens are to be granted equal privileges free of government impediments to life, liberty, and property. If good citizens of the U.S. want to change that, then the place to begin is proposing an amendment which would repeal the 14th (just like the 18th kicked off Prohibition, until the 21st repealed it).

Posted by: Bose | Jan 27, 2010 10:02:58 PM

Actually, I'd say the first thing to do is to have a higher court actually acknowledge equal protection rights and implement them...THEN the "good citizens" can go about proposing an amendment. As it stands, they don't really technically need one, since not every American is viewed as equal under the law currently.

Posted by: Aya | Jan 28, 2010 1:08:35 AM

My head could explode. "Why can't I not be able to marry my sister? It's the same exact thing." Because STUPID: The point of marriage is to create a NEW primary kinship between the non related and non married.

The state respects your blood kinship and confers all the benefits of inheritance and so on to it.

In other words, you don't NEED to marry your sister and the bigger question is: do you really want to? So how is a same gender couple who meet the non married, non kin criteria AT ALL the same thing?! Anybody that even ASKS that question will peg themselves as dumb as a turd from jump. Have none of these turd wads noticed that even with the advent of legal marriage in Western countries like Spain and Canada, and in states like MA for YEARS now, there have BEEN no political interests in incestuous or under age marriages? So apparently their assertions that such interests MUST follow same sex marriage, are a load of cr*p. And have you noticed that even though there are archaic laws still on the books in states like KS that a girl under the age of 14 can marry (and indeed a convicted pedophile exploited that law to marry a girl he got pregnant at age 12), Mags and Brian aren't pushing to have THOSE laws changed and the age of consent raised to 18 in every state? I'd have more respect for them if they were an advocate group that worked on those age consent laws. But of course, we know why they don't.

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Jan 28, 2010 9:44:37 AM

West Virginia is such a great place; it was my home away from home growing up. Take the people there and keep their utilitarian attitude and rugged persona, inject some tolerant principles, and you'd have Heaven on Earth.

Posted by: Harrison | Jan 28, 2010 2:18:24 PM

What a perfect name for the moderator: Bray. I wonder if his middle name is Bleet.

Posted by: Gkenyon | Jan 28, 2010 10:30:46 PM

homosexuals have equal rights to marry just as heterosexuals do but, becuase marriage is between a man and a woman. To be a true marriage they would have to put aside their deviant desires that would take them out of the sanctaty of a marriage to to ingage in. So to lie and call it equailty is so gay.

Posted by: sinner | Jan 29, 2010 10:57:55 AM

ACLU guy is cute, but he's not making the strongest, simplest arguments. Explain to the rube what The US Constitution says. God. Shoulda been me. Wingnuts would have been in tears.

Posted by: Evan Hurst | Jan 30, 2010 10:05:49 PM

Evan: I attribute much of it to TV nerves. These appearances can be nerve-racking in the best of circumstances. When coupled with such an obviously hostile set of circumstances, it's even worse.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 31, 2010 1:53:01 PM

This interview does not surprise me. My significant other worked for this ignorant man, and I say this lightly, and witnessed him ruin a very profitable TV station.

Bray thinks that one day he is going to be a candidate for Governor in WV, he is in denial and that will NEVER happen, even though he thinks "God....Massive Coal" will be supporting him. Best way to get rid of this CRAZY, out-of-control freak that made his fortune from NASCAR is to write to the local sponsors that use WV Media (Commercial ads) and ask them not to advertise/use WV Media, it will further the crunch on his pocket book...just like his wife did when she divorced his crazy ass and took him to the cleaners. Bray, if you happen to read this, one question for you..."Do you honestly think just because you have the money on paper...makes you smart?" You continue to prove how ignorant you really are....read the papers..read voice of the people in the Charleston Gazette (which I may add refused to even entertain an offer from you to buy their business), or how about sitting back and watching yourself on tape? Lastly, Bray...are you trying to tell us you wanted to marry your sister? Is that the point you were making....?.



Posted by: Terry | Feb 5, 2010 1:28:28 AM

I wish someone would call these people out on the notion that they are trying to protect "historical marriage" that has been around for thousands of years. Marriage has undergone a number of changes throughout history. Women used to be basically slaves, polygamy was the norm, and people of different races were not allowed to marry and yet we outgrew those prejudices. Secondly, history is not just confined to white European history or the Bible.

Posted by: Scott | Feb 26, 2010 1:25:28 AM

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy