Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Radio station apologizes for anti-gay segment: Will NBC follow?


By Andy Kelley
New Media Organizer, Courage Campaign

As we reported yesterday, an NBC Texas affiliate, KETK, aired an outrageous and offensive segment yesterday asking viewer to call in and discuss if America’s “acceptance of homosexuality could lead to it’s downfall?” This lead to a public outcry and organizations ranging from the Courage Campaign to GLAAD called for swift and immediate action to be taken.

Today, the station manager at radio station where the Talkback segment originated, issued the following statement (thanks to Joe My God for posting):

There are many issues surrounding homosexuality that are fair game for discussion in the media and in opinion journalism. The proper role, if any, for openly gay individuals in the military, the legitimacy of same-sex marriages and the public behavior by some individuals at gay and lesbian events held outdoors in public view are among topics about which reasonable people may disagree. These and other topics surrounding homosexuality are topics that talk radio hosts and opinion journalists may legitimately pose to their respective audiences.

With that said, the way our Talkback question was posed might be seen as asking, “Do homosexuals, by their very existence, threaten to bring down America?” We believe that such a question, posed in such a manner, is likely to generate more heat than light. I understand how those who either heard, or heard about, KTBB’s Talkback question on Wednesday might have been offended. For the offense that was taken, we sincerely apologize.

Joe also reports that KETK has been responsive to requests from GLAAD that they take action to address this segment. Of those efforts GLAAD released the following statement:

General Manager Dave Tillery has also responded to our request that he appear on-camera to speak on behalf of the station. Dave realizes how important it is that the station acknowledge in front of their viewers what they’ve acknowledged to GLAAD over the phone – that a segment like Wednesday’s has no place on the airwaves of a reputable news organization. Furthermore, Dave plans to acknowledge the potential harm that could be caused by Wednesday’s report and will commit, on behalf of the station, to being more careful in the future. Lastly, KETK is rethinking how they will repackage KTBB Talkback content for future newscasts. KETK General Manager Dave Tillery shared with GLAAD that he will be meeting tomorrow with Paul Gleiser, KTBB’s owner/general manager.

I agree with Joe that this is certainly a step in the right direction for a broadcast which should never have been made. Talkback’s General Manager has done the right thing, and it looks like KETK will be joining them shortly. What remains to be seen is what, if anything, NBC will have to say about the actions taken by their Texas affiliate.


  • 1. Ann S.  |  October 28, 2010 at 9:20 am

  • 2. JonT  |  October 28, 2010 at 9:36 am

  • 3. Ann S.  |  October 28, 2010 at 9:24 am

    It sounds as though a number of steps are being taken in the right direction.

    But this:

    For the offense that was taken, we sincerely apologize.

    is a bit short of a good apology, IMO. This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. "I'm sorry I said that," is a rather different apology from "I'm sorry you were offended."

  • 4. Gregory in SLC  |  October 28, 2010 at 9:32 am

    ditto! I also hate the "no offensive" declaration too! (aka Carrie Prejean)

  • 5. Gregory in SLC  |  October 28, 2010 at 9:51 am

    ooops! I just noticed I posted a NOM video….I didn't watch it until the end….."no offense" anyone ; )

    – main point is I don't buy the "For the offense that was taken, we sincerely apologize" any more than I bought Prejeen's "No Offense"

  • 6. Gregory in SLC  |  October 28, 2010 at 10:11 am

    my FAVORITE "No Offense" video!!! Highly recommend! (OK…now I'll stop the Prejean flashback now….)

  • 7. Gregory in SLC  |  October 28, 2010 at 10:11 am

    and my redundancy!!! grrrr

  • 8. Gregory in SLC  |  October 28, 2010 at 10:12 am

    I totally better stop posting for the day…

  • 9. fiona64  |  October 28, 2010 at 9:52 am

    It's a variant on my dad's favorite apology: "I'm sorry you were upset."



  • 10. fiona64  |  October 28, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Double-argh: I forgot to finish my thought.

    It would have been far better for the apology to read: "We regret any offense that we *caused.*"


  • 11. Gregory in SLC  |  October 28, 2010 at 10:06 am

    aka "blame the victim" : (

  • 12. nightshayde  |  October 28, 2010 at 11:13 am

    Or, of course, "We regret saying things that caused offense."

  • 13. Ann S.  |  October 28, 2010 at 9:56 am

    They should try, "We're sorry we didn't have a clue, we'll try to get one pronto."

  • 14. Anonygrl  |  October 28, 2010 at 11:40 pm

    My sister in law once got into a disagreement with her parents. She told her father that he had offended her with something he said. His response was "No I didn't. I did not offend you."

    She was somewhat dumbfounded by this, as you can imagine.

  • 15. Joel  |  October 29, 2010 at 2:20 am

    That sounds more like John McCain…

  • 16. Ann S.  |  October 29, 2010 at 2:53 am

    I never try to tell my Dad that anymore. He only ever replies, "Oh, you're so sensitive."

    Thanks for compounding the injury, Dad.

  • 17. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  October 28, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    Count me in on that. No one can tell me that the broadcaster posing the question, didn't meant exactly that. He knew it was an offensive question and would generate publicity.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 18. Sagesse  |  October 28, 2010 at 9:33 am

    When they get rid of the broadcaster who asked the question, that will be progress.

  • 19. Steve  |  October 28, 2010 at 9:34 am

    "The proper role, IF ANY, for openly gay individuals in the military"

    If any? Yeah, right….

  • 20. Ronnie  |  October 28, 2010 at 9:36 am

    "For the offense that was taken, we sincerely apologize"

    Honestly, when I hear or read somebody saying something like that…I always get the impression that they are really saying…"I'm sorry you were offended"…it just does not sit right in my craw…JMHGO….<3…Ronnie

  • 21. Straight Ally #3008  |  October 28, 2010 at 9:37 am

    The proper role, if any, for openly gay individuals in the military, the legitimacy of same-sex marriages and the public behavior by some individuals at gay and lesbian events held outdoors in public view are among topics about which reasonable people may disagree

    See? They're not prejudiced at all.

  • 22. Catherine  |  October 29, 2010 at 1:29 am

    Yeah, I loved that, "topics about which reasonable people may disagree" part.

    So, the "public behavior" of gay and lesbians that are "in public view" are up for discussion? Bullshit. If I had a penny for every time I've heard the "I don't care what they do in private as long as I don't have to see it" line I'd be richer than Bill Gates. Why is homosexual behavior up for discussion? If the discussion was regarding ALL people's behavior in public – then it's a discussion that can be had. Otherwise, it's another chance to load on more homophobia.

    I also fault their belief that there is anything "reasonable" in any of the arguments against marriage equality and gays in the military.

  • 23. MJ  |  October 28, 2010 at 9:39 am

    All well and good to say it AFTERwards. I'm sorry, too little too late. This was such a disgusting segment, allowed to go on and on and on, with the continuing photos that would be sure to inflame those like the call in 'good folk' that were sure America was going to hell in a handbasket because of gays, as they ranted on with facts that were NOT facts, but opinion. How embarrassing that they would even consider to call themselves journalists! I can only hope they feel the shame they deserve. It's a sad day for America.

  • 24. Kathleen  |  October 28, 2010 at 10:03 am

  • 25. Rhie  |  October 28, 2010 at 10:10 am

    The proper role, if any, for openly gay individuals in the military, the legitimacy of same-sex marriages and the public behavior by some individuals at gay and lesbian events held outdoors in public view are among topics about which reasonable people may disagree.

    It's more of the same of the "both sides of the story HAVE to be reported" crap. I am glad he apologized but he doesn't seem to realize what caused it. Sometimes, there is only one reasonable side to a debate. Not all opinions need to be aired or given credence.

    No, reasonable don't disagree on gays in the military or gay marriage. The only reasonable answer to both those questions is yes. Anything else is just crap.

    And, singling out gay behavior is really telling to me. Straight people do all sorts of things in public, many of which are not at all appropriate. Mardi Gras. Teenagers in line for anything. STRAIGHT adults in a park.

    The real discussion should be why he needs to single out gays for bad behavior and why he thinks that the anti-equality people have anything reasonable to say.

  • 26. JC (one of the CA 18  |  October 28, 2010 at 10:55 am

    My wife and I just get apoplexy when reading comments like this. How is it possibly ok to talk about us, our lives, our very being as a frickin matter of debate? Like we aren't even in the room? Like we should not even exist? Now, we just drove 3000 miles to attend Jon Stewart's rally for sanity, but all I can say is WTF???!!

  • 27. Larry Lane  |  October 28, 2010 at 11:13 am

    "We believe that such a question, posed in such a manner, is likely to generate more heat than light."

    That doesn't sound like an apology to me.

    “Do homosexuals, by their very existence, threaten to bring down America?” Is a morally wrong question to ask. The notion that any human being, by their very existence, is a threat to anyone, is something right out of Hitler's Mein Kampf. It is an outrage. That is what they should have said.

  • 28. Rhie  |  October 28, 2010 at 11:56 am

    I could be over analyzing but the phrasing there sounds like there is the possibility that such a question could bring some enlightenment.

    Hopefully, he means that there will be people saying "hey that's a question that shows up the bigotry of the asker. Here's why. "

    But I kinda doubt that.

  • 29. Anonygrl  |  October 28, 2010 at 11:44 pm

    I think, the following day, he should have asked "Do right wing, homophobic bigots, by their very existence, threaten to bring down America? Lets hear from all you bigots who yesterday thought that homosexuals are the threat."

    The town would have lynched him.

  • 30. Marlene  |  October 28, 2010 at 11:17 am

    Andy — Um… sorry to pick nits, but isn't the group which monitors broadcasts like the one mentioned here called GLAAD: Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation?

  • 31. Mark  |  October 29, 2010 at 2:56 am

    Did any of the organizations send a complaint to the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)?

  • 32. eDee  |  October 28, 2010 at 11:20 am

    {{America’s “acceptance of homosexuality could lead to it’s downfall?”}}

    Well, lets hope it does! It may very well lead to the downfall of our “bigoted America” and we'd all be better off!

    I look at it as an upward spiral – what’s next?
    Maybe helping illegal immigrants become actual Americans? Or I don’t know, the acceptance of Muslims?

    We can only HOPE that the acceptance of homosexuality leads to the downfall of the America we know today – it will build a better America for everyone tomorrow.

    {as always my take on it is bizarrely different than all the rest.}

  • 33. nightshayde  |  October 28, 2010 at 12:31 pm


    It may be different — but I like it!

  • 34. Felyx  |  October 28, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    I like bizarre takes… it is like thinking in a manner that doesn't even involve boxes.

    Here is one for you… ever since I couldn't speak a language as a kid I have been fascinated by language. Once, just to be odd about it, I said to a girl that I thought was overall generally quite attractive, "No offense but I think you are pretty." I would have expected her to not take offense because it was Me, someone I did not consider attractive, who said it as opposed to a better looking kid. But instead she decided to take offense anyway. As near as I can tell it seems she felt I was calling her ugly.

    I have repeated this little experiment several times, giving a compliment preceded by 'No offense' just to see what reactions I would get. I would say half the time people are either confused, suspicious or offended regardless of how sincere the compliment sounded. (The other half people either don't respond or give a cheerful thanks.) Normally compliments are never perceived as offensive or suspicious.

    What is the point then? Saying 'no offense' is so offensive that even compliments will be perceived as hurtful statements.

    (No offense to all of you that I think are smart enough to get that. …! ;P )


  • 35. AndrewPDX  |  October 29, 2010 at 12:43 am

    LOL! great social experiment there! I will have to play with the 'no offense' compliment; sounds like fun 😀

    To me, being called 'weird' is a compliment; it means you're not average, run-of-the-mill, boring, or forgettable.

    So, no offense Felyx, but you're weird 🙂

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 36. Rhie  |  October 29, 2010 at 9:14 am

    Cool! I like it.

    I think what is happen is that the person is only hearing the no offense. 99 times out of 100 "no offense" precedes something truly offensive. So, a person hears "no offense" and not what follows. They just respond to the perceived insult.

    So, what if you said "You are pretty, no offense". Would they still hear that, I wonder?

  • 37. Sagesse  |  October 28, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Press for Arisha and the Tour Trackers

    Scenes From Iowa Judge Bus Tour: Gay People Are ‘A Disease Carrying Nasty Threat’

  • 38. eDee  |  October 28, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    "Gay People Are ‘A Disease Carrying Nasty Threat’"

    Ever wonder how they REALLY feel?
    All these cryptic hidden meanings!
    {{that would be sarcasm}}

    Honestly, what kind of people say that a week after making a comment that they don't want gay teens to kill themselves. REALLY?? It's EFFING HARD TO TELL!!

    BTW Sagesse, that link scared the freaking HELL Out of me!

    (PS trying to cut down on my cussing)

  • 39. Richard A. Walter (s  |  October 28, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    Now let us see if they take genuine action to make sincere amends.

  • 40. RebeccaRGB  |  October 28, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    With that said, the way our Talkback question was posed might be seen as asking, "Do homosexuals, by their very existence, threaten to bring down America?"

    Might be seen? Might be? That's exactly what it was saying!


  • 41. Bluprntguy  |  October 28, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    I think starting an apology with a list of prejudices that are still "reasonable" to hold against the minority that you offended is not an apology. Frankly, I kind of think the apology is more offensive than the actual segment.

  • 42. Elizabeth Oakes  |  October 28, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    Right. It's a way of getting in more digs while ostensibly saying you didn't mean to offend. There's a name I cannot currently recall for this rhetorical technique, but it's along the lines of, "I won't mention that my opponent is a convicted felon and spousal abuser in the course of this debate, but…" You get the drift.

  • 43. Kathleen  |  October 28, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    CNN reports Clint McCance will resign

  • 44. Ann S.  |  October 28, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    I was just coming here to post that!

    This part is reasonably high on the apology-o-meter:

    "I'm sorry I've hurt people with my comments," Clint McCance, vice president of the Midland School District, said. "I'm sorry I made those ignorant comments and hurt people on a broad spectrum."

    But this — that’s the kind of smarmy talk we hear from people who are only sorry that they got caught.

    "The words I used were unfortunate … but they can't be taken back," he said. "All I can do now is extend my apologies for my poor speech."

  • 45. Straight Ally #3008  |  October 28, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    Ann S.,

    I hear you, but wow, he's actually resigning. The cynic in me thinks it was from outside pressure rather than any heartfelt regret on his part, but bottom line, he accepted the consequences and issued a formal apology. Compare that to someone like Andrew Shirvell, for example.

  • 46. Ann S.  |  October 28, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    You're right, I should give him some credit for actually resigning, and for the first part of his statement, where he actually says he's sorry for what he said. It's just that the latter part of what I quoted rings so full of false regret.

    We'll see. If he actually resigns, I'll cut him some slack.

  • 47. Elizabeth Oakes  |  October 28, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    The cynic in ME says that NOM will hire him as a consultant at ten times his former salary.

  • 48. Anonygrl  |  October 28, 2010 at 11:50 pm

    I would be willing to bet that the rest of the school board said to him "Get the hell out before you drag the rest of us and any federal funding we might ever HOPE to get down the drain, moron!"

  • 49. JonT  |  October 28, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    Yeah Ann – I think the only thing he's *really* sorry about is that he got caught.

    I find it difficult to believe he's now suddenly enlightened.

  • 50. eDee  |  October 28, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    "extend my apologies for my poor speech"

    What???? "poor speech" Is he apologizing for not using better Grammar?

  • 51. AndrewPDX  |  October 29, 2010 at 12:48 am

    Well, his frequent use of 'thereselves' was pretty atrocious and definitely something for which an education professional should apologize.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 52. JonT  |  October 28, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    Good! From the story:

    'He said he has sent his wife and two kids out of the state because of fears for their safety and that he is installing a security system at his home.

    "I'm reaping what I've sown," he told CNN. "I've had a lot of hate speech thrown at me and my family on every level."'

    Welcome to being the target of hate asshole. Lots of fun isn't it?

  • 53. Rightthingtodo TX  |  October 28, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    Welcome to being the target of hate asshole. Lots of fun isn’t it?

    The difference is the "hate" (I call it self-defense by the LGBT community) being spewed at him is justified.

    I hate my mom for treating me like shit but I don't hate her for being a republican.

    Nobody said anything him about him or to him just because he was a white man from Arkansas.

    Plenty of LGBT citizens have been attacked harassed bullied etc just because they happen to be attracted to the same gender.

    LGBT "hate" = self-defense!

  • 54. Felyx  |  October 29, 2010 at 2:07 am

    If he was only sorry that he got caught and lost his job because of it then that is enough for me! This is how discrimination works and this is what karma looks like. First he treats others with contempt and prejudice and enjoys it. Then he gets treated with the same kind of contempt and prejudice and is ostracized because of it. He did indeed reap the same prejudice he sowed and now he is unemployed and compelled to relocate.

    Will his opinions change? I think they actually will but frankly I really don't care. He is learning pretty damned fast what kind of consequences this behaviour brings. Moreover, he is being used as an example of a new sheeple mentality. Now 'Gay ones good! Prejudiced ones bad!' (Two legs good! Four legs bad! anyone?… !!!) I don't really care for the sheeple mentality but I am not going to downplay progress… if we are going to be sheeple (and I have my own sheeple moments) then we are better off with beneficial sheeple behaviours.

    A word about NOM and FRC… I hope they repeat a Prejean on this one. Nothing says radical extremist like defending an unpopular bigot who is being compelled to resign for putting children in harm's way.

    Squeal Maggie! Squeal like a pig! Tell us how unfair it is. Souieeee!!! Souieee!!! No more gay hating and gay bashing! Oink oink! Bigoted sheeple are being silenced and their sacred beliefs are being reviled and scorned by the public!!! Squeal for us Maggie! Here pig pig pig pig!!!

    Love me or not,

  • 55. Ronnie  |  October 29, 2010 at 2:20 am

    ROFL….that was great… ; )


  • 56. Felyx  |  October 29, 2010 at 2:26 am

    Wow! I just watched the video and I am impressed! I like this guy. His apology looks and feel so painfully sincere. This man is the real deal. If he said he was drunk (which he did not) and out of control when he posted this, I would believe him.

    He sounded so pained during this interview that I actually cringed in empathy. This is the kind of upstanding guy that I would want to know and have as a role model to my children. I really believe that he was in an environment that supported this kind of hate speech and so never really thought much about what he was saying. Now that he is reaping the consequences, he is taking an honest hard look at what he is doing and making a sincere difference. I am willing to bet that he becomes a leader (actually he already has by the fact that he is declaring his resignation to be for the good of the community) and engenders profound changes in the attitudes of his community.

    It takes a real man (or woman) to come forward in humility like that and stand up for what is right despite the consequences. This is what I would call an ally. Let us not forget that sometimes what we think are our worst enemies can still turn out to be our best friends!

    Proud of my species,

  • 57. Felyx  |  October 29, 2010 at 3:32 am

    BTW, I am not saying the guy is a saint… just the best example of someone who has decent principles and who is willing to do what is right despite personal beliefs.

    Also, someone pointed out to me that he is not in a paid position and may be motivated out of fear. Even so, I cannot even conceive of Brian Brown ever making such a thorough and appropriate apology.


  • 58. Kathleen  |  October 29, 2010 at 3:42 am

    I think there were some things he is genuinely sorry about. I think it really hit home with him the pain he inflicted on the families of children who taken their own lives. But his apology kept focusing on how his words were too harsh. So, what words did he think would be better to express his utter hatred for gay people? He doesn't wish death on anyone, so what consequence does he think should befall this group of people that he so clearly despises?

    I also wish Anderson Cooper had asked him about the statements he made saying he would turn away his own children if they were gay. I have no doubt that he really believes that the strong 'Christian values' he's instilled in his children will somehow make him immune to ever facing that possibility.

    Yes, I see someone who feels bad about having inflicted the level of pain he has, but I also see a bigot who has mostly learned not to be so public about his bigotry. But the fact that he has been publicly called out for his views and has been forced to resign is good enough for me.

  • 59. Bob  |  October 28, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    Done he's out of there, good to know there's a limit, talk like that gets you gone, no place for that woot woot wooot

  • 60. Kathleen  |  October 28, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    This just in from AP: Most US Troops, Families Say Gays OK

  • 61. Sean  |  October 28, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    Wow, you beat me to it! And here I thought I would be the first one to post that link!!

    As usual, Kathleen is lightyears ahead of the rest of us!

  • 62. JonT  |  October 28, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    Wow, you're just full of good news tonight aren't you Kathleen? 🙂

    I guess then that video I saw a week or so ago from the christian broadcasting network, where they had this marine guy on there stating that at least 90% of the troops he knew were strongly opposed to them damn homos in the military was just their typical lies.

    I'd love to see the actual numbers.

  • 63. Kathleen  |  October 28, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    I think the actual results aren't supposed to be public until Dec some time. But I'm guessing the white house thought it was advantageous to leak this at this time. I'm getting a feeling that maybe this is part of a larger strategy to get DADT repealed before the Repubs take control of Congress.

  • 64. Bob  |  October 28, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    JonT surprized me , the guy on the Maddow show said the marines showed the lowest level of support…..

    @Kathleen, I agree, this is a hint or signal to us, there's some action no gaurantees, like the guy from service members united said, it has to happen this year, otherwise chances of it happening fall off the map.

  • 65. fiona64  |  October 29, 2010 at 1:45 am

    Remember, my bigoted ex-Marine nephew is the one who said that "faggots, pussies and women" have no business being in the military. Nothing surprises me where the jarheads are concerned.


  • 66. Alan E.  |  October 29, 2010 at 2:38 am

    My mom's boyfriend was a Marine in the 70's, and he is thankfully not one of the bigoted ones. He even had a friend come out to him before a major confrontation in case they didn't make it out alive. When they did make it, the gay guy came up and started to say something about him coming out, and my mom's bf just played dumb to protect the guy.

  • 67. JonT  |  October 29, 2010 at 5:35 am

    Fiona, since you've mentioned that your bigoted nephew was booted out of the Marines, have you pointed out to him that he must be one of those 3 things? 🙂

    I wonder which one… Hmmm… 🙂

  • 68. fiona64  |  October 29, 2010 at 7:37 am

    I haven't spoken to James, but my husband has absolutely promised that if he speaks to him again, he will make the very point you raised, Jon.



  • 69. Steve  |  October 29, 2010 at 3:20 am

    And yet, anecdotaly, the Marines have a very high percentage of gay troops and are mostly totally bottoms.

    One big reason for the negative opinions are the two latest Commandants who were both vocally anti-gay and made that clear very publicly. The rank and file take a lot of their attitudes from their superiors. Which is why it is very important for leaders to make clear that a policy change is a good thing and will be supported.

  • 70. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  October 28, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Hey, I truly believe that 90% of the troops that soldier knows feel that way. He just has a limited acquaintances. You know, birds of a feather flock together type thing.

    Sheryl, Mormon mother

  • 71. Kathleen  |  October 28, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    I'm thinking this might have been a topic at that meeting at the White House (wed?). This, and outlining the schedule necessary to get DADT repealed in the lame duck session as reflected in the Servicemembers United video.

  • 72. Bob  |  October 28, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    great news re DADT, heard it on Rachel Maddow, and it was that really icky survey, about showering together and stuff, Troops are cool with it, that's a hudge step in the repeal process, The suvey asked, and the troops told. woot wooot

  • 73. Bob  |  October 28, 2010 at 1:44 pm

    yup I thinks Obama's got his crew busting a nut behind the scenes on this one, he better ramp up the pace, and we're supposed to keep the pressure on Reid first to bring it up in early November, (the proper way)

    Pressure on Obama to actually be seen hands on, I think that approach regarding the fallout from it in terms of teen suicides is a good approach,

    Pull them strings do what you got to deploy that repeal woot woot

  • 74. Straight Ally #3008  |  October 28, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    For real?


    Oh man, Tony Perkins will be weeping at the back of the NOM bus.

    This makes me feel slightly better after seeing Libby Mitchell tank in the polls in Maine. Great…no LGBT rights legislation will get through in four years now under LePage.

  • 75. Sagesse  |  October 28, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    Sad and unfair for the couple, but drawing needed attention to how ridiculous the immigration position is.

    Married Gay Couple in Connecticut Face Deportation of Foreign-Born Partner

  • 76. MichGuy  |  October 28, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    The couple dont appear to have their petition application denied due to being married and gay.

    It appears based off of the newsreport that the couple's petition for legal resident status was denied soly due to the alien having "overstayed" his original visitor visa.

    Since he overstayed his visitor visa that means he is actually an illigal alian at this moment and illegal aliens cannot petition for lawful status/visa until that leave the US.

    After they leave the US then they can attemt to petition for law a new visa to gain lawful status in the US.

    You must first realize that a alien cannot unlawfully be present in the US and then petition for lawful status because the law does not allow them to do that.

  • 77. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 28, 2010 at 11:49 pm

    extended article:

    the extended story gives more details..This person thought visa status was fine…

    "Soloway said Velandia thought his immigration status was in good standing, and he had even been sponsored by an employer. 'He thought he was doing what he was supposed to be doing," he said. Soloway noted that had Velandia been married to a woman, he would very likely be able to establish residency anyway."

    This story his too-close-to-home and is very depressing to me. I have a niece who's fiance was EXACTLY in this position. She was living with her fiance. They decided to get married a quick trip to home(Scotland), back in U.S. living TOGETHER and "POOF!" now straight SPOUSE is now on legal path to citizenship. As of today I do NOT have this option and my hubby and could be separated any time….or move and give up a well-paid career with pension and retirement.

    This really sucks and hope DOMA goes away along with DADT immediately : (

  • 78. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 28, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    and…leave behind 4 children, 1 grandchild AND ALL of my hubby's family who ALL live in U.S, some 2 generations. BAH!!!

  • 79. Ronnie  |  October 29, 2010 at 12:09 am

    can we please not use the word "alien" to describe humans… I always loathed that term.. the correct word is & should always be "immigrant"…..JMHGO….<3…Ronnie

  • 80. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 29, 2010 at 12:14 am

    DITTO Ronnie! I'm pretty sensitive about that too! I appreciate Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor for working to change this:

    Not sure who "MichGuy" is but borderline "troll" for use of "alien" and insensitivity.

  • 81. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 29, 2010 at 12:33 am

    In my haste I posted article "from the other side"…. this subject really riles me up…..

    better link:

  • 82. MichGuy  |  October 29, 2010 at 12:55 am

    I am definitely NOT a TROLL. Im sorry you are offended by the term Alien but the term has not negative meaning and is actually a legal term and definition.
    I use the term alien because that is the legal term that Federal Law and the Supreme court defined for none US Citizens. The term immigrant is imporper because they do not have lawful immigrant status so by law they are not defined as lawful immigrants.

    In accordance with federal law they are not eligible for any immigrant or none immigrant classification because the person does not currently have law status in the US due to overstaying their previous visitor visa.

    I use the proper terms becasue I am a Immigration Law Enforcement Officer and I use these terms daily so I mean no harm. The term Alien is not negative and it simply means "None citizen" immigration law it very technical and I am considered an expert on it.

  • 83. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 29, 2010 at 1:08 am

    I appreciate your attempt to apologize Mitch, and your technically correct response is enlightening but show little or no compassion…ironically akin to the "apology" we are all discussing at this post.

    You may be an officer but to you have those dear to you who suffer due to this issue? When I say suffer I don't mean only those who have "illegal" status. I refer also to the many Hispanic persons in my life who have legal status/citizenship and get treated horribly in a myriad of ways due to the color of their skin and/or accent as the anti-Hispanic sentiment grows in the United States.

    I prefer "undocumented person"….or how about just "person".

  • 84. Ronnie  |  October 29, 2010 at 1:13 am

    I understand that…but since we are talking connotations in words that is why it should not be used….undocumented immigrant should suffice….

    I think this is why the use of the word "alien" is wrong…everyday people (especially the bigoted), who are not Immigration Officers, see the word "alien" & read different, not normal, wrong….it is what gives people like those who are against Equality free license to disrespect innocent people & treat them like less of a person…When our government officials use these terms the bigots feel that it is ok for them to use them all willy nilly right in the supermarket…..<3…Ronnie

    P.S. thanks Gregory for the links

  • 85. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 29, 2010 at 1:19 am

    thank YOU Ronnie for responses and support! Love, Gregory

  • 86. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 29, 2010 at 1:34 am

    Since you identify as a "non-troll" (wink wink) what else will you share? I'm interested to know more about you, your interest in responding to the post, why you visit P8TT?

    I do appreciate that you are an expert in the immigration field…it is an incomprehensible labyrinth to me. What reforms do you see coming? What are your thoughts on the growing anti-Hispanic trend and push for Arizona-like laws in many states including Utah?

  • 87. Ann S.  |  October 29, 2010 at 7:19 am

    I just wanted to chime in and say that I don't find the word "alien" for a non-citizen to be offensive, but I know some do so I tend to avoid it.

    Maybe I don't mind it because I remember as a kid seeing some people who were required to go register at the immigration office. I seem to remember they had to do this every January 1.

    Having a fine sense of humor, they dressed up with antennae and painted themselves green to go register.

  • 88. JonT  |  October 29, 2010 at 5:28 am

    Perhaps we should reserve the word 'alien' for our soon-to-be overlords from Omicron Persei 8?

  • 89. Rhie  |  October 29, 2010 at 9:29 am

    I like this comment. I agree completely. It is really demoralizing and dehumanizing to refer to "illegal aliens". Undocumented immigrant is the correct phrase.

  • 90. Sagesse  |  October 28, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Long thorough article on Cedar Rapids stop on the Judge Tour

    Anti-judge bus tour dwarfed by pro-retention rally

  • 91. Kate  |  October 28, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    Great article and comments, wherein our pal with the chimp sign expands his evolutionary cavemen science.

  • 92. MJFargo  |  October 29, 2010 at 1:55 am

    If one can bring a sense of humor to this article and the attending comments, it's great fun to read. However, the weight and delusions of prejudice are manifest, and the fact that any of us are having to fight for equality against the ideas expressed throughout the "Iowa Independent" article can really raise the blood pressure.

  • 93. NBC Texas station asks: W&hellip  |  October 28, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    […] The radio station which originally produced this Talkback segment has issued an apology, will NBC Universal follow? Further updates will be part of our new post here. […]

  • 94. Rebecca in Chicago  |  October 28, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    My God! It's like they stuck a pinky toe in the pool of apology!

  • 95. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 28, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    DITTO Rebecca!!! These people have NOT IDEA how this discrimination is unfair, demoralizing, discrimination and DEADLY. …the predominant feeling is we "deserve it" somehow because immoral…..immoral for being myself. Most days I'm optimistic and hopeful…today very upset.

    HUGS to all of you suffering! Love, Gregory

    p.s. "good morning Rebecca in Chicago!"

  • 96. MJFargo  |  October 29, 2010 at 1:15 am

    His apology might also include his remark "the public behavior by some individuals at gay and lesbian events held outdoors in public view are among topics about which reasonable people may disagree." For instance? As soon as he includes heterosexual "public behavior" during Sprink Break and other venues he can get that stick outta "whatever" and comment about GLB&T people.

    The whole lot of them need to be fired and then maybe I'll listen to an apology.

  • 97. Alan E.  |  October 29, 2010 at 1:34 am

    I'm sure there will be another post coming soon. I missed all of yesterday because I was super busy. It was tough to not jump up and down in class last night when the Giants won 9-0!

  • 98. MichGuy  |  October 29, 2010 at 1:38 am

    Thanks for expressing your feeling abot the Term "Alien"
    I totally understand your viewpoint on how some people see the word "Alien" and feel like less of a person when referred to as an "Alien"

    As a immigration Officer tho the term is just so routine and I have to use the term in all legal documents so I never really felt any negative connotation derived from it from a legal standpoint.

    I will keep that in mind tho. 😛
    And just to let you know immigration officer are nice people too. 😛
    But I must say immigration officer are responsible for enforcing the law notwithstanding any personal matter that the undocumented immigrant is going through. We still have to deport them if they are found to not have status. It does not matter if they have family in the US or kinds or any other special circumstance. The Law is the Law and teh supreme Court has upheld what we do. Immigration officers are not allowed to bend the law just because the undocumented person has a hardship. Now if a judge wants to bend the law then a judge is free to do that but not the officers because we must follow the law.

  • 99. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 29, 2010 at 1:44 am

    I appreciate your perspectives and response Mitch. I didn't realized judges have some leeway, this gives me a tiny bit of hope of which I/we have had very little…a sincere "thank you!" I posted a bit more in above thread….

  • 100. MichGuy  |  October 29, 2010 at 3:02 am

    @ Gregory in Salt Lake City

    Hello, nice to meet you, 😛 I have actually been posting on this site for about a year now and I really enjoy the discussions. As a Criminal Justice Major I love following and reading court cases and I have a vested intrest in LGBT topics because I am a young Gay male in my 20's.

    I also donate to LGBT groups to support equality

  • 101. Elizabeth Oakes  |  October 29, 2010 at 5:59 am

    Bit late to this party, but I was just going to chime in with confirmation that the term "alien" refers to a person's legal STATUS, not the person themselves, just like the words "married," "deceased," "incarcerated," "divorced," etc. Socially people may prefer to use other terms ("partnered," "passed on," "detained," or "no longer together," say) because they find the legal wording offensive. However, the legal terms are used in the paperwork and the courtroom to signify very specific legal situations; euphemisms such as those above are often vague or misleading, so courts insist on the designated legal terms being used whether the public likes them or not.

    That being said, the legal term "alien" will cause problems when the extraterrestrial overlord situation noted by JonT arises–how will we know whom to call in that emergency, ICE or NASA? I for one will put on my Spock ears and place all trust in the HypnoToad; if that gets me deported, either overseas or to another planet, so be it.

  • 102. David John Lawrence  |  October 29, 2010 at 7:26 am

    Obviously the general manager does not know the difference between offense taken and offense given.

    "I understand how those who either heard, or heard about, KTBB’s Talkback question on Wednesday might have been offended. For the offense that was taken, we sincerely apologize."

    This is no apology; it is nothing other than a more artfully drawn version of the usual "I apologize if anyone took offense." Offense was not taken at what was said/done by the radio and television stations. Offense was given by these media; and offense at what was given was the right and proper reaction to it.

  • 103. NBC Texas TV station R&hellip  |  October 29, 2010 at 6:38 pm

    […] almost word-for-word what KTBB Talkback said yesterday in its apology. As many of you noted in the comments yesterday, Talkback’s “apology” not only lacked sincerity, it continued to expound the […]

  • 104. jake&hellip  |  November 3, 2010 at 5:50 pm


    excelent post, keep it coming…

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!