ARTICLES

Simply State What It Is They Do

Gloves Off On Local Fox TV

By Allyson Smith

(Editor: The following is an e-mail sent to News Notes on October 31.)

Some of you have asked for an account of my first TV appearance on Tuesday, October 30, debating the topic of homosexual adoption during San Diego's Fox 6 News noon newscast, so here it is. Many thanks to all of you who offered suggestions, advice -- and especially prayers. I have no doubt that your prayers carried me through this experience and resulted if not in a win for our side, certainly no win for the opposition.

The reason for the broadcast was because of a ruling that took place last week in a state appellate court here saying that the non-biological adoptive parent of same-sex couples who break up no longer are allowed to have any rights to the child. I represented "San Diegans for Family Values" and went up against two homosexual male partners with two adoptive male children and a female homosexual lawyer.

When I booked the show last Sunday, I was told by Fox producer Christine Tanaka that I would be debating a representative from either the ACLU or the local homosexual community. Then, on Monday Tanaka said that I would be debating two people, including lesbian activist attorney Barbara Cox.

Barbara Cox is a law professor at California Western School of Law here in San Diego. She was one of five panelists along with California state assembly reps Christine Kehoe and Paul Koretz and California Alliance for Pride and Equality director Jean Harris who spoke at a "town hall" meeting at the San Diego Lesbian and Gay Men's center on August first agitating for passage of AB 25 (since signed by our governor, Gray Davis, on October 14) and AB 1338, the "civil unions" bill.

I expressed concern to Tanaka, and later to her assistant Miranda Brown, about Cox's activism and obvious bias, but both assured me she would be there only to provide legal interpretation of the recent court ruling. I pushed hard for an attorney from the United States Justice Foundation to accompany me on the air to make the debate more fair but was refused by Brown who said that there was not enough room for another person on the show. Brown also told me that the other person I would be debating was a partnered gay man named Robert Rainwater.

Monday night, I did my homework. I researched article references people had sent me, as well as looked up my opponents on the Internet. I ran a search on Rainwater in Google and found that he and his partner, Maben Smith, are involved in our local public broadcasting affiliate, KPBS. Rainwater, Smith, their two boys and two dogs are featured in the Summer 2001 issue of "More Things Considered," the "Quarterly Newsletter of KPBS' Gays and Lesbians for Programming Excellence."

I also planned my dress and makeup carefully after being told that red and blue are good colors for TV. I wore a royal blue dress with a white bib and U.S. flag pin on the lapel and red lipstick in order to look very patriotic. That was a good decision as Cox showed up with absolutely no makeup on, and all three of my opponents wore colors other than red, white and blue.

Tuesday I was the first to arrive at the station in Kearny Mesa. I was escorted to the Green Room where within a few minutes Rainwater arrived, accompanied by Smith. After I greeted them and exchanged a few pleasantries, Smith began grilling me about my position and demanded that I supply statistics for some of my views. I cut him short and said that I did have statistics and that I would bring them out during the broadcast. Shortly after that, Cox arrived with Cal Western's media relations person, a gal named Frankie.

I was surprised that both Smith and Cox arrived with other people since I had been told that I could not have anyone accompany me but thought that their guests were not going to be part of the show. My surprise turned to anger when I saw the Fox camerman lead both Rainwater and Smith to one of the stages in the studio, indicating that both would be part of the show. They were given nice cushy chairs to sit in while I was led to another stage in the studio area and given a high barstool-type hard-backed chair to sit in -- my least favorite type of chair. Cox and her publicist were taken to another part of the studio out of my line of sight; only Cox appeared on the show.

The cameraman wired a microphone to me and informed me that it would be "hot" throughout the broadcast, meaning that anything I might say would be audible throughout the studio. I told him that I felt that the station had set me up unfairly against three homosexuals but he said to relax and that all would be fine. I mentioned it again when he gave me an earpiece to wear.

The debate segment began after the weather, at about 12:20 p.m. I had been under the impression that it would last 10 minutes, or until about 12:30 -- but it went until 1:00 p.m., well over a half-hour. The format consisted of questions and comments from two moderators as well as viewer e-mails.

Despite the obvious unfair outnumbering of 3 against 1 and the fact that it was my very first "professional" TV appearance and all the sights and sounds of the studio were new to me, I was not flustered. Usually I overheat easily, but except for a little face-flush I was amazingly cool and calm throughout the entire segment, which I attribute to everyone's prayers. I really felt that Christ went before me and that the Holy Spirit was with me throughout the whole experience.

It is hard for me to remember exactly all the details of the debate since I was thinking hard about the points I wanted to make. During the first segment, the two moderators asked each of us questions and we each listened to the other's answers. However, a technician speaking through my earpiece said "If you disagree, jump in," or something like that. I recalled the way I'd often seen other guests on Fox national news jump in and argue with opponents. The thought also occurred to me that if Cox were speaking, Rainwater and Smith would not interrupt her, or vice versa, since they were all on the same side of the issue, so I decided to interrupt all of them whenever possible. So, after initially "playing nice" during the first segment of the broadcast, I came at all of them with both arms swinging.

Here are some of the points I made:

-- Children should not be allowed to live in homosexual-parented households because they are inherently dangerous situations due to increased risk of same-sex domestic violence, child molestation, risk of orphanage due to decreased lifespan of the parents because of sexually-transmitted diseases, and because the children themselves are more likely to grow up to become homosexual.

-- The "risk of early orphanage" argument threw them for a curve; Smith said he had never heard it before and wanted to see studies. As far as I know, there aren't any studies but it just makes common sense that if homosexuals' lifespans are shortened by several years due to sexually transmitted diseases, their children are likely to be orphaned earlier than if the parents are heterosexual.

-- FBI statistics on hate crimes against homosexuals vs. domestic violence among homosexuals show that homosexuals are at far greater risk of physical danger from other homosexuals than from non-homosexuals.

-- I had run an Internet search on the terms "gay and lesbian" and "domestic violence" before going to the studio and turned up over 14,000 entries, and then another search on "heterosexual domestic violence" that turned up a little over 8,000 entries, or nearly half. I mentioned this on the air, and Cox dismissed it as I expected she would, but it was still a useful gambit that helped prove my point.

-- At one point, Smith challenged me to prove my statistics on domestic violence. I had the paper in my hand (out of sight of the camera) and quoted from it, then challenged him to disprove them. Of course, he couldn't -- I don't think he was expecting that.

-- I talked about "Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco where men beat and whip each other." Smith tried to dismiss it as activities of the "extreme fringe of the gay community" and said that heterosexuals engage in such activities too. I didn't care about his response as my aim was to expose Folsom Street Fair to the viewers.

-- I quoted a recent University of Southern California study that showed that children of homosexual-parented families are more likely to grow up homosexual.

-- The best situation for children to not only be born in but raised in is the traditional, monogamous, male-female parented family, and males and females are equal yet complementary (a quote from the Catholic Catechism); each sex brings something to the family that the other cannot. I repeated these points several times throughout the broadcast.

-- Just because the lesbian-made movie That's a Family! portrays all kinds of abnormal family situations because of today's social breakdown doesn't mean that the traditional structure isn't the best or that we shouldn't continue to strive for it as the norm.

-- At another point, the conversation amongst Smith, Rainwater and Cox turned to what "we" (meaning the homosexual movement) have fought for and how "we" are in danger of losing all the legislation "we" have gained because of people like me. I turned it around on them by saying something like: "What about what is in the best interests of children? Isn't that what we're talking about here, isn't that what this show is about?" thus exposing their selfishness.

-- Heather doesn't have two mommies; she has one mommy and the other woman is her mother's unmarried sexual perversion partner.

-- It is especially important for the development of adoptive children's identities that they not be raised in a situation that goes against social norms; they have enough trouble adjusting without the added burden of being subjected to ridicule because of having homosexual "parents."

-- At one point, "unbiased" legal expert Barbara Cox tried to accuse my organization of "hatred." I responded by exposing her bias -- and Fox's lie about it -- on the air, saying something like, "This station told me you were here only for legal counsel but you're obviously not unbiased. I've seen you in action at the town hall meeting at the gay and lesbian center agitating for AB 25 and AB 1338."

-- Finally, I said that it is not in children's best interests to put them into a situation where it is considered acceptable for one man to put his penis into another man's anus or for a woman to put her tongue into another woman's vagina. Cox, Rainwater and Smith tried to talk over me in order to cut me off, but I'm satisfied that at least the first half of the sentence got out.

I don't think they were expecting a nice Christian lady to say many of the things I said, and it threw them off their game. During one of the breaks, Maben Smith asked if he could pick up his cushy chair (implying that he wanted to throw it at me), so I know they were a bit unnerved. I replied sweetly, "Aw, c'mon, Maben, I don't feel like throwing my barstool at you" -- implying that he is the one full of hatred, not me. After it was over, I made a point of walking over to all of them, telling them it was nice to meet them, and shake their hands.

Earlier that day, I mentioned to some friends that I was planning to say that, and they advised me against it. Then I talked to another friend who said "Go for it!" I did, and I'm glad now. I strongly believe that we MUST start talking about the actual sexual activities of these people in order to educate the public, and that we can do so in entirely clinical terms without resorting to any gutter language. We can simply state what it is they do, in polite but exact terms, and in this way they cannot argue that we have been profane or said anything unseemly. We've been too nice for too long and it hasn't helped us score any victories in the culture war. It's time to take the gloves off here, I believe, even at the risk of offending some people's genteel sensibilities.

More good news: Viewer e-mails during the newscast favored our side by about 4 to 1 or 5 to 2. I came away from it feeling that if I didn't win the debate, I certainly didn't lose it -- and that if San Diego homosexuals didn't think they had a problem before, they certainly know they have one now. I need to work on my delivery and some other things, but for the very first time being on camera, and with such odds against me, I feel I did very well, kind of like a female Bill O'Reilly-type bulldog.

It was a great victory that I attribute to everyone's support, suggestions, advice, and especially prayers. All glory, laud and honor to God Most High! Alleluia!!

God bless all of you.

P.S. I sent an e-mail to Fox complaining of their unfair treatment. You can read it, and a letter Peter LaBarbera sent in my defense, at Catholic Exchange.com's website, www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=62&art_id=10459.

TOP