Anti-Gay Talk Show Host Outed in Hit-and-Run After Leaving DRAG SHOW

Oh, WOW. Being a Houstonian, I hear about this dirt bag all the time. This literally has made my day! I love that I work in news television, live in Houston, and still I find this out first via UB. Ha!

The face that smoked a thousand poles.

Berry is more than a talk show host, he’s the station manager.  He’s the one who steered KTRH from right wing to extreme right wing culminating with the addition of Rush Limbaugh.

Just want to point out that he isn’t “anti-gay”. He has conservative views, but being “anti-gay” isn’t one of them. He’s actually debated with callers on the topic. He’s mentioned before that he’s got good friends who are gay, and he goes with them to Montrose. Otherwise, carry on…

Well I have seen him before around the bars, this wasn’t his first time in TC’s either. When I said something on his facebook page about it he then banned me. hmmp oh Michael, what web we weave.

Ha!!! I knew it!

being a conservative politician does not necessarily make one anti-gay.  going to see a drag show as well does not make one gay.  its a form of entertainment & people from all walks of life have a curiosity or fascination with  taking in a drag show in their life. we must be a bit more fair about what we accuse or categorize mr berry or whoever else we write about.

You don’t have to be gay to go to a drag show in New York.  You don’t have to be gay to go to a drag show in Paris.  If when driving by a drag show in Texas, you plow into someone’s car, and then high-tail it out of the neighborhood before authorities arrive at the scene, there’s something more to the story.

For example: did he give his contact info to the driver of the car he hit, either by conferring with the driver if he/she were in the car at the time or leaving his card on the windshield?  I guess not, if they need to use security footage to place him at the scene.

At the moment, the scandal here is that he was involved in a hit-and-run accident, not that it was in apparently a gay neighborhood.  But the fact that it was in a gay neighborhood does raise questions, not that he’d be driving through it, but that he’d lose control of his vehicle there, and that he’d leave the scene of an accident there.

I’d like to hear his explanation of all that factored in to his having the accident.  I’d like to hear his explanation of all that factored in to his decision to leave the scene of that accident.  I’d like to hear his explanation of why he felt no responsibility to the owner of the car he hit.  I’d like to know if he has insurance, and if so why he feels the victim of his damage should not benefit from his coverage.

And yes, I’d like to know where he was coming from and where he was going to.  Who and what was in his car.  Had he been drinking or under the influence of any drugs?  My instincts tell me that even if he was not in that neighborhood to take in a show or to have a tryst, his instincts to leave the scene of the accident were motivated by an unwillingness to have to account for his whereabouts or whether he was in any condition to drive at that moment.

Let’s say for sake of argument that he is not gay.  Let’s say for sake of argument that he was simply driving through the neighborhood on his way someplace else.  Let’s say for sake of argument that he was not in the car with anybody, male, female or otherwise.  And let’s say for the sake of argument that he was not under the influence of anything as he drove.  Let’s even say that he is not a homophobe.

That makes it more troubling, not less so, and more likely that this was governed by homophobia.  In that case, it would seem that his actions were dictated by his fear that his supporters would presume guilt by association, and placed his longstanding catering to a judgmental crowd of knee-jerk ideologues over his responsibility as a driver and a citizen in the event of his accident.

And this is what is at the heart of all that is and has long been harmful, backward, and wrong about conservative attitudes toward and policies on gays.  Rather than face the fact that if there are gays in their party they would prefer them to be leading respectful, responsible, honest and spiritually authentic lives of committed, monogamous, and lawful marriage with the support of church, community and state for that responsible choice—just the same as they prefer from and grant to their straight members—these conservatives are actually causing the thing they claim most to abhor, i.e. duplicitous, promiscuous behavior.  These are the sins, not the central sexual preference.  And it is the conservatives who are responsible for perpetuating these sins.  This may sound antithetical to the gay position, but consider it from the standpoint of the religious conservative, who rather than increasing those who they bring into the fold to follow the teachings of Christ as a gay person, are driving their members deeper into sin and adding to the sin those people are committing.

Because there are no Commandments against being gay.  The Commandments these Christians are responsible for herding people through breaking are against bearing false witness and coveting someone’s spouse.

On the other hand, when Christ was asked what the most important teaching of God was, he answered “Faith, hope, and love—but the greatest of these is love.”  Some translations interpret the last word as charity rather than love.  In either case, they are failing to adhere to the absolutely most central tenets of their religion.  These three things were not merely what God gave to his followers, the message was that these three were his wish for all.  These conservatives are denying gays faith, hope, and love, and have been uncharitable enough to grant gays separate but equal status.  Of course, the kicker is that our Constitution takes the same approach as God did: what it confers is not to be exclusive to some, but to be equally distributed to all who would accept it.  Conservatives neither accept God’s central message, nor do they accept the central message of our Constitution.  And this is their greatest hypocrisy: casting “others” out of the rewards that are to be shared by all, even as they boast that they are the most pious and the most patriotic of all.  In fact, they are the least of either.

There have been times when the cultural and political attitudes of the moment enabled them to believe they didn’t have to deeply consider their error and think for themselves on these issues.  But at this time when cultural and political attitudes are more inclusive of gays than at any time in our history, it is more egregious than ever that self-identified religious conservatives hold fast to what they have been brainwashed to believe is faith, but is actually prejudice that gets in the way of faith.