Don't Call It 'Same-Sex' Marriage, Advocates Say

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 2/11/04 | Susan Jones

[kattracks]

(CNSNews.com) - The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association says the terms "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" are inaccurate and misleading and should not be used.

Given the rapidly expanding news coverage of the situation in Massachusetts, the NLGJA is urging all media professionals to use "accurate and clear terminology" in reporting.

In an open letter to "fellow journalists," the NLGJA noted that the decision made by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affects the state's existing marriage law.

"The court has ordered the state to apply the existing law equally to gay and lesbian couples as early as May 2004. The accurate terminology -- on-air, in headlines and in body type -- should be 'marriage for gays and lesbians,'" the letter said.

As for fair and balanced coverage, the NLGJA recommends that "legal quotes and expertise be kept distinct and separate from religious quotes and opinions.

"Don't contrast a legal expert's comments on points of marriage law and civil legislation with opinions of theologians, for example," the letter said.

"To distinguish between state and religious institutions -- a distinction that is becoming increasingly important for accurate coverage of marriage -- we recommend using the term "marriage for gay and lesbian couples" to describe state recognition of a couple's marriage; "religious ceremony" to describe religious institutions' sanctification or blessing; or "ceremony of commitment" to describe a couple's commitment."

Marriage law is one of the most controversial issues of 2004, the NLGJA said.

"It will continue to be a hot story as the first U.S. marriage licenses are issued to gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts, through the election cycle and beyond."

The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association describes itself as an organization of journalists, online media professionals, and students "that works from within the journalism industry to foster fair and accurate coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues."

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association says the terms "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" are inaccurate and misleading and should not be used.

Then the NL&GJA is, quite frankly, full of wild blueberry muffins.

Gay marriage IS "marriage" (if that's what you want to call it) between two individuals of the same sex. It's scarcely possible for a term to be any more accurate, for heaven's sake.

[drlevy88]

Wild blueberry muffins? This is far too kind.

Blurring the issue behind euphemistic generalities they are, as usual. A "gay" can yet be married to a partner of the opposite sex, and the nlgja (niggle-gotcha?) term would equally cover that. Of course the highly sympathetic so-called "mainstream" press will eat it up like, well, wild blueberry muffins.

[river rat]

My comments on this subject - would get me banned for life..
So - I'll pass.

Semper Fi

[FormerACLUmember]

The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association describes itself as an organization of journalists, online media professionals, and students "that works from within the journalism industry to foster fair and accurate coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues."

Another name for NBCABCCBSPBSCNNNYTIMESWASHPOST....."

[Diogenesis]

Gay marriage and the forced gay rape of childrden in school
was SHOVED in the faces of the people of Massachusetts
by the New York Times.
The Boston Globe is OWNED by the New York Times
and together they want children to debate their upcoming gay NYTimes-dictated lifestyle
but want to DENY adults voting on the issue.

NOTA BENE: This weekend, the New York Times finally revealed that its redefinition of marriage
[designed, engineered, and foistered by
the New York Times' Anthony Lewis-Marshall bedded into the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts]
was based upon ....(drumrolls) two gay Central Park Zoo penguins and their ecstatic behavior
which reportedly excited many in the New York Times.

[Adder]

"As for fair and balanced coverage, the NLGJA recommends that "legal quotes and expertise be kept distinct and separate from religious quotes and opinions."

A legal quote IS an opinion. There is no expertise involved, just 4 judges who can't read.
I think they are right about one thing tho, we shouldn't use the term "gay marriage". We should call it the perversion of the institution that it is.
The state does not create marriages. The state accepts them and issues laws setting out the terms that it will accept as valid for that acceptance. The compelling interest of marriages is for the raising of the children and for the fostering of the stability that men and women need to contribute to the state. There are no religious connotations in that.
The justices in question state that the state has no rational basis for banning but only because they reject the very real rationalization that its "for the children".
I hope there is a constitutional smackdown of these perverts. Loud and clear messages that this is NOT what we want our culture to be.
It disgusting that we are even having this debate.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Wild blueberry muffins? This is far too kind.

Agreed, absolutely. But I seriously doubt Jim would allow me to post the words I really wanted to use there, under the circimstances... :)

[drlevy88]

for the chillun. wonder what happened to that mantra, libbies?

[prion]

The accurate terminology -- on-air, in headlines and in body type -- should be 'marriage for gays and lesbians,'"

They'll lose this one, even with a sympathetic press. "Marriage for gays and lesbians" is too long to fit in a headline.

[chicagolady]

How about "United Fudge Packers"

[Stallone]

Libs get that words are important.

ALWAYS call it 'gay marriage'.

And ALWAYS call the 'Rat,

HANOI JOHN
KOMMIE KERRY
TRAITOR JOHN

Hey, and ALWAYS have fun ridiculing the Socialist scumbags.

[drlevy88]

Perhaps we will see an acronym like mfgl (pronounced muffgull)

It's not as if these folks are starting from scratch in the world. They've waged this propaganda in many countries around the world. The US being on the trailing edge only means that much more practice time the propagandists have gotten before plunging the US into this soup.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

"circimstances" = "circumstances," obviously. Bed time for me soon, I think. :)

[upchuck]

I prefer "queer marriage" or, as an alternative, "faggot marriage." It IS (very :) different from hetero marriage, so why not give it a unique, no-denying-what-it-is, label?

[newzjunkey]

They're right to ask Media to distinguish between legal commentary and religious commentary. I find it totally appropriate to separate that which is sanctified, what they specify as religious ceremony, from the government's business in handing out marriage licenses. This is *exactly* where they're trying to get the Media to not take Bush's bait that all marriage is sanctified and ought to be deemed so by government. Government, in the United States, damned well better have NO role in defining what is holy and what is not.

I can also understand why they want to put marriage first in trying to make it clear these are not *special* rights or a separate codification of marriage. Simply it would be a legal marriage between a homosexual couple. In that sense it's not a "gay marriage" since is a pejorative term used as codewords to spin this very legitimate civil rights discussion into "special rights" when it obviously isn't especially in the Mass. case wherein the court rejected separate-but-equal treatment as a compromise and insist that marriage is marriage between two partners regardless of genders.

Private folks can approach this from a religious view but government cannot. It's illegal to do so and rightly so. No one, at any level, has a right to abuse government to coerce or force a Church or other religious entity into performing and sanctifying a marriage that is not consistent with its Faith.

The marriage sacrament practiced in your diocese would be SAFE regardless of what government's obligation is to all its citizens with regard to equal protection under law.

[alloysteel]

Well, don't even call it "marriage". Call it what it is, playing house. These are not serious advocates of human devotion, they are trying to game the system by giving what they do a veneer of legitimacy.

It is a well established principle today, that what takes place behind closed doors, pretty much stays there, unless there is evidence that something pretty brutal is going on that your mother would not tolerate, and ends up with blood on the floor.

[hmong]

Nice and dandy that the homosexuals can have the government all to themselves and we can have the church to ourselves. That is not the end of it and the church is next.

The media, homosexual and 4 judges are just playing with words. It is no civil rights situation. Rights are metaphysical (bestowed by our Creator) to all humanity. Marriage is more than just two persons living together and recieving all the goodies that the state grants. Heck two asian man are no different from two white man (biologically and psychologically). The difference is that a man and a woman cannot equal two man, biologically and psychologically. The difference from the two groups are so large that it produces another whole human (offspring). Evolutionary male and female (biologically and psychologically) and not 2 male or 2 female can reproduce. NO RELIGION connotations here.

Just my 2 cents.... I get piss when I see blatant idiocy. Better go or I'll explode..

[hmong]

Oh, by the way you will notice that advocates for same sex marriage don't really seem interested in a national debate or discussion.. The reason is that they know that same sex and marriage won't fly when looked under a microscope by the nation. They don't want real marriage, it involves to much commitment and "foundation of the nation", they just want to destroy marriage and normalize their destructive behavior.

[Spiff]

I disagree with this militant group of queers. The accurate term is "same-sex marriage" (which, by the way, is an oxymoron).

Queers can get married. That's right, there are no laws preventing gay, lesbians, and all manner of deviants for marrying. They can even marry each other. What the can't do is marry someone of the same sex. That is why "same-sex marriage" is the proper term for that which is not, nor should ever be, allowed.