Gay Marriage Bias?

Human Events Online ^ | February 25, 2004 | Chris Field

[hinterlander]

President Bush yesterday announced his support of a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage by defining it has the union of one man and one woman. Apparently, the Washington Times and the Chicago Tribune are two of the few newspapers to get the memo, as reflected in their headlines on this major story -- the Times topped with "Bush Urges Amendment on Marriage; Pushes Passage to Protect Institution" and the Tribune had "Bush: Protect Marriage."

What did most of the rest of the major papers in the United States report about the story in their headlines? That the President had announced his support for a "ban" on gay marriages. (I must include here that the sub-headline for the Tribune was "Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Bar Gay Couples from Marrying.")

Now, maybe the President does support an actual, active "ban" on gay marriages, but that's not what his announcement -- which was the source for the news story -- included yesterday. Instead, he spoke positively of his desire to protect the institution that has served humanity well for so many millennia.

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

Even the language of the leading proposed amendment, the Musgrave amendment, does not include a "ban" on gay marriage. Here's what the legislation would add the following to the Constitution:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

If the nation's newsrooms want to report that such an amendment is a "ban" on gay marriage, fine. But in order to assuage the millions of Americans who believe the media has a bias in favor of culturally liberal movements like gay marriage, perhaps the papers should have included headlines like these:

"Bush Backs a Constitutional Ban on Bestial-Marriages"

or

"President Bush Supports Barring Polygamy"

But they didn't.

They didn't include a full accounting of the amendment as viewed from standpoint -- the standpoint these newsrooms chose -- of what it bans, which would include marriage to animals and multiple spouses. Instead, they headlined their stories as a supposed attack on the freedoms of homosexuals.

Whether their motives were based in a bias for gay marriage or they simply saw this type of reporting as a more effective way to sell newspapers (by including the word "ban" rather than "protect" or "preserve" or "defend") newspapers nationwide used these types of headlines:

• "Bush Backs Ban in Constitution on Gay Marriage" --New York Times
• "Bush Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage" --Washington Post
• "Bush Backs Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage" --Wall Street Journal
• "Bush Seeks Constitutional Ban of Same-Sex Marriage" --Los Angeles Times
• "Bush Supports Amendment to Bar Gay Marriage" --The Sun (Baltimore)
• "Bush Backs Gay-Marriage Ban" --USA Today
• "Nope to Gay Nups; Prez Wants Amendment to Ban Same-Sex Marriage" --New York Daily News
• "Bush: Put Gay-Wed Ban in Constitution" --New York Post
• "Bush Says U.S. Needs to Ban Gay Marriages" --Arkansas Democrat Gazette
• "Bush Urges Amendment: Gay Wed Ban" --Boston Herald
• "Bush: Ban Gay Marriage" --Atlanta Journal-Constitution
• "Bush Urges Ban on Gay Weddings" --Miami Herald
• "Bush Calls for Amendment to Ban Same-Sex Marriage" --San Francisco Chronicle
• "Bush Seeks Gay-Marriage Ban" --Philadelphia Inquirer
• "Bush Wants U.S. Ban on Same-Sex Marriage" --San Jose Mercury News

[Always Right]

Kerry’s 'Opposition' to Gay Marriage

After the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling imposing gay marriage against the will of the people and the legislature, John Kerry told reporters on May 5, 2002, “I personally believe the court is not right…I don't support marriage. I never have. That's my position.” Yesterday, after President Bush announced his support of a Constitution Amendment banning gay marriage, Kerry reiterated that position, "I oppose gay marriage. I also oppose President Bush's attempt to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage,"

Just exactly how does Kerry ‘oppose’ gay marriage? Kerry opposes, at least for now, amending the US Constitution. Also, Kerry was one of only 14 Senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, which would have banned federal recognition of gay marriage for the purpose of any federal benefits. In his opposition, Kerry went as far as calling the DOMA, "unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary and mean-spirited bill," and compared the law to the 1960’s efforts in the south to criminalize interracial marriages.

Kerry has also attacked the federal efforts as an infringement on states rights. However, when Massachusetts tried to act on their own to ban gay marriage in 2002, Kerry signed a letter which stated, "We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents."

So, Kerry is on record as believing a ban on gay marriage is not only bigoted and hateful, but is also 'unconstitutional' on the federal level and a ‘grave error’ on the state level. Just how exactly does Kerry oppose gay marriage, and which reporter will be brave enough to ask the tough questions?

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[Mike Darancette]

At least someone gets it.

Bush Rasmussen numbers highest in a month.

[Cicero]

This is another clear example of media orchestration. Virtually every newspaper in the country, on the same day, came up with the same words. Every headline has the word "ban" in it, although there was no such word in the news release.

There are only two explanations. One: somebody sent out a fax to all the newsrooms, maybe hillary or McAuliffe. Two: these guys periodically get together and plan ways to bash the president.

There's no way that the Watergate campaign wasn't orchestrated. There's no way that the Enron campaign--very similar in its methods to Watergate, except that it failed--wasn't orchestrated.

Here we have a minor example, comparatively speaking. But there's no way that every headline in the country would read as some variation of "Bush tries to ban gay marriage" if they didn't deliberately plot to do it. As the saying goes, sometimes there are good reasons for being paranoid.

[Baseballguy]

How about this: The new admendment would allow the states to have supreme authority in the lives of its citizens in respect to Marriage, property, taxes, education, welfare and any other items so called into law by the states legislators.

I wonder if Kerry and Edwards would jump on this. If they did I would vote for them. Down with big government. No more federal taxes.

[Baseballguy]

To think about they way Bush wants it anythings goes. Could a state say you can have a civil union of a man and 5 women?

[hinterlander]

"Allowing them equal rights"???

Doesn't everyone, heterosexuals and homosexuals, have the right to marry one member of the opposite sex? (In fact, homosexuals can marry each other -- a gay man can marry a lesbian.) I would think that allowing gay marriages could be defined as "separate but equal" -- something we all claim to oppose.

[hinterlander]

I wonder what Kerry's views on "states' rights" were when the Supreme Court made it's Lawrence v. Texas ruling which declared sodomy to be a constitutional right.

[moehoward]

bump

[over3Owithabrain]

Where can I see the latest Rasmussen #s, please?

[hinterlander]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

[over3Owithabrain]

Thank you - #s look good!!

[Mike Darancette]

Daily Tracking Poll

[over3Owithabrain]

Thanks MD! Bush is holding steady with a slight uptick. I'll be happy to see his #s break 50 again though.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping - explains (DUH!) how the media use word jugglery to promote their ~~SURPRISE~~ pro-"gay" bias.

Let me know if you want on or off this ping list.

[King Prout]

solid analysis... even if an analysis of the self-evident :)

"news media biased in favor of homoagenda... in other news, the sky is blue, grass is green, and the sun is hot."