With gay activists working to overturn California’s Proposition 8, readers should be aware of the kind of semantics used in The New York Times to put supporters of the ban on gay marriage at a disadvantage. At the same time, the paper does deserve credit for including both viewpoints in its coverage the competing legal views.
For example, a New York Times article that discussed the unlikely partnership of two attorneys who have joined together to overturn the court decision, despite their ideological differences in other areas was comprehensive and even-handed.
David Bois, an attorney for former Vice-President Al Gore, and Theodore Olson, a conservative litigator, were on oppose sides of the 2000 Florida recount case are now united by their opposition to the ban. This is a peculiar dynamic worthy of coverage and the Times does an effective job of reviewing the legal history.
Unfortunately, The Times reverts to a set of assumptions that are highly questionable and work the disadvantage of groups that favor traditional marriage.
“Groups advocating equal rights for gay people were planning to rally in front of the courthouse here on Monday morning, and officials were expecting large crowds in the courtroom and in a separate viewing room. Live video and audio were to be piped into federal courthouses in California, New York, Oregon and Washington.”
Why is it assumed that “equal rights” are synonymous with the gay agenda, when in reality they appear to pushing for a special set of rights? There is no concerted effort at work to deny basic civil liberties to gay couples and many of the states that have resisted elevating homosexual partnerships to the same level as traditional marriage have also accepted civil unions.
Moreover, the idea that democracy could be undermined by way of judicial activism goes unmentioned throughout the coverage. Although supporters of the California ban won in a straight up and down vote, there is a paucity of material defending the public’s right to resist coercive measures.
After quoting from gay activists at length, the importance of defending the public’s use of the ballot box gets a brief mention from Kenneth W. Starr, dean of the Pepperdine University School of Law, who had argued before the justices in favor of Proposition 8. The ruling “represents a ringing judicial affirmation of the right of the people of California to amend the State Constitution at the ballot box,” he is quoted as saying.
In New Jersey, where the state senate defeated a gay marriage bill in early January, The Times suggests that this is particularly acute setback given the state’s history.
“The defeat in New Jersey, which has widely been viewed as one of the nation’s most socially tolerant states, was a significant setback for advocates of gay marriage,” a Jan. 7 article declares. “Last month, a similar measure was defeated in New York’s Legislature, and in November voters in Maine repealed a gay-marriage law in a referendum.”
How about “New Jersey, which is widely viewed as a socially permissive state, dealt a particularly severe blow to gay marriage advocates.”
Readers who rightly take issue with the modern notion of “tolerance” should carefully weigh the terminology used in upcoming pieces.
Popularity: 1% [?]
