The Media and Gay Marriage
I stumbled upon this very odd William Powers National Journal article that wonders why mainstream media hasn’t been more unambiguously pro-gay marriage. Powers breathlessly asserts:
As filtered through the mainstream media, gay marriage seems not so much a righteous cause, inherently worthy of our attention and concern, as another strange, colorful chapter in the never-ending “culture war,” a phrase that appears over and over in the mainstream coverage. The media, which are normally so good at creating heroes, have not yet given us a gay Rosa Parks or even a gay Gloria Steinem.
Hello?! Perhaps because people don’t all think alike on this issue. Maybe there are in fact good arguments on the other side?! I find it fascinating that Powers is disappointed that the media hasn’t taken a more cheerleader-like position on this issue.
For one, I think he is crazy. I live in Ohio, not exactly New york or Hollywood, and yet very little of the media I have seen has been anything other than celebratory about what is happening in San Fransisco. The entire debate is set up against those who want to protect the status quo on marriage. FMA pro-proponents and those who don’t favor gay marriage are de facto bigots and want to enshrine discrimination into the laws and the constitution.
I also find it interesting that he seem perfectly comfortable with the media taking sides and pushing a particular view. What is this about creating heroes? Whatever happened to just reporting the facts and letting people decide who is the hero? I thought the media was all about objectivity and professionalism. Isn’t that what they always say when the issue of bias comes up?
Powers nods toward this but then brushes it off as all rather cowardly:
Maybe it’s a good thing the mainstream media haven’t caught gay-marriage fever and are not pumping this story as if it were civil-rights redux. Objectivity is the goal, right? We don’t want to take political sides. Still, I suspect we’re going to look back one day and be amazed we lived through a time when the government tried to prevent gays from marrying. We may also look back and wonder why the coverage never kicked in to the old, familiar fight-for-justice story line.
It seems to me that this is the classic media bias scenario Bernard Goldberg was talking about. It is a cultural assumption about serious issue that automatically chooses sides and slants the debate. To Powers the side of good is obvious, his only question is why the media hasn’t been as quick and as vocal about it. And liberals wonder why conservatives don’t trust the media.
Your entries this week are a fine example of why I read your site. While I don’t always agree with your point of view I admire your conviction in your beliefs and respect the way you effectively communicate your points without belittling other people’s intelligence.
Your blog is informative and well thought out. For that I thank you.
Honestly, you know, my first reaction is to just attack you because, lemme tell ya, you and I DO NOT think at all alike. I just want to know one thing. What is it about gay marriage that upsets you so much? Honestly? I’m asking a very sincere question, and hope to receive a sincere answer.
There are two basic issues:
1) This issues is being imposed by the courts because the democratic process is simply too slow and cumbersome for those who want gay marriage and want it now. I generally distrust people who seek to have the courts impose policy they can’t win in the legislature.
2) I believe that marriage is a critical building block of civilization. I believe that marriage is a union of a man and a women. I believe that society supports and rewards marriage because it is key to its survivial. Marriage is under assault from loose morals, easy divorce, and a host of other things. Now is not the time to try radical rearrangement of our social fabric.
As a result I think if gays want to argue for civil beenfits and legal equality within the legislature fine. Social compromise can be worked out. But I am opposed to social revolution imposed on the country against its wishes by a few judges.
Marriage enjoys a protected status, a favored status, in society for one main reason: children are best raised in a stable situation recognized by the community at large.
I can sympathize with gay couples feeling left out of that favored recognized status, but their relationships (what – 3% of the population?) rarely accept the lifetime responsibilities of raising the next generation. To put it bluntly, they apparently want the benefits without all of the responsibilities.
No objection here to couples of any composition entering into lifetime contracts of all sorts, nor to modification of the laws of property and inheiritance to recognize gay unions. But marriage it’s not.
And what a curiosity is is to see the photographs from San Francisco’s festival of gay unions – most of them are comprised of one member dressed as ‘boy’ and the other as ‘girl’. If they’re so relieved to come out of the closet, why the playacting?