See if you can detect the bias
From a New York Times article on the recent gay marriage ban in California:
The losses devastated supporters of same-sex marriage and ignited a debate about whether the movement to expand the rights of same-sex couples had hit a cultural brick wall, even at a time of another civil rights success, the election of a black president.
Observations:
1. The "rights" of same-sex couples are equated with the rights of black Americans. This is done without a hint of the world-view that lies beneath it. It is the unquestioning nature of this statement that is galling to me. It would be one thing if such a direct decision were made in the opinion pages. But this was in a news article. I do not have any trouble when I read this in the Economist, because they are very upfront about where they stand on issues. But New York Times is not; the implication is not that this newspaper considers gay rights to be equivalent to other civil rights, but that it is in the nature of things and patently obvious to anyone with a brain. Disagreement, as evidence by the rejection of gay marriage in three states, is mysterious to them.
2. Now, the state I'm living in is commonly considered one of the most liberal and loose with regard to social morals. The ballot measure (proposition 8) was even worded so as to discourage people from supporting it. The wording of it was "take away the right" of same-sex couples to marry, as if this was a self-evident right that the measure was restricting. And in fact, that is how the advertising went, with commercials talking about how it "is wrong to restrict the rights of anyone, even if you disagree with them," etc.
3. Nonetheless, it passed, roughly 52-48. It seems that many liberals are not yet ready to support gay marriage. Neither Obama nor Biden does. Most big-time liberals do not. Yet...the NYTimes knows it is only a matter of time until all right-thinking individuals have come around, or at least, until they get past their ridiculous religious hang-ups, or have been educated out of it.
posted by Steven at 10:43 PM
4 Comments:
Ha. I agree. I posted that NYT article about Sarah Palin's religion a few posts ago, because I was struck by the way the author had no understanding of faith. The New York Times needs to employ a more diverse body of reporters.
6:37 PM
There's a very good reason that the amendment was worded the way it was: voting for Proposition 8 did, in fact, take away a right gay people in your state--I'm assuming California--had. As I'm sure you're aware, your state supreme court decided that your state constitution required that your state recognize and perform same-sex marriages. From that moment, gay couples in your state did have the right to marry. Prop 8 changes the constitution, so it does take away a right your state was previously constitutionally obligated to recognize.
I'm not disagreeing with your ultimate point--that the NYT might be biased--but I did want to point that out.
1:43 PM
First, sir, my state is Arizona...I'm like a stranger in a strange land out here. I actually voted absentee in Arizona.
Second, the wording of the ballot measure was changed as it moved through the senate so that the wording of it would hinder its passing.
Third, the measure puts a positive definition in place...marriage is between a man and a woman. To structure the debate as though this definition is "limiting" the right of anyone, is already to shade it with bias. The question to be decided is, what is the definition of marriage? The courts created a definition of marriage by its ruling. The opponents of the measure removed the debate from the definition of marriage into the emotional realm of dubious rights.
Fourth, of course, the proponents of the measure were no better in their advertising, making some questionable emotional appeals. And I hate that the Mormon church funded so much of it. I probably would have voted no on it just to spite them.
Fifth, the ultimate question in the entire debate over marriage should be...what is the definition of marriage? And it should be decided by the states. There is no "right" to marriage that is unalienable to the human condition or in any way included in any constitution, state or otherwise. And even here in one of the more liberal states in the country, people are still very uncomfortable with gay marriage, even as they voted overwhelmingly for Democrats.
8:03 PM
I'll address your points in the same order you made them, starting with your second point, since your first statement isn't really something that needs comment.
So, having said that:
I have no idea what the proposition said originally and had no idea, until reading your post, what it said in the end. I only knew what voting a certain way meant.
Regardless of what you think about the issue or the California Supreme Court's ruling, the law in that state as it existed at the time that this vote was taken was that the definition of marriage had to include the possibility of same-sex marriage. So while you might be correct that using the "limiting" language is biased, it would not be biased to say that Prop 8 removed or took away a right that gay people did, legally speaking, have.
The involvement of the Mormon church is strange, I agree.
Finally, I should point out that you're incorrect in your assertion that no constitution creates a right to marry. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the United States Constitution to create a fundamental right to marriage. The case is Zablocki v. Redhail, and the Court relied on cases like Loving v. Virginia, which overturned statutes banning interracial marriage, and Griswold v.Connecticut, which involved the right to privacy and contraceptives.
A "fundamental right," in the parlance of constitutional law, is a right that the government cannot interfere with unless it has an overriding interest in doing so. Even if it does have such an interest, the law must be "narrowly tailored" to meet that interest in the least restrictive means. Other fundamental rights include the right to life, the right to vote, and the right to procreate.
Finally, if I might pose a question: why do you think that the definition of marriage should be something that should be decided on a state-by-state rather than a federal basis? And does that assertion mean that you are opposed to the Defense of Marriage Act, which currently defines marriage as between one man and one woman?
10:31 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home