Posted: 09/21/2007, Human Events Online
Most liberal media outlets reacted in similar fashion to Tuesday’s major Maryland Court of Appeals ruling, which upholds the state’s law defining marriage as one man-one woman. They presented it through the lavender lens of homosexual activism.
CBS News’ Web site ran this headline: Maryland Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban
Calling the law a “gay marriage ban” is as misleading as describing it as a “ban on polygamous marriage,” or a “ban on incestuous marriage” or perhaps a “ban on interspecies marriage.” For the record, the Court in Conaway vs. Deane notes that neither the 1973 law nor the legislative debate at the time address “sexual orientation” nor any “gay” issue. All the law does is reiterate the fundamental nature of marriage for legal purposes.
To liberal journalists, however, a law merely acknowledging the timeless definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is unacceptable. Such a law must be depicted only as a negative, as a ban rather than an affirmation.
The CBS article itself was straightforward at the top, but devolved into passages like this:
CBS quoted no pro-marriage spokesman in response who might have argued that kids deserve to have both a mother and a father. The story also did not explain the court’s key finding that “sexual orientation” is not a civil rights class such as sex, race and ethnicity.
The Baltimore Sun ran this headline: Court Upholds Md. Gay Marriage Ban
The story, a cardinal example of advocacy journalism, was devoted to homosexual activists and liberal jurists complaining about the ruling or vowing to create “gay marriage” by other means. Not a single pro-marriage spokesperson was quoted.
The Washington Post’s article gave a more balanced account, but spent most of its ink criticizing the decision and discussing how to circumvent it. The opening sentence reflects the Post’s bias, describing Maryland’s marriage law as “the state’s ban on gay marriage” and “the controversial law.”
In fact, the marriage law is not controversial, at least outside homosexual activist and liberal media circles. All 50 states have laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman (even Massachusetts, which still has no business issuing same-sex marriage licenses without a change in the law).
What is controversial is Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock’s nutso January ruling striking the law down. Murdock wrote that the law violates a state constitutional provision guaranteeing equal rights. By her reasoning, any specific definition of a relationship or status could violate the rights of somebody who does not qualify. Perhaps we should all be considered “doctors,” not just those folks who graduated from medical school.
This article was posted on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 7:17 am and is filed under "Civil Unions" & "Gay Marriage", "Civil Unions" & "Gay Marriage", CBS, Court Decisions & Judges, Government Promotion, Media Promotion, News, Washington Post. You can follow any updates to this article through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Want to See Every New AFTAH Article?
If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
|Copyright © 2006-2011 Americans for Truth. All Rights Reserved.|