From The Defense of Marriage to Barring Same-Sex Marriage—Big Difference

posted at 11:23 am on May 26, 2009 by Rovin
[ Family ]    printer-friendly

Funny how a few simple words can change an intended meaning.  In today’s pending California Supreme Court decision on Prop 8, the news media, (in this case the LA Times) chooses their words carefully.  The political rhetoric has changed from “Defense of Marriage”, passed overwhelmingly in 2000, to the now negative term of “barring same-sex marriage”.  In 2000 the state passed prop 22 by a 23 point margin and 52 out of 58 counties voted in favor of defending the sanctity of marriage.  The only six counties that failed, (voted no) were all from the Bay Area.

In today’s Times “story” the writers can’t even get their history right, completely omitting the original prop 22 decision.  Instead, they fast forward to 2004 when again the Bay Area—San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom decided to circumvent the state’s laws and began allowing marriage between gays.  The courts stepped in and stated that Newsom had over-stepped his authority.  In May of 2008, the State’s Supreme Court again stepped in to claim the “fundamental right to marry extends to same-sex couples” again overturning the will of the people.

Despite the fact that today’s California laws afford every civil right to same-sex couples that exist within traditional marriage, (between one man and one woman), the social battle (that gays insist is a fight for equal rights), continues.  For them, the term “marriage” must be inclusively written in stone to attain the status that the two are treated and accepted as equal.  They are not.

Today’s Supreme Court decision will most likely uphold Proposition 8 in favor of the will of the people, but this battle will be far from over.  The arguments will continue as the proponents of same-sex marriage claim that public opinion is changing as a more liberal mentality evolves.  Traditionalists argue that this is a further breakdown in a society that has always viewed sanctity of marriage as between one man and one woman.  Religion, and Christian values play an important role in defending traditional marriage.  Historically, the sanctity of marriage never considered or envisioned an opposing view.  But “barring” policy is completely different from confirming human nature in the support for traditional marriage.  Don’t expect our biased liberal media to be honest about the difference—or today’s decision to be viewed positively by them.

(correction: 2007 changed to 2000 in the 1st paragraph—thanks battleoflepanto)

Update: Ed’s got a post up on the main page

Blowback