Tuesday, April 05, 2005

 

Anti-this, Pro-that; It Matters

One of the most obvious ways that the SAEN shows it bias on any issue is by slapping an "anti" in front of it. For instance, Bob Rivard calls those opposed to abortion "Anti-choice." But imagine my surprise when I read this on the front page of today's SAEN:
House Joint Resolution 6, also known as "Anti-Gay Texas Marriage Amendment," would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and is proposing that the new language be written into the state constitution.

Surprised because surely no legislator would be stupid enough to call it the "Anti-gay Marriage Amendment." I guess it's possible, but unlikely. So I went over to the Texas Legislature Online and sure enough the bill is not so named. In fact, here is the entire text of this "anti-gay" bill:
A JOINT RESOLUTION

proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in
this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32
to read as follows:
Sec. 32. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man
and one woman.
SECTION 2. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the
voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005.
The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the
proposition: "The constitutional amendment providing that
marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one
woman."

Nope, I still don't see "anti-gay" anywhere, and that's because it isn't there. The writer of the story, Lisa Marie Gomez decided to write the story in such a way as to support her own views on this issue. She could have just as easily called it a "traditional marriage" protection bill. But, for some reason, we have never seen such a phrase in print at the SAEN. If the story was done correctly it wouldn't have "pro" or "anti" in it at all. That call would be left up to the reader.
Comments:
That caught my eye, too, because obviously no legislator proposing such a bill would name it that. And, just as obviously, no unbiased editor would let that slide in the lead sentence of an article (paging Mr. Rivard!)

Apparently, when she refers to "also known as..." she is quoting the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas, the only Google match for this phrase.

Shouldn't the Express-News identify lobbyists when they cite their press releases in the context of a news story?
 
It's also interesting to see opponents of this bill stifling democracy. After all, this is not a bill to pass a law. It is a bill to propose a Constitutional Amendment which will be voted on by the people of Texas. Those who oppose this law should rightfully wait until the Constitutional Amendment is placed on the ballot, and then they have every right to convince people to vote against it. But to try to quash it now, as a mere proposal, completely denies the people the right to vote on the issue.

It's interesting that the people who wanted to let the citizens of San Antonio vote for or against PGA are the same ones most likely to support the quashing of this bill before the issue can be brought to the people for a vote.

Let the people speak!
 
I was so happy when Rep. Warren Chisum finally switched parties back in 1995. Such an embarrassment.

But to try to quash it now, as a mere proposal, completely denies the people the right to vote on the issue.

I'm also happy that the U.S. Constitution is not as easy to ammend as our messed up Texas Constitution. The more of these silly amendments that they can quash in the Legislature the better.
 
I am no expert on Rep. Chisum, but I don't find his attempt to protect traditional marriage, the bedrock of all successful societies for all of history to be embarassing. Why is it the left expect Christians to be "embarassed" about our beliefs? I really, reallly, really don't want to get into this so I'll keep it short. The question the left never answers is what is next after homosexual marriage. How can we stop marriages of three or more people once we allow gay marriage? The answer is we can't. Or how can we stop a brother and sister, or father and daughter, or father and son for that matter from getting married once we say homosexuals can marry? Again, we won't be able to.
 
Why is it the left expect Christians to be "embarassed" about our beliefs?

First, I am a Christian too, so please don't try to couch this as some kind of angelic Christian versus heathen pagan debate. Second, keeping gays from being allowed to legally marry is not protecting traditional marriage. My marriage is not threatened. Why do you think yours is?
Third, the slippery slope argument is nonsense. There is not a significant number of people wanting to have multiple spouses or inter-family relations. Even the issue of first cousins wanting to marry is extremely rare and unusual. What do we do to prevent something that is not happening from not happening? Same thing we've always been doing, I suppose.
 
Mike I don't know you so I was not attempting to question your Christian bona fides; however, if you are a Christian Mike why don't you believe what it the bible says about marriage, that it is between a man and a woman and that it is a gift from God? Perhaps you subscribe to the old adage, if it isn't broken, fix it. Jesus said to love one another so don't ask me if i think that gays should be stoned. Civil marriage is a right given to men and women by society and so people who choose to be gay are not being opressed because they are not afforded a right above and beyond this. They have chosen the lifestyle they have chosen and society is in no way responsible for putting it on equal footing with something that is the conerstone of our society, marriage. You say that my scenarios I mentioned before are inplausible because only a small minority support them, but only a small minority supports or stands to gain from gay marriage. how can we grant their rights as a minority and not some guy who wants two or three wives? It is indeed a slippery slope and I don't want to go there. States that have voted on measures like joint resolution 6 have approved them overwhelmingly. Shall we just ignore this because you and a small minority think it is wrong?
 
the slippery slope argument is nonsense

Not according to the hysterics screeching about the Patriot Act (one single citizen detained means tomorrow we will be rounded up in The Camps) or the "don't give an inch" abortion-lovers (if we can't crush a baby's skull and suck out its brains today, then we'll be using coat hangers for abortions in the alley tomorrow).
 
Mike why don't you believe what it the bible says

I believe the Bible was written by men who were inspired by God but who were not necessarily infallible. Rather than focusing on literalist interpretations of every passage, I choose to focus on the teachings of Christ as a whole.

Civil marriage is a right given to men and women by society

Yes, exactly. All I am asking is that gays be allowed to have civil unions. The churches don't have to have any part in it if they choose not to.

people who choose to be gay

I believe that sexual orientation is determined more by biology than by "choice". So in a sense I think God makes people that way and probably doesn't appreciate the discrimination and bigotry that is visited on them. It doesn't make much sense, does it, that so many people would "choose" a "lifestyle" that causes them to be ostracized by society.

Also, I believe that allowing gay marriage should be something that conservatives should support because it would promote monagamous relationships in the gay community rather than promiscuity that spreads disease and hardship.

So that is the argument in a nutshell. I know we are standing on two different islands separated by a pretty big ocean, but I am eternally optimistic that we will eventually find some way to bridge our differences and come to an amicable solution.
 
Rather than focusing on literalist interpretations of every passage, I choose to focus on the teachings of Christ as a whole.

"Pick and Choose" theology. Mike, come on over to the One True Church...you'd make a great Cafeteria Catholic! ;-)
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

archives