Joseph Farah is searching for an answer to the question of why the movement to make same-sex marriage legal has managed to advance so quickly. I’m sure you’ll be shocked to hear that he thinks it’s all because of media bias and censorship of the anti-equality advocates.
A recent survey by the Pew Research Center Project for Excellence in Journalism found pro-same-sex marriage stories outnumbered anti-same-sex marriage stories by five to one.
In other words, there hasn’t been a fair debate in the media. Those opposed to same-sex marriage – a radical idea conceived not because of a serious demand by homosexuals for marriage, but as an effort to undermine the institution of marriage – have been portrayed as opposed to “marriage equality” and “marriage fairness.” They are, in fact, labeled as bigots for standing up for a 6,000-year-old institution widely regarded as a cornerstone of civilization.
How stacked were the media in favor of same-sex marriage?
To qualify as “biased” in the Pew study, stories had to feature at least twice as many comments in support of same-sex marriage as against it. Even at the “fair and balanced network,” Fox News, stories favoring gay marriage far outnumbered those opposing it – by an almost four-to-one margin.
That’s how an idea considered preposterous and laughable just 10 years ago wins the day in a decade.
Let me suggest an alternative: As more gay people have come out of the closet, more and more people have recognized that they were human beings that should have equal rights. And as more and more states and countries legalized same-sex marriage and the sky didn’t fall, the idiotic arguments against it have been exposed as a sham.
What will be the long-term effects on society if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land?
Some gay people will get married. Nothing else will change. And eventually, jackasses like you will stop braying about it.
How will it impact child rearing?
It won’t, except that untold numbers of children being raised by gay parents will have the opportunity to have two parents instead of one, which is usually a very good thing.
How will it affect those who have strong religious objections? What will happen to churches and people of faith who refuse to participate in conducting ceremonies they find abhorrent and sinful?
Nothing will happen to churches, they are explicitly exempted from such laws. “People of faith” will be affected to precisely the same degree that they were affected by laws banning discrimination on the basis of religion, gender or race, at least in the 21 states that also bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Because there are no such protections at the federal level, in the other 29 states they will continue to be allowed to discriminate against gay people (with some exceptions at the local level; 140 cities do bar such discrimination). But this is exactly the same thing as forbidding “people of faith” who own places of public accommodation (that is, businesses open to the public) from discriminating against women (or men), against black people or against those of a different faith (or no faith at all).
How will the Creator of the universe judge a nation that embraces a policy at odds with His own definition of marriage?
He won’t. He doesn’t exist.
These are questions not being asked in the public square. They are off limits. They are marginalized. They are censored.
Yeah, that’s why I’m so amazed. I’ve never heard anyone ask these questions before because they’re so “censored.” I mean, other than every religious right leader and organization in the country, half the members of Congress and one of the two major political parties. Such persecution!
I can’t think of any social movement in history that has so quickly transformed public opinion.
I can’t either. And I’m thrilled about it. And it makes it all the more satisfying to listen to you bleat on endlessly about it while being powerless to stop it. But hey, you keep on praying about it. Because that changes a lot.