Why Did the Supremes Toss Prop 8?

California AG Kamala Harris

If you don’t show up in court, you lose the case. 

It sounds unfair, and it certainly is arbitrary, but that’s usually the way the old cookie crumbles in American jurisprudence.

That, in a nutshell, is why the Supreme Court tossed the Proposition 8 case this morning. One side didn’t show up. Ironically, the “side” of the argument that didn’t show up was the one that is actually legally bound to be there. 

The people of California didn’t get their day in court because their duly elected attorney general decided not to do her job. It really is as simple as that. 

Part of the job of a state attorney general is to represent “the people” in court actions. What that means is that the AG has the responsibility to defend the laws of the state as they are promulgated either by a direct vote of the people in a referendum or by the people’s duly elected representatives in a legislative body. 

The attorney general does not write or pass laws. Their job — let me repeat that — their job is to enforce the laws as they are passed and to defend them in court challenges. When a prosecutor at any level decides not to enforce a law because they disagree with it, that’s dereliction of duty. When they only enforce a law part of the time, that’s selective prosecution. When the chief law enforcement officer of a state refuses to go to court to defend laws that were legally passed either in a legal election or by legislative process simply because they don’t agree with the law, that should be an impeachable offense. 

The reason the Supreme Court ruled that the proponents of Proposition 8 did not have standing in the case was that they were not the duly elected chief legal officer of the State of California. They had no “standing” to speak for the people of California. The person who does have this standing, Attorney General Kamala Harris, and who is the duly elected chief legal officer of the State of California, sat the whole thing out. In fact, she was flying the rainbow flag on her web site. 

It’s up to the people of California what they want to do about this. They were the ones who passed Proposition 8. It’s their vote that has been nullified by the inaction of their own Attorney General. If they’re happy with an AG who overrules them and refuses to do her job just because she doesn’t agree with them, so be it. 

But the next time they go to the polls to vote they might ask themselves what it matters, if the vote of the whole populace of the state can be overturned by one official who simply decides not to do her job. 

For more information on this, check out Why I am Catholic by Frank Weathers. 

The DOMA Ruling: Guessing What it Means

Doma is dead

 

I could try to sugar coat today’s ruling. I could also try to minimize what I think its impact will be. However, that would not be honest. I can only write what I think. Anything else would be a lie. 

We are, as Catholics, going to have to unravel today’s Supreme Court ruling a bit and absorb it. Only after we do that can we “Keep Calm and Catholic On” as some people advise.

First, we need to know what we are keeping calm about and what we are Catholicing on in the face of. Here, for what it’s worth, is my first take. I reserve the right to alter this as time goes on and I learn more. For now:

I think today’s Supreme Court ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional on the basis of equal protection is a watershed. 

It tips the table over and opens the way to reorganize our society along destructive lines. While today’s ruling does not legalize gay marriage by fiat, it creates a pry-bar that will open the doorway to creating a de facto legalization in practice. 

Many of the impacts of today’s ruling are going to come pretty fast. Federal institutions will change how they deal with marriage almost over night. The pressure for states to comply will also begin almost immediately.

There are far-reaching implications to federal law that tunnel their way into the corners of almost every state activity. Given that the proponents of these changes are well-funded, supported absolutely by the media and now by federal law, I believe that things are going to get increasingly dicey for anyone who wants to take a stand for traditional marriage. 

We already have a number of examples, many of which I have written about extensively on this blog, of how the “right” to gay marriage quickly becomes a “right” to infringe on other’s freedoms. This ruling, with its broad-ranging basis in equal protection, will open the way to legal arguments favoring even more forceful infringements of our religious liberties. 

Politically, I believe that this ruling and the movement behind it are going to create another fracture in the body politic. I will be surprised if we do not see the two political parties line up along these fault lines. Those of us who go to the polls and vote will be pushed, as we have been with abortion, to vote according to these social issues rather than other things such as the continuous cycle of wars, and the growing threat of economic bankruptcy of our nation. 

If I’m wrong, and nothing changes, I’ll be only too happy — ecstatic, in fact — to say so. 

I am not saying these things from a place of despair. I do not feel anything like despair. What I feel is a determination to stand for my Church and for Jesus, come what may. There is nothing that is final in this life except death itself, and even that is only final in this life. We can heal our culture, but we have to begin by healing ourselves. 

This is our time, and these are our challenges. 

There are a few things I’m going to ask you to do:

1. Face facts. This is our situation. So be it. 

2. Pray for those who oppose us. If you do this, it will not only help them, but it will take the anger out of you and let you think clearly. It will also give you the strength and determination Christians are going to need. 

3. Give yourself time to be upset. Take a few days and feel it through. Then, get over it and get back into the battle. Do not fight yesterday’s war.

4. Focus on your own family first. In particular, how are you going to protect your children from the propaganda in our culture? 

Here is a brief analysis from the Maddowblog on MSNBC. I chose them because, while all of the media have become gay marriage advocates, MSNBC seems to be speaking almost directly for the leadership in this movement. As such, they give us a good look at what these activists are thinking and planning. 

It will take some time to digest the significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, but as MSNBC’s Adam Serwer noted

 , the “likely consequences for same-sex couples who until now have been denied legal recognition by the federal government are difficult to overstate.”

Families headed by married same-sex couples will now be recognized by the federal government as families. Servicemembers fighting for their country in far off lands will not have to worry about their spouses being denied benefits. The same-sex spouses of Americans who are not U.S. citizens will not be denied green cards on the basis that their marriages don’t count.

But there was something that NBC News’ Pete Williams said this morning that’s also worth keeping in mind. For those who can’t watch clips online:

“The interesting thing here is that the court has said that DOMA is unconstitutional as a matter of equal protection — meaning that it’s discriminatory. Now, the importance of that is, if the Supreme Court had struck it down on a narrower basis — by saying for example that the federal government doesn’t have the power to determine what a marriage is, that’s a matter for the states — that would have been a very narrow ruling.

“This is a very broad ruling. If the Supreme Court is saying here that the federal government can’t make distinctions between same-sex and opposite-sex couples in terms of what marriages the federal government will recognize, then this is an opinion that can be used by proponents of same-sex marriage to attack laws in other states.”

It can and will be used exactly that way, and for marriage-equality supporters, it suggests the DOMA ruling in U.S. v. Windsor is not only a breakthrough victory today, but it will continue to offer opportunities for further victories fairly soon.

 For a different take on the ruling, check out Keep Calm and Catholic On by Joanne McPortland. 

Supreme Court Dumps DOMA; Tosses Prop 8

The Supreme Court said that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act is not Constitutional. It also held that the proponents of Proposition 8 did not have merits, which means they tossed the appeal and Prop 8 along with it.

A spokesman for gay marriage advocates said after the decision was handed down that this ruling effectively legalizes gay marriage throughout the United States. What it does by essentially remanding Prop 8 is let a California court ruling legalizing gay marriage stand. In the case of DOMA, it tosses the question of how to define marriage back to the states.

In actual practice, there are big unanswered questions about how the federal government and its many interventions into state government will be affected by this ruling. It think it will call a lot of things into question as they pertain to married couples and children in the various states.

It is no exaggeration to say that this a landmark ruling. I need time to read the decisions and think it through before I say more.

For that reason, I am going to hold off analysis for a while.

Feel free to comment below, but do it in a way that does not attack other people.

What Will the Supremes Do with Gay Marriage?

SCOTUS pix 2011

Tomorrow is the day that the Supreme Court is scheduled to hand down rulings that will affect how America deals with the definition of marriage for decades to come.

The legislation in question is the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8.

The Court can do anything. It can remand the whole question back to the states. Or, it can issue a ruling of sweeping proportions similar to Roe v Wade. It can even announce that it isn’t going to rule at all.

People on both sides of the question studied the Justices’ every twitch and cough when the cases were presented earlier this year. We all wanted a crystal ball so that we wouldn’t have to endure the suspense of months of waiting before we found out which way and how far the Court was going to jump on this issue.

Tomorrow, the waiting and guessing will be over. The Court will make its ruling.

After that will come the dissecting and rejecting of whatever they rule. I am reasonably certain that no matter what the Court does on this issue, a large segment of the American population is going to be unhappy and angry about it. I am equally certain that no matter what the Court does, the debate about how we will define marriage under the law will continue.

Which leads me to the question of how we should behave tomorrow and on into the months and years ahead. Much of the debate concerning this issue has devolved into slander of people who hold opposing views. I think part of the reason why this happens is that both sides of the argument believe that their position is a moral imperative. Another part of why we behave so terribly when we discuss how to define marriage is that the temper of our times has taught us that bullying, slander, smear tactics and mud-slinging are legitimate tactics.

Instead of dealing with the issues at hand and talking about the arguments being made, we tend to try to discredit the people making the arguments.

My feeling about this is that if you are a Christian, you have a moral responsibility to forgo this kind of behavior. It does not matter what they call you, you may not slander them back. Let the other side have the low road.

Slander

We are defending home, family, life. We are defending the core institution on which Western civilization is built. We do not need to attack anyone to do that.

Also, we need to remember that homosexuals are just people. More importantly, they are children of the same God whose teachings we are trying to defend. No matter what they say or do, they are our brothers and sisters in creation. We should try to convert them, not destroy them.

The other side of public debates involving Christian values of any sort always seems to try to base their arguments on Christian bashing and degrading our faith. It can be hard to take; especially when they defame the name of Jesus. But do not reply by degrading or defaming them. Do not do it.

That does not mean that we should back away from saying the truth of things. It just means that we should forgo attacking people. We can talk about issues and even bad behavior all we want. Just don’t attack a person while we do it.

I believe that no matter how the Court rules tomorrow, the fight will go on. I also believe that no matter how the Court rules or what detours or setbacks we suffer, the victory will ultimately be ours. All we have to do is our part, and do it in a way that lets everyone who observes us know that we serve a Risen Lord.

Jesus First: Reflecting on Life with JP2

Blessed John Paul II is one of my favorite thinkers. He said quite a few things which I think are worth pondering. I’ve listed some of them below for your prayerful reflection.

Have a blessed Saturday.

 

Jesus first

Following Christ in Daily Life

“When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society.”

“True holiness does not mean a flight from the world; rather, it lies in the effort to incarnate the Gospel in everyday life, in the family, at school and at work, and in social and political involvement.”

“The evil of our times consists in the first place in a kind of degradation, indeed in a pulverization, of the fundamental uniqueness of each human person.”

“Forgiveness is above all a personal choice, a decision of the heart to go against the natural instinct to pay back evil with evil.”

 

Elderly hands

The Value of Human Beings and Human Life

“The commandment you shall not kill even in its more positive aspects of respecting, loving, and promoting human life, is binding on every individual human being.” ~Evangelium Vitae-Gospel of Life Pope John Paul II-1995

“While it is true that the taking of life not yet born or in it’s final stages is sometimes marked by a mistaken sense of altruism and human compassion it cannot be denied that such a culture of death, taken as a whole, betrays a completely individualistic concept of freedom, which ends up by becoming the freedom of ” the strong” against the weak who have no choice but to submit”.~Evangelium Vitae

“Man’s life comes from God: it is his image and imprint, as sharing in his breath of life. God therefore is the sole Lord of this life: Man cannot do with it as he wills.” ~Evangelium Vitae

‘The Gospel of life must be proclaimed and human life defended in all places and all times.” ~Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics- National Conference of Catholic Bishops (United States) 1998

 

Family on beach

The Family and Same-Sex Marriage

“It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this [gay marriage] is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.”

“As the family goes, so goes the nation and so goes the whole world in which we live.”

“Marriage is an act of will that signifies and involves a mutual gift, which unites the spouses and binds them to their eventual souls, with whom they make up a sole family – a domestic church. ”

“The great danger for family life, in the midst of any society whose idols are pleasure, comfort and independence, lies in the fact that people close their hearts and become selfish.”

“The family, as the fundamental and essential educating community, is the privileged means for transmitting the religious and cultural values which help the person to acquire his or her own identity. Founded on love and open to the gift of life, the family contains in itself the very future of society; its most special task is to contribute effectively to a future of peace.”

 

26weeks

Abortion

“The cemetery of the victims of human cruelty in our century is extended to include yet another vast cemetery, that of the unborn.”

“Finally, true freedom is not advanced in the per missive society, which confuses freedom with licence to do anything whatever and which in the name of freedom proclaims a kind of general amorality. It is a caricature of freedom to claim that people are free to organize their lives with no reference to moral values, and to say that society does not have to ensure the protection and advancement of ethical values. Such an attitude is destructive of freedom and peace. There are many examples of this mistaken idea of freedom, such as the elimination of human life by legalized or generally accepted abortion.”

“Abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, for example, risk reducing the human person to a mere object: life and death to order, as it were!”

 

Euthanasia

Euthanasia

“Euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person.” ~Evangelium Vitae, 1995

“Similarly, euthanasia and assisted suicide are never acceptable acts of mercy. They always gravely exploit the suffering and desperate, extinguishing life in the name of the “quality of life” itself.”

~Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics-National Conference of Catholic Bishops(United States)-1998

“Those who advocate euthanasia have capitalized on people’s confusion, ambivalence and even fear about the use of modern life-prolonging technologies. Being able to choose the time and manner of one’s death, without regard to what is chosen is presented as the ultimate freedom.” ~Statement on Euthanasia- National Conference of Catholic Bishops (United States) 1991

“The sickness of a family member, friend or neighbor is a call to Christians to demonstrate true compassion, that gentle and persevering sharing in another’s pain.” ~Ad Limina Apostolorum to Bishops of the United States-John Paul II -

 

Dollar Bills 600x401 zpsf00b5f25

The Economy

“Brothers and sisters, do not be afraid to welcome Christ and accept his power … Open wide the doors for Christ. To his saving power open the boundaries of states, economic and political systems, the vast fields of culture, civilization and development.”

“The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering.”

“I cannot fail to note once again that the poor constitute the modern challenge, especially for the well-off of our planet, where millions of people live in inhuman conditions and many are literally dying of hunger. It is not possible to announce God the Father to these brothers and sisters without taking on the responsibility of building a more just society in the name of Christ.”

“Hence in every case, a just wage is the concrete means of verifying the justice of the economic system… It is not the only means of checking, but it is a particuarly important one and in a sense the key means.”

“Wages must enable the worker and his family to have access to a truly human standard of living in the material, social, cultural and spiritual orders. It is the dignity of the person which constitutes the criterion for judging work, not the other way around.”

“Precisely in an age when the inviolable rights of the person are solemnly proclaimed and the value of life is publicly affirmed, the very right to life is being denied or trampled upon, especially at the more significant moments of existence: the moment of birth and the moment of death.” ~Evangelium Vitae

 

Why are the Bishops Doing This?

Fortnight 4 freedom logo montage

In honor of the Fortnight for Freedom, I am going to limit today’s quick picks on Christian persecution to the United States.

The list below comes from the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. None of these examples involves burning down churches or mass murders of Christians. They do, however, show a huge change in the way that religious liberty is viewed by the government from just a few years ago.

I believe that this change has come about primarily through the almost non-stop Christian bashing that takes place in our media, academia and on websites. Christian bashing has become so popular that those who practice it as a profession, such as certain authors, speakers and bloggers, are not only able to continue their practice of Christian bashing without facing objections, they make an excellent living at it.

The rise of professional Christian bashers and the aggressive way that they ply their trade has certainly contributed to a cultural situation in which Christians must constantly be on the defensive. I think it has also fueled the attitudes which have led to the discriminatory practices listed below.

I’ve said a number of times that discrimination is a continuum. People do not move to violent persecution in one step. They work themselves into it by moving along a progression of prejudice and hatred. I believe that America is, as a nation, moving rather rapidly along that progression where Christians are concerned.

From the USCCB:

Current Threats To Religious Liberty

An Overview of Specific Examples

Pope Benedict XVI spoke last year about his worry that religious liberty in the United States is being weakened.  He called religious liberty the “most cherished of American freedoms.”  However, unfortunately, our most cherished freedom is under threat.  Consider the following:

  • HHS mandate for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.  The mandate of the Department of Health and Human Services forces religious institutions to facilitate and fund a product contrary to their own moral teaching.  Further, the federal government tries to define which religious institutions are “religious enough” to merit protection of their religious liberty. 

  • Catholic foster care and adoption services.  Boston, San Francisco, the District of Columbia, and the State of Illinois have driven local Catholic Charities out of the business of providing adoption or foster care services—by revoking their licenses, by ending their government contracts, or both—because those Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples or unmarried opposite-sex couples who cohabit. 

  • State immigration laws.  Several states have recently passed laws that forbid what they deem as “harboring” of undocumented immigrants—and what the Church deems Christian charity and pastoral care to these immigrants.

  • Discrimination against small church congregations.  New York City adopted a policy that barred the Bronx Household of Faith and other churches from renting public schools on weekends for worship services, even though non-religious groups could rent the same schools for many other uses.  Litigation in this case continues. 

  • Discrimination against Catholic humanitarian services.  After years of excellent performance by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services (MRS) in administering contract services for victims of human trafficking, the federal government changed its contract specifications to require MRS to provide or refer for contraceptive and abortion services in violation of Catholic teaching. 

  • Christian students on campus.  In its over-100-year history, the University of California Hastings College of Law has denied student organization status to only one group, the Christian Legal Society, because it required its leaders to be Christian and to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage.

  • Forcing religious groups to host same-sex “marriage” or civil union ceremonies.  A New Jersey judge recently found that a Methodist ministry violated state law when the ministry declined to allow two women to hold a “civil union” ceremony on its private property.  Further, a civil rights complaint has been filed against the Catholic Church in Hawaii by a person requesting to use a chapel to hold a same-sex “marriage” ceremony.

Is our most cherished freedom truly under threat?  Yes, Pope Benedict XVI recognized just last year that various attempts to limit the freedom of religion in the U.S. are particularly concerning.  The threat to religious freedom is larger than any single case or issue and has its roots in secularism in our culture.  The Holy Father has asked for the laity to have courage to counter secularism that would “delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society.”

Fortnight for Freedom 2013: Meatless Fridays and Prayer for our First Freedom

Today is the first day of Fortnight for Freedom 2013.

The American bishops have asked Catholics to refrain from eating meat on Fridays during the fortnight as a fast for religious freedom.

I would suggest that we also pray the Rosary for the intention of religious freedom on Fridays during the fortnight.

You can sign up for text alerts on religious freedom from the USCCB here.

YouTube Preview Image

Student Loans: Is it Really All about the Interest?

US Congress seal

Congress is once again fussing and fuming over how to use another festering problem that faces the American people as a club to beat one another with in partisan rumbles.

This time, it’s the ridiculous cost of higher education, specifically the cost of  student loans.

The amount that people owe in student loans has doubled in the past five years. Those were the same five years when jobs vanished, wages for the jobs that were still around stayed flat or dropped and the net worth of families decreased due to the falling housing market. They were also the same years that saw gasoline go up and up and up along with the cost of everything from a gallon of milk to a new pair of jeans.

Students loans2

Students can no longer graduate from college and look forward to landing a job that will allow them to pay their student loans. As anyone who’s ever had one can attest, owing on student loans is only slightly preferable to owing the Sicilian Mafia. They won’t break your legs if you can’t pay your student loans, but they will break your financial back.

Every time you have to put payments back, the loans pile up penalties and interest. This increases the amount you owe in a geometric progression, piling debt on debt until there is no way anyone earning one of today’s salaries and living with today’s cost of living can pay off the loans in a normal lifespan.

Student loans can force young people to delay marriage, put off starting a family and forgo buying their own home. On the other end of life, student loans force at least some people to delay or even give up retirement. I personally know an individual who is well past retirement age, but can’t stop working because of payments on student loans.

Students loans were a great idea when they were first implemented. The plan was to open the doorway to higher education to young people who wouldn’t otherwise have the money to go. The loans made a lot of sense when tuition for a state university cost $12 or $15 per hour, text books could be had for less than $50 and good jobs at a living wage were plentiful. They were an extension of the American dream based on the kind of earnings that went with the almost unfathomable industrial might this country possessed.

Unfortunately, we’ve exported our industrial base and our government is now in the process of squeezing the last bit of financial reserve out of the population by making them pay for unnecessary armaments for what has become an endless cycle of war. Layered on that is corporate raiding of the national treasury which uses Congress to transfer money from the people to corporate welfare programs for those who pay for their campaigns.

ThumbnailCAC0NUCC

Meanwhile, our institutions of higher learning have not been slouches at getting their cut of the economic joyride. They have lived large on the student loan gravy train since the program was implemented. After all, these are intelligent people They know a golden goose when they get one.

I’ve served on a board of regents in my time. I was the truculent one who voted against fee increases. Then, when I was a legislator, I was the unpopular one who voted against allowing the state schools to set their own tuition with no legislative oversight.

I’d heard all the arguments.

“Vote for the fee increase. No one will be denied an education. They can get loans.

Or,

“Vote to let the schools set their own tuition without legislative oversight. It won’t stop anyone from going to school. They can get loans.

But, for the simple reason that I could add, I knew that there was a day coming when the costs would outpace the rewards for students. We passed that day a while back. I also knew that the job requirements were getting stupid.

Nobody needs a college degree to be a cop or a firefighter or a lineman for the local electric company. Those jobs were held for decades by people without college degrees and they did them very well. A college degree is not necessary to do most jobs. Employers are requiring the degrees because  they have so many applicants for every position that they use the degrees as a weeding out criteria.

The question that arises is whether or not this is a legitimately useful criteria. Does a college degree actually mean that a person is going to be a better employee? I doubt it.

I’m not against higher education. But I am against this endless round of cost increases tied to the argument that there’s no reason to practice good usage of resources because, after all, students can always get loans to pay for it. I am also against job requirement inflation that tacks a supposed need for a college degree onto every position.

Which brings me to the latest legislative brinksmanship in Congress. It seems that there is a plan afoot to double the interest rates on student loans. Congress, with its usual unwillingness to think of the people or the country ahead of its partisan loyalties, is fighting over what to do about it. The Republicans want to tie the interest rates on student loans to interest on the 10-year treasury note. Based on what I’ve read, I think the Democrats want to block the proposed rate hike, which, I presume, would hold the rate at its current level.

565e6efa

Meanwhile, the amount of student loan debt in this country has risen from $550 billion in 2007 to a trillion today. That’s not government funny money. That’s people’s lives nailed down and unable to progress because of a burden of overwhelming debt.

So far as I’m concerned, we need to look at two things: The inflationary cycle in the cost of a college education, and the inflationary cycle in downright stupid job requirements.

You don’t need to be an engineer to change a lightbulb. Somebody needs to remember that.

From the Wall Street Journal

Student loan debt has nearly doubled in the past five years, according to a congressional report released Tuesday, less than two weeks before interest rates on federally backed student loans are set to jump to 6.8% from 3.4%.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who is the vice chair of the congressional Joint Economic Committee, released the report and said it underscores the need for “immediate action” to block the rate hike scheduled for July 1.

With little time to head off that hike, however, a bill has yet to clear the Senate. A pair of competing bills failed test votes earlier this month. The House in May passed a bill basing interest rates on the 10-year Treasury note.

The report highlights the burden of debt on students now. Debt has increased from $550 billion in the fourth quarter of 2007 to just under $1 trillion in the first quarter of 2013, it says. (Read the rest here.)

 

 

Pew Research: Media Coverage Biased 5 to 1 in Favor of Gay Marriage

Media20Manioulation

It’s official. A new Pew Research study indicates that media coverage of the gay marriage debate is strongly biased in favor of gay marriage.

That’s in case you were wondering.

Was anybody wondering?

Personally, I think this falls into the “new study indicates that nuts roll downhill” kind of news. The study is based on coverage of the period a few weeks ago when the Supreme Court was hearing arguments on the issue of gay marriage. It turns out that news coverage, including that from Fox News, was 5 to 1 in favor of gay marriage.

Of course, the study is somewhat misrepresentative of the actual media bias in favor of gay marriage, since the media typically tries to paint a gloss of balance on their social-issue propaganda when they’re reporting big stories like Supreme Court hearings. I think day to day reporting is probably much worse.

Also, when you consider the total sell job that we get from outlets such as HBO — which also hard-sells euthanasia, abortion and polygamy, among other other things — it begins to look like 5 to 1 is actually a low number.

The people of this country, indeed, the people of the world, are being pushed, propagandized and often bullied into accepting destructive social changes. Gay marriage is one of those changes. At the same time, there is an almost equal attack on faith, particularly Christian faith.

From the National Catholic Register:

Daily News

Pew Reports Media Bias on Marriage Debate (1913)

As the U.S. Supreme Court weighed DOMA and Proposition 8, news stories favored same-sex ‘marriage’ 5-1.

 06/17/2013 Comment

WASHINGTON — The Pew Research Center released a report on June 17 that confirmed overwhelming media bias in favor of same-sex “marriage.”

Researchers evaluated news and opinion coverage of oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court and related stories dealing with two landmark marriage cases and found that all mainstream media outlets favored “marriage equality,” including Fox News.

Pew reported that stories “with more statements supporting same-sex marriage outweighed those with more statements opposing it by a margin of roughly 5-to-1.”

This skewed treatment, researchers concluded, conveyed “a strong sense of momentum towards legalizing same-sex ‘marriage.’”

Now, as the nation awaits the high court’s rulings on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8, which are expected by the end of June, the unbalanced news coverage will likely prompt intense scrutiny and debate on the media’s role in affecting the outcome of those cases.

Some constitutional scholars have predicted that the justices, mindful of the ongoing debate over Roe v. Wade, would be cautious about legalizing a social practice that lacked broad public support.

But if news stories indeed conveyed a sense of “momentum,” the high court’s deliberations might accommodate that shift.

“I have to think the justices — and especially the chief — are very cognizant of the shifting public opinion,” Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, told The Hill in mid-May, during the period that Pew researchers charted the flow of coverage favoring one side of the issue.

 

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pew-reports-media-bias-on-marriage-debate?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2013-06-18%2002:11:01#ixzz2Was206vD

 

What’s It Like Being a Dad?

What’s it like being a dad?

It’s like life.

YouTube Preview Image


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X