In her column, Minority Reports, Jennifer Vanasco analyzes how the mainstream media covers social minorities.
At the intersection of gay rights and religious freedom is one thing: complexity. On the one side are those who say that secular marriage for gay and lesbian couples, with its accompanying rights and responsibilities, is a step toward equality and fairness. On the other side are conservative religious groups who feel that even secular marriage for gay couples interferes with their freedom to practice religion as they choose, and in addition will fundamentally harm marriage and society at large.
When claims of rights on both sides (and strong emotions) clash in this way, it can be difficult for journalists to figure out how to tell an objective story.
A recent issue illustrates this nicely. On New Year’s Day, Chicago’s Cardinal, Francis George, and his bishops issued a letter opposing gay marriage in Illinois, a bill that is expected to be taken up shortly by the state legislature (in fact, the process may have started even as you read this).
Both local dailies, the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times, wrote thoughtful news stories on the letter. These were no hack jobs—they added context, gave background, reached out to both sides of the issue. Yet they could have been even better. Let’s look at how.
The Tribune story, by religion writer Manya A. Brachear, does a nice job conveying the facts about the letter and the impending bill. She chooses the right person to ask for a quote opposing George: the local president of Dignity Chicago, an activist group working for LGBT equality within the Catholic Church.
Yet gay rights stories are tricky, because the language is so loaded—and Brachear slips, using words and making choices that cause her piece to tilt slightly right. She uses “traditional marriage advocates” to refer to people against same-sex marriage and “gay marriage” to name the issue. “Gay marriage” and “same-sex marriage” are neutral terms. But “traditional marriage” is not. It’s a phrase used by conservatives to imply that marriage between a man and a woman has been the norm forever, despite research showing this is not the case. (Liberals would prefer that the term “marriage equality” be used instead, but that’s loaded in its own way; some conservatives, like Cardinal George, define marriage as consummated by heterosexual intercourse, making gay marriage an impossibility akin to advocating for sparrow marriage.)
Second, Brachear publishes an empty quote from a Catholic pastor who—surprise, surprise—seems to support the cardinal (or at least “understands where he is coming from.”) Priests are basically employees of the cardinal and can’t be expected to speak objectively. Better would have been to go to a church as Mass was letting out, talk with a couple parishioners, and get the (wo)man-on-the-street take.
The reporter does do a heroic job of trying to add context to George’s argument—instead of relying on scripture, the Cardinal uses Natural Law, which usually means using reason to deduce universal moral behaviors. But she doesn’t mention that George’s particular flavor of Natural Law is a religious argument based on the writings of Thomas Aquinas, not a secular one. And she never offers a counterpoint to the content of his argument. Instead, she uses the Dignity Chicago president to simply comment on the release of the letter itself, saying that to him it signifies that the Catholic Church will continue to fight gay marriage. We knew that already.
More importantly, Brachear doesn’t make the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. Though that difference may be obvious to those who follow the issue closely, readers often conflate the two. Too many may come away from the article with the impression the law would force the Church to officiate at the marriage of gay and lesbian couples, and that is not the case.
I clicked on the link purporting to document that same-sex marriage has been part of legal codes in the past, but the article does not really demonstrate that this has ever been the case. Emperor Caligula castrated and dressed up as a woman the male favorite he wished to marry, but that indicates the strength of the idea that 'marriage' was conceived with heterosexual procreation specifically in mind, to the point that the emperor himself was forced to produce a ghastly parody.
It's really silly the way PC people stretch to give same-sex marriage - beyond same-sex relationships - some historical legitimacy. (As the link indicates, polygamy has far more such legitimacy; it was legal in North American when FDR was a child.) The 'logic' ends up inevitably justifying an 'anyone should be able to marry anyone else for any reason' policy, which the PCers are not honest enough to acknowledge is a legtimate concern. 'Traditional' marriage is not a loaded term. Everyone knows exactly what is meant.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 7 Jan 2013 at 12:34 PM
No, "everyone" does not know what is meant by "traditional marriage". We know what YOU mean by it, but that doesn't mean that your definition has been the One True Definition for all of history. The Bible advocates incest, polygamy, and sexual slavery at various points, so all of those could be reasonably classified as "traditional marriage" too. More recently, "traditional marriage" meant that a woman was the property of her father until she was sold to her husband. Is that what you mean? Somehow I don't think so.
Until my gay friends have the same freedom that my boyfriend and I have to walk into the JP's office and walk about again married, we do not have equal protection under the law -- and YOU are on the wrong side of both the Constitution and history.
#2 Posted by Lee Billings, CJR on Sun 24 Feb 2013 at 05:55 PM