The Sun-Times piece, strongly written by staff reporter Kara Spak, is careful to make that civil-religious distinction through the voice of longtime gay activist and Catholic Rick Garcia. He has been a go-to source for many gay rights stories for years—usually it’s better to find someone with a fresher perspective, but in this case, Garcia’s quote suits perfectly, responding to George’s letter and laying out the gay rights perspective in three brisk sentences.
Spak fairly summarizes the cardinal’s argument and notes his mention of a Catholic organization, sanctioned by the church, that welcomes gays and lesbians and invites them to lead chaste lives. I wish she had also mentioned, as Brachear does, that shortly before George’s letter was issued, 260 Illinois clergy released a separate letter supporting gay marriage legislation. That would have been a welcome addition, since media coverage often gives the impression that religious figures and denominations universally oppose gay marriage and gay rights, which is far from the case.
Spak also adds some startling background that was new to me: “In 2011, during a television interview, George compared the gay rights movement to the Klu Klux Klan.” She explains the cardinal was protesting the new route of the annual Gay Pride parade, scheduled to pass a Catholic Church during Mass. Later, he apologized.
This is important information, because it shows that George is perhaps not as warm toward the gay community as he claims in his letter (“Does this mean that the Church is anti-gay? No, for the Church welcomes everyone, respects each one personally and gives to each the spiritual means necessary to convert to God’s ways … .”). However, I wish the revelation wasn’t placed at the end of Spak’s story without a response. It packs a punch there, but it also makes the piece feel like it is leaning left. Why? Because it seems like the writer is trying to make a point: George is homophobic. That sort of claim certainly deserves a response from George or at least the church. I’d rather have seen that information earlier, as a direct counterpoint to George’s claim that the church reaches out to gay people, so that it doesn’t come across as opinion.
The gay movement is advancing rapidly—sometimes so rapidly that it’s tough for reporters who don’t follow it closely not to get caught up in the snarls of language and mired in the subtleties of both sides’ arguments. Those complexities mean that the Tribune story conveys a slight anti-gay stance that it may not mean and that the Sun-Times seems more pro-gay marriage than perhaps is its intent. It may be impossible to ever be completely objective, but if we pay attention to pitfalls regularly associated with these stories, we can get closer.
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