Media Censoring Same-Sex “Marriage” Defeat
June 7th, 2007 by Peter
Articles in several of today’s newspapers summing up the 2007 regular legislative session–which ended at midnight–are notable for what they are refusing to mention: the effective defeat of this year’s same-sex “marriage” bill.
This piece by the AP, for instance, gives a run down of the “winners” and “losers” of the 2007 session. Such burning issues as “elephants” and “trans fats” are mentioned in the loser category. But the biggest loser issue of the 2007 session, same-sex “marriage,” rates not a single mention–not even a passing aside.
Make no mistake: the defeat of the 2007 same-sex “marriage” bill was a significant loss for our opponents. Their PAC outspent ours in the last campaign. The election gave them a net gain of a few seats in the House. Their bill sailed through a Committee effectively controlled by them. And they still felt it necessary to withdraw their bill rather than force a vote in the House that would have dealt an embarrasing defeat to them and cast doubt on their claim that same-sex “marriage” is “inevitable.”
This was a significant victory for the pro-family movement. Our Feb. 21st lobby day and the testimony we provided at the March 26th public hearing had an impact. That we turned out in greater numbers than our opponents at key weekday events at the state capitol was an important factor. So was the avalanche of phone calls and e-mails legislators received from their pro-family constituents.
This battle is far from over. Our opponents will be back next year and even before then our state Supreme Court could commit the greatest act of judicial usurpation in Connecticut history by imposing same-sex “marriage” on us through an undemocratic fiat. But this was precisely the point of our May 23rd rally, which took place after the defeat of this year’s bill. We are already laying the groundwork for the next fight–something we will have more to say about in the months ahead.
For now, it is worth noting the slant in the media’s 2007 legislative wrap-up stories. When we speak of bias in the media we are speaking as much about what the media chooses not to report as anything else–and the sometimes hidden or unexamined assumptions at play in those choices. How is it, for instance, that elephants and trans fats make the losers list, but the stunning defeat of the same-sex “marriage” bill is passed over in silence? Even a leftist blog grumbling this morning about the Democrat supermajorities’ lack of action on their pet causes has failed to mention same-sex “marriage.”
We know why liberal bloggers would do that. The fate of this year’s same-sex “marriage” bill is an embarrasing defeat for them–one they would rather not draw attention to. And we suspect the same motivation is at play in the MSM’s bizarre silence on one of the hottest issues of this year’s session.
But if the MSM is going to write their legislative wrap-up stories that way, they should stop wondering why people think they’re biased.
Isn’t it interesting that there are no antagonists, the usual SP SSM promoting types, posting or disagreeing here, since the defeat of this year’s SSM bill in CT. It could be because there is nothing to disagree with in Peter’s analysis, such as his:
“When we speak of bias in the media we are speaking as much about what the media chooses not to report as anything else–and the sometimes hidden or unexamined assumptions at play in those choices. How is it, for instance, that elephants and trans fats make the losers list, but the stunning defeat of the same-sex “marriage” bill is passed over in silence?”
It could also be that the typical angry liberal posters are all on vacation. Far more likely, they are pretending not to notice–believing that if they **ignore** something, it does NOT REALLY EXIST.
Sorry Tricia, again you claim to know what others thoughts are , and again you are wrong. There was no “defeat” so there’s no reason to waste time on the childish gloating that oozes from the “we hate homosexuals” crowd. It is a small and vicious mind that gloats over a “victory” against innocent people. But nothing more civilized is to be expected from this site. People’s pain is a reason to party for you sado-christians. Media bias? Keep whining, maybe you’ll make it true. There are none among the “liberal” posters here who will ever be threat to your throne as the queen of denying reality.
David, if you want to continue posting here, focus on responding to arguments without adding the insults. Yes, I understand that you equate mere activism in opposition to your views as “hate.” I get that. But you need to work out your personal issues somewhere else. Various opinions are welcome here, but it is not a forum for our opponents to engage in primal scream therapy.
David,
You (on 9 June) said “There was no ‘defeat’.” You just proved my point when I said of the “typical angry liberal posters” (rather than all being on vacation) that “Far more likely, they are pretending not to notice–believing that if they **ignore** something, it does NOT REALLY EXIST.”
When a group of demanding activists work hard (and spending boodles for it) lobbying for something they want, and don’t get it–I call that “defeat.”
David, either you or I need a new dictionary.
So, I guess that means that your cronies in Massachusetts were just “defeated” and I should gloat like y’all did a couple weeks ok. No thanks, I’ll pass. And for the record, I never said that the event that gave you such joy didn’t happen, basically I said it’s repulsive that anyone would celebrate people’s lives being stomped on.
Peter, is it any less insulting when people whose views you agree with say slanderous, false and sometimes vicious things about LGBT people and our desire to marry? You can call them arguments but they are attacks nonetheless. When a person’s or groups “views” are presented in a way designed to have a negative effect on those they are opposed to, in fact to ultimately control their lives, there’s really little else it can be called but hate. That said, I do agree with you that I sometimes get more focused on the person saying it than what they are saying. I appreciate you pointing that out.
David,
I read your comment on the Mass. item, and it seemed pretty much like “gloat”[ing] to me.
Guess it’s all in the perspective.
No ma’am, it has nothing to do with perspective, it has to do with what I call creative reading. One takes the words on the page/screen and finds a way to make them say what they have already decided the words will say, even if it isn’t even slightly connected to what the words actually do say. I have run into it quite often in “conservative” circles. Could it be it comes from a desperate need not to allow reality to have any influence on the person’s world view? Whatever, all that I did was say that they system worked they way it is supposed to. That has NOTHING to do with the results of the vote. Personally I think that, even thoughs MA’s rule seem a little stricter than other state’s it is far too simple for a vote against a group of people to make it as far as this one did. From day one the process was open to fraud and manipulation. Of which there are plenty of documentated cases of in the history of the vile petition. For any such petition the number of signatures should be much higher, and every single one should be verified by a registered letter sent to the person who signed, with a form that contains not only the full text of the petition but requires that the person sign again. Signatures from the petitions and the letters should then be matched. This should all be paid for by those who created the petition, NOT the taxpayers. A simple majority vote in the legislature is ridiculous on a matter which has a potentially destructive impact on the people the petition is against. Two sessions is fine and it’s actually good that this one was interrupted by an election year. This gave “the people” the opportunity to vote out those who did not support the views they agree with. This issue is far to important for the segment of US citizens who are being attacked to be treated as lightly as it has in some states. It should be extremely difficult to get a bill has heinous as this one through. Every single state that has tainted their constitutions with the bigoted and hurtful words that you support will in the future be going through the much more difficult and expensive process of taking them back out. I hope that the citizens of these states remember who instigated the whole mess and thank them accordingly. But then again, the citizens did vote for the amendments so they are equally to blame.