The Washington Post’s coverage of the recent change in marriage law here has been, unsurprisingly, of the partisan cheerleading variety. I’ve read a few reports and pondered if they would have been written terribly differently if they’d been issued as press releases from the communications shops of organizations advocating for same-sex marriage. “Gay marriages to boost sagging economy!” “Mexico City shows that gay marriage is awesome!” You get the idea.
It’s so unbelievably lopsided that I’d actually grown weary of remarking on it (after these three pieces last week). But yesterday’s ombudsman column comparing proponents of traditional marriage to racist bigots has dragged me back in.
First, let’s take a trip down memory lane.
Last year, a Washington Post “Style” reporter wrote a fairly favorable piece about the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown. To be precise, it was favorable to him but not to the movement he is part of. In Brown, the reporter noted, she’d found a “sane” supporter of traditional marriage — unlike those other people, the frothing at the mouth loonies who are bigoted and evil.
Now, I had criticized the piece for being fluffy (which I do for many of these profiles — the old Kate Michelman one comes to mind), but also for throwing every other supporter of traditional marriage under the bus. And I thought that while it was nice that the paper included a profile of a traditional marriage supporter, that his arguments should be included in the actual news areas of the paper. Think of it as a small effort to balance the newspaper’s coverage on this issue, which deeply divides Americans.
Supporters of same-sex marriage, however, really didn’t like the piece (too favorable, they thought) and wrote to Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander to complain. He wrote a column apologizing for the story. Not because it treated all but one supporter of traditional marriage as bigots. No. Here’s one criticism he leveled at the piece:
Finally, the headline: “Opposing Gay Unions With Sanity & a Smile.” To many readers, The Post was saying Brown’s views are sane. The headline, written by editors, not Hesse, should have been neutral.
See, Alexander believed it was not “neutral” to say that it’s sane to believe that the institution of marriage should be heterosexual. Nevermind that marriage has, until a few short years ago, been universally accepted across all religions, cultures and peoples as a heterosexual institution. Those majorities of voters in 30 states that have decided to retain the traditional view of marriage as a heterosexual institution are not “proceeding from sound mind” in the view of Alexander. It would not be neutral to say that, oh, Pope Benedict XVI is “sane.”
And let’s go back a bit more down memory lane. This time to 2004, when previous ombudsman Michael Getler said the Post had mangled same-sex marriage debate coverage:
[C]ritics who say the paper has had few, if any, features portraying opponents of this social change in a positive or even neutral light have a point. The overall picture, it seems to me, could use more balance.
OK, so now the current ombudsman has discussed reader reaction to a photo of two men kissing. It ran on the newspaper’s front page and online last week. He heard from upset parents who felt that the picture was inappropriate for the front page, and men who said they’d cancel their subscription if they saw “another photo of men lip-locking.”
Others used slurs to complain about the photo. (What is it about the debate that causes such vitriol, I wonder? Almost every time I write about it, I receive threats and get called horrible names myself and I find it most discouraging. I wish people would learn how to discuss their differences civilly, sigh.) Anyway, a couple dozen people canceled their subscriptions, citing the photo. He asks:
Did the Post go too far? Of course not. The photo deserved to be in newspaper and on its Web site, and it warranted front-page display.
News photos capture reality. And the prominent display reflects the historic significance of what was occurring. The recent D.C. Council decision to approve same-sex marriage was the culmination of a decades-long gay rights fight for equality. Same-sex marriage is now legal in the District. The photo of [two men] kissing simply showed joy that would be exhibited by any couple planning to wed — especially a couple who previously had been denied the legal right to marry.
There was a time, after court-ordered integration, when readers complained about front-page photos of blacks mixing with whites. Today, photo images of same-sex couples capture the same reality of societal change.
Booyah! You get that, readers who didn’t like the front-page photo? You’re nothing better than racist, evil bigots. This is, of course, precisely the argument made by one side in the debate that the newspaper is supposed to be covering in a balanced manner — that lesbigay status equals race.
I’m beginning to wonder if anyone at the Post has met a single supporter of traditional marriage other than that one reporter meeting Brian Brown. I mean, are they even trying to be fair? The week after even the Post has become aware that there might be some unintended consequences to rewriting marriage law, you’d think they’d reach out to those people who have concerns. Apparently not.
And you have to wonder what happened to Alexander’s stated claim that the Post needs to be “neutral” about such things. So let me get this straight — it isn’t “neutral” to consider an opponent of same-sex marriage “sane,” but it is “neutral” to compare opponents of same-sex marriage to racist bigots?
Good to know, Mr. Ombudsman!
 | Posted at 7:23 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (53) |
March 10, 2010, at 9:02 am
Where in that last quote does it say anyone is evil?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 9:17 am
Stoo:
So you argument is that racial bigotry is NOT evil? In what church or newsroom?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 9:23 am
If you want to hear what you want to hear, turn on Fox News. …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 9:28 am
JANICE:
Actually, we were hoping to read coverage that was balanced — treating the views of both sides fairly and accurately — in the pages of one of the nation’s great newspapers.
You are saying that we now are supposed to accept “cheerleading” — the word once used by the NYT’s own readers’ rep to describe that newspaper’s coverage of this issue — in the Post as normative?
What is your expectation for the impact of that neo-Newsweek decision on public discourse and the health of the nation’s embattled news industry?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 9:42 am
Sometimes we just put things down to ignorance, not moustache-twirling evil.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 9:48 am
Stoo:
Who is the “we” in that sentence?
And I am sure that the pope and millions of traditional American Christians, Jews, Buddhists and others appreciate being thought of as ignorant. Ditto for the pope, the Dalai Lama and lots of other highly intelligent people.
And I will ask you the same question I just asked Janice, concerning the Post work on this topic:
What is your expectation for the impact of that neo-Newsweek decision on public discourse and the health of the nation’s embattled news industry?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 9:50 am
tmatt - Racial bigotry can lead to evil acts, but it’s not evil in itself, just misguided and wrong. I mean, if it’s what you’ve been taught all your life, how much moral culpability do you have for your own attitudes?
Most people seem to be able to learn their way out of it, with time. We’ve come a long way in terms of getting rid of racism today. What pleases me the most is seeing how kids these days have far fewer issues with interracial relationships. (Not none, but compared to past generations it’s astounding…)
Hanging onto racism in spite of direct evidence could be termed evil, of course. The people in the military who dragged their feet even after the performance of the Tuskegee Airmen, for example. But the original racism itself? I don’t think so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 10:04 am
RAY:
Riiiigggghhhhttttt. You are saying that the Post readers’ rep is not saying that racism is not evil. That’s your point, addressing the journalism issue in this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 10:15 am
I agree that saying that people who oppose same-sex marriage aren’t “sane” is a bit much. It’s entirely possible to think they are fundamentally mistaken, though. In my opinion, some opponents make it as far as “irrational”. Few could actually be termed “insane” - maybe some, but any principle or idea can be taken to insane lengths.
As to the picture, though… I understand that people don’t like the comparison of objecting to that with objecting to pictures of interracial couples. But I’d like a clarification from Mollie - was the picture not news? Not a relevant illustration for the story? In short, was there a problem with the first two paragraphs of the Post’s explanation, or is your objection entirely to the last two sentences?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 10:18 am
I’m a Post subscriber, and I occasionally wonder, generally when I read the Style section, if I should cancel the paper when my kids are old enough to read; as chronicled here in the past, its subject matter is often objectionable and poorly handled. But while I can’t say I was happy with the front page picture, the ombudsman has a point — the event pictured actually occurred, and was newsworthy given the recent approval of such marriages. I don’t think the publication of the picture in and of itself amounts to cheerleading, and the ombudsman’s reaction is probably correct as an objective statement of mores in the Washington community in 2010.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 10:22 am
Tmatt - No. I’m specifically saying that the Post’s ombudsman “is not saying that racism is” “evil”. (Carefully note there’s one less ‘not’ where I quote your words. It’s very important.) The person who introduced the word ‘evil’ into this discussion was Mollie.
I’m more than willing to address the racism comparison, but I just asked Mollie if she had a problem with the other journalism-related reasons the Post gave for that running that picture. I think that’s important to clear up before we get into the rest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 10:24 am
MZ’s post is not about the picture. Clearly, that’s news.
Her post is about the readers’ rep and his stance on Post readers, comparing his reactions to two different sets of complaints.
Yes, MZ used “evil.” With good reason.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 10:50 am
What is the journalistic objection to a front-page picture of two men kissing, if the picture fits all the other criteria of “news?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 10:52 am
Dave:
No objection at all. Who said that there was? That isn’t the point of MZ’s post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 11:00 am
But it evidently bothers some of our commentators. I’d like to hear their reasoning, if it has a journalistic basis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 11:15 am
If you think that a photo representing a news worthy event is cheerleading, then you are off your rocker.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 11:15 am
DAVE:
You said “some,” as in plural.
Like who, pray tell? There isn’t a single comment objecting to the news value of the photo.
Who are you talking about? Please cite the reference.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 11:16 am
ERIC:
Straw man. Who said that it was, here at GetReligion?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 11:24 am
Just read Alexander’s blog post. Nowhere does he call people who complained about the front page picture racists.
He says instead that the picture was newsworthy and unpopular, in the same way that a picture of an interracial couple was newsworthy and unpopular.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 11:55 am
BOB:
Got the rose glasses on, huh?
What is your interpretation of this quote:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 12:11 pm
In what universe is the article on marriage in Mexico City “cheerleading”? It describes widespread opposition in the provinces, quotes the attorney general on constitutional objections and the cardinal on moral opposition. It quotes opinion poll statistics which may favor gay marriage but are statistics. And it describes the reaction tepidly as “not a backlash” against the new law. Sure the anecdotes show sympathetic older couples worried about providing for their families, but you would be hard pressed to find gays who wish to marry so they can throw orgies. I’m perplexed: would the paper have to somehow find an anecdote of a child harmed by a pending marriage to satisfy your standard of objectivity? And the headline of course was not “Gay Marriage in Mexico City is Awesome” but “With same-sex marriage law, Mexico City becomes battleground in culture wars.” A little objectivity, please.
The business article on new opportunities was upbeat, but is it not factual? Like gay marriage or not, there is a new market for dual groom wedding cake toppers and a pent up demand for wedding services in a market segment heretofore unserved. It will generate revenues and businesses are going after that market. Unless you think that profits=morality, this is not about the morality of gay marriage.
The biography of Brian Brown was a lovely piece, showing his effectiveness and his disarming style. As a contributor wrote on these pages in the last few days, a profile is difficult to write, but I think the author did a credible job. I’m sure the nightmares of gay marriage activists do include frothing Katrina bemoaners but that is of course hyperbole.
As far as the ombudsman’s comment goes, I’m with Will47.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 12:26 pm
Okay, tmatt, I’ll take it that you speak for Mollie, and the sole problem was with the Post comparing the objection to the photo with the historical objections to photos of interracial couples and so forth.
Now, again, you don’t have to like that comparison. It’s certainly not a flattering comparison. But is it a relevant comparison?
Let’s flip it around for a second. There are a large number of people who are quite happy to quite forcefully declare same-sex carnal relationships to be sinful. And let’s face it, ‘evil’ is inherent in the very concept of sin. There is simply no way to call homosexual activity sinful without thereby calling it evil.
Now, very few such people take that to the insane degree of, say, a Fred Phelps. Most point out that it’s possible to hate the sin without hating the sinner. They’re quite happy to talk about degrees of evil, and note that there are certainly worse sins than engaging in homosexual activity. Some are even willing to grant that homosexual desires, though unfortunate, are not in themselves sinful. It’s acting on them is sinful - which is to say, evil. (Hmm, might I diffidently suggest a similarity with what I said about racist feelings versus racist actions?)
But, as to the quote itself, it’s undeniably true that people did complain about “front-page photos of blacks mixing with whites”. Your problem is with comparing that objection - which I assume you find irrational - with the current objections to a picture of two men kissing.
But that’s not calling people racist, as Mollie portrayed it. That’s just not claiming that “lesbigay status equals race”. That’s saying the the objections are similarly irrational, or at least that the objections deserve the same deference.
The men - like the mixed-race groups of not so long ago - were engaging in behavior that was perfectly legal. (Hell, it was a lot more chaste than I often see in newspapers and on TV…) Indeed, the point of the story was that that behavior had received increased legal sanction, and illustrated it in an immediate and relevant fashion.
BTW, Mollie didn’t link to the actual article by Mr. Alexander. Here’s a link for those interested:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ombudsman-blog/2010/03/readers_react_to_photo_of_two.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 1:23 pm
Thanks to Terry for explaining the journalistic objections to the Post’s response to its coverage here. I was away from the computer all morning.
And the reason why I didn’t criticize the publication of the photo is because — while I certainly would have handled reader complaints more respectfully than the Post did — I think it’s a news event that needed to be covered.
I remember reading reader complaints about photos of public displays of affection in general and I think there’s something to be said for considering the mores of readers when publishing photos. Usually I think of this more in terms of pictures of violence than public displays of affection — but it’s a pretty serious point of discussion among journalists.
Anyway, the problem with the instant rush to compare objection to two people of the same sex marrying with objection to a man and a woman of different races marrying is, among other things, laziness and an ignorance about what those debates hinged on.
If one has actually studied arguments against same-sex marriage, there’s pretty much no comparison to be made. I think a closer — but still woefully inadequate — comparison would be to the public objection to Mormon polygamy at the end of the 19th century.
Consider Grover Cleveland’s 1885 inaugural address:
The Post should spend time learning the nature of objections to same-sex marriage before wrongly comparing the objection to racism.
When I began looking at media coverage of this issue, I was as ignorant as most Post reporters. But in order to determine whether same-sex marriage opponents were being treated fairly, I had to learn a little bit about the nature of their objection.
I found, contrary to what I’d been told repeatedly, that same-sex marriage opponents aren’t bigoted. They have an idea of marriage that is much different than “two people sharing a committed domestic arrangement.” They believe marriage is a sexual union, that it is designed to produce children through the joining of man and wife. They believe that it is the basic building block of society and preserves the interests of men, women and children better than anything else. (and much, much more) The Post and its individual reporters are free to disagree with this historic understanding of marriage. But they should not dismiss it as the equivalent of racist bigotry.
Our society would be a lot better off right now if everyone could learn a bit about what other people think and believe. I see no reason for that to go in only one direction on news pages.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 1:26 pm
Thanks for the actual article link. He certainly gave the anti men kissing photo side its due, perhaps 3/4 of the column. Even reported that 27 people canceled subscriptions, several of which were replaced by commenters. And the comments section was overwhelmingly positive.
Hey, I’m with Ray on the last comment. There was Biblically sanctioned racial separation preached for centuries. Bob Jones University rather recently retracted their restriction on interracial dating. And the idea of interracial marriage being too in your face was alive and strong, even among people who didn’t feel the other race was inferior. (Ever poll Black women on the subject?) So I think the last lines of the column are not evidence of a lack of objectivity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 1:36 pm
I think that the argument put forward by Mr. Alexander doesn’t track logically, regardless of your stand on the issue.
Here is his argument.
1. Fifty years ago, some readers of the Washington Post objected to front page pictures of mixed race groups interacting legally.
2. This is a racist reaction, and is morally wrong.
3. The people who objected were racists, and were morally wrong.
4. Today, some readers of the Washington Post objected to a picture on the front page of two men kissing one another after their legal marriage in Washington, DC.
5. This is a homophobic reaction, and is morally wrong
6. The people who objected are homophobes, and are morally wrong.
The problem with the argument is the hinge statements—#2 and #5.
They are cultural opinions—unless you want to invoke the natural moral law (to which I doubt many readers of the Post ascribe). You can say, and passionately believe, that a behavior is immoral. But saying it is equivalent to another immoral behavior is not an argument. It’s like saying “robbing a bank” is morally wrong, and going on to say that “cheating on your spouse” is morally wrong, and then drawing the conclusion that people that cheat on their spouses are bank robbers.
The other problem, of course, is equating objection to “marriage” for same sex couples as homophobic. It depends on how you define marriage. Up until recently, in the West, marriage would have been defined as a consensual legal and sexual union of a man and a woman that confers kinship, and provides for mutual companionship, financial support, and procreation of children. We’ve come to take for granted the considerable benefits governments and employers provide to married couples. These are not available to those who are not able to be married. I suspect the injustice felt by couples who cannot marry lies more with the inability to access the benefits. I’d be interested if someone would articulate the new definition of marriage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 2:05 pm
I am curious how people feel journalists should have covered stories about desegregation in the 1950s and 1960s? I was driving home a few years ago after a day of editing and heard a segment on NPR about a newspaper in the South that covered desegregation sympathetically, despite its readership’s strong feelings against. The newspaper was being lauded some 50 years later, but I found myself wondering whether it could be strongly argued the paper should have taken a more objective stance as judged by the time and place of publication.
If you do agree this paper should be applauded and you disagree with a definition of objectivity that is bounded by a specific time and place, then I think you need to consider that journalists who appear to be cheerleading for gay marriage are making an honest effort to reflect Truth as history — not the moment — will judge it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 2:26 pm
I haven’t seen a media piece lately on the reaction of Black Americans to having the gay marriage issue equated with the interracial marriage issue—even though gay marriage advocates keep throwing around that false argument.
As I recall, the Black community of California was the one most heavily in favor of not legalizing gay marriage in the referendum out there. In fact some news stories of the time reported there was tremendous outrage in the Black Community over the way gay marriage advocates insisted in blending the two issues. This reportedly spurred Black turnouut and their determination to vote against gay marriage.
But now that seems to have been conveniently forgotten.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 2:45 pm
Deacon:
Same thing with the vote in Colorado long ago. The marriage conservatives won that campaign with one late ad — one featuring blacks and others saying they did not think that the still mysterious orientations (plural, in a Kinsey scale) linked to sexuality were equal to race.
Ben:
Cover both sides. Quote them accurately. Put people on the record and have them defend and explain their own views.
Do not have people saying things they do not believe.
Do journalism, the rough draft of history.
Be humble.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 3:17 pm
Mollie -
Oh, I get that. The thing is, the arguments against interracial marriage weren’t all that different. People believed very firmly that the races were different and marriage between them were not just wrong but unnatural, and threatened civilization. From the Supreme Court of Virginia in 1878:
And this held all the way to 1959. To quote from a judge in Loving v. Virgina:
And as recently as last year, A Louisiana justice of the peaces was insisting that his refusal to marry interracial couples was motivated entirely by his desire to protect children:
http://www.hammondstar.com/articles/2009/10/15/top_stories/8847.txt
I honestly don’t see the arguments as different in kind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 3:33 pm
Ray,
But this debate has nothing to do, really, with banning marriage between gays and straights — which is what we’d need for your comparison to begin to work.
This debate is about what marriage IS. Even with laws against interracial marriage, there was no debate about what marriage MEANT. There was debate about whether the law should be racist or not.
Is it the union of a man and a woman who form an exclusive commitment to each other that is naturally fulfilled by creating and raising children? Is consummation by conjugal acts that unite them as a reproductive unit an important feature? Is it, because of this reproductive and childrearing feature, something that has certain norms (such as monogamy and fidelity)? Is this link to the welfare of children why the state has such a vested interest in recognizing and regulating it?
Or is it the union of any two people who commit to care for each other and share the burdens and benefits of domestic life? Is the state regulating it because of some interest in stable romantic partnerships?
You can argue for or against either model — although contemplating the consequences of each model is where it really gets interesting — but it is in this question (“What IS marriage?”) that the debate centers. These questions weren’t really in play for the period of time during which laws against intermarriage were created and banned — I’m not sure people realize what an invention laws against intermarriage were …
Comparisons to fights over intermarriage really only work on about one level — and they’re not the level on which this public fight is being waged.
And journalists need to simply talk to any supporter of traditional marriage to find this out. The comparisons to objections to interracial marriage are cheap and lazy. They don’t represent reality. Journalists need to do better.
Like I said, this was new to me a couple of years ago, too (because I have fairly radical views on marriage law). But it wasn’t difficult to learn. Opponents of same-sex marriage are very clear about why they think marriage has always been and should remain a heterosexual institution.
It’s one thing to disagree. It’s entirely another to mischaracterize or ignore their beliefs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 3:37 pm
Ray,
The arguments against legal recognition of mixed-race marriages and same-sex marriages make similar claims about the benefits to women (“white women should not be subjected to a man of another race”),children (“they won’t be one thing or the other”) and society as a whole (I can’t do better than Ray’s quotation above.) Ray also points out that objections to mixed-race marriages made use of religious arguments — grounded in an understanding of Genesis 9 — just as opponents of same-sex marriage often times appeal to Genesis 19 and the Levitican Holiness Code. …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 3:46 pm
Ray:
And, of course, these doctrines on the mixing of the races where accepted across churches globally, including the ancient churches of Rome and the Christian East?
No. They were the views of certain Christians in a certain time and place. This has nothing to do with centuries of teachings on the Sacrament of Marriage.
Go argue with the pope.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 3:49 pm
Molly,
My initial reaction to that last post was irritation, but the more i re-read it, the more it makes me think. Could I add that I think part of the vitriol is being generated is precisely because the debate forces heterosexuals to rethink their assumptions about the nature and purpose of their own marriages?
For example, you ask, “Is it the union of a man and a woman who form an exclusive commitment to each other that is naturally fulfilled by creating and raising children?” But this model of marriage is already belied by current legal practice, which allows all sorts of people to get married who have no interest in or are even incapable of having children. (For giggles I used to look up state marriage statistics and, while I cannot claim to have done a thorough job, I found states where 4-7% of marriages in a given year involved women over the age of 55.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 3:52 pm
Michael,
Except that those aren’t similar claims at all! Saying that the norms of monogamy and fidelity would be weakened by redefining marriage as something other than a heterosexual institution and that this weakening would harm women who are made vulnerable by their roles as mothers is in no way similar to the other claim. You can think or feel however you want about either claim but they are just not similar.
And saying that children have the right to be raised by their own mother and father and that a mother and a father are each important to a child again bears no similarity to the other claim. Again, you can think or feel however you want about either claim but they are just not similar.
I don’t want to get too off topic here but people really need to look at these supposed similarities more carefully.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 3:54 pm
tmatt,
Your response to Ray makes it sound as if he engaged in a general attack on Christianity. I didn’t see one there. But it remains true that particular Christians argued that laws against race-mixing were supported by the Bible.
From the legal side, I can tell you that there are good examples in the Western tradition that the State (not the Church) opposed legal marriages with ‘outsiders.’ (The concept of race not being solidified at the time.) The Romans in particular did not recognize marriages between Roman citizens and foreigners — hence the scandal of Antony, Cleopatra and their offspring…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 3:55 pm
Michael,
But a man and a woman who get married past normal childbearing age would still be capable of providing a child a mother and a father.
That’s something a gay couple can not provide.
That may or may not be something people care about — but supporters of traditional marriage (throughout time and history) have cared about this issue.
There’s also the question of whether an exception proves the rule … etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 3:56 pm
Of course, marriage with “outsiders” isn’t really an issue here since no one is talking about the right of people of mixed sexual orientation to marry. That may be a debate other people are having, but it’s not relevant to this particular discussion of changing marriage law to include same-sex couples.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 4:03 pm
Mollie -
True, there were no debates about the definition of “marriage”. There were just debates about the definition of “human”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 4:09 pm
Molly,
I think you miss my point. The state already grants full recognition to the marriages of post-menopausal women. Clearly it does not do this because it expects them to procreate. And if the state can recognize those marriages, the potential for procreation cannot be the sine qua non of legal marriage in the U.S. And yet, there is no movement afoot to keep older people from getting marriage licenses.
My point is that the recognition that marriage as already legally defined is not exclusively concerned with shoring up monogamous fidelity and reproduction, creates a kind of cognitive dissonance. And that leads to anger.
I take your point about “consequences,” but with reservations. The word “consequence,” in my mind at least, implies those things that necessarily result from an action or an event. It should not be applied to people’s reactions to those events. I always have to make this point when my students want to accuse early Christian martyrs of committing “suicide.” No, they are NOT responsible for the reactions of Roman officials who sentenced them to death. Likewise, proponents of same-sex marriage do not have to take responsibility for the reactions of, say, the Archdiocese of Washington, when it discontinues spousal benefits. Nor do they have to take responsibility if heterosexual spouses take their own marital fidelity less seriously because same-sex marriages are legal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 4:10 pm
The historical comparison between the legal struggle for mixed-race marrage, which was considered a redefinitin of marriage, and gay marriage is apt as a legal struggle is appropriate. The fact it makes tradional marriage supporters, desire their good intentions, uncomfortable doesn’t change the aptness of the historical comparison.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 4:16 pm
Peter,
What would the “redefinition” of marriage been? And how would you reconcile that “redefinition” with the fact that anti-miscegenation laws were only in existence for a period of time?
Do you have any links to support your claim?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 4:26 pm
Molly,
I’m worried that we’re getting away from journalistic issues, but I can’t resist.
This business about a child needing/having a right to mixed-sex parents strikes me as being a little odd. Where is the research that proves this? Yes, there is ample evidence that two-parent households are better for kids than single parents, but nothing I’ve seen proves they have to be of different genders (and a lot of what’s out there seems to say it’s not that important.)
As for reminding us that we are not discussing mixed-orientation marriages — I’m not so sure that we aren’t. As you pointed out, opponents of same-sex marriage sometimes express concern about the erosion of fidelity. But exactly how is that going to happen? Well, one way would be if they became more like gay relationships which are often perceived to be (and often times are) not strict about outside sexual activity. (Though I hasten to point out that I know male-couples who are strictly monogamous and heterosexual couples that are not.)
The other mechanism of erosion might be an increase in man and women leaving already existing heterosexual marriages in favor of same-sex ones. Until recently, a married-person who had sex with other members of the same sex could not hope to turn those relationships into a fully legalized marriage. (That was not the case for extramarital affairs with members of the opposite sex). Hence, the “Down Low.”
So, a stretched effort to give this post a journalistic spin. I want to see stories with research on whether or not mixed-sex couples are really any better at raising children than same-sex couples. And I want to see more stories about married bi-sexuals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 4:39 pm
Michael,
I don’t think traditional marriage advocates have ever said that the procreative potential is the sine qua non of legal marriage.
But advocates of traditional marriage would say that marriage (as traditionally defined) is uniquely oriented to having and rearing children. It’s not just about committing to rear children (they wouldn’t say that two brothers who take care of their dead sister’s son are married). And it’s not to say that only children make a marriage real — newlyweds who have not yet had children are considered married (with consummation being an important event in terms of making a marriage legit).
But they say there’s a connection between reproductive orientation and marriage — and not just friendship.
They say they’re not making a moral judgment about same-sex couples or other formations — just saying that MARRIAGE is and should be naturally oriented toward reproductive consummation, children, etc.
And, again, exceptions proving rule, etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 4:48 pm
Michael,
Your questions in particular and this entire thread in general reminded of this Chesterton quote:
If same-sex marriage advocates don’t see why society has considered a mother and father important to the rearing of a child, perhaps they should learn why before deciding that it doesn’t matter.
Anyway, as for the rest, that’s why I would support stories about the matters you indicate.
But even as a radical myself, it worries me when people haven’t thought about why the fences are there!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 5:06 pm
Shut it down, folks.
Back to journalism and basic issues of fairness and balance at the WPost.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 5:58 pm
Hi Terry:
No rose colored glasses for me, thanks.
You asked for my interpretation of this quote:
“There was a time, after court-ordered integration, when readers complained about front-page photos of blacks mixing with whites. Today, photo images of same-sex couples capture the same reality of societal change.”
One thing it does not say is that TMatt and Mollie or other critics of same sex couples are bigots.
Go back a couple of sentences in Alexander’s post:
“News photos capture reality. And the prominent display reflects the historic significance of what was occurring.”
The ombudsman says that the picture of on the cover reflects social reality in the same a picture of an inter-racial couple reflected reality. And that both types of pictures made people mad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 7:36 pm
The ombudsman says that the picture of on the cover reflects social reality in the same a picture of an inter-racial couple reflected reality. And that both types of pictures made people mad.
I think that was the intent of the picture. Not merely to show a historical event, but to “smoke out” those readers who found something creepy about the photo. (Which was probably a much larger percentage of the paper’s readership than actually complained.) It’s a dividing tactic to emphasize the difference between the “sane” proponents and those bigoted people who found something offensive in it. If it’s not cheerleading, it is certainly intentional manipulation.
I might have ascribed that motive to my own paranoia, were it not borne out so well by the ombudsman’s response.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 11, 2010, at 8:21 am
If it’s not cheerleading, it is certainly intentional manipulation.
Sometimes a kiss is just a kiss. As Alexander says, it represents a reality and news. That it is so threatening and drives people so batty is beyond the point. As Smietna says, he is not calling anyone a racist or akin to a racist. If that is the leap Mollie and TMatt make, that is really their issue and not symbolic of the larger discussion
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 11, 2010, at 8:57 am
“And that both types of pictures made people mad.”
Keep going.. keep going.. and WHYYYY were those people mad?
It’s not hard to see what they’re not-so-subtly suggesting here. If I agreed with the logic and arguments behind SSM, I’d have no problem saying that those who oppose it are bigoted, ignorant, or both. There would be no other reason to oppose it, would there? So why tapdance around the equivalence between interracial and SSM? Just come out and be open about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 11, 2010, at 10:52 am
Love the T-shirt. I think that it is standard issue in the not-so-MSM Washington Post Co.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 11, 2010, at 12:24 pm
I think that it is standard issue in the not-so-MSM Washington Post Co.
Arguably, the vast majority of Washington Post customers are just fine with the pictures at the heart of the dispute. If you have 100 customers, and 99 are fine and one complains, it is good customer service to meet the interests of the 99 and not just the foibles of the one.
Washington has two conservative newspapers to turn to for anti-SSM coverage. One is the failing Washington Times that has never had more than a handful of customers compared to the Post. And the other is the paper Mark Hemingway works for, which is a freebie funded by the Anschutz fortune. I don’t know if it gets read, although I rarely see people looking at it when I’m in DC.
So the Washington Post is actually quite good at customer service and is going the extra step by not endulging the foibles of the small majority who get offended by a picture of two men kissing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 11, 2010, at 1:06 pm
I was not referring specifically to the pictures. Sift through some other posts on this blog re: WaPost publications and how the WaPost positions them. The people who are running the WaPost (as a business) are running it into the ground, primarily because they don’t understand basic marketing principles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 11, 2010, at 1:12 pm
I was not referring specifically to the pictures. Sift through some other posts on this blog re: WaPost publications and how the WaPost positions them. The people who are running the WaPost (as a business) are running it into the ground, primarily because they don’t understand basic marketing principles.
Are they? They are far more successful than their conservative competition, although that is not saying a lot. They are in no different position than other newspapers and there is no evidence that veering right is a marketing strategy that brings newspaper success.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0