A Look at Both Sides: Gay Marriage

For this project I choose to examine how different political parties have come to define gay marriage. I tried to stray away from main media sources because I believe that while they are bias they whitewash to seem "fair and balanced". Instead, I went on a hunt for independent sources and came back with three main articles. The article from WorldNetDaily.com was the most biased, adamantly against Gay Marriage, and, probably not a coincidence, the most Republican. However, TomPaine.com and the San Francisco Gate were far more liberal and Democratic. I have chosen to dissect each article separately so that I could keep my focus and compare and contrast.

The first article I am going to talk about is "Why Homosexuals Despise Marriage" by Kevin McCullough from WorldNetDaily. The tone of the coverage is very, very judgmental and negative. Obviously, homosexuals are "no longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public..." and they are "suffering from such immense guilt over their sexual behaviors.." because they know they are "unhealthy" so that "that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong." Not only that, but lesbians will never "know the security of a true man protecting her from the dragons of the world" because another woman could never do that.

The facts given are basically propaganda; McCullough's opinions mixed in with a little bit of political foreshadowing and lots of religious allusions to Christianity. He compares marriage between a man and a woman as "monogamous, committed" and using their anatomy correctly before the "Creator". This could lead an impressionable person to believe that all heterosexual, married couples were as so and guide them to believe that homosexuals are polygamous, uncommitted, sinners who "hate marriage because they fundamentally hate God." This is absolutely absurd because most human beings that have been in social contact within the last decade know a gay person personally. People with personal relationships know that most gay people are not polygamous or in the least bit evil.

The second article is "The Bigot's Last Gasp" by Paul Waldman on TomPaine.com. His bias is pretty positive without going to over the top. Waldman says that the Gay Marriage conflict is "so 2004" and compares the amendment ban to the Macarena ("a lot of Americans thought it was catchy once, but most aren't too eager to hear it again"). Then he pulls out the statistics, and apparently, 51% still oppose gay marriage. A small majority but Waldman is quick to add that gay marriage will be legalized in the future but no one knows how soon or far away that will be. He cites a couple of "facts" to help his case: more gay people are coming out (and affecting people's personal lives), changes are bound to happen in Progressive states and finish years later in the South, the older generation are dying and younger people are fine with homosexuality, and homosexuals are largely accepted on television and in movies (ten years ago that was shocking i.e. Ellen).

He quotes the Bible to further his case. Waldman says that in years from now we will look at the verses in the Bible like we do in modern times to Exodus 31:15. Today we would think it insane to kill someone for working on a Sabbath day when most of America works on Sunday. Waldman hopes that one day Leviticus will be looked back on as being outdated and most likely forgotten and not taught in churches like most of the outdated verses of the bible. Therefore, hate would not be spread through religious institutions and infecting schools and families until it eventually infiltrates every aspect of society.

My third article "Where Is My Gay Apocalypse?" by Mark Morford, columnist of the San Francisco Gate, was very judgmental of the Republican's and the Anti-Gay Marriage/Civil Union crowd but very positive towards the homosexuals and especially towards the brave "3, 500" couples that braved social exile by getting married. The author's sexuality is unknown but I would not be surprised if he was gay because he talks with such sarcasm and belief it would be hard to believe he was straight. His opinion is very straightforward, 3, 500 gay couples were married in San Francisco and there was no Armageddon, "live and let live."

Morford points out that no plagues have ran amok, no riots or the rising of Satan have taken place. Some couples have been married for three weeks living in "godless sin" and thunder hasn't stuck them down. He continues to make the Right-Wing politicians looks bad by saying that America was already on the verge of an impending social divide of doom before homosexuals were rushing down the street to get hitched.

He uses a quote from Rick Forcier, member of the Washington state chapter of the Christian Coalition, who says that gay marriage will cause anarchy and that people should not be able to choose what laws they obey. Morford responds by sarcastically agreeing and suggesting to parents that they should lock their children up before they get kidnapped by the gay people with tattoos and funny haircuts who just got married to celebrate their love. It's extremely judgmental of him to play on someone else's ignorance and bash the right-wing which is what Morford is doing for the entire article. However, he brings up so good points such as the Bible and past political over-exaggerations.

This is the second article so far, both liberal, who use the Bible in the article as a way to fend off the religious right. Unlike Waldman, Morford uses four different verses from the Bible that no one really follows today. The digestion of shell fish, men are allowed to be polygamous (but not women), a woman has to be a virgin when she marries and if she isn't she will be stoned to death, and if a married man dies without children his brother must marry the widow (because the brother can have as many wives as he wants) are all points Morford brings up and adequately cites. This leads the reader to wonder if he can fully trust all the points in the Bible or it could possibly lead to a personal revelation that it is basically impossible to not sin before America's idea of the Lord. Plus, if we don't follow the whole Bible anymore we should just drop it all together-this might lead to some people being fine with Gay marriage.

My conclusion is the writer's bias always will come out in an article even if it's through small choice words either favoring or disliking the subject. Who and what they quote is also very important because they will try to quote text (rarely people) to prove them wrong but interview people (preferably people with high social standing: doctors, experts, lawyers and politicans) who are most likely going to agree with their opinion or further their case. Plus, all articles will leave out information if it will hurt their opinion or sometimes it even depends on how much space they have to include information. What it essentially boils down to is what main media company owns which news sources and what kind of bias are they going to be pushing on me. It's always good to be aware of what your television, internet, or newspaper will try to make you believe.