Something to please no one
On Thursday, the Massachusetts legislature gave tentative approval to a constituational amendment that would bar same-sex "marriage," but give same-sex "civil unions" all the privileges of marriage.
On Friday, newspapers reported that the measure was a victory for proponents of traditional marriage. They told us that the gay-rights lobby was terribly unhappy with the amendment.
On Saturday, reporters gradually awoke to the fact that pro-family advocates, too, hate this proposal-- since it allows gay "marriage" in everything but name.
Sunday at last, the Boston Globe put two and two together, and realized that nobody likes this amendment.
So you ask yourself: How did a majority of legislators support a measure that has no public backing? The answer to that one is easy: They're gutless, and they thought by temporizing they could dodge the issue entirely.
But then comes a second question: Why didn't the media notice, until days after the vote, that this proposed amendment is a dud? Then you realize: The media can't grasp why some people defend marriage and the family. It's all foreign territory to the reporters; they don't know the people and they don't know the terrain.
If you sent an American reporter to cover an election campaign in, say, Turkmenistan, you'd realize that he would trouble understanding the language, the customs, the political rivalries, the way of life there. If you send a typical American reporter out to cover a story involving marriage, children, and normal family life, you're likely to have the same problem. It's not quite so obvious, since they do speak the same language, but sometimes-- like this week-- the truth becomes apparent.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!