Family Research Council

France’s Pro-Marriage “Manif pour Tous”: A growing force

by Robert Morrison

May 28, 2013

With two more American states legalizing unmarriage, with the Boy Scouts organization adopting a wholly unworkable compromise, with media and political figures in America throwing up their hands and throwing in the towel, it would be easy to get discouraged over marriage.

But look to France. There, the amazing “Manif pour Tous” (Demonstration for All) is growing, not diminishing, in intensity. It is a movement largely composed of young people.

For the fourth time in a year, pro-marriage demonstrators hit the streets of Paris in the hundreds of thousands. They brought together Catholics and Evangelicals, Jews, Muslims, and some atheists for marriage. They even recruited gay Frenchmen who understand that “everyone needs a mother and father.”

One of the strongest arguments made by this Manif is that for the rights of children. Not only do they have a right to a mother and father, but they have a natural right not to be treated as commodities. Because of our “Anglo-Saxon” single-minded focus on rights, we in English-speaking countries have too often focused on contending rights of adults and only of adults.

The French are boldly speaking for children. They are audacious, even. They call the practice of paying poor women to bear the babies of rich men what it truly is—womb prostitution. They regard what we call “surrogacy” as a form of human trafficking. The French have outlawed it.

The year-old government of President Francois Hollande is in deep political trouble. He and his Socialists came in a wave of hope and change. They would address the limping French economy. They would fix France’s persistent unemployment problems.

Well, the French economy is still stricken. And President Hollande’s pushing through the National Assembly a radical new law to eliminate mothers and fathers, and to permit persons of the same sex to marry is seen by millions as a cruel betrayal of his campaign promises to get the country’s economy moving again.

The President of the Republic has seen his approval ratings sliding dangerously. But he has re-doubled his efforts to abolish marriage. He understands that it is by undermining the French family that the French people will become more dependent on the State. This is the goal of all Socialists.

In America, the Obama administration seeks to replace Mother and Father with Parent 1 and Parent 2. And Mr. Obama’s appointees in the Justice Department are providing a catechism for federal workers in how to think and how to speak about marriage. These workers cannot even remain silent. They must chorus their approval of same-sex couplings. Like crickets, they must chirp.

The great Russian writer, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, defied the tyranny of the old Soviet Union. He did not call on the Russian people to overthrow their Communist dictators with force, but he did say they cannot survive unless you “chirp.” They must think that the people actually approve of their despotism and thus, you must chirp like a cricket. Well, don’t CHIRP! That was the Nobel Prize-winning author’s advice to his Russian countrymen.

And when Solzhenitsyn wanted to tell the world the truth about Soviet tyranny, he wrote the Gulag Archipelago. In three massive volumes, he exposed Communism as “atheism with a knife at your child’s throat.” Solzhenitsyn recognized Paris as the intellectual center of the world. That’s why he launched the Gulag Archipelago in Paris.

Those books landed in the City of Light like missiles of truth. They had a massive impact in helping to demoralize the claims of the left.

And so, we, too, should look to Paris for inspiration in our fight. Our opponents here don’t use dogs and barbed wire. They don’t send us to prison, yet. (Although we at Family Research Council have been the targets of a terrorist bent on mass murder.) But they do use the Department of Justice to go after journalists and they do use the IRS to oppress conservatives.

We can speak up. We don’t have to CHIRP. And we can take inspiration from those young Frenchmen and women who are standing for the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. They are demonstrating for the future of all—truly a Manif pour Tous.

The Manif pour Tous is happy to use revolutionary imagery. Our own TEA Party raises up “Dont Tread on Me” flags. The French raise up the tricolor and march wearing Liberty caps. They’re not talking violence, don’t worry. But they are speaking of removing weak-kneed politicians from office. They are planning to challenge those on the right who fail to stand for the deepest values of their own constituents. God bless them!

Throughout the French provinces—what is called La France Profonde—we see a movement arising. It is a gathering storm, not a spent force. The rulers in Paris may have to take note.

When the news first came to King Louis XVI of the storming of the Bastille, he asked: “It is a revolt?” His attendant answered: “No, Sire, it is a revolution.”

For too long in America, in Britain, in France, the elites have ignored the people. Now, we are seeing in this Manif pour Tous a peaceful revolution—a youthful and faithful revolution. It cannot come too soon. In all our countries, the movement to end marriage is an elite movement. But the people are being heard.

In France, the young people have taken to the streets. They are well-educated and articulate. They remind us that Alexis de Tocqueville, the French genius who wrote Democracy in America, was only twenty-five when he wrote his classic work.

Like Tocqueville, most of these young French are Christian. Their uprising can inspire the world to resist the Culture of Death. They are the future of hope.

French Resistance Determined, Undeterred

by Robert Morrison

April 29, 2013

Despite the action of the French Senate that redefined marriage last week, the advocates of true marriage remain determined and undeterred. Calling themselves La Manif pour Tous (Demonstration for All), these champions are taking their case to the French people.  They have scheduled another mass demonstration for Paris on May 26^th. The international media—as always—is on the other side. Last week, they reported scattered clashes with police following the French legislature’s cave-in as a violent reaction.

France has a long history of street protests. And the French are well aware of the agents provocateurs—those who seek to use any scuffle as a pretext to bring violence to the streets. In this case, they could use such claims of violent protests to try to de-legitimize the genuinely popular uprising for marriage.

Part of this new movement is Les Veilleurs. These are French youth who gather nightly to share their love for literature, poetry, and music. These, in turn, have inspired Les Meres Veilleuses. These are mothers holding vigil for children’s rights to a mother and father and they are taking their case to the people. Les Veilleurs are described as a kind of “anti-Mai 68” movement.

This is very important. It was in May 1968, that the left staged a nationwide uprising that sought to bring down the government of President Charles de Gaulle. They very nearly succeeded. De Gaulle rallied the people of France to save the Fifth Republic—and in reality to save French democracy itself.

Still, those street radicals—especially Communist theorists and their sympathizers in the media—have had a huge influence in French life ever since. As in the U.S., street radicals took baths, donned coats and ties, and began their long march through the institutions.

Thus, we see soixante huitards (“sixty-eighters”) applauding this latest assault on the family and the future of France. They realize that the greatest barriers to Marxism have always been the family, the church, and small private firms. Thus, they need to crush all these mediating institutions. They seek to suppress resistance, using law and intimidation and their dominance in the media to achieve their results.

As in the U.S., with certain Republicans losing heart and throwing up their hands in fear or resignation, we saw some members of the conservative UMP opposition party cave in to pressures and vote for the end of marriage. There will be no opportunity for a French version of the TEA Party to make its will known in national legislative elections until 2017.

In the meantime, though, the Manif can look to the constitutional council to disallow some portions of the faux marriage law. And they can seek support in the 2014 municipal elections. Already, many mayors are announcing their refusal to bend to this latest assault on the families and future of France. They need our support (and our prayers).

Why should we Americans take such an interest in France? It was in 1979 that Pope John Paul II returned to his captive homeland. We saw then a million Poles crying out “We want God!” Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and presidential candidate Ronald Reagan paid careful attention to what the Poles were saying. Together with the Pope, they began the long-overdue process of liberation of hundreds of millions of people shackled to Communism behind the Iron Curtain.

The left also took note. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, they realize they cannot achieve Marxism through the secret police and the obvious oppression of a one-party dictatorship. But they believe they can achieve Socialism democratically by breaking down family, church, and family-owned businesses. This is the real objective of the left in America. It is what President Hollande seeks to do in France.

In France, however, President Hollande’s economic performance is yielding sparse results. His approval ratings have sunk to record lows in just one year. As the French economy stagnates, discontent rises.

We have everything to learn from the French, from their courage and conviction on the marriage issue. We should pay careful attention to how they frame this issue, too.

The French put children at the center of the debate. Everyone deserves a mother and a father, they say. It is a human right and a child’s greatest need.

The French have recognized that “womb prostitution” (called surrogacy here) is a form of exploitation of poor and vulnerable women. They have made this illegal in France. And one of their strongest arguments against ending marriage is that it will lead to more of this womb prostitution.

If the French resistance succeeds, it will give great inspiration to Americans. At our best, Americans were not ashamed to learn from such brilliant French thinkers as Montesquieu and Tocqueville. Today, we can take lessons from the Manif pour Tous!

Marchons, Concitoyens! Fellow citizens, let’s march!

Question: Are Peter, Paul, and Mary Bigots, Too?

by Robert Morrison

April 29, 2013

One of the reasons I have confidence in the eventual success of our defense of true marriage is that the left must overreach. They cannot help themselves. In order to end marriage in America, in the world, they have to brand anyone who opposes them a bigot. They have to label and libel. It’s what they do.

This spring, they have been on a roll. Some politicians and some talking heads throw up their hands as they throw in the towel. “It’s inevitable,” they sigh.

Well, I take inspiration from those saints of the past—Peter, Paul, and Mary. Relax, O’Reilly, I’m not thumping my Bible at you. I don’t mean Saints Peter and Paul and the Blessed Virgin Mary, I mean that amazing folk music trio.

Peter, Paul, and Mary got their start in New York’s Greenwich Village and proceeded from there to become a national sensation in the early 1960s. Their greatest moment may have been when they performed their hit song, “If I had a hammer” live at Dr. Martin Luther King’s great Civil Rights March on Washington on August 28, 1963.

That was a great event, to be sure. And it was some years before the American left started singing “if I had a hammer and sickle.” But my favorite Peter, Paul, and Mary song remains “The Wedding Song.”

It’s an amazing song that must have been played at a million weddings since those halcyon days when this folk rock phenomenon hit the pop music scene. It’s wonderful just to consider the lyrics. “What shall be the meaning of becoming man and wife?”

For nearly fifty years, until her untimely death in 2009, Mary Travers teamed up with Paul Stookey and Peter Yarrow. They performed at every peace rally, every anti-nuke, pro-McGovern rally. They were an indispensable part of the political and social left.

I’m not unaware of the spectrum colors in this Paul Stookey YouTube recording of the Wedding Song. That adds a note of irony to his performance.

Question for the left: Are Peter, Paul, and Mary bigots, too? Is the mere fact that they knew what marriage was for fifty years enough to brand them as hate-filled?

Didn’t we all know what marriage was before some of us evolved? And here’s another delicious irony: If we had all evolved as President Obama has evolved, there might be no conflict at all. We might not be here.

Of course, even the most enthusiastic backers of punctuated equilibrium would find it hard to imagine an evolution in Nature as rapid as that of Barack Obama. In 2008, he said: “Marriage is between a man and a woman, and God is in the mix.” Who moved?

But if not…

by Robert Morrison

April 19, 2013

Columnist George F. Will once wrote about the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) in France in 1940. The rapid advance of Hitler’s Panzer divisions, supported by the terrifying new air weapon of his air force, the Luftwaffe, was crushing French and British opposition. The Germans had broken through on May 10^th, the same day that in London Winston Churchill had become Prime Minister. Churchill knew he would have to evacuate his surrounded troops from the embattled city of Dunkirk, one of the French Channel ports. He also knew that he would have to order some of his soldiers in Calais, another Channel port, to fight to the death to cover the BEF retreat.

We now know, of course, that Churchill and his War Cabinet had hoped to get as many as 100,000 troops rescued from the beaches and brought home. So desperate was their situation that they thought that might be the largest number they could hope for. Those 100,000 soldiers would have to abandon all their tanks, trucks, and artillery in France. Even their rifles. At home in England, elderly men of the all-volunteer Home Guard were drilling on village squares with only broomsticks in place of rifles on their shoulders.

George Will wrote of these desperate days in a column some years ago. He wrote not of the 336,000 troops of the BEF and their Free French and Polish allies who were eventually brought off from Dunkirk. This was hailed by Churchill as “a miracle of deliverance.”

Columnist Will wrote instead of some of those who guarded the rear of the BEF, those brave warriors French and British who made it possible for the great host—that third of a million—to be rescued. One of the commanders of that doomed division sent a short message back to Whitehall, in London. The War Cabinet read this three-word transmission.

BUT IF NOT

In those biblically literate days, as they faced the prospect of invasion and enslavement, the British at home were stirred as they had never been stirred in the two thousand-year history of their island home. They instantly recognized those three words. They were spoken by the three young Israelites in the Book of Daniel. The full quote follows the description of the fiery furnace into which King Nebuchadnezzar would throw the young men if they refused to bow down to his Golden Image:

“But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods nor the golden image that thou hast set up.” [Daniel 3:18]

The three-word message was all that these brave men could send to their commanders. Many of those defenders of the Dunkirk evacuation prayed, no doubt, that God would deliver them. But if not, they were saying, they would not bow down to Hitler’s New Order in Europe. Thousands of those who were not killed were captured and would spend the war in Nazi captivity, where not a few of them died.

Dr. James Dobson encourages us to read Five Days in London, by John Lukacs. That book tells the story of Britain in her hour of maximum danger. I read that short volume every spring. And Dr. Dobson likes to remind us of the National Day of Prayer that was specially called for by the British government as their trapped men gathered on those beaches.

Winston Churchill, it is true, was impatient, oppressed by many “hard and heavy tidings” from France. He really didn’t want to break away to attend the Prayer Vigil at Westminster Abbey. But he was not yet secure in his own political position. He had clashed with his Foreign Minister, Lord Halifax. Halifax was a famous Anglican churchman. Halifax pressed Churchill for two things—a positive answer to “peace feelers” from Italy’s Fascist dictator, Mussolini, and a National Day of Prayer.

Churchill had to give Halifax—whom he called that Holy Fox—something. Oh, alright then, a National Day of Prayer. But the Prime Minister sent ahead word that he would only attend for 10-30 minutes. A vicar welcomed him and said he would so like to tell the faithful that their Prime Minister was a pillar of the Anglican Church, like Lord Halifax. Churchill puckishly replied: “You may say I am a flying buttress. I support the church, but from outside.”

Although Churchill had little faith in the efficacy of prayer, he may have had a mustard seed. The English Channel, that 23-mile anti-tank ditch, was usually stormy, even in May. During the Dunkirk evacuation, the Channel was, as many of the escaping soldiers testified “as calm as a millpond.” German U-boats were kept at bay. And Stukas dive bombing the soldiers hunkered down on the beach found many of their bombs’ explosions were muffled by the sand and surf.

Today, we are not being asked to stand up to Hitler. And I do not charge our adversaries with being Nazis. I do not hate them. But this much should be clear: The end of marriage equals the end of liberty. They cannot bring about this unnatural change without crushing freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of religion. The end of liberty equals the end of America. The stakes are that high.

We are indeed being asked to bow down to a golden image. It is President Obama’s fundamental transformation of the American Republic. And the avatar of that transformation is “Julia,” the White House’s fictional everywoman. Her entire life is lived in dependence upon the government. The only man in Julia’s life is Barack Obama.

George Will has long since given up. He says the opponents of unmarriage are literally dying off. That word did not reach the young French who attended our March for Marriage. Or the 400 young Korean-Americans who rode through the night by bus from Flushing, Queens to stand for marriage. Nor has it reached the young people of MarriageGeneration.org

I am younger, though not by much, than George Will. I named the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 because I wanted people to learn that marriage itself was under attack. I will not give in. I expect we will win, Mr. Will. But if not…

Supreme Court arguments suggest the end is not near in marriage debate

by Peter Sprigg

April 16, 2013

The mainstream media would have you believe that the decision to redefine marriage for the benefit of homosexual couples has already been made.

Time magazine ran a cover story under the title, “How Gay Marriage Won”—featuring cover photos of a male couple kissing or a female couple kissing—your choice. Pollsters claim that a majority of Americans now support legalizing same-sex “marriage,” and that among young people, that majority is overwhelming. Democratic senators (and a couple of Republicans) who previously opposed redefining marriage have begun falling like dominoes. Same-sex “marriage” is “inevitable,” we are told—it is only a matter of time.

Do not believe it.

In a country where 41 out of 50 states still define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and voters in a majority, 30 have placed that definition in their state constitutions; it can only be wishful thinking for the advocates of marriage redefinition to claim that it is imminent or inevitable. I suspect that some in the mainstream media are hoping that their prophecy will be a self-fulfilling one.

It’s particularly ironic that the theme of the “inevitability” of same-sex “marriage” seemed to gain ground in the mainstream media the week of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in the case challenging Proposition 8, the California state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Unlike the case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, which presents somewhat narrower issues, the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case, and their lead attorney Ted Olson, assert that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of same-sex couples to “marry.” If accepted, this argument would mean that marriage would be redefined to include same-sex couples not just in California, but in all fifty states. Such an outcome would be comparable to Roe v. Wade—the 1973 decision that forced legalized abortion on all fifty states.

However, the tone of the argument in the case (known as Hollingsworth v. Perry) actually did not seem to point in the direction of such a sweeping decision. The justices’ gave very little indication that they are prepared to redefine marriage for all fifty states.

Following are some quotes from the justices. We in the pro-family movement have sometimes made a slippery slope argument—if we redefine marriage to eliminate gender restrictions on one’s choice of marriage partner, it would be hard to maintain other restrictions—ones which prevent anyone from marrying a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married.

When conservatives raise this logical question, we are routinely vilified for “comparing” homosexuality to polygamy, incest, or pedophilia. Yet one of the justices raised the exact same point, putting it this way (this is slightly edited for clarity):

“If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people … that could get married, [with respect to] the incest laws, the mother and child [getting married], assuming that they are [both] the age [to marry]? I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest [in] protecting a child until they’re of age to marry, but what’s left?”

What’s interesting is that the justice who raised this was—Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee.

We have also raised concern about the impact of marriage redefinition on the institution of marriage and on children.

One of the justices warned:

“[T]here’s substance to the point that [the] sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more.”

That same justice later elaborated,

“The problem with the case is that you’re really asking, particularly because of the sociological evidence you cite, for us to go into uncharted waters; and you can play with that metaphor—‘there’s a wonderful destination,’ [or] ‘it is a cliff.’

When Ted Olson, the attorney for the homosexual couples in the case, claimed that there was an analogy between banning same-sex “marriages” and banning interracial marriages, the same justice cut him off and said,

“[T]hat’s not accurate.”

The justice who made all those remarks was—Anthony Kennedy, universally viewed as the swing vote between the conservative and liberal factions on the court.

In fact, in the 9^th Circuit ruling on Prop 8 (which found the measure unconstitutional, but on narrow grounds that would apply only to California) it was almost comically obvious that the opinion was written to appeal to Justice Kennedy, based on the supposed precedent of his opinion in a 1996 case called Romer v. Evans.

Yet one justice referred to that 9^th Circuit opinion and said,

“That’s a very odd rationale.”

The justice who said that was—Anthony Kennedy!

It is dangerous to make assumptions about the outcome of a case based on oral arguments—we learned that in the Obamacare case. But few observers now expect a Roe v. Wade of marriage.

That means this debate is probably not near an end. It is likely to continue for years to come.

Your Sex Life: More Like Your Religion than Your Race

by Cathy Ruse

April 10, 2013

Here’s a new approach to the chief argument made by same-sex marriage proponents: When they say limiting marriage to man-woman unions is like committing racial discrimination, tell them they’re using the wrong analogy. 

Read more from William Mattox, member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors…

“When Real Love Collides with Our Selfish Hearts”

by Rob Schwarzwalder

April 8, 2013

Growing up in a home where one’s parents are divorced or whose marriage is characterized by hostility can lead to deep pain and an unsurprising skepticism about marriage itself.

My colleague, Carrie Russell, in a blog post for the new “Marriage Generation” movement, has addressed this issue directly and graciously. “Marriage should be treasured for the value it brings to husbands and wives, to their children, and for the character it develops in them,” writes Carrie. “But, for all those little kids who will grow up like I did, with a mistaken idea of what marriage is, and without an understanding of the self-giving that builds character and love, I cheer on the rebuilding of a marriage culture.”

Read Carrie’s full, moving article here.

I Gave up “The O’Reilly Factor” for Lent

by Robert Morrison

April 4, 2013

I gave up Fox’s “O’Reilly Factor” for Lent. It did my soul good. So I wasn’t watching when the modest and retiring New Yorker slammed us “Bible Thumpers” for having no arguments about preserving true marriage. But, of course, I later saw it all on the Internet.

Now, O’Reilly is digging in his heels. And when his sometime guest host, Laura Ingraham took him to task for his offensive statements, he berated her. “You’ve bought into this garbage,” he said. “I don’t have time for any of that,” he said, giving her the back of his hand.

I go back a long way with Bill O’Reilly. I remember well defending him ten years ago when the liberal thought police were after him. O’Reilly had made a remark about young minority men that some took to be racist. Speaking to donors at a fund raiser for an abstinence and character development organization, O’Reilly complained that the young men were late showing up. “I hope they’re not out in the parking lot stealing our hubcaps.”

What a howl went up then. Liberals demanded O’Reilly’s scalp. The 2003 charity event was a 1950’s-style sock hop. Everyone who grew up on Bill O’Reilly’s Long Island, as I did, had heard that jab a hundred times from homeroom teachers. “What are you doing, stealing hubcaps?” In those Happy Days, that was about the worst that could happen in a high school.

O’Reilly is no racist. He’s just a chooch—a wise guy.

I gave up O’Reilly when I tired of his phony populist shtick. He’s looking out for me? Right. He’s the tribune of “the folks?” As we say in New York: Gimme a break.

I was irritated at how rude he always was. Now, we New Yorkers have a problem there.

John Adams complained to Abigail in a letter when he first visited New York City in 1775. “They talk very loud, very fast, and all at once.” And he never met O’Reilly.

I was embarrassed when my kids said: “Dad, he’s just like you!” OK, I admit I do sometimes yell at the tube. But I wouldn’t treat real live liberals like that. I wouldn’t call any of our liberal friends or those in our pews pinheads.

As Family Research Council has reported, as Heritage Foundation and Ethics and Public Policy Center have shown, the reams of studies showing that the married family that worships regularly yields the best outcomes for children. This is especially important for poor children and minority children.

None of these public policy groups thumps the Bible. But none is willing to stomp on Jesus just to get five minutes on cable with Mr. Number One.

Intact families that worship regularly are the key to the success of millions of Asian immigrants. Four hundred Korean-Americans rode buses through the night to come to Washington for the March for Marriage. They came from Flushing, Queens, O’Reilly, your back yard! I was proud to stand with them.

O’Reilly should be commended for his good deeds—when he does them. I’m still grateful for his serving as Emcee for the organization that hosted that fundraiser ten years ago.

But Bill O’Reilly’s arrogant dismissal of the social science case for true marriage, and for the protection of the women and children who are suffering now and who will suffer more if marriage is ended is unacceptable. If he cared, he might find a perspective on true marriage that is even bold, fresh.

He combines arrogance with ignorance. Supine ignorance, as one might say. He doesn’t know because he doesn’t want to know. “I don’t have time to do any of that.”

One hour, O’Reilly. In one hour, even you could learn the case for true marriage. If you were really looking out for us.

But you don’t have time for that, O’Reilly. You’d rather bloviate. “The Factor” moves along, as you say. And it will move along without me.

Guest Post: Media Distort Coverage In Favor Of Gay Marriage

by Katie Yoder

March 29, 2013

Below is a guest post from Newsbusters that provides a brief overview of the past week’s media coverage on marriage.

Media Distort Coverage In Favor Of Gay Marriage

From networks to news sites, reporters set liberal agenda.

By Katie Yoder

As thousands trekked across the country this week to protest at the Supreme Court while justices heard arguments on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA), the media did the same by voicing their own opinions. From the networks to online news sites, so-called neutral journalists twisted coverage in support of gay marriage.

CBS led the network pack and focused a one-sided light on Tuesday evening reports, the night of the first Supreme Court arguments. CBS went personal March 26 as reporter John Blackstone, during “Evening News,” highlighted a story of lesbian couple Torri and Sunnie. The program showed at least 12 different video or photo clips of gay weddings and quoted two gay marriage advocates – with one traditional marriage supporter.

Tuesday morning wasn’t much better, with four voices advocating for gay marriage, and one counter. Wednesday’s “This Morning” devoted over three minutes to David Boies, an attorney who argued at the Supreme Court against Proposition 8 with no one to offer a counter argument during the segment.

ABC followed suit in the Tuesday evening reports without any counter argument as anchor Terry Moran quoted two separate people whose family members sued for gay marriage. As Moran put it, ““For the two gay couples at the heart of the case … this was their family’s moment.”

NBC reporter Kristen Dahlgren flooded her report with TV gay icons, from Ellen DeGeneres to “Modern Family.” She acknowledged the media’s power on the issue though: “Over the years, television has changed the conversation about American sexuality.” She continued to say, “what happens in Hollywood doesn’t stay there.” What she left out of her report was her own network’s pro-gay advocacy with the show “The New Normal.”

The one-sided coverage attracted even the attention of the liberal Huffington Post, which published a headline reading, “The Supreme Court May Be Divided On Gay Marriage, But The Media Isn’t.” In it, HuffPo media editor Jack Mirkinson noted major news outlets’ support of gay marriage and said, “Gay marriage is different. It is no longer all that controversial for many in the media.”

It wasn’t like another side to the story didn’t exist. Traditional marriage supporters made themselves hard to ignore March 26 by attending the National Organization for Marriage (NOM’s) March for Marriage. According to NOM’s Thomas Peters, 15,000 marchers attended as the networks stood silent even during the next day’s morning shows. The Washington Post decided to cover the event though – even if they did shrink 15,000 attendees into a ‘few dozen.’

When the media decided to cover traditional marriage supporters, reporters didn’t play nice. ABC’s Wednesday “Good Morning America” illustrated the tug-of-war on marriage’s definition as the “21st century social movement” of gay marriage versus the elderly “downright perplexed” justices.

CNN contributor and GOP strategist Ana Navarro sang a similar tune and proclaimed gay marriage opponents must “get into the 21st century.” While urging Republicans to push the hot issue into the background, she lectured opponents that “folks who are in denial about this that have to get out of the closet. They have to wave goodbye to the GEICO caveman and step out gingerly and carefully into the brave new world.”

But then, according to the media, gay marriage already won the hearts of Americans. Just look at the upcoming TIME magazine showcasing two different covers – one of a lesbian couple kissing, one of a gay couple kissing – while advertising an article by David von Drehle titled, “Gay Marriage Already Won: The Supreme Court hasn’t made up its mind – but America has.” TIME magazine’s Joe Klein, on March 26’s “Morning Joe,” commented on how rapidly the issue of gay marriage changed: “My God, I haven’t seen anything like it … To my kids, it’s just mystifying that anyone would be opposed to it.”

The Washington Post boasted a similar headline to TIME magazine that read “Political debate on same-sex marriage is over.” Writer Chris Cillizza explained, “[N]o matter how the high court rules later this year on California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, one thing is already clear: The political debate over gay marriage is over.”

Those who thought the gay marriage debate still exists were in for a brutal media bash. After citing GOP strategist Karl Rove on the possibility of a 2016 Republican presidential candidate who supports same-sex marriage, CNN’s Carol Costello asked Alliance Defense Fund’s Austin Nimocks, “Austin, you heard what Karl Rove just said. Are you on the wrong side of history?” CNN zeroed in on traditional marriage supporters as host Piers Morgan and openly gay anchor Don Lemon smashed opponents as “homophobic” and likened them to segregationists.

When asked about fair coverage by social conservative Peter LaBarbera, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer pulled race into the argument and bluntly replied, “You know what’s so funny about this? When we’re talking about racism, nobody ever says, ‘Do you think there’s fair coverage for racists?’ That’s my feeling about the matter.”

MSNBC personality Luke Russert unleashed his opinion on FRC’s Tony Perkins during Wednesday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” and asked, “What do you fear so much” about gay marriage? When Perkins replied that he didn’t fear anything, Russert challenged, “Then why are you opposed?” He later charged Perkins with equating homosexuality with polygamy, after Perkins stated that the basis of marriage requires more than merely loving someone.

Those who did rally for gay marriage became heroes. New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg showered favor upon Mary Bonauto, a lawyer for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAAD), and gushed, “Ms. Bonauto is too busy juggling legal briefs, homework and piano lessons to see herself as a woman making history.” During March 27 “World News,” Diane Sawyer praised an 83-year-old lesbian involved in the case against DoMA and explained, “Edith Windsor received a hero’s welcome when she emerged from the Supreme Court, saying it’s time to take a stand for marriage equality.”

That left one to ponder how DoMA ever passed the first place – but the media held the answer to that too. Former President Bill Clinton signed it due to sleep deprivation and pressure from his 1996 opponent Bob Dole, according to The New York Times’ Peter Baker.

On the bright side, gay marriage reportedly benefits the economy. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos cited an 8-year-old study Thursday and stated that legalizing gay marriage “could bring in up to $1 billion a year – so, a net benefit for the Treasury from gay marriage.” He explained, “if gay or lesbian couples are married and they have about equal income, they would actually pay more in taxes than if they were single.” CBS anchor Charlie Rose agreed, saying on Thursday’s “This Morning” that “if it’s [DOMA is] struck down, it may not be a financial windfall for same-sex couples. The case has centered on federal benefits. If they become eligible for the benefits, they would also have to pay higher taxes.”

It was scary enough when NBC’s Reporter Kristen Dahlgren admitted “what happens in Hollywood doesn’t stay there.” But a more frightening thought is to realize that what happens in the networks – on the news sites – doesn’t tend stay there either.

Procreation at 55? Don’t Laugh.

by Peter Sprigg

March 29, 2013

On March 26, the U. S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging California’s “Proposition 8”—the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman that was adopted by voters in 2008.

Perhaps the roughest moment for Charles Cooper, the attorney representing the proponents of Proposition 8, was when Justice Elena Kagan challenged the argument that marriage exists to promote procreation by spinning a hypothetical question about a couple where the man and woman are both 55 years old, and thus unlikely to procreate.

The (mostly liberal) audience laughed—either unable or unwilling to understand Cooper’s answer, which was actually quite cogent. He began by noting, “It is very rare that both parties to the couple are infertile,” but Kagan cut him off with another question about the couple (rather than the individuals) involved.

Cooper again went on to explain:

Your Honor, society’s … interest in responsible procreation isn’t just with respect to the procreative capacities of the couple itself. The marital norm, which imposes the obligations of fidelity and monogamy, Your Honor, advance the interests in responsible procreation by making more likely that neither party, including the fertile party to that [marriage, will procreate outside the marital relationship].

Except the last part, in brackets, Cooper did not actually get to say, because he was again cut off.

Perhaps Cooper was wary of appearing sexist to Justice Kagan if he stated the truth more bluntly—55-year-old women are virtually always infertile, but 55-year-old men are not. As frustrating as it may be to some feminists, there are some sex differences which cannot be overcome. (Justice Antonin Scalia tried to save Cooper with a joke about Strom Thurmond, the late U.S. Senator who continued to father children well into his 70’s, but it seemed to go over the audience’s heads.)

Society’s interest in promoting “responsible procreation”—the term most commonly used in defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman—involves not just promoting procreation itself, and promoting it in a responsible context (i.e., where the mother and father who make a child are both committed to the child and to each other through marriage). “Responsible procreation” also implies an effort to discourage irresponsible procreation—a quite plausible example of which might be a 55-year-old man going around impregnating fertile women (presumably younger than himself) who are not his wife.

Advocates for redefining marriage really ought to listen more, and laugh and scoff less—especially when they are in the Supreme Court of the United States. Otherwise they make themselves, not their opponents, look ignorant.