|
|
Friday, August 30, 2002
All the sin that's fit to print
| In democracies, cultural revolutions usually arrive in baby
steps. Proposed radical political change through governmental action is
normally repulsed or, if enacted, soon rejected. Political movements are
better advised to first change the culture, to force social change through
society's institutions of education and information, in schools,
entertainment and the news media. They succeed when they create the
impression that the unpopular trend they're pushing is historically
inevitable and resistance is futile.
Such is the gay left's attempt to water down the definition of
marriage until it has no unique meaning.
The idea of gay "marriage" is opposed by the vast majority of
Americans. If the central point of politics were merely the empirical search
of an opinion "mainstream," gay "marriage" is clearly a mile from it, an
oxymoron in the Judeo-Christian tradition. In every state where gay
activists have tried to force it on the public, even in oh-so-progressive
Hawaii, it has gone down in flaming defeat. The hard-nosed political agenda
isn't working.
But the cultural revolution is. America's news and entertainment
companies don't swim in the "mainstream," but they can use their power to
try and define it as starkly opposed to reality. Not only have they
succumbed to the revolutionary juices flowing, they have been convinced to
take on heroic roles of "leadership" in the cultural revolution. The latest
example is the former "Weddings" pages in the Sunday Styles section of the
New York Times. Beginning next month, they will be renamed
"Weddings/Celebrations," in order also to celebrate the domestic
partnerships of gay couples as long as there is a ceremony and some shred of
official paper (a Vermont "civil union" certificate or a domestic-partner
filing with New York City.)
In the official announcement of this change, Times editor Howell
Raines tried to declare, "We recognize that the society remains divided
about the legal and religious definition of marriage, and our news columns
will remain impartial in that debate." This should be the part of the story
where the faithful reader stops to spit and giggle. Like many other mediums,
the Times has been robotically pro-gay, and its new policy is anything but
impartial.
What the paper that reports all that's fit to print did not say
came out in other New York newspapers: The Times was the subject of a
prolonged lobbying campaign. In December, officials from the National
Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association met with Times publisher Arthur
"Pinch" Sulzberger, who's been extremely gay-friendly. In April, the Gay and
Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation met with Managing Editor Gerald Boyd as
part of their "Announcing Equality" campaign. Their lobbying efforts
ultimately succeeded.
Some media analysts like Keith Woods of the Poynter Institute
say the newspapers who have chosen to celebrate gay unions are not
reflecting a newspaper's "politics" but merely reflecting their community's
opinion. Certainly in New York City social liberalism is aggressive. The
city is so liberal it is now known as a mecca for those who want to force
medical students to receive abortion training, even if they find the
procedure immoral. Forced acceptance of homosexuality as normal is the next
wave of cultural intimidation, and the Times is dutifully leading the way.
But the vast majority of even that city still reject the radical gay agenda;
that community's voice is ignored, that most certainly being a reflection of
the newspaper's "politics."
Those who might tread lightly as the celebration of grave sin
deepens should consider that homosexual activists think same-sex "marriage"
is the most important political step toward full acceptance. Last spring, a
poll by James Zogby and the GLCensus Partners surveyed over 1,500
self-identified homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals, and found that by
far, the top goal of the gay movement was the legal recognition of same-sex
marriage: 47 percent of respondents listed it as the top goal, and 83
percent selected it as one of the top three goals. Fighting employment
discrimination is way behind, with only 16 percent citing it as a top goal.
Gay activists argue the "celebration" notices are merely a
matter of fairness, of recognizing that anywhere two people of whatever
gender decide to share a loving relationship deserves society's respect. The
New York Times is clearly embracing this position in the culture war, using
their packages of newsprint and ink multiplied by the millions to boldly
state that marriage requires no gender distinctions; to reject the supremacy
of the natural combination of male and female strengths in marriage; and to
thumb its nose at apparently quaint notions of God's judgment and sacred
scriptures as if they were yesterday's bird-cage liners. Truly moderate
media watchers, even the many conservatives who instinctively shirk at a
homosexuality debate, should acknowledge the obvious: By taking this radical
step, even the Times should concede it's no impartial observer of the
culture. The Times is promoting all the sin they think is fit to print.
|
Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Brent Bozell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
©Creators Syndicate
|