Posts Tagged 'same sex marriage'

Maine Voters – Beware the Media’s Anti-Marriage Rhetoric in the Gay Marriage Debate

From Conservative Blogs Central:

Maine Voters – Beware the Media’s Anti-Marriage Rhetoric in the Gay Marriage Debate

maine
From Euripides

Maine voters got more than they bargained for with a battle heating up over whether the state should allow same sex marriages. As a word of caution, be aware and beware the language the news media uses to describe the question of marriage. More often than not, the language shows a distinct bias against the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Here are a few examples from Fox 23, My Fox Maine which demonstrates the biased and sometimes inflammatory language that Maine’s media uses to push its own pro-gay viewpoint. Unfortunately, It does this at the expense of the real debate, the protection of marriage and the family. Instead the media buys into the idea that same sex marriage is the only fair and natural version of marriage and will somehow be good for the country.

The first example is the headline: “Gay Marriage Foes Reach Signature Goal in Maine” (MyFOXMaine). Notice how those who think marriage is a union between a man and a woman are here characterized as “Gay Marriage Foes.” Implied is that those who believe in natural marriage are somehow at fault for not agreeing with same sex marriage.

The end of the article, the “selling point” argument that news writers use to make their main point says this: “Six states allow gay marriage. Maine became the fifth state to allow gay marriage in May, and New Hampshire later followed suit” (MyFOXMaine). While giving the appearance of being informative, it also implies, by its placement as the final paragraph, that this is the way Maine ought to be – counted as the “progressive” states which have legalized same sex marriage. Yet, think about it. Is this the what the people of Maine really want? Is neutering marriage through language that no longer recognizes male or female, bride or groom, man or woman, is this progressive thought? Does legal language that does not recognize the unique differences of the sexes in marriage warrant such devotion from the people of Maine?

Additionally, by calling same sex marriage “gay marriage” the news media has also conceded the idea that homosexuals are a protected class of citizens. This special class desires special protection under the law, instead of equal protection as required by the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. Trying to change the nature of marriage itself is an example of such special consideration under the law.

Here’s another example:

Stand for Marriage Maine, the group pushing for a people’s veto of the new state law legalizing same-sex marriage, has launched a television ad (MyFOXMaine).

This story falls under another “Gay Marriage Foes” headline – FOX 23’s established moniker for those who support marriage in the state. Notice, again, the language as an attack on those who support marriage between a man and a woman. Using words such as “pushing” indicates a negative connotation, as if the people of Maine wanted the poor law their legislators and governor created. Contrary to the news media’s expectations, a vast majority of the people in Maine support marriage as a union between a man and a woman. By legalizing same sex marriage, who pushed whom?

In the same story, the “selling point” paragraph shows another offensive tactic:

The No on 1 campaign has fired back, says voters should “focus on the real issue of treating all families with dignity and respect” (MyFOXMaine).

Here the media actually changes the real issue: should marriage be defined as a union between a man and a woman? Yet the media and gay activists insist on throwing out a red herring which implies that anyone who doesn’t agree with same sex marriage is also against “treating all families with dignity and respect.”

Here’s the problem with the argument: Those who want to change marriage, to make it into something it is not, have shown absolutely no dignity or respect for the institution of marriage and for families created from such a union. With no regard for an institution as old as history itself, gay activists now want to hijack marriage for their own, selfish goals.

Another interesting example:

Opponents of a new law legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine have recruited the help of the California public relations firm Schubert Flint Public Affairs, which led the successful Proposition 8 proposal to overturn gay marriage in that state (MyFOXMaine).

This is the media’s attempt to demonize those supporting marriage by implying that they have no business bringing in big, corporate support to force the issue against the will of the people of Maine.

Before decrying the tactics, however, consider the heavy-handed tactics gay activists use. For example, the primary website promoting “No On 1” which calls itself a “grassroots” organization, was created and registered by AP Campaigns, PO Box 15007, Washington, District Of Columbia 20003. AP Campaigns is a company that lobbies in Washington, DC on behalf of gay issues, and now lobbies in Maine.

Consider, as well, the huge list of national gay activist supporters that the No on 1 campaign proudly displays on their website. These include such groups as GLSEN, Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. The point of mentioning this list is to demonstrate the breadth of national involvement to try and overthrow the institution of marriage. The Maine news media trying smear marriage defenders by drawing attention to its supporters simply neglects the other side of the story.

As if these “grassroots” lobbyists aren’t enough, Beetle, a fellow blogger, notes that various groups in California plan to campaign in Maine, bringing in outside gay activists to protest, organize phone campaigns, and plan paid “vacations” in Maine for a “get-out-the-vote” organized by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (Beetle Blogger). Consider that many, if not most, of the gay activists demanding “marriage equality” in Maine, don’t live in Maine.

Like it or not, same sex marriage is an issue that has implications across the country. Just don’t be fooled by those news and website outlets who profess that their same sex marriage campaign is anything but an organized attempt to convince the people of Maine of support that simply does not exist in Maine.

Don’t be fooled and don’t be taken in by the attack language of Maine’s media and “grassroots” proponents of same sex marriage. They are out to bamboozle you with bias and bigotry. They will offer half-truths and inflammatory language. They will throw red herrings along the way to get Maine voters focused on anything but the issue of supporting the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

When considering what’s at stake with marriage, I encourage you to vote in favor of protecting this fundamental institution.
Visit Stand for Marriage Maine
and help Maine protect marriage.

http://conservativeblogscentral.blogspot.com/2009/09/maine-voters-beware-medias-anti.html

Advertisements

Maine: Preserve Marriage for Future Generations

MaineFoliage

Preserve traditional marriage for benefit of future generations

Roger Crouse
Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel
09/28/2009

Just 12 years ago, in 1997,the Legislature defined marriage and added that definition to Maine law. Section 650, Title 19-A, of Maine law reads in part:

“The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage.” [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]

Nothing has changed in our society in the intervening years that invalidates this definition. In fact, society needs the benefits of traditional marriage now more than ever.

Earlier this year, however, the Legislature and the governor determined Section 650 is no longer valid or true. They removed it from law at the same time they granted same-sex couples the right to marry.

Instead they have added a statement that changes the meaning of words such as “bride” and “groom,” “husband” and “wife” to be gender-neutral. In essence, they have said that male and female are completely interchangeable and neither gender provides any unique benefit to society.

In addition to saying gender does not matter, the Legislature and governor have redefined the social institution of marriage. For thousands of years, marriage has represented the union of a man and a woman. Our governor and Legislature believe they have the wisdom and foresight to know the social impacts of this change.

The future prosperity of our society, state and nation depends upon our ability to raise stable and self-reliant children. Research and statistics repeatedly show the best environment for stable families and children is one with an opposite-sex union of a father and mother.

Many people today misunderstand why the government began legalizing the marriage relationship. Marriage existed originally as a religious institution. Governments saw the societal benefits of heterosexual marriage and adopted policies to promote marriage.

Marriage is not a civil right. Societies have always regulated marriage. A man cannot marry his daughter or mother. A woman cannot marry her brother or nephew. Marriage is a tool of the society to ensure that the next generation is stable and self-reliant.

The legal right to marry is not about love. If love is the determining factor as to who should be able to get married, there would be no end to the variations of relationships that would qualify for marriage.

The social institution of marriage is centered on children. Allowing same-sex couples to marry radically alters the social institution of marriage. Same-sex marriage is centered on adults and what is best for the adult rather than children. The two definitions of marriage cannot co-exist.

Thirty or 40 years ago. few unmarried couples lived together. If they did live together and had children, they generally married because of social expectation. The social expectation of marriage, however, has eroded and now more children are being reared without their married biological parents.

If marriage becomes an adult-centered institution, the social expectation of raising children in a home where the biological parents are married will continue to erode and fewer heterosexual couples will marry.

We cannot know the impact on society when, a generation from now, fewer children are being raised in this ideal environment.

Keeping marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman is not about discrimination, intolerance or denying civil rights, it is about ensuring our society continues to reap the benefits of marriage between a man and a woman.

Alternative relationships do not provide the same benefit to society. Therefore, government should not provide legal standing to these alternative relationships.

If you disagree with our governor and Legislature, you will have the opportunity to make your opinion known by voting in November.

Send a clear message that traditional monogamous marriage remains “of inestimable value to our society” and does provide the best environment for rearing children.

Vote “yes” on Question 1.

Roger Crouse is a father of four children and lives in Central Maine. He is actively involved in his church and scouting. He loves the hiking and being in the outdoors.


Standing for Marriage



“The Main Thing is to Keep the Maine Thing, the Main Thing”
November 2017
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930