Don't Ask Dems What They Really Think Same Sex Marriage

[Bonnie]

There's a reason that the media hasn't asked national Democrats what they think about California's same-sex marriage bill.
by Hugh Hewitt
09/22/2005 9:40:00 AM

THE AFTERMATH OF KATRINA obscured many stories from public view. One of them concerned same-sex marriage. It deserves much more attention, particularly from national politicians.

On September 1, the California state Senate, by a vote of 21 to 15, approved same-sex marriage for the Golden State.

On Tuesday, September 6, the state Assembly approved the same bill by a margin of 41 to 35. No Republican voted for the measure, and four Assembly Democrats voted against it. The bill proposed changing the legal definition of marriage from "a civil contract between a man and a woman" to a "civil contract between two persons." Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill, citing the overwhelming victory of Proposition 22, an initiative banning same-sex marriage, which had passed with 61 percent of the vote in 2000.

National news media accounts of the votes and the vetoes quoted the backers of the proposal as well as the governor's spokespeople, and advocates and opponents on both sides of the debate.

But in no story that I can find did a reporter think to ask a national Democratic leader for their opinion on the vote by their California colleagues. Google News cannot even find San Francisco Democrat and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi's name in the same story as same-sex marriage. Neither can the San Francisco Chronicle over the past 30 days.

Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer made high-profile appearances on national television during the period of the California debate. Of course the big issues they discussed were Katrina relief and the Roberts

nomination, but their omission of the California same-sex marriage issue is notable for a couple of reasons.

First, the national players on the left aren't volunteering any opinions on the subject, and not because this is a "state" issue. Rather, it is a nightmare scenario for Democrats who know that their allies on the left are strongly in favor of same-sex marriage.

Second, the media knows this is an issue of intense interest across the political spectrum. The mainstream media also knows that every single time the question of same-sex marriage has been submitted directly to the voters, it has been overwhelming rejected. It is thus a losing issue for Democrats outside of California's hermetically-sealed-off-from-competition legislative districts. Because the gerrymandering in California is so precise, Democrats there have nothing to fear from getting separated from their constituencies. Not so the national Democrats. Recall that John Kerry repeatedly stated his opposition to same-sex marriage throughout campaign 2004, and even went so far as to state that he'd have voted for a state proposition banning the idea.

How to explain the media's collective pass issued to big-name Dems?

Simple enough: They are sparing them a series of questions that would embarrass them. Such as:

"Senator Clinton, the California Democrats have pushed through a same-sex marriage bill. Should Governor Schwarzenegger sign it?"

"I need to follow up on that senator. I realize it is a local issue, but it has national implications, senator. Does it make sense to you?"

"If the bill is signed and the Defense of Marriage Act fails to prevent mandatory recognition of California marriages in states that have rejected the idea, should the Constitution be amended to provide for a state option or even a total ban?"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/108fnrwj.asp

 

[Hagbard Celine]

This article is full of speculation. And it missed a few stories that are a little more important than homos getting married.

THE AFTERMATH OF KATRINA obscured many stories from public view.

Yeah, like the story about how Pat Roberts called for the assassination of an elected leader of another country. If a mulah from Iran called for the assassination of Dubya, we'd crucify him!

Or the story about the security leak in the Bush administration that resulted the outing of former US Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson's wife as a CIA operative.

Or the story about the failing Iraqi government that's about to erupt into civil war.

On a scale of 1-10, I'd put homos being able to get a civil union license at about a 1.Idon'tgiveash*t. If you don't have to live with them and watch them have sex, why do you care? Are you afraid God will level our country with balls of fire from the sky and turn you into a pillar of salt? Please.

 

[Bonnie]

This article is full of speculation. And it missed a few stories that are a little more important than homos getting married.



Yeah, like the story about how Pat Roberts called for the assassination of an elected leader of another country. If a mulah from Iran called for the assassination of Dubya, we'd crucify him!

Or the story about the security leak in the Bush administration that resulted the outing of former US Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson's wife as a CIA operative.

Or the story about the failing Iraqi government that's about to erupt into civil war.

On a scale of 1-10, I'd put homos being able to get a civil union license at about a 1.Idon'tgiveash*t. If you don't have to live with them and watch them have sex, why do you care? Are you afraid God will level our country with balls of fire from the sky and turn you into a pillar of salt? Please.

Wow more insightful deflection.

 

[ProudDem]

Hi Celine. I hear you on your comments.

Bonnie, I am sort of confused by this article. Do you truly believe that the media is really biased in favor of democrats? Because I sure don't. Regardless, I don't give the author's concerns much probative value. We had one of the worst storms hit this country. That was the primary issue at that time. If you noticed, no one was talking about the war in Iraq, and people were dying during that time period. This is common. Some big news occurs and everyone is all over it. The lesser newsworthy stories don't get much coverage, if at all. I got sick and tired of turning on the TV and everything being about Katrina.

I know you may think I am biased in this circumstance, but I though Hewitt's analysis of these facts was totally off-base. Sorry, but the death of human beings, the displacement of thousands of people, watching people beg for food and water, and discussin the failure of state and federal authorities were far more important than talking about gay marriage.

JMO

 

[archangel]

This article is full of speculation. And it missed a few stories that are a little more important than homos getting married.



Yeah, like the story about how Pat Roberts called for the assassination of an elected leader of another country. If a mulah from Iran called for the assassination of Dubya, we'd crucify him!

Or the story about the security leak in the Bush administration that resulted the outing of former US Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson's wife as a CIA operative.

Or the story about the failing Iraqi government that's about to erupt into civil war.

On a scale of 1-10, I'd put homos being able to get a civil union license at about a 1.Idon'tgiveash*t. If you don't have to live with them and watch them have sex, why do you care? Are you afraid God will level our country with balls of fire from the sky and turn you into a pillar of salt? Please.

at least post equal time for your statements...FACT:Saddam Hussein did order the assassination of Bush 41 after the first Gulf War...were you asleep?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Exactly. In J-school you learn about story hierarchy. Since Katrina was such a catastrophy, filler issues like gay marriage were pushed to the sidelines because catastrophes get ratings. "If it bleeds it leads" babe.

Oh and there is no vast liberal media conspiracy. If you remember back to the Clinton administration, the media dragged his name through the mud with the whole Lewinski scandal. All public officials and personalities are highly scrutinized by the media.

at least post equal time for your statements...FACT:Saddam Hussein did order the assassination of Bush 41 after the first Gulf War...were you asleep?

I don't know what this has to do with my last post, but you're right. Saddam did order an assassination attempt on H.W.Bush. That is about the only thing we ever had on the guy. The Iraq war is a Bush family agenda.

 

[Bonnie]

Hi Celine. I hear you on your comments.

Bonnie, I am sort of confused by this article. Do you truly believe that the media is really biased in favor of democrats? Because I sure don't. Regardless, I don't give the author's concerns much probative value. We had one of the worst storms hit this country. That was the primary issue at that time. If you noticed, no one was talking about the war in Iraq, and people were dying during that time period. This is common. Some big news occurs and everyone is all over it. The lesser newsworthy stories don't get much coverage, if at all. I got sick and tired of turning on the TV and everything being about Katrina.

I know you may think I am biased in this circumstance, but I though Hewitt's analysis of these facts was totally off-base. Sorry, but the death of human beings, the displacement of thousands of people, watching people beg for food and water, and discussin the failure of state and federal authorities were far more important than talking about gay marriage.

JMO

Of course all those things are more important but the jist of the article was about how evasive Democrats have been on this subject and why. In the grand scheme of things happening at that time it ranks low.

And yes a good portion of the media is biased towards a liberal mode of thinking and it comes thru in printed word whether they mean it to or not. Have you never seen statistics that show how those in the media vote, it's almost always 90% democrat and are in favor of liberal cuases. Liberals in general gravitate towards journalism and then those idealistic ideas are compounded by colleges. The media doesn't report the news anymore, it makes the news. Many would say Fox et al are too leaning toward conservative ideas, but if you watch all the networks you will see much more balance on Fox by presenting both a Conservative and a Liberal in almost every debate, I rarely see that on CNN or even MSNBC. The NY Times and LA Times are so biased they have been caught many times of making up information in their stories, doctoring up pictures of our soldiers, making numerous mention of anyone who is pro-life, christian, in favor of home schooling, or wanting lower taxes, as being right wing fringe, or right wing extremeists. I never read references to pro-choicers or feminists as radical left wing fringe, or left wing extremeists.

 

[ProudDem]

I don't know what this has to do with my last post, but you're right. Saddam did order an assassination attempt on H.W.Bush. That is about the only thing we ever had on the guy. The Iraq war is a Bush family agenda.

Oh, Celine, you are speaking my language. On a similar note, Maureen Dowd had this to say in her article in the New York Times on Saturday:

With Karl Rove's help, Junior designed his presidency as a reverse of his father's. W. would succeed by studying Dad's failures and doing the opposite. But in a bizarre twist of filial fate, the son has stumbled so badly in areas where he tried to one-up Dad that he has ended up giving Dad a leg up in the history books. . . .

His father made the "mistake" of not conquering and occupying Iraq because he had the silly idea that Iraqis would resent it. His father made the "mistake" of raising taxes, not cutting them, and overly obsessing about the federal deficit. And his father made the "mistake" of hewing to the center, making his base mad and losing his bid for re-election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/17/o...rials and Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Maureen Dowd

 

[Bonnie]

Exactly. In J-school you learn about story hierarchy. Since Katrina was such a catastrophy, filler issues like gay marriage were pushed to the sidelines because catastrophes get ratings. "If it bleeds it leads" babe.

Oh and there is no vast liberal media conspiracy. If you remember back to the Clinton administration, the media dragged his name through the mud with the whole Lewinski scandal. All public officials and personalities are highly scrutinized by the media.



I don't know what this has to do with my last post, but you're right. Saddam did order an assassination attempt on H.W.Bush. That is about the only thing we ever had on the guy. The Iraq war is a Bush family agenda.

Nothing, but i'll bite anyway...If this was a Bush agenda then why all the support by liberals such as Kerry, Clinton, and Kennedy to stop Hussein way before Bush ever became president?? Why were they saying back then that Hussein was a threat to the US and the world and that he did have WMD's?

And BTW the same media you claim were the ones dragging Clinton's name thru the mud were the same ones who were making excuses for him lying under oath to a Grand Jury by saying it was just about sex, and that Kenneth Starr who was appointed by to investigate Clinton was nothing more than "A VAST Right Wing Conspiracy"..
PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ProudDem]

[/B]

Nothing, but i'll bite anyway...If this was a Bush agenda then why all the support by liberals such as Kerry, Clinton, and Kennedy to stop Hussein way before Bush ever became president?? Why were they saying back then that Hussein was a threat to the US and the world and that he did have WMD's?

And BTW the same media you claim were the ones dragging Clinton's name thru the mud were the same ones who were making excuses for him lying under oath to a Grand Jury by saying it was just about sex, and that Kenneth Starr who was appointed by to investigate Clinton was nothing more than "A VAST Right Wing Conspiracy"..
PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But Clinton's lying under oath was about sex, wouldn't you agree? Or was his lying about having "sexual relations" with her a subliminal message for something much more devious?

Or are you implying that the media dismissed it because it was "just about sex" and nothing more important. I remember headline after headline in teh local newspapers about this issue. I think the media gave it lots of attention. As for me, I genuinely did not care about that issue at all. While I was disappointed with him, I sort of couldn't blame him because if I was married to a cold fish, I might look elsewhere too. If I liked Hillary, I might have been more angry with him.

 

[CSM]

But Clinton's lying under oath was about sex, wouldn't you agree? Or was his lying about having "sexual relations" with her a subliminal message for something much more devious?

Or are you implying that the media dismissed it because it was "just about sex" and nothing more important. I remember headline after headline in teh local newspapers about this issue. I think the media gave it lots of attention. As for me, I genuinely did not care about that issue at all. While I was disappointed with him, I sort of couldn't blame him because if I was married to a cold fish, I might look elsewhere too. If I liked Hillary, I might have been more angry with him.

For me, the whole Clinton thing was about the abuse of power, lack of integrity, and the hypocricy of a commander in chief. It had nothing to do with the sex.

 

[ProudDem]

For me, the whole Clinton thing was about the abuse of power, lack of integrity, and the hypocricy of a commander in chief. It had nothing to do with the sex.

How was his affair with Monica an "abuse of power"? What was hypocritical about his actions?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

The media doesn't report the news anymore, it makes the news. Many would say Fox et al are too leaning toward conservative ideas, but if you watch all the networks you will see much more balance on Fox by presenting both a Conservative and a Liberal in almost every debate, I rarely see that on CNN or even MSNBC. The NY Times and LA Times are so biased they have been caught many times of making up information in their stories, doctoring up pictures of our soldiers, making numerous mention of anyone who is pro-life, christian, in favor of home schooling, or wanting lower taxes, as being right wing fringe, or right wing extremeists. I never read references to pro-choicers or feminists as radical left wing fringe, or left wing extremeists.

You should really watch a great documentary called "Outfoxed."

The instances of reporters making things up and doctoring photos are terrible for the media's image. A few bad apples really do spoil the reputations of the whole bunch. You need to know though, that reporters get fired for things like this all the time. Fired. And their reputations are ruined forever. Nobody will ever rehire them. No ifs ands or buts. Most media organizations take their codes of ethics extremely seriously and do not screw around with people that make things up.

It's impossible for reporters to be totally objective in their reporting, they are human and their own thoughts and backgrounds will come into play. But objectivity is definately something that is striven for in the journalistic community.

The Republican party tried everthing they could to kill the Clintons. They dragged his whole family through the mud on issues ranging from affairs to White Water and the Monica Lewinski thing. Hell, they even impeached him. But they couldn't make any of it stick. Even after his presidency, when he's supposed to be retired, Clinton is still making headlines. The "Clinton Global Initiative" is the latest great thing he's done for this planet. And in 2008, the Clinton's will be back in cockpit. Thank God.

 

[Avatar4321]

But Clinton's lying under oath was about sex, wouldn't you agree? Or was his lying about having "sexual relations" with her a subliminal message for something much more devious?

Or are you implying that the media dismissed it because it was "just about sex" and nothing more important. I remember headline after headline in teh local newspapers about this issue. I think the media gave it lots of attention. As for me, I genuinely did not care about that issue at all. While I was disappointed with him, I sort of couldn't blame him because if I was married to a cold fish, I might look elsewhere too. If I liked Hillary, I might have been more angry with him.

No, his lying under oath was all about: Lying.

The man lied to the one person he had a higher commitment to than the American people. His wife. And if a man can't keep the oaths and covenants he makes with his wife, why on earth can anyone trust him to keep any oaths to uphold the Constitution and the will of the people?

Then rather than apologize for the incident, he gets on TV and tells the American people that they should be ashamed of expecting integrity in the President.

And with your personal response on views of adultry, i feel pity for your marriage. Integrity isn't something that only applies if its convenient. Integrity is something that defines who you are even when it's not convenient.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Then rather than apologize for the incident, he gets on TV and tells the American people that they should be ashamed of expecting integrity in the President.

You know, this would be a valid argument if Clinton had been the first president to ever cheat on his wife, but he wasn't. Clinton did come on National Television and admit to the affair and apologize to America as well as his wife. And then he had his name dragged through mud and was impeached!

If you want to talk about integrity, let's talk about integrity. Bush had his driving privileges suspended for driving drunk into a telephone pole on his way back from a party in Maine. He also graduated as a legacy at Yale with a C average. He also ran the oil business his dad gave him into the ground. Integrity? Sheesh.

No, his lying under oath was all about: Lying.
The man lied to the one person he had a higher commitment to than the American people. His wife.

Wait, I thought his lying under oath was all about: his lying under oath. The impeachment had nothing to do with him not telling his wife about an affair.

 

[Avatar4321]

You know, this would be a valid argument if Clinton had been the first president to ever cheat on his wife, but he wasn't. Clinton did come on National Television and admit to the affair and apologize to America as well as his wife. And then he had his name dragged through mud and was impeached!

Obviously you weren't paying very close attention to what he said in his so called "apology" Not once did he apologize in it. His only regret was that he was caught. He then went on about how the American people were at fault for caring about the President's integrity. If you abuse your power at work to get an intern in compromising positions then yeah that is a concern of the people you work for.

If you want to talk about integrity, let's talk about integrity. Bush had his driving privileges suspended for driving drunk into a telephone pole on his way back from a party in Maine. He also graduated as a legacy at Yale with a C average. He also ran the oil business his dad gave him into the ground. Integrity? Sheesh.

Um, do you even know what Integrity is? I am guessing by your illustrations that you have no flippin clue.

Wait, I thought his lying under oath was all about: his lying under oath. The impeachment had nothing to do with him not telling his wife about an affair

The impeachment was over lying under oath and obstructing justice. However, the fact that he was willing to lie: to the person he has the strongest commitment to, under oath, and to the American people shows a character flaw that makes him, quite frankly, low life scum.

 

[ProudDem]

No, his lying under oath was all about: Lying.

The man lied to the one person he had a higher commitment to than the American people. His wife. And if a man can't keep the oaths and covenants he makes with his wife, why on earth can anyone trust him to keep any oaths to uphold the Constitution and the will of the people?

Then rather than apologize for the incident, he gets on TV and tells the American people that they should be ashamed of expecting integrity in the President.

And with your personal response on views of adultry, i feel pity for your marriage. Integrity isn't something that only applies if its convenient. Integrity is something that defines who you are even when it's not convenient.

Yes he did lie. I wish he would have been upfront about it. I think people would have been more forgiving if he had come forward and admitted it up front. Dumb dumb dumb.

Could you provide me with evidence of when Clinton told the American people that they should be ashamed of themselves for expeting integrity in the President.

Yeah yeah yeah. You feel pity for my marriage. That hurts......NOT. I guess it's easy for me to say that I would look elsewhere since I don't even know what it is like to be in an unloving marriage. I would die for my husband, and I believe he would do the same. What happens in their marriage has no effect on my whatsoever.

 

[Bonnie]

But Clinton's lying under oath was about sex, wouldn't you agree? Or was his lying about having "sexual relations" with her a subliminal message for something much more devious?

Or are you implying that the media dismissed it because it was "just about sex" and nothing more important. I remember headline after headline in teh local newspapers about this issue. I think the media gave it lots of attention. As for me, I genuinely did not care about that issue at all. While I was disappointed with him, I sort of couldn't blame him because if I was married to a cold fish, I might look elsewhere too. If I liked Hillary, I might have been more angry with him.

LOL you do have a point regarding Billary, but that aside it doesn't matter what Bill lied about.. he still perjured himself under oath as a sitting president. And the media had no right to be dismissive of that, it's not their job to do that only thier job to report what is happening, not shape opinion.

 

[Avatar4321]

Could you provide me with evidence of when Clinton told the American people that they should be ashamed of themselves for expeting integrity in the President.

Yeah, read his so called "Apology"

Yeah yeah yeah. You feel pity for my marriage. That hurts......NOT. I guess it's easy for me to say that I would look elsewhere since I don't even know what it is like to be in an unloving marriage. I would die for my husband, and I believe he would do the same. What happens in their marriage has no effect on my whatsoever

I on the other hand, think what happens in the lives of the people who are our leaders have a huge effect on who they are and how they will lead.

And why on earth would it be easy for you to say that you would cheat on your husband if you felt unloved while in a loved marriage? That makes no sense whatsoever. You made promises to him as he did to you to stick together through thick and thin regardless. You don't just toss that asside because things get tough.

Besides, did you ever think that maybe Clinton was feeling "unloved" in his marriage was because he has been cheating on his wife since the beginning? Did you ever think that maybe it was his fault? Im not saying the queen b**** isn't at all responsible. But there is no logical reason to choose his side over hers when they are both scum bags.

 

[no1tovote4]

How was his affair with Monica an "abuse of power"? What was hypocritical about his actions?

There are people actually in prison for perjuring themselves during a sexual harrassment trial. The disregard he and the Dems who supported him showed for our Justice system is unfathomable. This attempt to disregard it because it was about sex is simply ideological forgiveness because they wish to be defined as the good guys. The little guy goes to jail while the powerful walk away, I thought the Dems were always on the side of the little guy. What hypocrisy you ask? It is clear.