December 09, 2004
An AP Distortion in the Marriage Debate
By Byron LaMasters
I was pleased to read just now that the high court in Canada has approved marriage equality for gays and lesbians. Now, it just needs the support of the Canadian Parliament, where things look good at this point. The 38-member Liberal cabinet supports the legislation as does the 54 members of Bloc Quebecois and the 19 MPs of the New Democrats. So, in order for passage it just needs to collect 44 of the 95 votes of Liberal Party backbenchers, as the Conservative Party opposes the legislation. Sounds like it's got a good shot, huh? Well, good for Canada, I'll have to go buy a t-shirt.
No, this is my problem. This AP article makes a gross distortion in its final line:
The federal Conservatives and several Liberal MPs are expected to fight to preserve marriage for heterosexuals.
Huh? Marriage for heterosexuals isn't being debated here. No one is opposed to marriage for heterosexuals. I'm sure that the entire Canadian Parliament supports it. I support marrige for heterosexuals. I can thank my life to the heterosexual marriage of my parents, so I certainly approve of the idea. But this concluding sentence suggests that those of us who support GLBT marriage equality are in some way opposed to marriage for heterosexuals. It also suggests that the federal conservatives and several Liberal MP's could care less about marriages between gays and lesbians, and that in some way marriage between a man and a woman is in danger of being outlawed. Neither of these are the case. Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but it annoys me when the SCLM blatantly distorts an issue like this.
Posted by Byron LaMasters at December 9, 2004 11:58 PM
| TrackBack
Just a comment that i think the statement was just poorly worded by the writer (if not, if it's actually what Byron suggests, then he is exactly right).
I think the intended meaning (which doesn't make it any less wrongheaded, but which does change the tenor of the argument) was more along the lines of "The federal Conservatives and several Liberal MPs are expected to fight to preserve marriage solely for heterosexuals."
Yes that's my point. One word makes a lot of difference. Adding "exculsively" or "solely" or whatever before "for heterosexuals" would have been fine. But this is one of the cases where one word changes the meaning of a sentence entirely. Whether it's a mistake by the writer, the editor, or sheer bias - I don't know, but I was personally annoyed by it.
I saw something about this on SCOTUSblog last night. The Canadian Supreme Court used something called a reference, which means that there was no actual lawsuit about this. The were asked to judge whether a piece of legislation in Parliament would by constitutional or not. The legislation is over allowing homosexual marriages to enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. The court ruled that gay marriage is in no way impeded by anything in their constitution, very similar to the Mass. high court ruling that said their was no specific mention of gay marriage exclusion in the state's constitution, so they had to come up with new language or allow gays to marry.
I think that's missing from a lot of coverage of the issue, from a legal standpoint. Headlines may read "Court rules for Gay Marriage" but they ruled specifically on whether there is existing language in the constitution to prohibit gay marriage. That language could be changed at any time.
People need to recognize that as well as the sometimes under the surface bias that may be present in reporting on gay marriage and the ensuing debate.
