Analyzing the Los Angeles Times Coverage of Prop 8 Trial Ruling

I went back and analyzed coverage in the Los Angeles Times leading up to, and after, the decision was announced in the federal trial over the California Marriage Amendment.

We have documented that, like many other major media outlets, the Times uses biased language and focus in this and related issues. That continued over the last few days.

In addition to opinions expressed by the editorial board, columnists, and most of the selected letters, the articles couldn't hide their hope that that Walker's decision will be affirmed by SCOTUS.

Also, they consistently and repeated referred to:

1) "gay marriage", when the question is clearly same-sex pairing. There's no reason why Walker's decision won't also mean that same-sex pairings in which one or both participants aren't gay could get a marriage license, for whatever reason. Walker does not insist that pairings must engage in physical affection.

2) A "ban" on such pairing. There was a ban on issuing marriage licenses to brideless or groomless pairings. But there was no ban on ceremonies or any of the other things that brides and grooms have been doing together for millennia that have been mimmicked or downright mocked by brideless or groomless couples. Or triads, or quads - of any sexual composition for that matter.

3) The item in question was mostly referred to as a "ballot measure" - which is fine, when talking about the actual vote in November 2008, but once it was approved by voters, it was a state constitutional amendment - "whethah ya like it or not!" The editors of the paper couldn't bring themselves to respect that fact.

And now, on to the coverage.

[It's a long haul after the jump.]

A blog entry by Maura Dolan:

A federal judge in San Francisco will decide Wednesday whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.

This wording is flawed. Individuals, regardless of sex or sexual orientation, have the same legal access to marriage licensing. But the flawed, misleading wording was used again in the same entry:

The California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that gays and lesbians were entitled to marry under the state Constitution in an historic ruling in May 2008. Voters passed Proposition 8 six months later, amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

And she used the misleading "ban" language, too. Twice. A couple of the early comments caught my attention.

"Johnathan" August 03, 2010 at 05:51 PM:

It is against the first amendment to deny marriage because it respects a particular religion and their views.

Which particular religion is the one supporting the bride+groom requirement? It is possible to argue for that requirement without invoking religion.

Marriage is often defined as a legal union. Since when do religions get to say what is legal in a secular state?

Voters are allowed to vote based where their dart landed, if that is what they want.

"deebeeisme" August 03, 2010 at 06:28 PM:

Why do we even waste money on career politicians in D.C. when we are ruled by lawyers in black pajamas?

We are supposed to have a separation of powers, as well as some state sovereignty. Federal courts should only intervene to declare a law unconstitutional if it clearly is. A law is not "unconstitutional" simply because some activists in a self-identified minority don't like it. Unfortunately, the way things have been going, it would be more efficient and we'd get the same result if we put the Executive Branch under SCOTUS, eliminated Congress, disbanded the state governments, and used lower courts simply as information-gathering places for SCOTUS that also carried out SCOTUS precedents. The President could nominate new judges and SCOTUS could vote to accept or reject. It would save us a lot of money and trouble and have the same effect.

Responding to a picture of a sign with rainbow lettering saying "Love is Love", "awillaert" August 03, 2010 at 06:55 PM wrote:

Yes, of course. Love is Love. And men are men, and women are women. And men can love men, and women can love women, and women and men can love each other too.

But marriage is marriage. And call it what you will, but there is a difference between a union of men and women compared to men with men or women with women. Why deny it? Why not acknowledge and celebrate the differences? Why not be honest about it? Why not give these different unions different names, to reflect the fact that they are indeed different?

Apples are apples, and oranges are oranges. Blend apples together and you still have a mixture of apples. Blend oranges together and you still have a mixture of oranges. Blend apples and oranges together and you have a mixture of apples and oranges. Nothing against mixing apples together or oranges together, thats fine by me. But by definition they are still either a mixture of apples or or a mixture of oranges. They are not a mixture of apples and oranges.

You could even give apples or oranges a different name, but it doesn't change what they are. For example you could blend apples with oranges and call them "apples", but they really wouldn't be apples anymore.

Well said.

"p3orion" August 03, 2010 at 08:24 PM:

OK, so let me see if I have this straight: homosexuals claim that their orientation is not a choice, but is encoded in their genes. They further insist that everyone is at least partially gay, on a "spectrum" from 100% straight to 100% gay, right?

So at what percentage is is there no longer any choice in the matter? 10 percent? 20 percent? 51 percent?

As Dennis Prager said, it doesn't matter. Would marriage neutering advocates believe a bride+groom requirement is okay even if everyone's sexual orientation was completely a willful choice? Then it would be touted as "freedom of choice".

If a person is 20% gay, should he have a boyfriend one year for every 5 years he spends in heterosexual relationships? How could he not? Could it be that he has made a CHOICE in determining his sexual orientation?

He then goes into history:

Until the early 1970s, the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a sexual deviation, and treatable to varying degrees. After much political pressure (including activists of the Gay Liberation Front disrupting a San Francisco convention of the APA, shouting down anyone who objected to their agenda) in 1973 the membership NARROWLY voted to declassify homosexuality as a deviation.

Democracy is great, but scientific truth is not subject to the popular vote. But as with most liberal causes, anyone who doesn't adhere to "the party line" is likely to be excoriated and ruined (ask any scientist who questions the "consensus" on man-made global warming.) But liberals also know that repeating a lie often enough can make many people believe it. Apparently, with "King and King" and "Heather Has Two Mommies" they've decided that repeating it early is useful, too.

Ironically, Walker would rename the book "Heather Has Two Parents", because "mother" and "father" are apparently superficial designations. Of course, couldn't people who have chosen to use a sperm donor or a surrogate so as to raise children without a partner sue over that?

The misleading wording is used again in this other blog entry by Maura Dolan, "Anticipation builds on gay marriage ruling; marches planned".

Anticipation is building around California and beyond as a federal judge in San Francisco is posed to issue a ruling Wednesday afternoon on whether whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.

She then lists where marriage neutering advocates plan to gather to demonstrate either way. Wouldn't want other marriage neutering advocates to have to check another website to find that out, would we? More misleading language:

Most of the testimony favored marriage rights for homosexuals.

And...

The California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that gays and lesbians were entitled to marry under the state Constitution in a historic ruling in May 2008. Voters passed Proposition 8 six months later, amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Again with the "ban" language. And again...

Walker will decide whether California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates equal protection and due process rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Nope. No bias here. Then came the initial reports on Walker's decision. This one is from Rong-Gong Lin II - "Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California".

A federal judge in San Francisco decided today that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure that banned same-sex unions.

Again, misleading language. Many homosexual people have married people of the opposite sex. And the ballot measure didn't ban same-sex unions, not even same-sex weddings. It banned the state licensing of brideless or groomless pairings as marriage. This language is flat-out false, given domestic partnerships.

Voters approved the ban by a 52.3% margin six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

And...

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months that it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

Then came an article by Maura Dolan and Carol J. Williams, "Ruling against Prop. 8 could lead to federal precedent on gay marriage" Judge says the same-sex marriage ban was rooted in 'moral disapproval' and violates constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.

A federal judge declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional Wednesday, saying that no legitimate state interest justified treating gay and lesbian couples differently from others and that "moral disapproval" was not enough to save the voter-passed Proposition 8.

And...

The ruling was the first in the country to strike down a marriage ban on federal constitutional grounds

And...

In striking down Proposition 8, Walker said the ban violated the federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and of due process.

Previous court decisions have established that the ability to marry is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to people without a compelling rationale, Walker said.

Yes, but all of those decisions were based on an understanding of "marriage" as something uniting the sexes. None of those rulings ordered the neutering of marriage licenses.

The jurist, a Republican appointee who is gay, cited extensive evidence from the trial to support his finding that there was not a rational basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage.

This is false. They did not prove a universal negative. What he cited was people saying they felt bad.

Wednesday's ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed last year by two homosexual couples who argued that the marriage ban violates their federal constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.

And...

The group hired two legal luminaries from opposite sides of the political spectrum to try to overturn the ballot measure.

Ballot measure? You mean state constitutional amendment. Ballot measures are either voted in or rejected. Laws and amendments are overturned.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown refused to defend the marriage ban, leaving the sponsors of the initiative to fill the vacuum.

And...

Proposition 8 passed with a 52.3% vote six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

Permitted? Who was stopping ceremonies? Evicting people?

The sponsors complained that Walker's pretrial rulings had been unfair and that some of their prospective witnesses decided not to testify out of fear for their safety.

Fascists win through intimidation.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

They got marriage licenses, making them legally married. If the state ceased to exist tomorrow, I'd still have a marriage. Would those couples say the same?

The paper had an editorial, of course. This is how it starts:

When the evidence for and against Proposition 8 is examined in detail, it becomes obvious just how little reason there was to single out gay and lesbian couples as the only ones to be barred from marrying.

They weren't barred from getting marriage licenses. Everyone, gay or straight, was unable to get a marriage license if they were currently married or trying to obtain one with someone of the same sex or of close relation.

That kind of examination never took place during the bitter, frenzied 2008 campaign on the initiative.

No, nobody ever considered the issue seriously until Walker. Nope.

Walker's opinion was based on the evidence presented during the trial — including the testimony of witnesses who supported the ban on same-sex marriage.

People whining about their feelings is evidence only of their own inability to deal with reality.

They tried to defend it as rational by arguing that it would protect traditional marriage from harm, that children are better off when raised by a mother and father, and that marriage exists for "responsible procreation."

Those arguments fell apart when a witness in favor of Proposition 8 could articulate no ways in which same-sex marriage would affect heterosexual marriages.

Great. So my kids don't need me, then, and it won't harm society at all if I go around making babies out of wedlock, right? Oh, and I'm sure the Los Angeles Times will be just fine with me printing and distributing my own copies of the paper. I mean, how does it hurt the copies they are distributing?

Even if heterosexual couples make better parents - and there is ample evidence that this isn't so - society does not try to strip marriage rights from the ones who make bad parents. Nor does society forbid the marriages of the many heterosexual couples who either cannot or choose not to have children.

They fail to grasp the basic concept. It isn't that all bride+groom pairings will naturally make babies. It is that they are the ONLY KIND (man-woman) that CAN. We know this will not happen with two women or two men. THIS is where the state's greatest interest is, because children are new citizens who are brought into a situation to which they didn't consent. It isn't that a straight man in inherently better at parenting than a gay man. It is that only a bride-groom pairing can give children one parent, role model, and advocate from both of the two sexes that comprise all of society. Even gay kids will grow up to deal with both men and women. Gender differences are not meaningless. If they were, gay people could be happy being with someone of the opposite sex.

But no matter what happens, the trial in San Francisco delivered an unforgettable lesson in what Proposition 8 and same-sex marriage really mean.

Prop 8 meant simply that Californians understood that marriage unites the sexes, and that is where the state's interest was greatest. SSM means we have lost our separation of powers and that fringe activists rule the rest of us based on their feelings.

From now on, it will be harder for opponents of same-sex unions to continue mouthing canards.

You know, because the marriage neutering advocates have never put forth bad arguments.

Lee Romney and Anna Gorman had an article about reactions to the verdict. It started out with a sympathetic portrayal of a same-sex couple.

Walker ruled that the initiative denied marriage to homosexuals for no rational reason and ordered the state to stop enforcing the ban, although he stayed the ruling until Friday.

The article goes on to describe celebratory gatherings, being very careful not to mention the aspects that were there but would make marriage neutering advocates look like they were out of the mainstream. I wonder if they'd treat a rally for the marriage amendment the same way?

On a riser above Castro Street, John Lewis and his partner Stuart Gaffney led the crowd in chanting "Marriage is a Basic Civil Right."

I agree that freedom of association is. But I think it deeply flawed and in obvious contradiction to the Constitution that basic rights are things created out of thin air by judges. We are born with our rights.

Amber Weiss, 33 and pregnant, and her wife Sharon Papo, 31, climbed up on a riser above Castro Street with Cantor Jewlia Eisenberg and renewed their vows.

Of course, the article ignores the elephant in the room - who is the father? We know those two did not conceive that child on their own.

As the procession neared City Hall at 7 p.m. for yet another rally, the marchers sang a Burt Bacharach tune: "What the world needs now is love sweet love. No not just for some but for everyone."

Yes, they were incapable of loving without a state license. Yup.

These stories always find the couples that has been together the longest, and never delves into what exactly that commitment has entailed, thus ignoring the realities of the differences. Are there same sex-couples who are together for scores of years and never engage in sex-like behavior with others? Sure. There has to be a few. But the articles never quote any as claiming that.

The paper's "Q & A" by Rong-Gong Lin II didn't start out so bad, but in always putting the questions before the answers, they showed their bigotry because that implies that questions are superior, and never pairing questions with questions and answers with answers, those haters: "A hearing Friday will weigh whether same-sex couples can marry while the case is under appeal. Schwarzenegger praised the ruling, and polls show the public growing more accepting of gay marriage."

The judge said the state's role in overseeing marriage has nothing to do with advancing procreation.

Then the state shouldn't be involved at all. I mean really - why do we allow the state to get involved in voluntary personal relationships? And can we sue people who ask couples, when they get married, "So when are you going to have children?" They are falsely linking procreation to marriage, after all.

Q: Did the judge find that domestic partnerships were an adequate arrangement for gay unions?

A: No. The judge said marriage offers a "culturally superior status compared to a domestic partnership," which he called a "substitute and inferior institution."

Culturally superior is not legally superior. I thought his court was supposed to be a Court of Law, not a Court of Culture. So what happens if bride+groom couples continue to be "culturally superior"? Will the court be forced to handicap such unions out of a need for equality?

Columnist Tim Rutten gave his opinion.

The crux of Vaughn's ruling is that "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples."

By this reasoning, any law that defines something must mean that things that fall outside that definition are being called inferior.

Both sides had signaled in advance their intention to appeal if the decision went against them. Proposition 8's supporters, in fact, already have asked Walker to stay his ruling, which immediately restores marriage equality, pending a decision by the appellate court.

Marriage equality? Not for bigamists. In writing about same-sex couples, especially ones in custody of children, he writes:

Each one of those families — for that is what they are in fact, if not always in law — is a walking, breathing rebuttal to the quasi-sociological arguments made by Proposition 8's defenders in federal court.

Au contraire. Each one demonstrates that same-sex couples can't provide children with both a mother and a father.

Californians with open eyes can look around and see the case for marriage equality being made every day in thousands of their neighbors' homes.

And the ones who see the natural differences and the deprivation of a mother or father to the children had better shut up, right? He goes on to cite fauxmentum:

Most younger Americans, regardless of region, race, ethnicity or religion, consider same-sex marriage a civil rights issue and support it. It's no comfort to gay and lesbians currently denied the right to marry, but the demographic truth is that time alone will vindicate their struggle for equality.

Getting a marriage license will not make same-sex couples equal to bride+groom couples. File your complaints with nature.

If the 9th Circuit's ultimate ruling does not rely on a broad reading of the 14th Amendment but instead focuses on some language or issue peculiar to Proposition 8 or the California Constitution, some analysts think the Supreme Court might decline to review the decision.

That would be interesting, seeing as how the California Supreme Court already decided that version of case, and the federal case relied on a broad reading of the 14th Amendment. That would be "heads I win, tails you lose", changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Patt Morrison gave her opinion. She thinks it is wrong to question Walker's ability to be impartial based on his own homosexuality. After all, he once ruled that the Gay Olympics couldn't not engage in copyright infringement. Wow.

Paul Thornton wasn't happy with President Obama's response.

In short, nothing's changed: The president is opposed to Proposition 8 on the grounds that it's divisive and mean-spirited, but he's still not in favor of gay marriage.

It's called politics. It is funny - a lot of supporters of Obama and others that lean to the Left count on their candidate to be lying about his or her position. Many of Obama's supporters believe Obama is lying about his position, and they like that, as long as it gets him elected. They think he will actually act according to their desires, and indications are that he will.

Axelrod noted that Obama had opposed Proposition 8 all along.

"The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time — he felt it was divisive and mean-spirited," he said, adding that Obama believes that governing marriage is "an issue for the states."

How is it mean spirited to say that marriage is between a man and a woman? The President has said so himself.

Look, even the most uncompromising supporters of marriage equality can appreciate the political implications for Obama and the worried congressional Democrats in November. But there's something especially insincere about the president's awkward attempt to endear himself -- or at least try to save face with -- the two sides in this debate, whose positions have practically no overlap.

Even if the pro-Proposition 8 side's arguments against gay marriage are dishonest (Walker devotes much of his decision to explaining why), at least they're speaking truthfully about their moral views on same-sex nuptials. I can't confidently say the same for Obama.

Maura Dolan and Carol J. Williams had another article, "Gay marriage ruling anchored in factual findings".

As lawyers last year prepared for the federal case that would challenge California's ban on gay marriage, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker told both sides that he saw his role as a finder of facts who could produce a record that would inform higher courts grappling with constitutional matters.

Well he didn't limit himself to that, did he?

The ruling he released Wednesday declaring the ban unconstitutional reflected that inclination. Although other rulings on gay marriage have emphasized legal theory, Walker's 136-page decision leaned heavily on findings of fact based on the testimony he heard during a 13-day trial in January.

Then...

At least some legal analysts believe that Walker fashioned his order to force judges on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the practical reality of gay unions, rather than treating them as a legal abstraction.

Polygamist unions are a practical reality, too.

But at least some analysts said Walker did not go far enough in trying to allay concerns [SCOTUS Justice] Kennedy may have about same-sex marriage.

One instance of "Hey, there's a possibility SCOTUS will counter Walker."

"If you were really trying to be sensitive to Justice Kennedy, you would not be so quick to dismiss the idea of incrementalism," the belief the law should evolve slowly as a nation's views develop, said UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar. "Kennedy is very sensitive to trends."

All but five states and the District of Columbia ban same-sex marriage, and the San Francisco jurist's ruling made only an oblique mention that California was part of the national majority on the marriage question, Amar said.

By contrast, Kennedy's previous gay rights rulings overturned laws that already had become "outliers," Amar said. Virtually no states still enforced criminal sodomy laws at the time Kennedy invalidated Texas' statute, for example.

Maeve Reston reported on what the major candidates in California had to say, in "Gay marriage a minor issue in major races".

Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman oppose U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker's ruling overturning California's ban on gay marriage; Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer support it.

But none of the four showed much interest in talking about gay marriage a day after the landmark ruling.

And...

The two Republicans at the top of the ticket, who both supported the gay marriage ban known as Proposition 8, released muted statements this week calling the federal judge's ruling one step in a long process.

And...

With voters so closely divided over the issue of gay marriage in California, several political observers said the candidates' reserved tone this week was not surprising. The ballot measure banning same-sex marriage was narrowly approved by 52.3% of California voters in 2008.

And...

Professor Fiorina said gay marriage is particularly thorny because it splits the base of both parties. While social conservatives were dominant players in the Republican primary campaigns, Whitman and Fiorina must also hold more moderate Republicans — particularly those in Silicon Valley who favor gay marriage, he said.

Brown and Boxer are in favor of judicial fiat neutering marriage. Just thought I would remind you.

A group called the Courage Campaign has demanded that Fiorina repudiate the National Organization for Marriage, which ran ads criticizing her primary opponent for supporting gay marriage and plans independent expenditures on her behalf this fall.

The paper printed some letters.

Charley Lang of Los Angeles, professor of psychology at Antioch University Los Angeles, wrote:

Later I closed the class I was teaching with the news that I was headed out to celebrate the Proposition 8 ruling. When one of my students asked, "Are you getting married?" and I replied, "I was actually proposed to this afternoon," the class burst into a spontaneous wave of applause. That surprised me a little.

What would you expect people who are relying on you to grade them would do? Psych students can be booted for expressing anything perceived as less than supportive of homosexual behavior.

Joseph S. David of Brea:

I believe in having more than one wife. My girlfriends are willing to live with me as my wives in total commitment for life.

So I take great hope, following Walker's ruling, that my future wives and I will soon enjoy the full panoply of equal protection under the law, with the outdated proscription of polygamy finally being ruled unconstitutional.

David Graham-Caso of Los Angeles, vice president of communications, Los Angeles County Young Democrats, makes it clear that legal changes aren't their ultimate goal here.

While we celebrate this decision, young progressives understand that our work is not done.

He's be writing this even if this was a SCOTUS decision.

This ruling is not just about marriage; it is about equality. True equality will require a revolution in the way we think.

Right - we'll have to suppress our natural inclinations to notice the difference between men and women, and the pairing them as opposed to excluding one of them from a relationship.

Maura Dolan reported more recently on the blog.

The federal judge who overturned California’s ban on gay marriage this week will receive written arguments Friday from attorneys on both sides of the case over whether he should continue a stay of his ruling until the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals can hear the case.

And she wrote another entry.

In a motion filed on the eve of Walker’s decision to overturn the marriage ban...ballot measure...the measure...the legality of gay marriages...the marriage ban...

And...

The anti-gay marriage request also cited testimony by Sandra Stier, one of the four challengers of Proposition 8, that she and her partner did not marry during the six months when same-sex nuptials were legal in California because they feared the marriage might be invalidated later.

I see just a little too much reliance on the government in some of the statements I've been reading. Want to commit to someone? Go ahead! The state did not create marriage, but it looks like it may create SSM.

Maura Dolan blogged again, with "Governor also urges resumption of gay weddings".

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged a federal judge Friday to permit same-sex weddings to resume immediately, arguing that California is well-equipped to perform gay nuptials.

"As the Court has pointed out, California has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples without suffering any resulting harm," Schwarzenegger's office said in written arguments to U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker.

This has been repeated over and over again. This is based on the assumption that dilution of meaning is not harm.

The sponsors of Proposition 8 have argued that permitting gay nuptials now would be an administrative hardship for the state because higher courts could later invalidate the marriages.

And, finally, another blog entry from Maura Dolan.

Top state officials and supporters of same-sex marriage urged a federal judge Friday to permit gay nuptials to resume immediately while opponents countered that the marriages would be clouded by uncertainty.

And...

On the other side, lawyers for Proposition 8’s sponsors said that gay marriages conducted in California before the U.S. Supreme Court has the last word would be tainted by instability and confusion.

Conditioning, anyone?