So-Called News Bans Accurate Reporting on Prop 8

I wrote a little about the latest Proposition 8 news yesterday, but now there’s much more coverage. Dan Levine has the Reuters coverage, which is full of erroneous language such as referring to the amendment as a "gay marriage ban". But then so is most major media coverage. It is too bad that more people in the news media aren't as sharp and able to put aside their own biases as Jill Stewart.

California voters banned same sex weddings in 2008 by approving so-called Proposition 8.

"So-called"? Huh? Really, that is what it was on the ballot. Then it became an amendment to the state constitution. And if you read it, it does not ban any ceremony at all. Go ahead, Mr. Levine. Go have a "wedding" with some other guy today. Or two. Nobody will arrest you.

In an order released on Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asked the Supreme Court of California whether initiative supporters have the authority to defend a ballot measure when public officials refuse to do so.

The 9th Circuit said it was not clear whether the governor may "effectively veto" Prop 8 by refusing to defend it, since he does not have the power to strike down Prop 8 directly.

If initiative supporters aren't allowed to defend a voter-approved measure, isn't the basic system compromised? How can voters be allowed to place something on the ballot and vote to adopt it - amending their constitution - and not be allowed to defend that amendment from challenge in court?

Ted Olson, an attorney for two couples challenging Prop 8, said they would renew their arguments that ProtectMarriage.com does not have the legal right to pursue an appeal.

"We see no good side whatsoever for requiring citizens in California essentially to drink out of different drinking fountains," Olson said.

Did Olson really fail to address the actual issue at hand, or did the reporter just choose the wrong quote? It is as though Olson is saying, “We don't need due process, just my opinions." And yes, people should have to drink out of different fountains if they are requesting the facility provide a different drink. Assuming homosexual behavior is a necessary expression of an immutable personal characteristic, what the marriage neutering advocates are doing is akin to lactose intolerant people demanding that a milk-dispensing nozzle dispense water instead of milk, when a vast majority of people present drink milk, and most have insisted the nozzle continue to dispense milk. They are even more batty than someone who would go into a government building's cafeteria that allows customers to refill their own soft-drinks and then complain at the counter that having different nozzles for Coke and unsweetened iced tea is hateful and an unconstitutional imposition of "separate but (un)equal".

The AFP coverage is mostly more of the same.

The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sent the question back to California's Supreme Court, asking it to rule on whether anti gay marriage campaigners have the right to challenge a decision last year legalizing gay unions.

"Gay unions" have long been legalized in California. In addition, for many years now, two people of the same-sex have been able to get a state domestic partnership, which treats them as though they are spouses. Can the news media please do the slightest bit of research and use accurate phraseology? This isn't about "legalizing gay unions". It is about whether or not the people of California are allowed to call bride+groom pairings "marriage" and only license those pairing as marriage, of if a court can force the people of California to extend that terminology and licensing to certain other kinds of pairings.

Supporters of so-called Prop 8 -- a 2008 referendum measure which banned gay marriage in California -- took their fight to the US federal court last month, in the latest stage of a legal saga that could have national implications.

Again with the "so-called" and "banned gay marriage". Is there one bitter person in a basement pulling the strings at the various news associations, or what?

Currently only the states of Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, as well as the US capital Washington, recognize gay marriage.

Wrong. They recognize same-sex unions as marriage. There is no proof required that any of the participants are gay.

Carol J. Williams notes on the LATimes.com blog that Imperial County was denied standing.

Imperial County's Board of Supervisors and deputy clerk had filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the Proposition 8 proponents as well, arguing that county officials had a vested interest in the issue of whether the law passed by a 52% majority of voters in 2008 should be enforced. The appeals court said marriage laws are a state, not a county, matter.

Yeah, well they are also a state and not federal matter, but the federal courts have gotten involved anyway, now haven't they?

And yes, the title of this entry is deliberately a mirror of what the news media is doing.