At Get Religion, "The Mormons are coming!", taking issue with aspects of a Washington Post article of the same name. I would summarize the general problem in simpler terms: some journalists in the mainstream press believe their own propaganda, which they use to frame most stories and to select friendly facts. Let's look at an example from the Get Religion post, then hit the larger issue of what the post reveals about the evolving use of Mormonism as a symbol.
Is widepsread legal recognition of gay marriage inevitable? The press certainly thinks so, and typically assumes this view as fact when reporting. Here is the critique from the GR post:
While the number of states legalizing same-sex marriage is slowly increasing, so is the number of states banning it. California, Arizona and Florida were the last three -- bringing the total to some 30 -- states to ban it. They did so just this past November.
And is the disparity narrow and shrinking? What about the Gallup poll that came out earlier this week showing that Americans are not becoming more accepting of same-sex unions? In May 2007, 53 percent opposed same-sex marriage and now 57 percent oppose. Two years ago, 46 percent supported same-sex marriage and now only 40 percent do according to the poll.
The media really like to run with the narrative that same-sex marriage is inevitable. They have repeated it incessantly. But is it true?
Is it true? If you are reporting facts, that question makes sense. If you are just broadcasting opinions, it doesn't. The "same-sex marriage is inevitable" claim, as a factual assertion, is obviously false, yet the media, as noted in the Get Religion piece, likes to "run with the narrative." Don't let facts interfere with the preferred narrative.
The larger issue in the post and the article is the evolving use of Mormonism as a symbol. Prop 8 opponents and same-sex marriage supporters are depicting the LDS Church as a mean, hateful organization that "stole our rights." Those behind the new PR campaign using the slogan "The Mormons are coming!" seem to think that particular depiction of Mormonism (1) is credible enough to be effective; and (2) is going to resonate with a lot of voters.
That's a risky strategy. The Washington Post article noted, "The strategy carries risks for a movement grounded in the concept of tolerance." Another press faux pas: the movement claims to be grounded in tolerance, and reporters accept that claim at face value, but most people aren't that naive. The fact that half of the newspapers asked to run the ads rejected them ought to be a sign that there's something wrong with the claim. The ads weren't rejected because they were too tolerant. As noted in the Get Religion post:
I'm extremely surprised that in the story we don't hear from anyone pointing out that going after Mormons for their opposition to same-sex marriage might backfire big time, to put it mildly. There's also no discussion of some of the anti-Mormon protests and vandalism that erupted following California's Proposition 8 vote.
The bottom line: the next time same-sex marriage is on the ballot, a debate on the meaning of Mormonism might be part of the campaign.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Your Name (June 23, 2009 4:47 PM)
"You simply do not (will not) understand: It. Should. Never. Have. Been. On. The. Ballot. In. The. First. Place.
Or, should we get to vote on your rights next?"
Yes it should have. It was. It passed. And what exactly are you suggesting to vote on with regard to "your rights"? Does this refer to the rights of *anyone* that opposes same-sex marriage? Or just to Mormons? And what *rights* do you think would be vulnerable? How about the right of Mormons to vote in elections, to own property, to live? Voting might be a little too efficient though. Maybe we could just rustle up a mob, paint our faces black, kill their leaders and run them out of the county or even the country? That sounds familiar. More to the point, how about we vote to regulate the marriage practices of Mormons? I think it's an interesting case study here: when Mormon's were faced with opposition to their peculiar marriage practices, they appealed as far as they could. When appeals failed, they abandoned these practices (though it took a few years) and followed the law. I'm not advocating a return of these practices, but the approach to their marriage conundrum is worth noting.
Before you get too huffy,
(finishing the thought) Before you get too huffy, I realize there are huge differences between outdated LDS marriage practices and same-sex marriage. But from the perspective that both of these are controversial departures from conventional practices, the comparisons in terms of pursuit of legal acceptance are still valid.
Your Name (June 23, 2009 5:26 PM):
"Like blacks, gay people are still beaten up, raped and killed for no other reason than they're gay. etc. etc..."
And all of those things are *still* illegal. But you don't *have* to, by law, go to a bar for "your people". And it is a real tragedy that some gays and lesbians are kicked out of their families because of their embracing of (or struggle with) their same-sex attraction. I won't make excuses for violence or unfair treatment against anyone, and while this does garner sympathy, it does little to garner support for the use of the word "marriage" to describe committed lifelong same-sex relationships.
In a surprising twist of irony, thanks for bringing up "Eightmaps". In confirms exactly Dave's later thought about proponents of same-sex marriage "equating themselves with civil rights crusaders while acting like people who would burn crosses in your front yard." Now we know where to send the rest of the poison pens letters.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/localnews/columnists/jfloyd/stories/063009dnmetfloyd.3bddb2c.html
A kid was just about killed by police in a raid of a gay bar. Apparently, you can still beat the crap out of someone if they are gay, without it being illegal. Big difference between that and someone writing fifty dollars worth of grafitti on a building, or holding a protest. Oh, and a gay soldier was just killed in San Diego. Yeah.
PI,
"Yes it should have. It was. It passed."
Please explain why some people's rights should be put to a vote, rather than just stating your opinion that "it should have".
"And what exactly are you suggesting to vote on with regard to "your rights"? Does this refer to the rights of *anyone* that opposes same-sex marriage? Or just to Mormons? And what *rights* do you think would be vulnerable? How about the right of Mormons to vote in elections, to own property, to live?"
California law is such that any measure may be put on a ballot if enough 'signatures' are garnered. So, in effect, that actually does mean that all of your list items actually could be put to a vote. That is why it is unjust. Tell us who's next? If it ain't the Mormons, maybe it will be the right to marry someone of another race or religion.
It is relatively simple to change the State's Constitution (it's been done more than 500 times) - and therein lies the problem.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.