The Washington Post displayed its liberal bias in a February 5th story headlined, “Massachusetts Court Backs Gay Marriage.” Notice that there were no quotation marks around the word “marriage.” The headline over the Washington Times story, “Court approves homosexual ‘Marriages,” put quotes around the word “marriages.” That’s the way it should be, if one practiced objective and accurate journalism. After all, the use of the term “marriage” to apply to homosexuals living together is not a fact anywhere in the United States today. It is a term that the homosexuals want to use, in the same way they appropriated the term “gay” for themselves. “Gay” used to mean happy and carefree.
In a recent article, George Weigel of the Ethics and Public Policy Center explained why this battle over words is so important. “It’s not an accident that the proponents of ‘gay marriage’ want to claim the word ‘marriage,'” he writes. “Defending the right meaning of words is more than an exercise in semantics; it’s a defense of a public moral culture which recognizes that there are moral truths built into the human condition. One of those truths is that ‘marriage’?an institution millennia older than the modern state?is ‘exclusively a union of one man and one woman.’ The law’s recognition of that truth is no small thing.” Weigel notes that one of the ways communism tried to destroy civil society and democratic culture was through word games such as this. Consequently, a communist dictatorship was a “people’s democracy.”
Our major newspapers, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, are in the homosexual camp. Even before any state body acted to approve homosexual “civil unions” or “marriages,” these papers had run announcements for them. They did this to comply with demands from the pressure group that calls itself the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). The group openly states that the papers decided to accommodate the homosexual lobby after leaders of GLAAD met with top editors and officials of the two news organizations.
The Post announcement of a homosexual “marriage” was more curious than most. Its Weddings section featured the wedding announcement of nationally syndicated columnist Deb Price and her “partner,” Joyce Murdoch-both of them former editors of the Post. And they had been “married” in Canada.
To its credit, the Washington Times recognizes that it cannot label such relationships as “marriages.” And it cannot, consistent with good journalism, use the term “homosexual marriage” without putting the word “marriage” in quotes. Ironically, however, the Times publishes a weekly column by Andrew Sullivan, an open homosexual who regularly promotes so-called “gay marriages.”
In a recent column, for example, he hailed the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court to mandate homosexual “marriages” without a vote of the people. And he compared homosexuals’ campaign for “marriage” to blacks battling for civil rights. Such a comparison is designed to silence and intimidate supporters of traditional values by suggesting that they are bigots.