The Washington Post has a funny way of covering conservative protests. Take Sunday's protest against "gay marriage," in which black churches have rallied to insist the people vote by referendum instead of letting the D.C. council dictate. The headline is "Both sides mobilize in same-sex marriage." Doesn't the reader assume that means that both sides mobilized.... yesterday? This headline would not happen in a story on a liberal protest.
Post reporter Tim Craig suggests distaste for the protesters in the first few words: "A small but noisy group of protesters, many bused in from churches," rallied Sunday. This would not happen in a story on a liberal protest. Size would almost be irrelevant. (And their transportation wouldn't be a negative.)
Craig counted "about 150 opponents of same-sex marriage" in the second paragraph. Earlier this month, when hard-left protesters rallied outside the White House to get the U.S. out of Afghanistan, the Post waited 25 paragraphs to tell readers only 176 people showed up.
They put that rally on page one, not page one of Metro (where yesterday's protest landed).
Craig added: "Sunday's protesters chanted, 'Let the people vote!' but many participants live in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs." This did not happen when the Post glorified illegal aliens protesting. Their illegal status was irrelevant.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What was that about FoxNews having a perspective?
October 26, 2009 - 08:09 ET by KC Mulville176 protesters get front page coverage because they oppose the war (and the Post approves of that), whereas 150 get pushed back into Metro because they oppose gay marriage (and the Post doesn't approve of that).
I'm reminded of the scene in Annie Hall where Diane Keaton and Woody Allen each evaluate the frequency of sex in their relationship.
ALVY'S PSYCHIATRIST: How often do you sleep together?
ANNIE'S PSYCHIATRIST: Do you have sex often?
ALVY: Hardly ever. Maybe three times a week.
ANNIE: Constantly! I'd say three times a week.
...those eeevil church
October 26, 2009 - 08:11 ET by Red Jeep...those eeevil church people strike again.
Committee on Public Safety
October 26, 2009 - 09:10 ET by forest"On Monday evening, the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary will begin hearing testimony"
They might want to reconsider the name of that committee.
http://www.britannic...
There is no such thing as...
October 26, 2009 - 09:49 ET by stage9"Gay Marriage". Governments nor men can DEFINE marriage. GOD defined marriage. What homosexuals are proposing is NOT marriage but a counterfeit to marriage.
Matthew 19:4-6 [Jesus] answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast [cling] to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh' [create a marriage bond]? So they are no longer two but one flesh [one in marriage]. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
God ordained marriage "from the beginning"; not mankind. Whenever reprobate men "redefine" what God has ordained, it is ALWAYS a counterfeit.
We have been conditioned by the media, by hollywood, and by the government of the United States to accept homosexuality or face ostracization and ridicule, or in places like Pennsylvania and Alberta, Canada where "hate crimes" laws are in effect, face fines and imprisonment for condemning this behavior.
We don't put up a fight because we can think of no good reason for homosexuals NOT to "marry". But unless we abide by a standard higher than our opinions, we will lack the standard to judge what is right and what is wrong.
Jesus, defined marriage the way God intended it. He said: from the beginning [God] made them male and female, and ordained them to "cling to one another" within a marriage covenant. A covenant between whom? Well, the man, the woman, and God.
God is SUPPOSED to be at the center of a marriage in order for it to work. (The high divorce rate is a result of that NOT being the case). That's the point of marriage - that God is at the center - otherwise, why get married? Just cohabitate or sleep around.
God is the standard of right and wrong; not governments, nor media, nor hollywood, nor us. If governments are the standard of right and wrong, then Hitler wasn't wrong in murdering 6 million Jews. If the majority are the standard of right and wrong then the German people weren't wrong when they defended their führer. If we ourselves are the standard of right and wrong, then whose standard wins when we disagree? ("the drive for power?")
WaPo is part of the propaganda machine forcing a godless agenda. They may have good intentions in their crusade to "redefine" marriage (although marriage is not up for redefinition), but your sons and your daughters are the ones who will have to deal with the fallout from their agenda.
Are you ready for that?
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will
be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for
pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner."
— Malcolm Muggeridge
pffft
October 26, 2009 - 11:45 ET by sarainitalyIf homosexuality is wrong, isn't it up to God to judge them at the pearly gates, not a bunch of politicians and judgmental people?
The bible was written by conservative men at a time when there were no moral laws, idols were worshipped, and same sex ran rampant. Why is it that people excuse many outdated bible passages but cling to the one about homosexuality?
Gays aren't destroying Marriage - heterosexuals are. Divorce rates at 50%? That's not the fault of gay people.
Conservatives should embrace gay marriage - Gay people that want to get married want to be faithful, and raise families.
"We have been conditioned by the media, by hollywood, and by the government of the United States to accept homosexuality or face ostracization and ridicule"
That is a sad statement. If your child were born different (how ever you define different) would you want the world to ostracize them? People are born gay. They shouldn't be ridiculed or treated differently. And they shouldn't be treated as second class citizens, or discriminated against.
We don't kill people who work on Sundays, women are no longer silent in church, we don't discriminate against cripples, dwarfs, or people with flat noses, we wear clothes of mixed fibers, we don't banish people who have sex during a woman's cycle, we punish those who use corporal punishment on children, it is no longer legal to kill children who curse their parents, and lots of people love a good lobster, or big helping of peel and eat shrimp...so why is it just homosexuality that is still considered a sin?
I find it quite interesting that in the same week there was an outcry of protest because a priest denied marriage to an interracial couple, and a group of black people set off to deny another group of people the right to marry.
Gay people aren't going away. Isn't it time to love thy neighbor?
Re Pffft
October 26, 2009 - 13:24 ET by slickwillie2001I don't entirely agree with you, but at the same time I wouldn't want to live in a country where one particular denomination's religious code is the law of the land. We tried that in the 1600's and it didn't work out, and it's the reason the middle east is centuries behind the rest of the world.
One problem though is the thin edge of the wedge problem. Even if only some kind of civil union is made legal, doesn't that give the gays the right to demand that a church or temple do the ceremony? That's where religious freedom bumps up against newly created 'rights'.
church vs. state
October 26, 2009 - 13:44 ET by sarainitalyThat's why I don't understand how the government can say people CAN'T get married. I would think the decision would be up to the church. If there is a liberal church that wants to marry gay people, why is the Government allowed to say no? And why is the government allowed to say no to gay weddings, when the whole argument against gay marriage is based on the bible? Shouldn't the bible NOT be a factor in determining whether the government approves of gay marriage? Isn't the government allowing the Christian God to dictate law?
Civil unions are basically weddings without a church aren't they? Like going to the justice of the peace? (I was married in Italy, so I don't know the laws well in the US)
The issue with a lot of people is the right to be considered a spouse wrt adoption, illness and death - legal rights. So, if the Gov allows civil unions, gay couples should be awarded full legal rights as traditional marriages. And they should be legal in all states.
I can see the Catholic church never approving of gay marriage (do they even approve of condoms yet?) But, if you have a church, that will marry you, shouldn't the government recognize that?
Isn't the church wedding basically a symbolic gesture, based on all the legal civil papers? I know people who were married by the justice, and then later held a *wedding* which was just for family or whatever (straight couples) but they were already legally married. Also, I know people who were married via a friend who got their certificate online.
So - what am I missing? I don't think people would have a hard time finding a church that would marry them...or a friend who could get ordained online. Why can't gay people get married, but they can have legal unions (in some states or all?) and why does gov have the power to say no when it involves the Church? (Seriously, what am I missing?)
I can see your point about forcing churches - but I think the church could have the right to say no, but if you have your own minister, who cares? Perhaps they can't be forced to perform the ceremony, but they can be obliged to allow services in the church?
" but at the same time I wouldn't want to live in a country where one particular denomination's religious code is the law of the land" that's what this is, isn't it?
Private gay marriages are
October 26, 2009 - 16:17 ET by deerjerkydavePrivate gay marriages are legal and happen all of the time. Nobody is trying to stop it. The issue is whether government civil unions should be recognized for same sex couples. The problem here is there is a lot of baggage which comes with such a fundamental change to the definition of marriage including the fact that same sex unions would need to be taught in government schools as equally good or healthy to society. This was a major sticking point for many parents here in California during the prop 8 debate who believe in letting people live their own lives but don't want homosexuality forced upon their kids in school.
Homosexuals already have civil unions in California affording them the same rights as married folks. The only reason they went after the definition of the word "marriage" was so they could indoctrinate the younglings in school, feel validation from society, and tear down traditional Christian values.
sad...
October 26, 2009 - 17:15 ET by sarainitalyyea...darn those pesky american human beings wanting equal rights.
it's too bad we ever gave women equal rights, or minorities. things were much better when we considered them less than equal, subservient human beings. all they ever wanted was validation. damn them for tearing down those christian values (you know, the ones that said woman were subserviant, and slaves were ok.)
So, I wonder who'll get the
October 26, 2009 - 09:33 ET by G. MaySo, I wonder who'll get the 'racist' tag in THIS story!
Isn't the opposition to gay issues hate speech?
October 26, 2009 - 11:24 ET by CO2MakerCan a black organization commit "hate speech"? They are Christian, after all, so it's got to be at least partial hate speech (the Christian part, not the black part).
I mean, c'mon, WaPo, get on the right side of your outrage here. (I was going to say "umbrage" instead of "outrage," but it might be taken as a lexically insensitive term.)
Gay marriage is like those
October 26, 2009 - 15:47 ET by RR GOPGay marriage is like those of us who worked hard and followed the rules in high school, but received the same exact diploma as delinquents who sat in the back of the classroom throwing paper wads and making farting noises (or the real thing) for four years.
There's enough sham hetero marriages out there without adding the "I can't emotionally handle the opposite sex-give me my anti-depressants" crowd who want to cheapen our institution of marriage to suit their own egos and to lash out at the heteros who never really wanted to go to bed with them anyway.
I suppose next is the push to allow Satan Worshipers to become ordained Catholic Priests and send conscientious objectors to West Point so they can command peacetime armies only.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.