Traditional Marriage Rallies Ignored by Media

Traditional Marriage Rallies Ignored by Media

By Warner Todd Huston (Bio | Archive)
June 15, 2009 - 01:43 ET

On June 9 a rally that saw thousands of participants in support of traditional marriage assembled at Albany, New York, the state capitol. One month earlier, a similar rally was held in Midtown Manhattan that also saw thousands in attendance. And in neither case was there much by the way of media coverage.

A Google search of the words marriage rally in New York June 9 turns up many hits on the story. But almost all of them are from blogs as opposed to traditional media sources, though the Village Voice covered the May rally in Manhattan.

A blog named Beetle Blogger has a nice series of photos showing the big crowd that the June 9 event brought out.

Here is one of them:

The events were sponsored by New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, which itself has found round criticism in lefty blogs. But, isn't this just the point? The rallies that saw thousands attend, and the discussion of all the issues, pro and con, that are connected with the rallies are being hashed out in blogs, but not in the Old Media. With all this discussion going on, wouldn't it seem that the media might give it a line or two?

So, why has the media practically ignored the size of these rallies and all the discussion over those attending, those in support, and those opposed? It is an interesting question, no?

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

WTH... Shhhh now...this

June 15, 2009 - 01:54 ET by bigtimer

WTH...

Shhhh now...this information is suppose to remain 'mum'.

There is only one point of view don't you know that...the leftists...simple as that, otherwise when they say 'most people say' they can avoid this...you know, the truth....and it hurts the left...like when the sun rises...they need to get back in their crypts...pronto.

I just shake my head anymore and thank goodness for people like you who give us out here the real story.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

This issue in particular

June 15, 2009 - 05:24 ET by HockeyKid

This issue in particular makes 'em run for cover. How much coverage did they give that lesbian couple who led the campaign for queer marriage in Massachusetts? Volumes. And how much coverage did they give to the same couple's "divorce" 4 years later? Zilch. Can't risk having the PC bubble burst by something so dangerous as truth.

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

Why did the government become involved in marriage?

June 15, 2009 - 04:47 ET by Retired Geek

Modern Marriage started in 1753 in England and Wales and it was named the Marriage Act of 1753 or Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act and it called for the couple to be at least 21 years old and if they weren't then they needed the consent of the parent.

Before this law the couple could be as young as seven years old and get married.

They also had to get married in a church or the marriage wouldn't be legal.

The original Marriage Act was the result of the many orphans being abandoned and becoming a burden on society.

The Marriage contract made men responsible for their children relieving society from the financial burden of raising those children and placing it where it belonged.

'Collectivists' always want to take the 'Bad Decisions' and actions of individuals and place the results of those bad actions and decisions on othe American Citizens in the name of 'Sacrifice For The Common Good'.

The Marriage act NEVER had anything to do with sexual preferences but rather the protection of children - which Homosexuals cannot have by definition.

Homosexuals want the rights and benefits extended to those who conceive and bear children even though they are incapable of procreation.

Society by law, decided to extend benefits to the blind.

Analogous to what Homosexuals want by 'Homosexual Marriage' is for a sighted citizen to receive the same rights as someone who is blind.

Homosexuals immediately respond by citing instances where a man and woman are married that are incapable of procreation, because of medical issues.

Present laws do NOT require a medical exam to prove the ability of a couple to procreate before marriage which of course be a violation of privacy rights.

Every American Citizen has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as any other American Citizen.

Homosexuals want the

June 15, 2009 - 10:06 ET by moderncommentaries83

Homosexuals want the rights and benefits extended to those who conceive
and bear children even though they are incapable of procreation.

At first, I was going to correct you on this, but then I saw you did so later on, when you said:

Homosexuals immediately respond by citing instances where a man and
woman are married that are incapable of procreation, because of medical
issues.

Because this goes beyond just the ability to procreate. Young children can procreate, but we don't encourage 10-year-olds to marry.

A traditional, male/female marriage is not only beneficial for children, but for men and women. Financially, emotionally, physically it benefits them all around - with or without the ability to have children.

And, with the exception of genetic/natural biological infertility (something few people willingly choose for themselves) a lot of the decline in marriage and, indeed, the thing that opened the door for the "but what about heterosexual couples that contracept and choose not to have kids" argument in supporting gay marriage, comes from our culture's contraceptive mentality.

People don't like it when contraception is brought up, but it's caused a great deal of harm to marriage (more infidelity, divorce, disrespect for women and children) and the traditional family. It's also bad for the environment, introducing synthetic hormones into waterways and affecting wildlife and even humans.

Ultimately, a lot of the liberal agenda is about forcing people to accept and tolerate behaviors that go against not only social norms but natural law, about "normalizing" behavior (I want to emphasize behavior) that is not normal. About helping people who, ultimately, can't accept themselves, be accepted by others and especially those who have a moral objection to certain behaviors (like homosexual behavior).

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam