In case you weren’t sure, the Albany Times Union firmly supports the legalization of gay marriage in New York, and they don’t care if they have to skew facts to prove it.The front page headline itself screams of what the paper is trying to push:
GOP Votes for Gay Marriage?The sub-headline reads:
After reading the article however, one has to wonder how the reporter, Irene Jay Liu, could possibly have concluded that Republicans breaking rank was the heart of the story.
Some GOP senators may break ranks to back a bill for same-sex marriage in New York
What is the supporting evidence behind the possibility of Republicans switching sides?Nothing more than a comment from Sen. Tom Duane, D-Manhattan, in which he states that (emphasis mine throughout):
‘… he is confident that a bill to legalize same-sex marriage will pass this year, and that it will pass with bipartisan support.’Duane goes on, saying:
Liu apparently believes that an unsubstantiated claim from a lone Democrat who is sponsoring the bill should be the focus of the story. Conveniently glossed over in the argument is the fact that:
‘… he has commitments of support from Republican senators, but wouldn’t name them.’
‘at least four Democratic senators do not support the legalization of gay marriage: Downstate legislator Ruben Diaz Sr. and upstate lawmakers Darrel Aubertine, David Valesky, and William Stachowski have said they would vote against the bill.’So, why is Senator Duane’s statement the focus of the story? Does it hold more weight than this quote?
"The conference has been opposed, and continues to be opposed to this bill," said Scott Reif, a Senate GOP spokesman.Or this one:
"I doubt that the Republicans are going to join the Democrats to pass this now. They are dying for the upstate Democratic senators ... to come out in favor of this," Diaz said.Now, after disseminating the hopeful conjecture of Senator Duane, the confirmed statements of the four Democratic senators, and the insistence of opposition from the GOP spokesman, shouldn’t the headline more justifiably read the following?
Democrats to Vote Against Gay MarriageNo question marks necessary for this version of the headline, for it reads as an accurate statement, which is in stark contrast to the wishful thinking involved with the actual headline.
Then again, when it comes to pushing a liberal agenda in a biased newspaper, wishful thinking will always take precedence over the facts.Not content with using sleight of hand journalism on their readers, the Times Union web site also throws in some links to their previous examples of blatantly one-sided support for the agenda, including…
One of the highlights of the editorial is a comment which claims that because New York does not yet allow gay marriage, it ‘lags behind some other states.’ Four other states to be exact. That is an odd way to interpret a minority view. Would that also mean that 46 out of 50 (53 out of 57 in Obama’s USA) ‘lag behind’ on this legislation? Or perhaps the four states that have legalized gay marriage actually lag behind the majority?Additionally, the editorial adds this support to their argument:
‘the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (is) a rather nasty example of homophobic legislation.’To which one would have to wonder, does the Common Council’s current efforts to circumvent this Act constitute 'a rather nasty example of heterophobic legislation?'
Photo Credit: Joe Epstein / April 6, 2009