Next he'll pressure Ban deodorant to become 'Fundamental Right To Freshness' stick
In a piece in which he decries the way the media covered the Maryland Court of Appeals recent decision that there is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex, longtime 'mo foe Robert Knight says this:
Most liberal media outlets reacted in similar fashion to Tuesday’s major Maryland Court of Appeals ruling, which upholds the state’s law defining marriage as one man-one woman. They presented it through the lavender lens of homosexual activism.
CBS News’ Web site ran this headline:
Maryland Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban
Calling the law a “gay marriage ban” is as misleading as describing it as a “ban on polygamous marriage,” or a “ban on incestuous marriage” or perhaps a “ban on interspecies marriage.” For the record, the Court in Conaway vs. Deane notes that neither the 1973 law nor the legislative debate at the time address “sexual orientation” nor any “gay” issue. All the law does is reiterate the fundamental nature of marriage for legal purposes.
To liberal journalists, however, a law merely acknowledging the timeless definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is unacceptable. Such a law must be depicted only as a negative, as a ban rather than an affirmation.
Now, clearly Mr. Knight's just trying to link gay marriage with polygamy, incest, and man-dog sex in making his comments regarding the legal recognition of concepts. Yet unintimidated and perhaps even emboldened by his tactic, we will take the bait and respond:
Fictional Court Upholds Polygamous Marriage Ban
Fictional Court Upholds Incestuous Marriage Ban
Fictional Court Upholds Interspecies Marriage Ban
You know what? All of the above would be completely acceptable headlines for stories in which a court decided that the various plaintiffs do not have the constitutional right to marry the partner (or partners) they've chosen. That's because under state and federal law, we all are, in fact, legally prevented from multi-partnered, sister-loving, or frog-f***ing marriage! If even one person is seeking such a marriage (especially if specific laws are passed to prevent such unions), then that person or persons is, in fact, BANNED. Just like interracial couples were once banned from nuptials, women and 18 year olds were once banned from voting, and African-Americans were once banned from freedom. If someone is seeking a concept and others say "HELL TO THE NO!," then they are shut out, prohibited, barred, and yes -- BANNED. And it doesn't matter how "fundamental," long-held, or righteous the restrictive definition that keeps them excluded.
Now, on the flip side, it's also kosher to use Mr. Knight's terminology, which is that the court upheld the state’s law defining marriage as one man-one woman. They did, that's true. So if a media outlet was to use such wording, we wouldn't have a problem. That's because we are not children.
What's so annoying about Mr. Knight's attempts to make the CBS News headline look like "liberal bias" is that it is his team that uses duplicitous, misleading code-wording in every step of their marriage battles. THEY are the ones who take affirmations and make them look negative! They call themselves "pro-marriage," even though they are fighting to deny thousands from the concept. They says gays are "attacking" marriage, as if leagally-recognized same-sex monogamy is going to have one bit of effect on anyone's heterosexual coupling. They call their movement "pro-family," even though their actions and rhetoric severely damage millions of gay-inclusive ones. And yet one of this movement's loudest voices, Robert Knight, wants to split hairs and go after the media for saying gays are banned from marriage? Well call us liberal, militant, agenda-laden activists if you wish, but we're gonna have to call shenanigans! Because somehow we have a hard time viewing our government official's statement of, "I'm sorry but under state law I cannot issue you a marriage certificate," as simply them "reiterating the fundamental nature of marriage for legal purposes." We feel that we have more than made our case that such "fundamental" definitions are and have always been narrow, inaccurate, and unequal. And we, as tax-paying Americans deserving of freedom, are DEMANDING that the ban be lifted!!!!!!!!!!!
comments powered by Disqus