« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
08/01/2008
Yea Tony? That's how he put it? Really? Gee, if only there was a way we could see the original article...
"Opponents of same-sex marriage say that as couples return home with marriage licenses, it will impose Massachusetts' liberal values on unwilling states."
The above is a quote from the Boston Globe. It doesn't take a great scholar to realize that the writer of the line, Michael Levenson, is simply acknowledging the opposition's argument. That is, after all, a key to balanced reporting.
Well now check this out. Here is how Family Research Council head Tony Perkins is today presenting the above line in his daily "Washington Update" column:
"Although 46 states outlaw counterfeit marriage in some form, the 23 without constitutional amendments will be most vulnerable to the legal challenges this law is certain to bring in other states. As a writer for the Boston Globe puts it, '...[This repeal] will impose Massachusetts' liberal values on unwilling states.'"
Ya see what he did? Tony has redressed the line so that it sounds like Mr. Levenson is stating the same-sex marriage opponents' rhetorical argument as fact! It is an obvious attempt to mislead his readers into believing that the sorts of hyperbolic arguments in which FRC routinely traffics have mainstream support. What was actually benign reporting, Tony has twisted so that it instead sounds like loaded editorializing.
It might seem like a little thing. But this nonstop parade of "little things," which are par for the "pro-family" course, are what muddy this debate so damn much!
Out of Bounds with Same-Sex 'Marriage' [FRC Wash. Update]
Same-sex couples applaud repeal [Boston Globe]
Your thoughts
I like to call that the "indirect referencing of a disreputable source." It is usually done to add some semblance of credibility to a source which has no credibility. These guys (and some others) do it all the time.
And, in this case, he is probably indirectly referencing himself - which speaks volumes as it suggests that he considers (or at least acknowledges) himself to be disreputable and lacking credibility.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Aug 1, 2008 5:22:03 PM
I'm going to have to slightly disagree in this particular case, Dick. The B. Globe story is perfectly fine, reputable and credible. Tony's just twisted the wording.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Aug 1, 2008 6:09:50 PM
I guess I wasn't very clear. The globe story as a source is perfectly reputable. But the story references a source that is less than reputable when when discussing the "pro-family" groups claim.
That disreputable source is more than likely Perkins himself. But Perkins can indirectly reference himself through the Globe story, and not attribute the claim to himself, thereby casting it (himself) as if it (he) is credible.
No one will listen to what Perkins says (unless they have already drank the Kool-Aid), but by indirectly referencing himself he is able to disguise the true source of the claim and pass it off as if it came from a credible source.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Aug 1, 2008 7:21:02 PM
Gotcha, Dick.
BTW, I wanted to thank you for your consistent and thoughtful comments. You often put out great food for thought.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Aug 1, 2008 7:24:41 PM
That is the very definition of "begging the question".
Posted by: Zeke | Aug 1, 2008 11:35:32 PM
I cannot stand when Tony and his ilk refer to same-sex marriage as "counterfeit marriage." When something - such as money - is counterfeit, it is illegal. Last I checked, the same-sex marriage licenses that were issued offer the same legal rights as those issued to opposite-sex couples.
Additionally, same-sex marriage is not "illegal" in any state. It may be illegal to give out licenses, but a couple who is married in a place where it is legal is just as married when they return to their home state. Their marriages just aren't recognized - they certainly aren't criminals (except for Wisconsin and Maryland).
Posted by: stojef | Aug 2, 2008 10:11:33 PM
This deliberate bearing of false witness is exactly the reason why the media (along with the gay community) should be questioning the "Christian" pretense of these charlatans. If they can twist things so easily, without apparent guilt and with full knowledge of deception and manipulation, why is anyone letting them get away with claiming to be "Christian?"
Posted by: kevinbgoode | Aug 3, 2008 12:18:07 PM
"If they can twist things so easily, without apparent guilt and with full knowledge of deception and manipulation, why is anyone letting them get away with claiming to be "Christian?""
I've been wondering about that for years.
But I do know one thing - while the REAL Christians are sitting back all docile, they're allowing the kooks to chase more and more people away from Christianity, and creating more Atheists (not that I have a problem with that).
You would think they would have done something by now. When my Christian friends say "we're not all like Dobson, LaBarbera, etc.", I ask them, "then why are you allowing them to run the show for you?". And then they have nothing to say.
Posted by: Scott | Aug 4, 2008 2:07:33 PM
Talk to us
*Why are my comments not appearing? See the G-A-Y Comments Policy
