Skip to main content

Mainstream Media’s take on the FMA

My friends and family aren't the only ones who think Bush is out of line here.  Here's a sampling of editorials and news reports from mainstream media over the past couple of days related to the FMA.  While I didn't look too long or hard, I didn't find any editorials saying "Wahoo!  Let's get this amendment passed!" 

Read on:

Boston Globe editorial:

"Gay marriage isn't a real threat. In Massachusetts, married gay couples are not masterminding terrorist bombings. They are not refining weapons-grade uranium nor are they running up federal budget deficits. Married gay couples are not monitoring their fellow Americans' phone calls and e-mails. They haven't cut Medicaid. And they didn't put that doughnut hole in the middle of Medicare's new prescription drug program."

New York Times editorial:

"President Bush devoted his Saturday radio speech to a cynical boost for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It was depressing in the extreme to hear the chief executive trying to pretend, at this moment in American history, that this was a critical priority… All this effort to divert the nation's attention to issues that divide and distract would be bad enough if the country were not facing real, disastrous problems at home and abroad. But then, if that weren't the case, Mr. Bush probably wouldn't feel moved to stoop so low."

Sidney Blumenthal in the Guardian:

"Raising the level of homophobia and jingoism is the first act in a well-rehearsed theatre of political exploitation. In the second act, the evil Democrats, liberals, relativists, secular humanists and devil worshippers defeat the heartfelt effort of the faithful to defend the family and the nation. Then, in the concluding act, in the midterm elections, the aroused conservative masses flock to the polls in a mood of retribution to retain Republican rule of the Congress. Hallelujah!"

Newsweek reports:

"One of [Bush's] old friends told NEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president's moral radar. "I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a s–t about it. He never talks about this stuff," said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush."

 Edward Kennedy (my senator) writes in the Boston Herald:

"The proposed amendment is inconsistent with our values and our humanity. Americans believe in tearing down the walls of discrimination and inequality, not creating new barriers for civil rights…

"I’m proud that Massachusetts continues to be a leader on marriage equality for our citizens. We recognize that being part of a family is a basic right, and I look forward to the day when every state – and every senator – accepts this basic principle of fairness. Marriage is a solemn commitment to plan a future together, to share in life’s celebrations, and be a source of comfort easing life’s burdens and pains. Gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights as married couples under state law, including the right to be treated fairly by federal tax laws, to share insurance coverage, to visit loved ones in the hospital, to have health and family-leave benefits, and the many other protections that only come with marriage."

Pensacola News Journal's take:

"By now, even the social and religious conservatives who support a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage should be appalled by the blatantly cynical and opportunistic exploitation of the issue by the Bush administration…

"Now, once again, with another election looming — and the Republican Party fearful that President Bush's mismanagement of the budget, the Iraq War and the response to Hurricane Katrina, among other issues, is dragging it down in the polls — politicians have suddenly rediscovered the urgency of saving the country from a tiny portion of the population whose actions, ironically, affirm the value of marriage in American society."

So there you have it. A small sampling of mainstream media writing on this supposed "threat" to traditional marriage.  

Now can we let the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government get back to the business that truly affects us, rather than debating about enshrining discrimination into the Constitution?  I'd rather they deal with the war, healthcare, education, the economy, and the like.  Seems like a much better use of my tax dollars than this, doesn't it?