From Euripides

 

Maine voters got more than they bargained for with a battle heating up over whether the state should allow same sex marriages. As a word of caution, be aware and beware the language the news media uses to describe the question of marriage. More often than not, the language shows a distinct bias against the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Here are a few examples from Fox 23, My Fox Maine which demonstrates the biased and sometimes inflammatory language that Maine's media uses to push its own pro-gay viewpoint. Unfortunately, It does this at the expense of the real debate, the protection of marriage and the family. Instead the media buys into the idea that same sex marriage is the only fair and natural version of marriage and will somehow be good for the country.

The first example is the headline: "Gay Marriage Foes Reach Signature Goal in Maine" (MyFOXMaine). Notice how those who think marriage is a union between a man and a woman are here characterized as "Gay Marriage Foes." Implied is that those who believe in natural marriage are somehow at fault for not agreeing with same sex marriage.

The end of the article, the "selling point" argument that news writers use to make their main point says this: "Six states allow gay marriage. Maine became the fifth state to allow gay marriage in May, and New Hampshire later followed suit" (MyFOXMaine). While giving the appearance of being informative, it also implies, by its placement as the final paragraph, that this is the way Maine ought to be - counted as the "progressive" states which have legalized same sex marriage. Yet, think about it. Is this the what the people of Maine really want? Is neutering marriage through language that no longer recognizes male or female, bride or groom, man or woman, is this progressive thought? Does legal language that does not recognize the unique differences of the sexes in marriage warrant such devotion from the people of Maine?

Additionally, by calling same sex marriage "gay marriage" the news media has also conceded the idea that homosexuals are a protected class of citizens. This special class desires special protection under the law, instead of equal protection as required by the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. Trying to change the nature of marriage itself is an example of such special consideration under the law.

Here's another example:

Stand for Marriage Maine, the group pushing for a people's veto of the new state law legalizing same-sex marriage, has launched a television ad (MyFOXMaine).

This story falls under another "Gay Marriage Foes" headline - FOX 23's established moniker for those who support marriage in the state. Notice, again, the language as an attack on those who support marriage between a man and a woman. Using words such as "pushing" indicates a negative connotation, as if the people of Maine wanted the poor law their legislators and governor created. Contrary to the news media's expectations, a vast majority of the people in Maine support marriage as a union between a man and a woman. By legalizing same sex marriage, who pushed whom?

In the same story, the "selling point" paragraph shows another offensive tactic:

The No on 1 campaign has fired back, says voters should "focus on the real issue of treating all families with dignity and respect" (MyFOXMaine).

Here the media actually changes the real issue: should marriage be defined as a union between a man and a woman? Yet the media and gay activists insist on throwing out a red herring which implies that anyone who doesn't agree with same sex marriage is also against "treating all families with dignity and respect."

Here's the problem with the argument: Those who want to change marriage, to make it into something it is not, have shown absolutely no dignity or respect for the institution of marriage and for families created from such a union. With no regard for an institution as old as history itself, gay activists now want to hijack marriage for their own, selfish goals.

Another interesting example:

Opponents of a new law legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine have recruited the help of the California public relations firm Schubert Flint Public Affairs, which led the successful Proposition 8 proposal to overturn gay marriage in that state (MyFOXMaine).

This is the media's attempt to demonize those supporting marriage by implying that they have no business bringing in big, corporate support to force the issue against the will of the people of Maine.

Before decrying the tactics, however, consider the heavy-handed tactics gay activists use. For example, the primary website promoting "No On 1" which calls itself a "grassroots" organization, was created and registered by AP Campaigns, PO Box 15007, Washington, District Of Columbia 20003. AP Campaigns is a company that lobbies in Washington, DC on behalf of gay issues, and now lobbies in Maine.

Consider, as well, the huge list of national gay activist supporters that the No on 1 campaign proudly displays on their website. These include such groups as GLSEN, Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. The point of mentioning this list is to demonstrate the breadth of national involvement to try and overthrow the institution of marriage. The Maine news media trying smear marriage defenders by drawing attention to its supporters simply neglects the other side of the story.

As if these "grassroots" lobbyists aren't enough, Beetle, a fellow blogger, notes that various groups in California plan to campaign in Maine, bringing in outside gay activists to protest, organize phone campaigns, and plan paid "vacations" in Maine for a "get-out-the-vote" organized by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (Beetle Blogger). Consider that many, if not most, of the gay activists demanding "marriage equality" in Maine, don't live in Maine.

Like it or not, same sex marriage is an issue that has implications across the country. Just don't be fooled by those news and website outlets who profess that their same sex marriage campaign is anything but an organized attempt to convince the people of Maine of support that simply does not exist in Maine.

Don't be fooled and don't be taken in by the attack language of Maine's media and "grassroots" proponents of same sex marriage. They are out to bamboozle you with bias and bigotry. They will offer half-truths and inflammatory language. They will throw red herrings along the way to get Maine voters focused on anything but the issue of supporting the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

When considering what's at stake with marriage, I encourage you to vote in favor of protecting this fundamental institution.

Here's a bit of news that the mainstream media won't touch. Stand for Marriage Maine has collected more than 55 thousand signatures and has stopped Maine's legislature from neutering marriage for the moment. Pro-marriage forces collected the signatures after Maine Gov. John Baldacci signed legislation in May that allowed for same sex marriages. With the signatures, the attempt to neuter marriage will now go to a public vote in November. Marc Mutty, chairman of the coalition supporting the ballot proposal and Public Affairs Director for the Catholic Diocese of Portland had this good news to report:

“There has been an extraordinary outpouring of support from voters across the state. This response gives us momentum that will lift us over the first hurdle of putting the issue before the people and, ultimately, carry us to victory in November.”...

“We look forward to submitting the measure for certification and engaging Mainers in a vigorous defense of marriage. Traditional marriage has never lost on the ballot in any state. We expect it to prevail in Maine.” (Catholic News Agency)

Support the efforts to save natural marriage and visit Stand for Marriage Maine.

The Snarky Files. Snarky means several things. I prefer the definition of "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

Maine Marriage
Maine citizens are up in arms about their governor and legislature redefining marriage despite the overwhelming opposition to it. Stand up for what's right and support the people's veto at Stand for Marriage Maine in their quest to take back marriage from the politicians who put self-interest above the will of the people.

Circus Circus
It isn't just me. The media coverage of Michael Jackson shows just how shallow and irrelevant the news media has become. Does the American people really deserve to be subjected to 24/7 coverage of just how dead Michael Jackson is? Do we really care about the family squabbles? Do we really need to know how many drugs the man took? Do people all over the world really self-identify with an aging pop star/recluse/drug addict/inhuman alien?

Here are just two examples of how silly the whole media thing is. Jackson's ex-wifeDeborah Rowe, who was essentially paid $8.5 to have Jackson's children now asks for custody.

The future of Michael Jackson's children was thrown into question Thursday when his ex-wife emerged and won a delay in a custody hearing while she decides whether she wants to raise her two offspring....

Rowe, who met Jackson as a receptionist in the office of his dermatologist, has characterized their relationship as strictly for the purpose of birthing Jackson children. She is the mother of his two oldest children. (Yahoo!)

Now that is a healthy and caring family for you. "Hold on a minute, children, while mommy decides if she wants to raise her offspring." Not that they fared much better with Michael "hold my child over the balcony" Jackson. And people wonder why some of us worry about the future of families and parenting?

The second example shows just what a media circus looks like. The Sun's coverage of the funeral calls it a "macabre circus."

BROOKE SHIELDS rambling, MARIAH CAREY warbling, USHER touching the coffin and the decision to sing Heal The World, all seemed wide of the mark.

Shields' speech would have been apt for an awards ceremony, but not a memorial.

It wasn't the time or the place for REV AL SHARPTON to be preaching about Michael's good work for black people.

Or Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee to be reminding us all you are "innocent until proven guilty" under the American constitution. (The Sun)

Sounds like a zoo, not a circus. However, when I go, I hope that Al Sharpton will put in a few words at my funeral that are totally irrelevant to the gathering.

That's Fine
On to real news. If a US Senate bill becomes law, Americans who refuse health care coverage may be fined $1000. (AP) Anyone who thought they could escape nationalized health care, will find themselves basically paying a penalty tax, estimated to raise $36 billion in revenue. This won't, of course, hit poor people who will be on the government dole of health care. This will hit the average small business owner - the ones who cannot afford government-meddled health care at the present. Add this to the energy cap and trade and we have some serious taxing going on here folks.

HELP!
National health care is the hot topic of choice for both the president and Congress. Now that they've destroyed US foreign policy, destabilized the Mideast, kicked up the national debt to three times the Bush years, overextended US credit to the breaking point while selling off US interests wholesale to the Chinese, and have set up the largest tax increase in US history, now that they've done all that, they're ready and willing to take on health care. Here's the latest idea:

According to Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, their legislation would extend health insurance coverage to 21 million uninsured people over 10 years at a net cost of $611.4 billion. (TheHill.com)

First off, whose brilliant idea was it to name that Senate committee HELP? Is that some sort of congressional code word for extortion? But let me see if I get these numbers right. At a mere cost of $611.4 billion, the federal government can extend health care to about six percent of the population of the US? Be still my palpitating heart.

There are two things I do know with all this talk of health care reform. I know I will not benefit from it and I know I will be paying for it. How do I know this? Because along with teaching I own a small business. In all this high-falutin government talk, the small business owner is always the one to get the short stick. Then again, who cares about small business? We only represent about 54% of the work force in the US. Hardly a drop in the bucket.

Microsoft Works Is An Oxymoron
Microsoft is the devil. You heard it here first. Well, maybe you didn't hear it here first if you've had to suffer and curse through Microsoft's Vista, the Edsel of operating systems.

It turns out Google is trying to take on Microsoft. Google announced that it will release a new operating system, open-source of course, based on their new web browser - Chrome. (My Way)

The two can duke it out. I'll stick with Mac OS X and Unix.

Attack on DOMA
The Defense of Marriage Act is under attack again, not for the first or the last time. Now, the attack comes from Massachusetts, land of same sex marriage and the homosexualizing of children in school.

The state is challenging the constitutionality of the federal 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, saying the law denies "essential rights and protections" to same-sex couples who have married since Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to legalize gay weddings in 2004. (Reuters)

DOMA protects marriage by declaring it to be a union between a man and a woman. It also protects state rights in upholding natural marriage. If successful (this is the second time Massachusetts has brought up this law suit), the suit would deny federal authority marriage laws and challenge the majority of state laws and constitutions which also define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The suit claims the following:

"In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples." (Reuters)

This is all a bunch of legal hooey and a severe misrepresentation of the gay activists' true agenda, to redefine marriage in order to make it meaningless. In reality, gay activists are pushing the federal suit to wrest marriage from state authority and create a federal definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. This is the exact opposite of their stated intention in the law suit.

It's the bald-faced lies in gay activism that really disturb me.

Palin Politics
You've all heard the (repeated and repeated and repeated) news that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will step down from office. You've also heard the repeated attempts to explain her motives, from her desire to spend time taking care of her Downs Syndrome child, to positioning herself for presidential election in 2012.

Whatever the reason she left office, can you think of anyone in modern history who has been so lampooned and vilified by the main stream media as Sarah Palin? Well, except for George W. Bush, I mean? Anyone who can stir up the media like she does gets my vote for whatever she decides to do. Sarah Palin shows exactly what a strong and capable woman can do to improve politics in this country.

Al Bore
Former Vice President Al Gore took his rhetoric up another notch against climate change non-believers. Apparently, we have to gear up to fight global warming as we did to fight against Hitler. It's that serious. (Times Online UK)

If he's going to throw in the Hitler argument, he should take it all the way down the road and be really offensive to those who fought and died saving Europe from fascism. He should diminish true evil and talk about the polar bear holocaust, greenhouse gassing those poor creatures to their extinction. He should compare Cap and Trade to a modern Blitzkrieg. (Oh wait. That would put the US Congress on the side of Germany.) He should talk about how global warming legislation is the unrelenting advance of Stalin's army into Germany. (Since we we're headed toward full-blown socialism anyway, we may as well emulate Stalin.) He should hide the real facts of global climate change like Goebbels hid reality from the German people. (Oh wait. He's already done that.)

Maybe his reference to Hitler is an apt one after all....

Third Stimulus
In the strange and wacky world of Obama's government where there is no time to debate the issues, where a good crisis should never be wasted, where money and debt mean diddly squat, in such a world, what's wrong with another stimulus package? (Bloomberg)

The second spending bill hasn't even taken off the ground and the Obama administration is already talking about another spending package? (Let's not forget Bush caving in to Congressional spending in 2008 with the first stimulus bill to save the banks.) Bloomberg reports:

The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was “a bit too small,” said Laura Tyson, an outside adviser to President Barack Obama. (Bloomberg)

Even the news media can't keep count of the stimulus money spent and since when are $500 billion and $787 billion "a bit too small"?

Who are these people and what planet did they leave to invade us? It looks I finish up this column with how I started - wondering about inhuman aliens like Michael Jackson and government.