Considering the discussions we have had over the past few classes about what consitutes a family, I chose to focus on one of the most controversial topics in that field, in gay marriage. I found many many articles dealing with this issue, both advocating for and against it. What I found was that in general, newspaper/new magazine articles do not seem to present information as scholarly articles do, posting results obtained from completing different research strategies. For the most part, they simply take the research that was done, and report the overall findings within the confines of the publisher's own political stance. With that in mind, here are some of the articles I have found.
"For Movement, a Key Setback." The New York Times, Patrick Healy. July 7, 2006.
This articles takes several informal interviews and uses quotes to discuss the court ruling of New York against gay marriage. This decision was a shock to many, coming from a state that has typically been very accepting of its people; and many see this move as the beginning of the end in the fight for the acceptance of gay marriage in the U.S. David S. Buckel who is senior counsel and director of the Marriage Project at teh Lambola Legal Defense and Education Fund was quoted in saying, "Its a mess of a decision that in the end makes a very weak arguement: That you can justify barring same-sex couples from marrying because of the unstable relationships of heterosexual couples." (Hartocollis, 2006).
Buckel and the others quoted in this section are all those who have established, able-bodied knowledge on their particular side, and are well known in their fields; thus it would have been easy to obtain these quotes. In this article, it is clear that the reporter agrees that the court's decision was a setback, but she presents it in an objective and resourceful way.
"'Beyond Gay Marriage'; The stated goal of these prominent gay activists is no longer mere the freedom to live as they want." The Daily Standard, Ryan T. Anderson. August 15, 2006.
This article is by far the most opinionated in the bunch, and likewise, it cites the most facts in its presentation. One finds it hard to take it all in, however, because of the blatant criticism and disdain for those in favor of gay marriage. Anderson also cites Hadley Arkes and Robert P. George, two defenders of marriage who claim that in going against the preferred definition and foundation of marriage that is in this country, and by saying that marriage does not have to occur between one man and one woman, the state then also loses the priviledge to deny polygamous and polyamorous marriages.
Some facts presented were those defending that family structure matters for children's wellbeing, and that they will fare best in households with both a mother and a father, in a low-conflict relationship. The reporter then goes on to use other research, taken from the recently published account by many credible professors entitled, "Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles", and argues that the only acceptable form of marriage is that between a man and a woman, whose purpose in love is to unite and bear fruit.
"For Some Gays, a Right they can Forsake." The New York Times, Anemona Hartocollis. July 30, 2006.
This article takes a different stance than the rest, and brings out the opinion of some gay men and lesbians that it is going against what they have been fighting for to advocate for gay marriage. Through interviews of men such as Bill Dobbs and Rob Kleigler, a businessman from WA, a different side of the fight is produced; that the gay and lesbian community has been fighting against conventionality for so long, and now they want to fight their way into the culture that so badly wants to keep them out? They see fighting for gay marriage as comparable to right-wing conservatives fighting for their black and white views of what an acceptable marriage and family should consist of.
Here, one can see a different set of values coming through, to shape how the reader will again view this situation in a different light.
"President RIPS SJC on Gay Marriage." The Boston Globe, Rick Klein. June 6, 2006.
This article, while discussing President Bush's plea to ban gay marriage in early June 2006, uses it to criticize him and the rest of his administration for using something so large, yet to inconsequential at the same time to "distract" the American people away from issues such as rising oil prices, and the war in Iraq. There is a mention of a survey done by the Pew Research Center in which 51% of adults nationwide oppose gay marriage, but it does not say how these people were selected, how many did not respond, or how they were questioned (whether through the telephone, internet, mail, etc.) In this article, it is clear that the reporter is simply using the issue of gay marriage to further expose the inadequacy of the President.
"NJ Court Grants Rights to Gays, Stops Short of Gay Marriage OK." Associated Press, Geoff Mulvihill. October 25, 2006.
This article discusses the NJ decision to give gay and lesbian couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, but it is still up to the lawmakers to legalize homosexual unions. This article too uses some quotes from accredited sources, those like Justice Barry T. Allen and Lara Schwartz, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, and some from people simply interested in the subject.
Overall, topics as controversial and present as gay marriage make it close to impossible for any source to present an article without putting some political bias or value into it. There are those that believe in the equality of both heterosexual and homosexual marriages; they believe that a family consists of what you make it. Then there are those who believe that the one and only acceptable form of marriage has helped to form the foundations of this country, and that is the union between a man and a woman. And then there are still others who are gay activists, who are against the establishment of gay marriage because it goes against what they have for so long been fighting against. Taking into consideration the variety of views, and the vehement opinions behind them, one must read each article with the eye of a careful observer; taking each statement in stride, and looking at all the arguements before choosing what to believe. I have seen, from viewing multiple articles from a variety of sources, it does not matter where you read your information. You cannot fully trust any media to give you information, because each different source will be bias towards his or her own views and beliefs.
I think the coverage of this issue in the media, as well as many other issues dealing with families, severly inhibits our knowledge of families. Take for example the fact that the presidency is a republican group; and only recently has the democratic party taken charge within the house. When any party has control, it is expected that the information given out to the media will present issues from the majority's point of view; and how can we be expected to make informed decisions if we are only being told one side of the story? Given information that gay marriage is bad for children simply because heterosexual marriage is better for them is hardly scholarly evidence that one can take seriously. One must read a variety of sources on all views to see what the objective information is that is out there.
No comments:
Post a Comment