Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

How high must we jump in reporting SCOTUS gay marriage decision?

How high must we jump in reporting SCOTUS gay marriage decision?

A hint at what the post-SCOTUS SSM culture war looks like.

Today, The NY Times turned its entire front page above the fold to celebrating yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on gay marriage:

NY Times Supreme Court Gay Marriage Headline Front Page

Many national and major regional papers did the same.

But is any diversity of news coverage permitted on such a huge cultural victory?

If you want to know what the future of the post-SCOTUS SSM culture war looks like, take a look at this tweet by former MSM exec. Betsy Fischer Martin (h/t @bryanjacoutot) complaining that a north Louisiana paper had a larger headline about a local pageant than the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision.

The Supreme Court decision was front page, above the fold, right hand side, double column, and was followed just below it with another report about the impact of the decision.

But that a local pageant story had more column space apparently was unacceptable:

https://twitter.com/BFischerMartin/status/614771807082549248/photo/1

Seriously, how high must a newspaper jump in reporting this story?

(added)

How high must we all jump?

Bryan suggests what comes next, given the history of the debate:

https://twitter.com/BryanJacoutot/status/614799408312504320

In post-SCOTUS SSM decision America, you will be made to care.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Awesome. Pro-choice doctrine gave us selective-child, class diversity, and now selective exclusion. Progress.

Personally, I liked Drudge yesterday. On top of his feed were a half a dozen or so stories about ISIS, below a giant gay flag (Or American flag as a rainbow flag?) and two headlines on the SCOTUS decision.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | June 29, 2015 at 2:13 pm

    Making a splash in the New York Times is the “kiss of death.” (The NYT has never been the “paper of record” unless they mean for Democrat propaganda, in my opinion.)

    It’s like Time magazine. In marketing, they have known for years if something makes the cover of Time magazine, then the trend or fad has already passed and died. (That’s how out of touch and behind the times MSM mouth organs are.)

    Newspapers in the much ridiculed conservative, fly-over country of “The Middle” were publishing “gay union” announcements 25 years ago – but it took the New York Times another 20 years to even deign to do that.

We have gone beyond the point of no return.

Now is the time for the Federal Tyranny to remember al-Chicagi’s observation: “…they cling to their Bibles and their guns…”

What are they going to complain about now?

    Humphrey's Executor in reply to Old0311. | June 27, 2015 at 3:10 pm

    They want discrimination against sexual orientation to be treated the same as racial discrimination. Some states have laws to that effect, but they want a national law.

    donb in reply to Old0311. | June 27, 2015 at 10:00 pm

    “What are they going to complain about now?”

    Anybody and everybody that doesn’t jump high enough when ordered to do so. Especially an evangelical minister or Catholic priest who declines an invitation to perform their “marriage” ceremony.

The NY Times, like the White House, needed to use graphics to crow “We won.” They don’t respect us, Christians, Jews and others who think biology mean something. They hate us.

    They have re-defined biology (your orientations are biological). Those who think physical anatomy means anything are now “biology deniers” (and are to be reviled like “climate deniers” and any others who fail to embrace their re-written science and history).

    anoNY in reply to tarheelkate. | June 28, 2015 at 7:20 am

    It’s difficult to respect someone who wouldn’t allow people to marry merely because of what is written in some four thousand year old book.

Now that SCOTUS left the barn door open, why not go full prog? Why limit marriage to just two people? Can’t three, four, or five people all commit to a relationship of love, support, and whatever phraseology the gays used to ram this down our throats?

And why set the marriage age at 16 or 18? Why not 6? Mohammed did – and the progs seem to be in full Muzzie support mode, so why not lower the age to 6? The Constitution says I’m entitled to liberty and the pursuit of happiness … well, having (4) 6-year old wives will do it for me …

    OllBlueEyes in reply to walls. | June 27, 2015 at 2:15 pm

    Or a deadbeat son/daughter marrying his/her mother (or Dad) for their retirement money, thus avoiding the “Death Tax?”

    Wasn’t that part of the gays’ argument? To access benefits only available via marriage?

    There’s a lot of unemployed, working-age men in ‘them ‘thar hills. What’s to stop them from pulling a stunt like this?

      anoNY in reply to OllBlueEyes. | June 28, 2015 at 7:19 am

      What was to stop them from marrying their opposite-sex parents prior to Friday?

        InEssence in reply to anoNY. | June 28, 2015 at 3:50 pm

        In the past marriage was for procreation (not recreation). Incest and marriage laws protected children. This ruling wipes those laws out, because procreation is no longer what marriage is all about. The SCOTUS didn’t say what marriage was for, but the children are the big losers in their decision.

    Radegunda in reply to walls. | June 27, 2015 at 4:07 pm

    A gay-marriage advocate on this site yesterday kept trying to shoot down all such reasonable questions, and on the more-than-two issue he said: because it results in social harm.

    Case not closed. “Social harm” is a subjective concept; one person’s social harm is another person’s road to utopia. There are serious “social harm” arguments to be made against “gay marriage,” one of them being that some of its advocates have plainly stated that their ultimate goal is to end the institution altogether. Already, the terms “husband” and “wife” are being replaced with “Party A” and
    “Party B.”

    The concepts of “mother” and “father” are likewise under attack, and gay “marriage” only accelerates the deconstruction of “family” and promotes the absurd idea that “two mommies” or “two daddies” is every bit as conducive to a child’s healthy development as “mommy and daddy,” and probably better, because … well, because the child will grow up without bigotry against unnatural “families.” Except that some of them have already grown up to write about how they would have much preferred a normative family.

    Kennedy mentions harm to children if their “two mommies” or “two daddies” can’t get married — as if it never occurred to him that the real harm was in bringing children into such an artificial situation in the first place. Meanwhile, lots of gay-marriage proponents still maintain that marriage is as irrelevant to their own parenting virtuosity as it is to their mutual commitment.

      nordic_prince in reply to Radegunda. | June 27, 2015 at 4:34 pm

      Indeed. Anyone who blathers on about two “mommies” or two “daddies” obviously flunked high school biology.

      And these scientific illiterates think they’re smart enough to be making laws overturning society and common sense? They’re worse than flat earthers.

      Ain’t buying it. They can go pound sand. I am not going to let lunatics who have lost their grip on reality dictate to me what I must believe, and that I must accept their sham “marriages.”

      Rich Fader in reply to Radegunda. | June 27, 2015 at 5:00 pm

      Yep. I’m not a lawyer, but if they used Loving as a precedent for Obergefell, successfully, I have trouble understanding why they couldn’t use Loving and Obergefell as precedents for decisions striking down bigamy and consanguinity laws regarding consenting adults. (The pedo and zoophilia lobbies will have to wait for progress in children’s and animal rights jurisprudence. But maybe not too long.)

      anoNY in reply to Radegunda. | June 28, 2015 at 7:04 am

      “There are serious “social harm” arguments to be made against “gay marriage,” one of them being that some of its advocates have plainly stated that their ultimate goal is to end the institution altogether”

      You keep saying this without linking to the mysterious “advocates”.

    anoNY in reply to walls. | June 28, 2015 at 7:18 am

    I am very amused at the fact that you two examples of the effects of gay marriage have historically been practiced by religious groups like the Mormons and Muslims.

    But, it must be gay marriage’s fault!

Next progressive struggle: equal rights for pedophiles.

nordic_prince | June 27, 2015 at 1:38 pm

For years the Left has erroneously asserted that we “can’t legislate morality.”

They, however, have consistently and constantly legislated immorality at every opportunity.

Crowing that homosexual “marriage” is now “the law of the land” doesn’t make it right or morally acceptable.

We are not obligated to recognize as law that which goes against the laws of nature and nature’s God.

I refuse to acknowledge any validity to sham “marriages” such as the couplings of homosexual pairs. What are you going to do about it, lefties? You’re not my God. If you don’t like it, too bad. Stuff it.

    You know what were going to do about it? I’ll tell you! We are going to… live our lives knowing that regardless of what you think, your tax dollars are subsidizing gay marriages just as much as straight marriages.

    Enjoy that!

      nordic_prince in reply to anoNY. | June 28, 2015 at 3:37 pm

      Enjoy standing before the judgment throne of the One Whom you have repeatedly and openly mocked. You say now that you don’t believe in Him, but whether or not you repent, you’ll be singing a different tune a hundred years from now.

      Meanwhile, He holds you in derision, you puny little rebel who shall one day turn to dust ~

My rant as someone who has been partnered for over ten years…Hooray over nothing.

Your so-called Gay Marriage ‘Rights’ is a diversionary bone thrown to you by a party of wicked men so that they may steal your existing right to prosper without the oppression of government extortionists, the right to defend yourself, to feel safe within your private property and your nation’s borders, the right to be safe in your opinions.

Trading away those exceptional rights that have proven to be a far better friend to the vast majority of permanently single gay men for a single phony ‘right’ that mostly benefits an elite coven of perpetually angry lesbians… isn’t Equal Protection.

    Radegunda in reply to Aucturian. | June 27, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    Excellent point. The gay-marriage lobby has been wont to ask, “How exactly does it hurt heterosexuals if gay people can get married?” An equally pertinent question is: “How exactly does it help gay people to call themselves officially ‘married couples’ rather than ‘civil partners’?” Does it compensate for the fact that the Supreme Court has affirmed the power of the federal government to deny them the right to choose health-care plans that meet their own needs?

      anoNY in reply to Radegunda. | June 28, 2015 at 7:08 am

      Now we are including whines about Obamacare in our anti-gay-marriage screeds? Can’t we keep these issues separate?

LukeHandCool | June 27, 2015 at 2:33 pm

Where is the Secret Service ??????????

I’m hearing reports that someone played a horrible prank on the King last night.

As recently as three years ago he was against gay marriage, but some hateful prankster went and lit up his White House last night with rainbow-colored lights.

It was like shining a colorful spotlight on a shamelessly opportunistic, naked Emperor.

Midwest Rhino | June 27, 2015 at 2:43 pm

Give them their Pyrrhic victory, and then systematically remove all entitlement benefits except those regarding the raising of children.

Dispense pension/SS death benefits in proportion to cumulative years children were raised in the home. Do this regardless of SSM or normal marriage. Tax exemptions for the kids would probably not change much, idk. Except for children, why does a marriage bestow any benefit to society, or any special need for oversight?

I wonder what gay divorce statistics will look like in ten years. I’d guess many will not marry, once they consider the legal ramifications. But hurray, they forced their will on the majority using an activist court, and can advance down their path of destruction. Tearing things down is so much fun. The only things the left builds require tax money.

LukeHandCool | June 27, 2015 at 3:30 pm

I give up. I think I won’t use the internet anymore after today. This could be good-bye. I am so disillusioned with people.

My old classmates were celebrating and spiking the football on Facebook.

A girl I’ve known since elementary school, who spilled her heart out to me when we both got on Facebook about six or seven years ago … that she had a horrible crush on me her whole life … that she would write about me in her diary everyday for years … who is a smart lawyer with a pretty decent sense of humor … who quietly has called herself a Republican (well, I kind of playfully outed her one night on Facebook after a few beers) … who is so loved and respected by all our progressive classmates that they ignored that transgression …

… she, too, was in full celebratory mode. She even insisted we now drop the “gay” from “gay marriage.”

I should’ve screenshot the back and forth. It was brilliant and hilarious (I’m talking about my replies).

Finally, not being able to keep up with me, she first feigned boredom, then deleted the whole thing.

I half-jokingly then posted that if anyone was going to prove my point about progressivism by stuffing a lighthearted thread down the memory hole, I thanked them. But they should then de-friend me because they’d lost some of their humanity and it was sad to witness.

She de-friended me.

She was begging me to go to our next high school reunion recently. I won’t go. I don’t like the feeling of being the only person in a crowd who hasn’t been bodysnatched.

    topcat69 in reply to LukeHandCool. | June 27, 2015 at 3:44 pm

    You are not alone. I repeat, not alone. I know a lot of people that are feeling that way. One sad thing is that my small group at church got me to build a website (see my other post on this article) to help become more active. They may look at the site, but virtually none of them are actually willing to go out and engage. Far too many are just sitting on the sidelines. We don’t see them, but they are there. Hopefully they will join the fray soon.

    But feeling that the cause is hopeless is exactly what the enemy wants. Don’t give up. Rather looks at this as an opportunity to find out who your true friends are.

    platypus in reply to LukeHandCool. | June 27, 2015 at 5:00 pm

    We love you and we don’t want you to leave the internet because that includes LI.

    Now don’t make me prove we love you because I’ll form a posse and track you down and hogtie you (except for one hand so you can type) so you can’t get away.

    Actually, no, none of that. We’ll all just stand around and blubber our tears over our loss.

    Feel guilt-tripped yet? 🙂

      LukeHandCool in reply to platypus. | June 28, 2015 at 12:19 pm

      Thank you for the kind words and encouragement you guys. See my new post at the bottom of this thread, in reply to anoNY.

      I slapped myself a few times, grabbed myself by both shoulders and gave myself a good shaking and yelled,

      “What the hell is wrong with you, brah? Snap out of it!”

      (Doing this is physically difficult but amuses onlookers.)

      Today is a new day. I’m going to avoid Facebook from now on. Can anyone think of a better invention to ruin high school reunions?

      We have to redouble our efforts. We are the majority. We’ve been lazy. The left marched through our institutions and now we have to take them back.

      Remember, mean girls never win in the end. That’s who we’re dealing with.

      Come on, girls! Time to take back our school!

    Or you can channel Rhett Butler and develop a weakness for lost causes.

Even in my conservative local paper, every article on the front page was about the Court and SSM.

Our founders had a lot to say about the importance of religion for our form of government (shameless plug: check it out a my church small group’s website here: http://www.unshackledaction.com/#!revival-in-america/c1iot ).
Based on everything I am seeing, the founders (as usual) were right.

My favorite quote:
Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.
– Robert Winthrop (Speaker of the House 1847-1849)

It looks like we are heading for the bayonets.

Obeisance to the god of humanism-Moloch-is short lived within the Kingdom of God.

NC Mountain Girl | June 27, 2015 at 10:12 pm

I am reminded of a neighborhood Barbecue I attended on Memorial day weekend. At one table we had to homosexual men and a woman talking about the vote to make gay marriage legal in Ireland. The woman, who is Irish by birth, talked about how thousands of people entered Ireland just to cast their “Yes” votes. She has no children, pays lip service to her Catholic roots at Christmas and Easter, is married to a divorced man with two lumpish daughters who seem beaten by life even though they can’t be much over 40. Those daughters are also divorced, they can’t manage to hold jobs and they have produced three sullen, ill mannered, lumpish grandkids.

This conversation was completely ignored by the ten ot twelve other neighbors in attendance. They had all stayed married to their first spouse/ They all go to church twice a week. Thier children have also stayed married, Indeed, there was a small horde of polite, cheerful and in two cases, mixed race grandchildren in attendance.

The future does not belong to the three people who were celebrating gay marriage. It belongs to the heterosexual married couples who have nice grandchildren.

    Hmm, my grandparents are heterosexual, and their grandkids are very pro-gay marriage. Looks like the future belongs to us!

      LukeHandCool in reply to anoNY. | June 28, 2015 at 12:07 pm

      I knew your side were sore losers and even sorer winners, (it seems to be in your DNA), but, by all means enjoy your victory.

      A stunning victory can momentarily demoralize the opponent, but it can also steel the opponent’s resolve.

      Remember that among the millions of Japanese cheering on December 7, 1941, Admiral Yamamoto fretted about awakening a sleeping giant.

      “I can run wild [in the Pacific] for six months. After that, I have no expectation of success.”

      Midway came exactly six months later.

      You’d better hope everything goes completely smoothly and to plan. I doubt it will. Already Politico has a piece up with the headline, “It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy.”

      Enjoy running wild in the next six months as you try to turn that ship around, Admiral.

      You might end up feeling like a small island nation completely shell-shocked at how fast the tide can turn. The majority may well tolerate a bit of confusion and disorder, but when it’s starting to feel like the wheels are coming off, look out.

      I must admit I felt like I’d been bombed and torpedoed the last couple of days (exacerbated by an aggravating chest infection).

      But I felt better after a few cups of hot tea and honey last night, on the couch watching with my daughter one of our favorite “mean girl” movies:

      Bring It On.

      LukeHandCool (who needs to look at the calendar, as he keeps thinking today is December 8, the day after a very bad day)

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend