Appearance Alert
MRC's Bozell to appear on Fox News' 'The Kelly File' at 9:40pm ET

Media Black Out Discussion of California Same-Sex 'Marriage' Implications

America's freedom of religion and speech are about to come under attack throughout the nation, but the major news media apparently don't grasp the significance of the California Supreme Court's decision mandating same-sex marriage in the Golden State. 


Yesterday, at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., the Family Research Council (FRC) hosted a press conference with a panel discussing the tremendous nationwide ramifications of the California ruling.  The mainstream media didn't even bother to show up at their own building to cover the story.


Only one major liberal news organization, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, reported on the event.  A homosexual newspaper, The Washington Blade, and conservative Internet news site Worldnetdaily also published stories.  No television or cable network news organizations sent reporters to the event, nor did the New York Times or the hometown Washington Post.

 

During the panel discussion, FRC Senior Fellow and former Ohio secretary of state Ken Blackwell compared the ruling to one of the great events in history, Caesar's “crossing of the Rubicon.” 


The Cleveland Plain Dealer quoted Blackwell saying “This is not an isolated California situation,” because same-sex couples are expected to travel to California to marry, then sue to force their home states to recognize the “marriages.”  However, the paper failed to include as well that Blackwell stressed that the ruling would erode the family, “the most significant building block of our culture, society, and civilization.”


Only WorldNetDaily, a conservative news source, spelled out the specific ramifications of California's ruling described by the panel, including threats to religious liberty, employment practices, tax exemption status, and freedom of speech. 


No news organization, however, reported panelist Glen Lavy's warnings about a profoundly significant element of the ruling, “the court's creation of a suspect class for sexual orientation.” Making sexual orientation a “suspect class” comparable to race, disability or national origin forces California to extend special civil rights protections to homosexuals, and makes criticism of homosexual behavior, even in the pulpit, a potential hate crime.


Lavy, Senior Counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund and the lead attorney in the California case, stressed the “serious implications for religious liberty in California,” noting that California has already violated the religious liberty of its citizens.  He mentioned the case of a woman who refused to rent an apartment to an unmarried couple because of her religious convictions.  A court ordered her to rent to the couple or leave the business.  Lavy also mentioned that the court is about to hear the oral argument of two Christian physicians who do not want to give infertility treatments to a lesbian on religious grounds. 


Lavy went on to note that city clerks may be forced to perform same-sex civil marriages despite their personal objections.  As well, he mentioned that the arguments for same-sex “marriage” are the same as those for polygamous and even incestuous marriages. 


Panelist Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel noted that “once you elevate homosexuality to the level of race you will impact churches significantly in employment practices, tax exemption status, as well as freedom of speech.”  He also gave the example of wedding caterers, who may find themselves in court if they are unwilling to cater for homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples.


The panel denounced and criticized New York governor David Paterson's directive to allow same-sex marriages performed in California to receive recognition in the Empire StateThe New York Times detailed the facts about Paterson's directive in an article today, but offered very few opposing arguments.


Julia Seward is an intern at the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.