Buried in a “news” story on victories of same-sex marriage in Iowa and Vermont (the former by judicial activism, the latter by legislative action), The New York Times slipped in the following loaded language:
“The mood among equal rights advocates is distinctly different now than in recent years, when state after state moved to legally define marriage as between a man and a woman” (emphasis added).
The Times thus anointed proponents of homosexual marriage heroic champions of equality and civil liberties — comparable to Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr.
Year ago, The Times and other mainstream media decided that pro-abortion activists were “pro-choice” while those opposed to the slaughter of unborn children were “anti-abortion” (rather than pro-life). For a while, the drive-bys actually called advocates for the unborn “anti-choice.”
The Times thus adopted one side’s preferred designation for itself, and its choice of labels for its opponents — while still pretending to be objective observers of the news.
If those who want to deconstruct marriage (severing the institution from tradition, biology and its Judeo-Christian roots) are “equal rights advocates,” that must make their opponents the enemies of “equality” and “justice.”
The reality is quite different. So-called “equal rights advocates” are sacrificing children and families on the altar of a spurious equality.
Children need parents — both male and female role models. Two men or two women don’t fill the bill. Besides, calling a dog a thoroughbred doesn’t change the nature of the beast.
This appalling use of terminology to sell a cause is just another example of how The New York Times spins the news to advance an agenda opposed by most Americans.