July 11, 2004
More Cognitive Dissonance At 'The Oregonian'
Editorial Board Phones In From Bizarro World
Regular readers might know that we enjoy making something of a sport out of deconstructing the occasional Oregonian editorial on the same-sex marriage issue. In May, for example, we noted them arguing that same-sex couples should leave well enough alone and graciously accept the civil unions cop-out. In June, we argued they were hypocritical in their claims that other parties were engaging in misrepresentation.
Today, the editorial board comes out against amending the U.S. Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage -- in itself a perfectly rationale and proper position. What gets us going, however, is this tiny little bit here:
They are using the Constitution as "a bulletin board for campaign sloganeering," as Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., put it last week. That's a high-risk strategy. Most Americans understand the politics of distraction. Even if they don't support gay marriage, they're not keen to see senators trifling with the Constitution.
Or, more, specifically, what gets us going is that second-to-last sentence: "Most Americans understand the politics of distraction."
For months, the editorial board of The Oregonian has been bending over backwards to foment anger over what we consider to be the "process distraction" here in Multnomah County. Anger which inevitably helped boost the fortunes of the local and state anti-gay forces in their efforts against both Multnomah County commissioners and same-sex marriage. In other words, the editorial board has been engaging in the politics of distraction.
At the same time, they vociferously argued in favor of the proposition that gays and lesbians are crossing some sort of uncrossable line in demanding actual equality, telling them in no uncertain terms that they should be happy enough with civil unions. In other words, the editorial board of The Oregonian has been rather insistently telling the state that same-sex marriage is a horrible thing.
Yet somehow, as they quite properly come out against amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, they seem blissfully unaware of what they've done to contribute to the environment in which the potential success of such efforts has become increasingly plausible.
They engage in the politics of distraction, helping the efforts of anti-gay forces appear to be more socially acceptable. They decry same-sex marriage, lending support to those pushing to change constitutions to ban it. And then they turn around today and try to claim the mantle of enlightened people? Please.
Posted at 11:39 AM | PermalinkComments (2) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, Media, Same-Sex Marriage
Trackbacks (1)
-
Signs of Enlightened People on 11 Jul 2004
It's refreshing to read that some people can spot the hypocrisy out there among even our friends....
Comments (2)
Jim on 11 Jul 2004
Once again, great anlysis, b!X. I would extend one matter that you mentioned:
It's been my observation that the Editorial Board has consistently gone beyond simply telling my husband and I that we "should be happy" with their way of (muddled) thinking. Instead they have on several occasions said that their approach was in our best interest.
It has been this patronizing attitude that has been the worst of all. It's bad enough having someone tell us what we should do.
It's far worse, in my opinion, having someone tell me that they know best about our lives, when it appears that they know quite little.
Lynn on 11 Jul 2004
Hear hear. This is why I no longer subscribe to the O. That and, uh, we're broke...