Farah Wonders Why Equality has Advanced So Quickly


Joseph Farah is searching for an answer to the question of why the movement to make same-sex marriage legal has managed to advance so quickly. I’m sure you’ll be shocked to hear that he thinks it’s all because of media bias and censorship of the anti-equality advocates.

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center Project for Excellence in Journalism found pro-same-sex marriage stories outnumbered anti-same-sex marriage stories by five to one.

In other words, there hasn’t been a fair debate in the media. Those opposed to same-sex marriage – a radical idea conceived not because of a serious demand by homosexuals for marriage, but as an effort to undermine the institution of marriage – have been portrayed as opposed to “marriage equality” and “marriage fairness.” They are, in fact, labeled as bigots for standing up for a 6,000-year-old institution widely regarded as a cornerstone of civilization.

How stacked were the media in favor of same-sex marriage?

To qualify as “biased” in the Pew study, stories had to feature at least twice as many comments in support of same-sex marriage as against it. Even at the “fair and balanced network,” Fox News, stories favoring gay marriage far outnumbered those opposing it – by an almost four-to-one margin.

That’s how an idea considered preposterous and laughable just 10 years ago wins the day in a decade.

Let me suggest an alternative: As more gay people have come out of the closet, more and more people have recognized that they were human beings that should have equal rights. And as more and more states and countries legalized same-sex marriage and the sky didn’t fall, the idiotic arguments against it have been exposed as a sham.

What will be the long-term effects on society if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land?

Some gay people will get married. Nothing else will change. And eventually, jackasses like you will stop braying about it.

How will it impact child rearing?

It won’t, except that untold numbers of children being raised by gay parents will have the opportunity to have two parents instead of one, which is usually a very good thing.

How will it affect those who have strong religious objections? What will happen to churches and people of faith who refuse to participate in conducting ceremonies they find abhorrent and sinful?

Nothing will happen to churches, they are explicitly exempted from such laws. “People of faith” will be affected to precisely the same degree that they were affected by laws banning discrimination on the basis of religion, gender or race, at least in the 21 states that also bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Because there are no such protections at the federal level, in the other 29 states they will continue to be allowed to discriminate against gay people (with some exceptions at the local level; 140 cities do bar such discrimination). But this is exactly the same thing as forbidding “people of faith” who own places of public accommodation (that is, businesses open to the public) from discriminating against women (or men), against black people or against those of a different faith (or no faith at all).

How will the Creator of the universe judge a nation that embraces a policy at odds with His own definition of marriage?

He won’t. He doesn’t exist.

These are questions not being asked in the public square. They are off limits. They are marginalized. They are censored.

Yeah, that’s why I’m so amazed. I’ve never heard anyone ask these questions before because they’re so “censored.” I mean, other than every religious right leader and organization in the country, half the members of Congress and one of the two major political parties. Such persecution!

I can’t think of any social movement in history that has so quickly transformed public opinion.

I can’t either. And I’m thrilled about it. And it makes it all the more satisfying to listen to you bleat on endlessly about it while being powerless to stop it. But hey, you keep on praying about it. Because that changes a lot.

Comments

  1. says

    “6,000-year-old institution”
    Is that a reference to Adam and Evan Eve (his transgendered significant other)? If so I’d love to see the bit in the Booble that says they were ever married.

  2. raven says

    I’m sure you’ll be shocked to hear that he thinks it’s all because of media bias and censorship of the anti-equality advocates.

    Oh gee.

    Farah doesn’t know much about his own religion.

    It’s all due to satan and the demons!!! This is the default all purpose explanation for everything that happens in their dark and scary world.

  3. Draken says

    No, I do not regard judaism the “cornerstone of civilisation” and it’s hardly 6000 years old anyway.

  4. jamessweet says

    Let me suggest an alternative: As more gay people have come out of the closet, more and more people have recognized that they were human beings that should have equal rights

    Bingo. As you allow, Farah is right that this has been an unprecedentedly rapid transformation of public opinion and the political landscape. I think it’s because LGBT people are unique among oppressed groups in the ready availability of the closet. Nothing undermines prejudice more effectively than not knowing a friend, family member, or colleague is a member of the pre-judged group until after your judgments have been formed.

    Unfortunately, I think in the broader picture, that’s somewhat disappointing news: It would be really neat if we could look to the rapid transformation on this social justice issue as being a pattern for the future — i.e., that something has “clicked” societally so that the pace of social justice has increased in general. Alas, I think it’s simply a particular quirk of the nature of LGBT oppression — namely, the closet — that has facilitated this rapid transformation, and thus it’s probably a fluke. :/

  5. raven says

    They are, in fact, labeled as bigots for standing up for a 6,000-year-old institution widely regarded as a cornerstone of civilization.

    Biblical marriage is between one man and however many wives he can round up and however many sex slaves he can buy.

    Solomon, that hero of the OT had 700 wives and 300 sex slaves.

    Polygamy and concubines haven’t been legal much less a cornerstone of our civilization for quite a few centuries.

  6. cptdoom says

    The impact of marriage equality on society will be exactly the same as the impact of the “normalization” of Mormonism on society.

  7. says

    Some gay people will get married. Nothing else will change.”

    NOTHING? NOTHING?! SOME OF THEM WILL ALSO GET DIVORCED!
     
    And eventually, jackasses like you will stop braying about it.”
    NEVER!
     

    These are questions not being asked in the public square. They are off limits. They are marginalized. They are censored.

    HES RIGHT, ED BRAYTON. THATS WHY HE DIDNT WRITE THAT. HE COUDNT ON ACCOUNT OF THE CENSORING!

  8. Eurasian magpie says

    a radical idea conceived not because of a serious demand by homosexuals for marriage, but as an effort to undermine the institution of marriage

    By whom? For what purpose?

  9. Sastra says

    They are, in fact, labeled as bigots for standing up for a 6,000-year-old institution widely regarded as a cornerstone of civilization.

    When you are trying to keep good people OUT of a civilized institution then you aren’t standing up for the institution, you’re standing up for exclusion. And yes, that merits the label of “bigot.”

    Bigots are not being censored; they’re being condemned. Just because YOU would like to censor everything you don’t like doesn’t mean they’re the same thing.

  10. John Pieret says

    They are off limits. They are marginalized. They are censored.

    On the contrary, I think that the rapid change in public attitude is, at least in part, directly due to how well the Religious Right has gotten its message out … and how hateful it has been. You’ve been a victim of your own success, Farah.

  11. jnorris says

    Other alternative reasons: millions of people realize the Christians do not have a valid reason to stop same-gender marriage and same does not effect them in the least.

  12. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    I can’t think of any social movement in history that has so quickly transformed public opinion.

    I can’t either. And I’m thrilled about it.

    Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique to President Carter’s Public Works Employment Act – 14 years.

    The case seeking a constitutional requirement for queer access to gay marriage filed? 1991.
    Hawaii’s Supreme Court decision ruling requiring queer access to gay marriage which was stayed long enough for a constitutional amendment to be passed? 1998.

    Time to federal recognition of queer marriage? No earlier than today, 2013. Minimum calculation 15 years.

  13. raven says

    How will the Creator of the universe judge a nation that embraces a policy at odds with His own definition of marriage?

    Well, someone could, you know, ask him.

    Or god could send out some emails, give a press conference, post something on his blog, or go on late night TV talk shows. Like any other functional adult.

    In lieu of all that we could just see what he did to Canada, Iceland, France, Argentina or any other jurisdiction with same sex marriage. So far god has done…absolutely nothing. But he hasn’t done much of anything noticeable in the real world for centuries. He might be 50 million light years away, playing with his new favorites, the giant squids swimming in methane seas on Kpax IV.

  14. smhll says

    I like to think that the reason marriage equality is advancing so rapidly is that we’re all mortified that inter-racial marriage was ever barred by the government. Talk about a stupid and bigoted law!

  15. Michael Heath says

    I’m with Farah here. I’m incredibly frustrated the media doesn’t peel back the onion on anti-gay rights arguments.

    I’m especially appalled there are no follow-up questions when policy makers are able to quickly claim they personally object to gay marriage where the topic is then immediately switched. The media should instead ask follow-up questions to better understand how these bigots square their Christian-derived bigotry with the equal protection clause and this group’s constant claim they are defenders of predominant liberty and the U.S. Constitution while liberals are the enemy. And given we can expect incoherent responses, follow-up those initial reconciliation questions by making them squirm due to their incoherence, rather than moving onto a more comfortable topic – like the horse race on the legislative vote du jour.

    So where I differ with Farah is the results I anticipate of such fair and balanced reporting and analysis. Acceleration would vastly increase if Mitt Romney were asked to explain his bigotry within light of limited government and the equal protection clause. “OK Mitt, we get your religion hates queers, but what justification is that when it comes to denying gays their equal protection right via the 14th Amendment? (Which is then quoted given it’s brevity, unambiguity, and total opposition to Mitt’s argument.)

  16. unbound says

    To be honest, I think the internet itself has been a large part of this. Although the internet does as much bad as it does good, it is a wonderful resource for those that are actually curious…not just those that are looking for support of their own narrow world views. People that would struggle to find the same information in a library can find all kinds of different views on the subject with (and without) backing on the internet in short periods of time from their own house.

  17. says

    I’m not convinced there’s really been that large a shift, over that small a time. Rather, I think the public facade of opinion, as expressed by religious, “news” media (scare quotes intended), and political leaders has shifted dramatically. During this time, I strongly suspect the majority of people just didn’t give a freeq. The majority might have found the thought of homosexuality personally ikky, but it was some far-off thing with little relevance to their lives. Even in the states that passed anti-equality laws, it was the fear mongers whipping up enough of a majority of those who voted, to pass the propositions. But I still suspect the majority of those who breathe really just didn’t care.

    Once the argument was cast in terms of civil rights, however, and the guanophrenic screechers saturated the airwaves, people began to think a little more about it. They still didn’t give a damn, but I believe the thinking was on the line of, “who cares? Let them do what they want.”

    Of course, I have no citation for this. I also believe (as in believing without evidence) that the Rethuglicans will get their fundaments handed to them in 2014. (Hey! At least it’s more likely than angles dancing on the head of a pin, or unicorns invading my pasture.)

  18. Johnny Vector says

    I do worry about the consequences of widespread gay marriage, based on my own personal experience. I was invited to a gay wedding that took place a couple weeks ago. As it turned out I was tied into a harness and clipped to a steel pipe for the duration of the wedding. Holding a hot metal cylinder and sobbing quietly. What kind of perverted people do that to their wedding guests?

    Admittedly, the hot cylinder was a follow spot, which I had happily agreed to operate, and the harness is an OSHA requirement. And the sobbing was mainly when M sat down at the piano and sang his vows to S in an original song*. But still, this kind of ungodly, um, something something end of civilization.

    *Do you have any idea how hard it is to follow someone’s face at 50 feet when you’re trying not to cry on the instrument?

  19. markr1957 says

    Once people stop and think about that ‘equality’ thing in the Constitution it gets harder and harder to decide who should be less equal than the rest, and who should be most equal of all. That makes it really easy to suggest that if we treat everyone as equally equal you don’t even have to think about it any more – problem solved.

  20. abb3w says

    Pretty much the easy way to guess what will happen when gay marriage gets legalized is to look what happened when interracial marriage got legalized. (EG: churches can still refuse to perform marriages for interracial couples. There’s no legal sanction that results; they merely get national press as bigots.)

    However, the attitude shift on the gay marriage question does seem to have been relatively rapid in historical terms. Google Scholar does turn up a couple of “hey, this is happening unusually fast” papers, but not much on causation. The question of why seems an interesting one, even if Farah’s analysis confuses correlation with causation (among other dysfunctions).

  21. tomp says

    “How will the Creator of the universe judge a nation that embraces a policy at odds with His own definition of marriage?”

    Better than the way he judges a nation that treats the poor like garbage.

  22. Gvlgeologist, FCD says

    Personally, I like the way he put scare quotes around “fair and balanced network”. Does this mean that even he admits they aren’t?

    I love the smell of whining in the morning. He’s lost, and knows it.

  23. raven says

    “How will the Creator of the universe judge a nation that embraces a policy at odds with His own definition of marriage?”

    Better than the way he judges a nation that treats the poor like garbage.

    That was the real sin of Sodom.

    Ezekial 16:

    49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned;

    they did not help the poor and needy.

    50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

    While Farah is busy looking for motes in other people’s eyes, the giant beam of the almighty is about to smite him hard. (Or would if it wasn’t nonexistent or spending time on Kpax IV with its squids.)

  24. yellowsubmarine says

    “same-sex marriage – a radical idea conceived not because of a serious demand by homosexuals for marriage, but as an effort to undermine the institution of marriage –”

    This nearly made me throw up my breakfast.

  25. scienceavenger says

    A recent survey by the Pew Research Center Project for Excellence in Journalism found pro-same-sex marriage stories outnumbered anti-same-sex marriage stories by five to one.

    In other words, there hasn’t been a fair debate in the media.

    I agree. Given the quality (or lack thereof) of arguments on both sides, the ratio ought to be 10:1 at least.

  26. frog says

    Sastra@10: “Bigots are not being censored; they’re being condemned.”

    YES. This is the most pithy expression of what a lot of people are saying in other circles (I’m thinking of the SFWA kerfuffle). Brilliant.

  27. thisisaturingtest says

    Isn’t a “6,000-year-old institution widely regarded as a cornerstone of civilization” one that, by definition, has had the “media debate” all its own way for all but the last few of that 6000 years? If the idea of gay marriage was “considered preposterous and laughable just 10 years ago,” then, by his own admission, his side certainly had its “fair” (that is, one-sided) hearing, as a default, up till then. Farah’s just crying foul because another side than his is getting a voice it’s never had before.

  28. says

    #9: I used that exact same modus operandi during the interval when gay marriage was legal here in California, I intend to do it again once Prop 8 is overturned. I also have an ad on Craig’s List: Marry me, please!!!!1!!1 No fats, no fems, no Luxembourgers. Must be rich. It can work. I also by $1,000 worth of lottery tickets a months. I have to win.

    I grew up in a heavily Catholic neighborhood in Chicago in the 60s. Divorce was a big taboo. It was only talked about in whispers. 99% of the men on my block were alcoholics. Many of them beat their wives and kids. But the church said “No divorce” so they were stuck. It was so sad. I had many non-Catholic relatives who had been divorced. Both sets of my grandparents were divorced. They all seemed happier after the divorces.

  29. howardhershey says

    The 6000 year-old “institution” of marriage of which he speaks never existed. Agreed that marriage between a ‘free’ man and a ‘free’ woman was allowed, but so was marriage between a man and multiple women (and, in a few societies, a woman and multiple men). So was forced marriage of a woman to her rapist. So was child-bride marriages among the royals of Europe and even some societies today. So was arranged marriage that amount to slavery. And it was illegal for slaves to marry in the U.S. And until within my lifetime, it was illegal for an interracial couple to marry in many states. That is not to mention the many other non-legal restrictions that particular religious groups placed on inter-faith marriages. In most of history, marriage was not a state responsibility (although marriage by contract was common among the kings and dukes, etc.) and even the church was not involved in most ‘marriages’ among the poor (all that was required was the couple’s verbal assent to witnesses and sexual union. Martin Luther, in fact, thought the church should not be involved in marriage, that it was a state matter. It was John Calvin who reformulated marriage to require both church consecration and state registration, in agreement with the Counter-Reformation Catholic requirement that marriage be officiated by a priest. IOW, marriage as we know it is only about 500 years old. Their understanding of the history of marriage and Biblical views on marriage are, to say the least, as pathetically ignorant as their understanding of Early Christian history.

Leave a Reply