This piece originally ran in my blog Out of Bounds on the Pioneer Press website during the Marriage Amendment Act debate of 2012, and it was the final piece I posted for them. I don’t handle lying about important stuff well. If you want to read their editorial it can be found here: http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_21916526/editorial-minnesota-marriage-amendment.
The core of any stable society is honesty.
We must be able to trust one another. We must be able to trust that contracts will be fulfilled, laws will be followed, and rights will be respected. We must be able to trust that people mean the words they say, that a government will not abuse its monopoly on military force, that news outlets will convey all the facts in a clear and impartial manner.
Without trust, the only law we have is the point of the spear, the barrel of the gun.
That’s why I can no longer write for the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
In a recent editorial, the editorial board of the Pioneer Press claimed to present a neutral view of the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
This was a lie.
Instead, we were presented with a severely biased piece urging the adoption of the amendment, a piece that did its best to hide behind the facade of its purported neutrality but that let its glaring support ooze through in every twisted phrase and slimy sentence.
To be clear, I have no problem with the editors urging people to vote yes. That is their decision to make, their opinion to have, and no one can (or should) take that away. My problem is the attempted masking of that opinion, the disguising of their intent—in short, my problem is with their lying.
How does this piece lie? It lies in the very first sentence: “The marriage amendment puts the definition of marriage to a vote of the people in an attempt to protect it from judges and legislators.” An innocuous statement at first glance, but when you take a second look, its message is insidious, implying as it does that the current definition of marriage needs to be protected and that another definition of marriage will be wrong or distasteful. “Protect it from judges and legislators”? That’s how laws work in this country—we elect legislators, and they pass laws; if we don’t like them, we vote in new legislators who pass new laws. If we don’t like what judges do, we elect legislators to appoint different judges or we recall them. To imply that something needs to be protected from the very function of legality is to dismiss the basis of our judicial and legislative system.
How does this piece lie? It lies by implying that the statement “For those who consider the amendment the last best defense of a critically important institution under assault by activists attempting to reverse centuries of collective wisdom, it easily clears the constitutional amendment bar” is just as neutral as the statement “For those who oppose it and are confident that in time their view will prevail through the Legislature or the courts, the constitutional amendment process is inappropriate.”
The first quote uses emotionally nuanced adjectives to describe supporters of the marriage amendment: “last best defense,” “critically important institution,” “under assault by activists,” “centuries of collective wisdom”—all loaded phrases, all designed to evoke a subconscious response of sympathy and/or fear. The second quote? A bland description of our actual legal process, presented as if it’s somehow merely an option to follow the structural framework laid down by our founders. Which of these quotes is designed to influence people more?
How does this piece lie? It lies by ignoring Supreme Court precedent that separate is not equal. “Opponents of the measure are clear that they do not want to settle for a civil union status that would guarantee the same rights and privileges to same-sex unions that are given to traditional marriages. It is ‘marriage’ that they want. In effect, a union by any other name is not as sweet.”
Yes, how dare those gay people insist on the same respect, the same dignity, the same acknowledgment that heterosexual couples receive? How dare they think that a civil union isn’t good enough? How dare they think that separate is not, in fact, equal? Presenting the idea that opponents of the amendment should somehow be grateful for what scraps they get is not neutral. Frankly, it’s disgustingly reminiscent of segregation articles from the 1960s, discrimination wrapped in a tissue-paper veil of “tolerance” and “why can’t they be happy with what they have?”
How does this piece lie? It lies in statistics. “Some argue that as a practical matter there seems to be less interest by same-sex partners in actually being married than in redefining what marriage is. In Iowa, for instance, Wikipedia reports, that only 815 same-sex couples married in the first year after legalization.” It’s unfortunate that the editors do not comment on the fact that the actual link in the Wiki article leads to a page not found.
This is not journalism. This is cherry-picking facts you hope no one has the inclination to look up, because if one looked up the actual facts, one would see that 815 same-sex marriages means that 20 percent of the same-sex couples in Iowa chose to marry that first year, a not-insignificant fraction of the population. If one looked up actual facts, one would find that 13.6 percent of all marriages in Iowa in 2010 were same-sex marriages, another not-insignificant fraction, especially when one considers that the gay population of the United States is estimated at only 3.5 percent.
How does this piece lie? It lies in its mealymouthed “Love may be love, but even now there are any number of prohibitions around marriage between consenting (heterosexual) adults.” Name them. Oh, that’s right, you can’t. It lies in having five-sentence vote-yes arguments and one- or two-sentence vote-no counterpoints. It lies by claiming that marriage is either “about children and the biological family or about consenting adults”—as if gay people can’t raise children and all they want to do is have sex with each other.
How does the piece lie? It lies, oh, how it lies, when it talks about supporters of traditional marriage being bullied, being painted as victims; when it weeps and moans about how the “members of the [vote-no] movement are aggressive”; when it wails and gnashes teeth and says, “For those who hold traditional beliefs about marriage, increasingly the force of law will be brought to bear on matters of education, speech, and practice.” And all this while not mentioning a single gay person denied his or her right to be treated as a human being, while remaining silent on the issue of gay children bullied in school, while staying completely quiet about a gay-support group forbidden to march in Anoka.
How does this piece lie? It lies, most simply, in this sentence: “The Pioneer Press is not endorsing one way or another.”
You have made your endorsement, ladies and gentlemen. You chose your side. But you did not choose to stand up for your convictions, to attach your names to the position you took. That is why I will no longer associate with you, why I decline to give you page views and ad revenue any longer. The only reason I’m posting this piece here and not somewhere else is that I said I would, and I believe that one’s word is not something to be given lightly.
I will not stand for the continual eroding of society. I will not tolerate the presentation of a biased argument under a thin coat of purported neutrality. I will not contribute to the cheapening of discourse and thought that decays every single news-as-entertainment outlet in this country. I absolutely will not compromise my ethics and morality, ideals that lead me to treat others with empathy and honesty, to demand truth not only from myself but from those around me.
I reject you, and I encourage others to do the same—reject you, and all others like you. Those who perpetrate deception and fraud. Those willing to hide the truth of their beliefs. Those who value flash over substance, short-term gains over long-term consequences.
Without honesty, we have nothing.
Farewell.
PS: I am aware of your “apology.” You still failed to address the underlying problem, that a piece like that was published in the first place. You still haven’t taken responsibility for your stance. You evaded and backpedaled, and you did not once say, “We have failed you as a media establishment. We have betrayed your trust. This is what we stand for, and why; this is how that article came to be printed, why we allowed it.”
Have the courage of your convictions. That’s all I’m asking. Stand for something, or fall for everything; don’t hide behind lies.