Tuesday, October 02, 2012

Seattle Times on Marriage: Wrapped as a Gift in the Guise of "News"

Under the guise of "news," the Times is doing it again---presenting a story as "news" when it is, well, you decide.

News stories are more helpful than op-ed articles. And they are said to be different. Unrelated. Unbiased.

The people who are working to redefine marriage are running with the recent article, advancing a narrative of fear and urgency, using the story as confirmation and fuel.

Within minutes after Lornet Turnbull's Seattle Times' story was out, the marriage redefiners were quoting and referencing the story, saying, "If we're going to preserve the freedom to marry this November, we need to have resources to answer all the nasty ads on the way. Please contribute now..."

Not only was this story a good vehicle for same-sex "marriage" advocates' fund raising, but was directed at anyone who may still be undecided on the issue of redefining marriage.

Loving, caring people vs. nasty, intolerant people.

Wrapped as a gift in the guise of "news."


I've seen it before. I've even experienced it personally.

Back in August, Janet Tu wrote an article for the Times on Archbishop Sartain. While it appeared on the surface to be a story highlighting the Archbishop and his ministry, as you read on into the story, it was not a spotlight noting his good work, it was a blow torch intended to burn him because he opposes redefining marriage and supports natural marriage. And says so out loud.

He was said to be "out of touch with his congregation." I wrote a blog about it.

This time its the same agenda, with a different cast of characters.

This time the bad guy is not a Bishop, but a PR person---a consultant who is leading the media campaign to preserve marriage in Washington State.

Frank Schubert.

The "news" story begins, "The man behind the messages in campaigns against same-sex marriage in Washington and three other states is a master strategist both revered and reviled by those who know his work."

The story initially defines Schubert as very successful in his work, then begins a narrative of well chosen quotes that cast him and his work as a threat to every decent, fair, opened minded, tolerant person.

Here's the short version of how the negative profile is developed. Same format as with Archbishop Sartain.

The Message: "Schubert is very good at what he does. This is what he does."

Marc Solomon (Freedom to Marry): "Frank Schubert wakes up every morning trying to figure out how to take freedoms away from loving, committed couples."

Anne Levinson (WA United for Marriage): "Schubert relishes creating this rhetoric, and he doesn't care if it's borne out of truth. He polls and does focus groups to find out what voters' fears are and then designs tactics to play on those fears."

Lornet Turnbull (Times journalist): "Ironically, Schubert's sister, a deputy district attorney for Sacramento County who is running for Superior Court judge, is a lesbian raising children with her partner."

Turnbull again: "The twice married Schubert said..." And, "Gays have long argued they are not responsible for what's wrong with traditional marriage in the country."

Solomon again: "What you'll find is that his arguments are getting old and stale and will be less effective because so many people now know same-sex couples who are in committed relationships."

Turnbul again: "One of his [Schubert] more famous TV ads feature a girl running up to her mother asking her to guess what she learned in school that day: 'I learned how a prince married a prince and I can marry a princess."

Turnbul: "While gay-marriage bills say nothing about what kids should be taught in schools, the reality is that grades as young as kindergarten children are already being taught about different kinds of families, including those headed by same-sex couples."

The marriage bills don't need to address the impact on education, there is always a number of "clarification and adjustment" type legislative actions that follow, designed to "bring into conformity" gender issues, terminology, etc. with the marriage bill.

This has already happened with this bill. Murray and Pederson were on that before the session ended earlier this year. We all know that translates into the classroom. Every time a bill is passed that compromises traditional marriage, family values or the sanctity of life, its content is transferred into the classroom and ultimately into the textbook.

To imply that redefining marriage has no affect on what is taught in public school is very misleading.

Here are The Ten Components of the "news" story.

1. Schubert is a master strategist. He is revered and reviled.

2. Schubert is very good, but very dangerous.

3. A call to action. A story suitable with quotes for fundraising by homosexual activists. A renewed sense of urgency.

4. Schubert is obsessed with taking freedoms away from homosexuals.

5. Schubert plays on fear, not on truth.

6. Schubert is a liar.

7. Schubert's sister is a lesbian.

8. Schubert has failed in heterosexual marriage. He has been married twice.

9. Schubert's beliefs are old and stale. Flat earth beliefs. Not relevant. Represent a dwindling minority.

10. Kids in kindergarten are already being taught about same-sex families. This bill doesn't effect education.

Deception. From the largest newspaper in Washington State.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.

29 comments:

  1. You nailed it. Most of us already know this but thanks for keeping the light on. Blessings on you Gary.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was very offended by their article on Bishop Sartain. I appreciated your writing about it. Thanks for mentioning it again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I guess I'm missing the deception you see Gary. Even in your self-serving restatements as 'commandments' everything you say is true.

    The real problem is that your side has tried using an out-of-state professionals before to get your way and if there is one thing Washingtonians hate is a carpetbagger, no matter what side of an issue he is on. Those that don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, it seems.

    But then you knew it would be an uphill battle anyway:
    • NOM uses last minute scare ads to plant doubt, Washingtonians will be casting their votes starting next week.
    • presidential and governor voting year will increase progressive voting
    • People already voted on this and let people register their spouses regardless of sex already, letting all use the same contract is really a small difference.
    • The group most supportive of marriage equality is also the one that is hardest to get to cast their ballots but God blessed us with a 'legalize pot' initiative. The perfect 'Get out the vote' incentive for young adults

    I do wonder what it will take to make you decide that the Christians that support marriage equality are the ones on the rights side of this issue.

    Reincarnation maybe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only TV ad I have seen is from the opposition which actually promotes the view that the ref will insure homosexuals to be able to see sick partners in hospitals . that has along been resolved in this state , and this ref does nothing to enhance or detract from it .
      Just think having pot on the ballot hopes the same sex marriage side . Tells who really is concerned about those kids in the marriage relationship does't it .
      Mick

      Delete
  4. Seems to me that the Times did you folks a favor, an entire story on your advertising maven, and not a single mention of the fact that you've reserved $1.5 million in airtime, and have presumably started paying to produce ads, yet you have reported only $800k in contributions. Seems to me the real story is your attempt to avoid state campaign finance disclosure laws.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 9:37 What's your point? Everyone who plans to air ads reserves air time. Is it possible there are donations pledged yet to come in? I;m sure you know the Times story would have included any irregularities if they existed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Campaigns are required to report pledges to the PDC. Preserve Marriage WA has not done so. Ergo, if they reserved this airspace in anticipation of pledged donations that were not reported, they are in violation of campaign finance laws. This doesn't even get into the $$ for producing these ads, which is presumably already being spent.

      Delete
  6. Oster. The deception is that the Seattle news consistently acts like they are being fair in their reporting on marriage, while in fact they always have an agenda. The agenda is to force gay marriage onto the state by influencing the voters to their bias. Pretty clear. Thanks Gary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or maybe the rational answer is marriage equality? It seems so to me. So many of the arguments from your side make no sense to me.

      • Religious reasoning - the biggest supporters of marriage equality are churches and the state constitution prohibits using 'religious freedom' as an excuse for trampling on the rights of others and the state can't take a side one way or the other.
      • "Its bad for children/families/whatever" - we already register spouses regardless of their sex under the same state statutes. Parents can adopt children already regardless of the parent's sexes. Any children will be being raised by these parents anyway so how does denying them registered married parents help them, society, the parents or anyone?
      • chldren will learn something about them - they already know about the domestic partnerships, they already go to school with kids with registered parents who are the same sex, they already know its the same as marriage - how will letting them be actually registered with the marriage contract change this in any significant way?
      • same sex couples should be able to use this particular contract because they are 'this that or the other' bad quality. Considering meth addicts, spousal abusers, and people on death row all have an absolute right to register with a spouse, - as long as they are of the opposite sex - that makes no sense to me. There hasn't t been any 'sanctity' or 'moral' requirement for the civil marriage spousal registry up to now, why isn't that as much an obvious excuse to you as it is to me?
      • appeals to the past, i.e. we've always done it that way before, but that has never been a legitimate excuse not to examine issues in America. One of the founding premises of the US was the government was not perfect and we would have to continue to strive to make it more so.

      How could a news article really put any of these reasons up for not allowing marriage equality? None of them even stand the slightest examination.

      My contention would be is that you are on the wrong side of this issue, your position is inconsistent with American ideals, the premises we should both be able to expect the other to hold. Face it, once R74 passes the only thing that really changes is the state government will have less paperwork since counties administrate marriage contracts, and there will be the exact same number of citizens with registered spouses in the state.

      ::YAWN::

      Again, love to see an article that doesn't advocate religious discrimination, require same sex couples to meet some new standard that opposite sex ones have never had to meet or simple appeals to the past AND still justifies not treating citizens and their spouses equally under the same contract. But I've read many (the NOM tweet feed links to them) and haven't seen one that fit the bill yet.

      The sky will not fall when R74 is approved, same number of registered spouses, still a handful of registrations performed, you still will be able to say 'they aren't really married' just like the Catholics have always been able to say about civilly married people.

      Again

      ::YAWN::

      Delete
    2. Amen, Oshtur! Spot on...

      Delete
  7. Oster. While you're yawning, could you explain how legalizing same-sex marriage is "Equality?" Many people will still be discriminated against. What about them? Do you really want equality or do you want special rights? Looks like special rights to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, brother... here we go again with the "semantics" argument. As if "marriage equality" means anyone supports dropping all restrictions on marriage.

      "Marriage equality" is a shorthand way of saying that same-sex couples should be able to marry like opposite couples do, nothing more nothing less.

      You are familiar with this type of thing already. "Pro-life" is shorthand for being against aborting pregnancies, not about life in general. What if I argued you can't be pro-life and support the killing of Osama bin Laden? Or the death penalty? Or hunting? After all, none of those things is "pro-life", right?

      You would call me crazy. Exactly my point...

      Delete
    2. We already legalized same sex marriage, those married folk are just forced to use a contract titled something else. You don't think people run around calling their spouses 'partners' do you? Its husband and wife for them too.

      So how changing only what contract they register with 'discriminate'? Everyone can register with a spouse now, everyone will be able to register with a spouse after R74 is approved. What door do you see opening?

      Can't be polygamy - a spousal relationship 2 people making a full commitment to one another, youi can't do that with more than one 'other'.

      Can't be with any non-contractable entity, they can't enter into a contract to begin with. (we will deal with what to do with interspecies dating once the Vulcans arrive I'm sure, but not today.)

      So what's 'special' about letting all people with spouses use the same contract if they want? that's a pretty low bar for 'special' don't you think?

      Delete
    3. First of all, it's not equal. Marriage has been and always will be primarily about having kids and raising them to understand there is a difference between a man and a woman and being a role model for that gender. It's how a girl learns to be a woman, same for a man.

      6000 years of human history has born this out. Every time this bond is broken, children suffer, whether thru divorce, death, war or whatever. Now we want to lower the bar even further?

      Homosexual "marriage" is NOT a civil right, its a special right, just like marrying my dad, brother,sheep or 15 women.

      Jesus said, "He created them male and female and for this reason a man will leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife and the TWO shall become ONE flesh". Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

      I know this is to coin a phrase 'an inconvenient truth', but God defines what marriage is, I don't & you don't.

      I don't know where you get your info, but the churches are overwhelmingly against gay 'marriage', have been for a couple millenia.

      We should affirm something because children already know about it? Really? Don't be absurd,you're intelligent enough to know that's a ridiculous argument on the face of it.

      Those that have no fear of God and seek to only please their own appetites reap what they sow. Paul wrote about you guys in Romans 1.

      You believe the creature rather than the creator.
      "Did God really say....." and "....you shall not surely die".

      May you seek the Lord while he may be found.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
    4. "Those that have no fear of God and seek to only please their own appetites"

      It seems to me that it's the self proclaimed Christians who are favoring "everyone's on their own" policy, and the liberals who are saying we need to share and take care of each other.

      Delete
    5. Craig, First, I'm hurt that you assume that I don't know God. This is not the first time that believers have disagreed on a social issue. Good Christians during the civil war had mixed feeling about slavery. You naively say that marriage is the same today as it was in Bible times, for example, leaving out the requirement of marrying your brother's wife after he dies, having the number of concubines, and the acceptance of having a handmaid bear the children for a barren wife.

      If you are going to quote the passage about man leaving his father and mother naturally you are aware that matriarchal lineage was traced between the woman not the man, it was the only sure proof of a child's parentage.
      Marriage has changed greatly since Biblical times, traditional and legal.

      There are Christian churches today that are supportive of committed
      same sex relationships or are you not been watching the news?

      You also implied children are the main concern, I am wondering if you only think that is the only reason for marrying? Are you saying that a heterosexual couple who choose or can't have children are undeserving of marriage, and if a woman is barren does this give the husband the right to divorce her as taught in the Old Testament?

      I also glad that you used Romans1, it is one of my favorite passages, but as you know chapters and verses were not put in by the writer. Depending on which commentary you use scholars debate at which point the natural break would occure in the passage, but we know that it is somewhere later in chapter two, assuring us that Paul's argument is that all need Christ even those that don't think they do.

      That is why I find such great comfort in 1 John: 4-8

      "Beloved, let us love one another, for all love comes from God. He who Loves not knows not God, for God Himself is Love." 1 John

      Delete
    6. Your hurt that someone would not believe you know God . I would think you would be ashamed or at least concerned about the way you handle yourself here and disrespect others who know God here all thinking that . Says more about your behavior does it not . Or is how you are looked upon not important .

      Marriage of course has changed over years. Different reasons even today obviously.Basically a strawman argument but you use it often . we change our underwear but that does not mean we have to start wearing ones that all the same gender wears.

      Jesus spoke to a man and women being brought togetheras one Flesh . The Bible teaches problems resulting from other forms of marriage because of jealousies and such . Only relationship ever supported by God has been the relationship of one man and one woman . That is just a Bibical Truth . Obviuosly not bigoted or hateful unless you think the God of Love is hateful or bigoted .

      Just like slavery the Bible speaks to situtations and times when those institutions were in place , never supported them . Ifyour really concerned and want to learn , you find God teaches us how to handle each situation . Perhaps how to handle someone being brutal to you because of your race , perhaps in your case your sexual orientation . It teaches how to handle relationships through having a relationship with Christ . Your right the dos and don't re not as imortant as the relationship with Christ .

      Of course children are not the only reason for marriage , but to many the is part the state contracts has our " my" interest in with this debate , it promotes the stability of children having a mom and dad . Homosexyual marriage for insures kids never have the opportunity and benefit of the contributions of both genders. Homosexual marriage discriminates against children in that manner.

      I am glad you re using scripture for Love , it is what God is all about . Once you told me you were looking forward to all Christians dying out and even believed kids sharing Christmas traditions in public schools as a means of reflecting their homes and families was hated by you .

      Perhaps prayers have got through , Praise God .
      in the maen time this law actually changes no legal difference in how the state law law already had extended the ability for homosexual in partnerships . Seems like the only difference is the word marriage . Hope the consequences are not as dramatic as it was the last time liberals changed marriage laws with no fault divorce. That was all for the good of marriage too .



      Mick

      Delete
    7. Mick your first paragraph makes no sense, I was replying to Craig not some generic everyone. Are you still using the old message reading format that doesn't thread messages into reply threads (used to be linking from the e-mail would do that but hasn't for me in awhile.)

      As the analogy of 'wearing the other gender's underwear' that actually is the point - you could if you wanted to, there is nothing inherently sinful about it.

      Same with same sex marriage. Marriage is of this world, it is for the best framework for sexual activity, something we are 'designed' to need as adults with few exceptions. Remember Jesus said that celibacy was a gift from God, i.e. you can't just successfully choose to be celibate it has to be of your God given nature.

      As to the children, has nothing to do with this since all people or couples of any sex combination can raise kids by foster, adoption, step children or whatever. R74 either way doesn't change that one iota. These children will still be being raised by their parents and so the only question is 'is it better for them to have married parents or not?' The Christians I hang out with see that as a no brainer - they should be married.

      And you are doing something I used to erroneously do - exchange the meaning of sex and gender. A person of any sex can act like any traditional gender, and in a household there are a set number of different parental roles. Don't you worry - they all get expressed, just not by the sex of person you might think should. One of my favorite things to point out about 'Modern Family' is in the Dumphy household many of the roles that are traditionally filled by the husband are the wife's, and vs versa. And if we think about it we realize many of those we know do the same (with less comedy) Children raised by same sex parents still are exposed to all the gender roles they need and they will be no matter how R74

      And yes my views on Christianity have evolved since meeting some, shoot my husband is a pastor. Christians are fully supportive of the blessing of marriage equality and can toe to toe any ecclesiastical argument to the contrary. One thing we both know is Jesus said we don't understand the Law, and its because of that Christians follow Christ by doing as He asked, Love God, Love Each Other, accept His freely given gift of Grace and proceed using righteous judgment - are they filled with Grace? Are they truly acting from a position of love?

      As an aside, you are mistaken about 'no fault divorce' - the divorce rates were already soaring returning to their pre-depression levels - no fault divorce was a solution to a problem, it didn't cause it. An excellent book titled 'Marriage, a History' by Stephanie Coontz is a wonderful read with half the book being footnotes and cites for what she observes. Available in print and e-book it shows how Marriage has changed radically in the last 300 years. Highly recommend it for anyone wanting a well researched history of Marriage.

      And it is a bit about the word - that can't be shocking it might be important to people, that R74 exists is testimony to that. Aside from the differences between the two contracts (for example Massachusetts will recognize a Marriage contract, but not a Domestic Partnership), why should some married citizens be denied the usage of the Marriage contract? This is just a contract that the state uses to register the declaration of a legal spousal relationship - why should some citizens who are just as married as any other be denied its usage?

      As for the changes - since the day all domestic partnerships are converted to marriages there will be the exact same number of registered spouses in the state, I don't think there will really be much difference at all. Hasn't been anywhere else.

      God bless

      Delete
    8. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, Oshtur, that was not my intent.

      As to slavery, Scripture is quite clear as to the conduct of slave or Master. If you can win your freedom you should, if not, serve your master as if serving Christ himself. A master is not to mistreat a slave, but love them as Christ does. Nowhere does it affirm slavery as it was practiced in this country. Good Christians with biblical discernment led the battle to right this wrong. I have never excused those who claim the name of Christ and supported the abuse of their fellow human beings.

      I'm not naive, man has always gone his own way, done what was right in his own eyes. That's why Jesus had to die, to pay the penalty for our disobedience. The requirements you cite are not for Gentiles. Regardless, Jesus is quoting Genesis, the definition of marriage hasn't changed in the eyes of God. Yes, I know about the addition of chapters and verses, doesn't change the meaning one iota. Oh, by the way....remember the 'begat' passages that put us all to sleep=), all male lineages. Matthew 1 does the same, so does Luke 3.

      I can put on a wig and dress and act like a woman (LOL), doesn't make me one. Nor does it make any other guy. We're wired differently, dude, I'm sure you know this. The best atmosphere for the raising of kids is a mom and dad. God designed it that way, our social experiments continue to fail. So, let's try another one? So sorry, not!

      No one has taken away your right to marry, you may marry any woman you choose, and no, having children is not the only reason to marry. It is an important one. That kids will continue to be raised in a homosexual home even if R74 stops "marriage" is not the issue here, that's another problem. The very definition of marriage is the issue, you want affirmation of your lifestyle, I say no.

      Just because one state does something doesn't mean we should become lemmings and follow it into the sea.

      I understand your desire for affirmation and respect your right to make your case. I hold no animosity towards you or your boyfriend, you may do as you please, but not at the expense of society as a whole.

      God bless

      Craig in Lacey

      Of course I watch the news, I'm aware some churches support your position. You said a majority support it and that's inaccurate as I said.

      Delete
  8. Oster. You and your people always assume to be all knowing. You are often wrong. I am pro-life and I am against the death penalty. While I don't personally hunt, is there no difference in your mind between the life of an animal and a human?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No we assume that we and anyone really interested in a subject have thought long and hard about it. And those that do are less often 'wrong' than those that don't.

      Asking a negative question seems a bit leading. I think people have rights and we have as part of our social contract acknowledged them in ourselves and those same in other people. Its the basis of our American philosophy

      I know many non-human individuals I also view have rights but they aren't human rights the life of an animal is different than that of a human but beyond that I don't really know what answer your question is trying to elicit.

      Delete
  9. Thanks again Gary! Our church is speaking about R74 and the importance of a 'reject' vote. May the Lord strenghten us.

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  10. Osthur 9:21 Where are you finding any thing about Gary's "Commandments". Are you misreading or responding so quickly that you are not reading it all? The word "Commandments " is not in the text. Are you jumping to conclusions?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Brilliant work Gary. Keep it up. You are cutting through the crap and getting to the truth. Not only is the Seattle Times editorial board running their own campaign to approve R-74, they are running news stories that affirm their campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So nice to see the good Rev. Fuiten quoted. It seems he is right in there on the front lines for marriage, drawing metaphors from baseball, the go to guy for the Seattle Times. A real trooper for marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I love watching when it's Osthur vs Gary's flock. It's like watching a slow motion karate movie as he takes out each comer with a swift and accurate response that demonstrates the beauty of treating your fellow humans fairly with respect and dignity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @953

      Gives you a tingly feeling down your leg does it .

      Delete
    2. My initial temptation was to reply to your post with something equally sarcastic, but as I've learned from Osthur, it's best to just present factual information in a non-inflammatory manner.

      So, my answer is, no, it doesn't.

      Delete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.