Think Less Progressive Propaganda Begin

It is very difficult to be objective. Most people come to any event or situation with their own preconceived ideas. We believe this or that to be true and all else, everything that we see is seen through the lens of those fundamental beliefs. I seek to be objective and unbiased, but I fail most of the time. But when you see people just simply being disingenuous, it should disturb us greatly. This is what is already beginning to happen with the leftist media.

Think Progressive reported

During Tuesday’s marriage equality arguments in the Supreme Court, several of the Court’s conservative members suggested that same-sex couples should not be given equal marriage rights because these couples have not enjoyed those rights for most of the past. As Justice Antonin Scalia summed up this argument, “for millennia, not a single society” supported marriage equality, and that somehow exempted same-sex couples from the Constitution’s promise of equal protection of the law.

This cought my eye because I did an article yesterday, basically on the same quote. I sought to show the good and bad arguments. The purpose of Ian Millhiser’s article is to show the weak argument of the justices who oppose “marriage equality.” I want to point out a few things about how this is done, so if you run into such reporting, maybe you can recognize this technique.

First, it should always raise a red flag when a reporter only gives the first six words of a sentence. To start the quote and then finish in your own words is a dead give away. There is some funny business. This should point to the fear of the left. There is something that was said that they do not want out. But what?

So what did Scalia actually say?

The Washington Post has this recorded and transcript

“For Millennia not—not a single society until the Netherlands in 2001, and you’re telling me they were—I don’t know what.”

And after Bonauto explains, Scalia said

“Well the—the issue is –is—is not whether there should be same-sex marriage, but who should decide the point.”

Now, I know that this seems a little petty. Is this not what Ian Millhiser said in summary? Well, yes and no. It is that Scalia hit in the states have been saying all along.  This is not a federal issue.  He also misrepresented the event. Gensburg makes her statement before Scalia and not in response. Ian also ignores Justice Roberts response to Gensburg arguing Bonauto’s case for her.

Roberts said

“Coventure was not—coventure was not a universal aspect of marriage around—around the world. And there again if you look at the basic definition, it is between a man and a woman.”

“It does not say that it is always between a man and a woman in which the woman is subordate in legal respects. So I’m not sure that it is still again a fair analogy to your situation.”

Though Ian probably cheered when he heard Gensburg’s diatribe against our male dominate, woman hating society, it says little in the way toward why we as a society should change the definition of marriage. I hope that in the future, Ian will be more careful in his attempts to report the news.

Tommorow, we will look a little closer at Scalia’s words and cover the reason we cannot accept the redefining of marriage.