Fox’s foolish reporting of non-news

Timothy Kincaid

December 26th, 2009

fox newsI am not among those who dismiss Fox News as nothing but partisan propaganda. In today’s news practice of activism masquerading as information, I find that they provide a balance to other news sources and between them all I get a better sense of what is true.

But sometimes the editorial slant of the entire network becomes laughable. Take, for example, this story, entitled “Gay Marriage Opponents Push to Let Voters Decide“.

DES MOINES, Iowa — Opponents of Iowa’s gay marriage law are promising to push hard during the 2010 legislative session for a vote on a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex unions.

In equally exciting (and likely) news, opponents of the sun rising in the East are promising to push hard to reverse the Earth’s rotation. Ugh.

What this breathless press-release pretending to be a news story fails to mention is that there is just about zero likelihood that their pressing – hard or otherwise – will result in a constitutional amendment any time soon.

Democrats hold a majority in both houses by sizable margins: 56-44 in the House and 32-18 in the Senate. While there are no doubt some in the Democratic delegation that would never affirmatively vote for equality – and might even vote in opposition if given the chance – no such votes will arise. Both House Speaker Pat Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal have stated that they will not be entertaining such a debate.

Republicans will rally and protest and campaign on this issue. But unless they have other vastly more compelling arguments, this is unlikely to shift power in the legislature. A poll in September found that the state is about evenly divided on the idea of a constitutional amendment, but that 63% say that other issues are more important to them. A huge 92% say that same-sex marriage hasn’t impacted their life at all.

Even supposing that the 2010 election could be argued to be a referendum of the people calling for discrimination, a constitutional amendment requires that two back to back legislatures vote affirmatively before presenting the issue to the voters (oh, wise Iowa). The soonest that voters could face a proposition to change their constitution would be November 2014.

I don’t think it is unreasonable to believe that after five years of marriage equality, Iowans would be immune to warnings of impending doom – which is really all the anti-gay side has to offer.

Lynn David

December 26th, 2009

If Iowa is anything like Indiana, a number of those Democrats would vote for an amendment to define marriage heterosexually if it came before the entire legislative body (house or senate) and likely enough to pass it. Luckily, here in Indiana the bill that would enable the vote on the amendment (by the people) never made it out of a democratically controlled committee. Likely, that too will be the case in Iowa.

Sol Invictus

December 27th, 2009

Iowa is sending a message. Perhaps the Democrats should listen to the voters who elected them to serve their constituency.

If a vote of the citizens of Iowa is demanded on same sex marriage, then allow the citizens to vote on the issue.

If the polls are correct then it would be the first electorate victory for same sex marriage.

If California had voted NO on proposition 8, the arguement would be “The will of the people must be respected”. Same if same sex marriage had prevailed in Maine.

All gay advocates would be demanding the will of the people be upheld if the vote had went their way.

Iowa should have the same choice. Arguing against a vote of the citizens is talking out both sides of your mouth at the same time. Trying to stop the citizens from voting if they desire to do so is pure ideological fascism.

Désirée

December 27th, 2009

Sorry Sol, you are very very wrong. No one is talking about respecting the will of the people. This is an issue that shouldn’t be up for a vote at all. One group of people voting on the rights of another group is never right. That is tyranny. Preventing a vote is the proper thing to do, regardless of which side might win.

Burr

December 27th, 2009

If same sex marriage won at the polls, the reaction would have been “Well, that was a relief, but it NEVER should have gone to the polls in the first place.” And we wouldn’t be crowing about how it was the will of the people but how ridiculous it is to put people’s freedoms to a simple majority rules vote.

Let’s vote on YOUR marriage, YOUR freedom of speech, YOUR right to a fair trial.

If you won’t let us vote on those things, then YOU are the one that is the pure ideological fascist.

Priya Lynn

December 27th, 2009

Timothy said “I find that they provide a balance to other news sources and between them all I get a better sense of what is true.”.

Oh dear…I just remember Fox news having a debate on atheists and they invited three religious people to discuss it and no atheists – that’s “fair” and “balanced” fox style.

Priya Lynn

December 27th, 2009

That should have said “a debate on atheism”, not atheists.

Ben in Oakland

December 27th, 2009

“I don’t think it is unreasonable to believe that after five years of marriage equality, Iowans would be immune to warnings of impending doom – which is really all the anti-gay side has to offer.”

Well, that and pure, old-fashioned gays are gonna get your cihldren homophobia.

Bruno

December 27th, 2009

What scares me is that if this does come up for a vote, say as late as 2013, the voters would STILL take away marriage equality rights. Iowa is full of evangelical wingnuts who’ll dutifully flock to the polls in force to smack down gays and lesbians. It would make prop 8 look like a relatively small slap in comparison.

Timothy (TRiG)

December 27th, 2009

I remember seeing that debate on YouTube, Priya. It was quite amusing in a “I can’t believe anything this dumb and blatantly partisan was actually broadcast by a serious news channel” way.

TRiG.

Priya Lynn

December 27th, 2009

Trig, I thought it was really outrageous. Whenever someone says Fox is a balanced news organization I think about this and just shake my head.

John

December 27th, 2009

Priya,

I suppose you could always find of way of having something precariously teatering on it’s Right side and call that balanced.

Priya Lynn

December 27th, 2009

Right John, LOL.

Robert in San Diego

December 27th, 2009

1. I’m sorry Sol but I too must disagree with you. Equal fundamental rights is not something that the vast majority who hate you should vote on.

2. “Even supposing that the 2010 election could be argued to be a referendum of the people calling for discrimination, a constitutional amendment requires that two back to back legislatures vote affirmatively before presenting the issue to the voters (oh, wise Iowa).”….
Wow and to think that states use to look up to California. For a state to pass a constitutional amendment with only 52% of the vote (majority) yet we can’t pass a budget or anything else without 2/3 of the legislator. My science is my state stupid.

Dan

December 28th, 2009

@ Tim Kincaid:

“Both House Speaker Pat Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal have stated that they will not be entertaining such a debate.”

– I believe they said that with respect to the 2009 legislative session. As far as I know, they haven’t promised to bottle this up in 2010. You may recall that even in MA, there was a vote on a constitutional amendment. So I think this is more of a story than you are allowing. Also, Iowans will vote this year (as they do every 10 years) on whether to require a constitutional convention. While a convention need not deal with marriage and while it would be up to the delegates to decide that, I would bet that the right wing will use the convention vote as a vehicle to promote their campaign.

@ Sol:

Thanks for opposing fascism! I expect to see you up in Albany, NY demanding that marriage equality be sent to a popular vote. Don’t let a few senators take the issue away from the people! That’s what Mussolini did!

andrew

December 28th, 2009

Tim, I can appreciate wanting to have somewhere to hear in news media what is actually being said in conservative circles, but I’d like to point a few things out:
1) conservatives dominate the airwaves — i’m not sure how much more “balance” our culture can handle.
2) while liberals like msnbc cast information in a light they favor, they still dabble in fact. fox news often doesn’t find this altogether necessary.
3) we should be chastising our news media to get out of the business of conflating fact and editorials in the first place. that’s not to say that we should accept a vapid, irresponsible “all sides deserve equal merit” argument (where every issue – like ‘should gays be killed’ (umm… thanks, BBC!) – deserve time devoted to pro and con arguments), but rather that we have far too much of the fox news ilk, and far too little of the old fashioned journalism that a free society needs. now *that* is something to advocate !

Bearchewtoy75

December 28th, 2009

So, the next time NOM’s Maggie Srivistav, or whatever her married name is that she refuses to use, whines about not letting Iowa vote about marriage, we can tell her that in order for that to happen, I Iowa has to remove most of the democrats, they have to vote on it twice, and THEN the people can vote on it!

Yeah…. I’m thinking not gonna happen.

Bearchewtoy75

December 28th, 2009

Sol Invictus,

Did you not read the article?

No one is saying that the people of Iowa do not have the right to vote on their constitution. However, in that state, it is not as simple as just putting it up to a popular vote.

Richard Rush

December 28th, 2009

Bearchewtow75 wrote, “So, the next time NOM’s Maggie Srivistav [sic], or whatever her married name is that she refuses to use, whines about not letting Iowa vote about marriage . . .”

Isn’t Maggie redefining traditional marriage by not using her husband’s surname, Srivastav? Shouldn’t people have the right to vote on that practice?

Cole

December 28th, 2009

Contact Iowa congressmen NOW and encourage them block any vote of gay couples’ marriages. Keep sending email, letters, faxes, and phone calls.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

FBI Reports Massive Surge In Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes in 2015

Baptist General Convention of Texas Warns Churches in Dallas and Austin Over LGBT Inclusion

Trump Selects Alt-Right Nationalist As "Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor"

WITNESS: Bean Blossom, Indiana

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.