The news came out today that President
Obama is now in support of same sex marriage. This news has been greeted
with near universal praise by the main stream media.
Disclaimer: I want to be clear that I am not criticizing the
President’s position. I am somewhat conflicted on this issue myself. On
the one hand I think it is patently immoral to deny visitation rights or
property rights to anyone who is in a committed relationship,
regardless of gender. On the other hand I do think, semantically, that
marriage is something between a man and a woman. I also fear that this
may be a slippery slope to requiring religious organizations to perform
marriage ceremonies that are against their beliefs. On the (third?) hand
I know, respect and like some people who are currently in a same sex
marriage. Needless to say, I am not a hardliner either way.
However, the morality of same sex marriage is not really what I want
to comment on; rather, I take issue with the media’s apparent hypocrisy
in it’s coverage of the President’s change in position. Some things to
note:
1. Last week Gallup for the first time showed 51%, a majority, of responders supported same sex marriage.
2. Today the majority of news reports characterized Obama’s change of
position as a change of heart, or an evolution in thinking. Almost
totally positive.
3. The most recent Gallup poll on abortion shows 51% of responders as pro life.
4. When Mitt Romney changed his position on abortion he was called a
flip flopper, an extreme right panderer. Coverage was routinely
negative.
I am not saying the President changed his position completely for
political reasons, nor am I saying that Romney had an honest to goodness
conversion in principles. What I am saying is that journalists need to
show some consistency in how they present things.