Op-Ed: Media Spin Cycle: Gay “Enemies list”, and shock horror from mainstream

In a democracy, if you’re going to disenfranchise anyone, you can expect fireworks. The other big fire raging in California is likely to be keeping the headlines at a pretty incendiary level. US media seems to be having a hard time understanding that.

It’s also a battleground. The US media isn’t famous for objectivity, or sanity. Mainstream media can take due “credit” for demonizing gays and gay issues, so if there’s a problem, they helped create it. No surprise there. But one of the major principles of democracy is being buried in the Spin Cycle. TIME Magazine has an article titled "What Happens If You’re On The “Gay Enemies” list". Doesn’t quite sound like “Gay Activists publish names of donors to Proposition 8 Yes campaign”, does it? The text is unambiguous:

In addition to protests, gay activists have begun publishing lists online exposing individuals and organizations who have donated money in support of Proposition 8. On AntiGayBlacklist.com, individuals who gave money toward Proposition 8 are publicized, with readers urged not to patronize their businesses or services. The list of donors was culled from data on ElectionTrack.com, which follows all contributions of over $1,000 and all contributions of over $100 given before October 17. Dentists, accountants, veterinarians and the like who gave a few thousand dollars to the cause are listed alongside major donors like the Container Supply Co., Inc. of Garden Grove, Calif., which gave $250,000…

Or in other words, pretty much typical civil action, and quite legal. The action is based on information which is publicly available. Exactly why dentists, accountants and vets are being persecuted, in context, is an interesting question, because there’s no real answer. If you think it sounds like a sort of lamentation, like these poor folks being victimized, you wouldn’t be alone. Talk about double standards. A blacklist by the mainstream media itself isn’t publicized. There’s nothing democratic about it, either. People just don’t get media time or space. They can’t get work. Their rights are effectively destroyed, if they work in media. Like the McCarthy era, any rabid political position can operate in mainstream without scrutiny or any effective means of response. Democracy, in American media, is a very strange concept. It's more of an ideal than a fact. Originally, the press was considered one of the guardians of democracy. Now, it's more like one of the assassins. Until now. The net can ignore any media blacklist, or the various garbled garglings of ideological soap salesmen. The information monopoly is over. That hasn’t stopped mainstream salivating as and when required. The bell rings, the plastic poodle does its fascinating thing. It also sits up and begs, rolls over, and plays dead. It's a thrill a minute. Have to wonder if “self respect” is a part of position descriptions in mainstream these days. There’s another kind of blacklist. The topical blacklist, well known in the times of the big Press barons, Luce, Hearst, and the various TV content jerks, listing the only subjects permitted to be discussed, Redneck Radio in another form. Now the rest of the above paragraph:

…"Anyone who steps into a political fight aimed at taking away fundamental rights from fellow citizens opens themselves up to criticism," said Wolfson. (Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry) "The First Amendment gives them the right of freedom of speech and to support political views, but people also have the right to criticize them."

Not on mainstream, apparently. Gay groups have been described as “anti-authoritarian”, which is an interesting description, used as a pejorative. Since when, in a democracy, particularly America, is anyone particularly pro-authoritarian? Is the mentality of the 17th century still trying to run things? The “fundamental rights” issue on Prop 8 got well and truly botched, too. When you want to create a law, you need to know if you have the power to create that law under your constitution, which sets out the power of governments. In this case, it looks like nobody bothered to find out if government can regulate marriage. Marriage is recognized by common law and by legislative law as a state of lawful association. (It has to be recognized, because the divorce laws and other statutes depend on that recognition.) However- does the government have any actual authority to regulate it? Prop 8 can only be law if it does. If there’s no power conferred on the state, it doesn’t, and never had. This difficult topic, (which took me 81 words), is probably considered too difficult to bring to the attention of a nation which is bulging with multiple degrees, and has more lawyers and psychologists than the entire populations of some European countries. I doubt very much if that power was ever formally created. In the US, the First Amendment also guarantees freedom of worship. So anything which would have the effect of depriving people of those rights wouldn’t be worth having as a law. Marriage is traditionally a religious matter, and in civil marriages it’s purely administrative, effectively a contract. In theory, you could marry a tree, and there wouldn’t be much the law could do about it except point out you could have married a human, and it was rather expecting that you would. Some choice. If you’re gay, however, there’s Prop 8. In terms of rights, a pet cat, dog, rock, or talk show host now has more rights than a gay spouse. Millions of Americans (that phrase is becoming so common during catastrophes) have, in fact, been disenfranchised, and they’re supposed to be happy about it? Is that making headlines? Mainstream media is very like the so-called human rights activists who will criticize a billboard, a person, or a speech, but never say a word about genocide. So, if you want a career in civil rights abuse, join mainstream, and watch the intelligentsia at work, frolicking in the venal sunshine of Cloud Cuckoo Land. The original premise of America, we’re led to believe, was “Liberty or Death”, not “Liberty or Bad Breath”. Look it up, guys, see if you can research that properly. For once. Further note: These are the US Marriage License Laws, state by state. These laws are apparently not supported by other legislation. The laws are based on a requirement for a marriage license. Not on the legislative power to regulate marriage, as discussed with John Rickman, below.