SF Chronicle Jeopardizes Marriage Equality

In the final stretch of this election, Proposition 8 is dangerously close in the polls -- after months of it being safely behind. With massive out-of-state funding, including $8.4 million from the Mormon Church, the "Yes on 8" campaign has scared many swing voters into falsely believing that marriage equality will intrude on their religion and indoctrinate their children. And while the San Francisco Chronicle took a formal position against it, the paper's news coverage -- which has a far greater impact than its editorial endorsements -- has actively pushed a meme that helps Prop 8's message. Over the last two weeks, the paper has treated a first-grade teacher's wedding as front-page news, repeated the line that Gavin Newsom is a liability and that San Francisco is "so different" from the rest of the state, and fomented divisions within liberal constituencies that give wavering voters an "out" in supporting Prop 8. With the stakes in this election higher than virtually any other race, the Chronicle should not think that merely opposing Prop 8 can absolve them of responsibility should it pass on November 4th.

When the state Supreme Court ruled that all couples have the right to marry, I boldly predicted that Prop 8 would fail. Once swing voters started seeing their friends, neighbors and relatives get married, I reasoned, attitudes would evolve and the measure would go down--as it has changed opinions in Massachusetts. The "No on 8" campaign's basic message is that regardless of how one may feel about same-sex marriage, no group should be singled out of a basic right--a position that swing voters can respect and relate to.

The "Yes on 8" campaign knew they could only win if they changed the subject, so with heavy financial backing from the Mormon Church have flooded the airwaves with blatant lies and scare tactics like "churches could lose their tax-exempt status" and "children in public schools will be taught gay marriage -- even if parents object." Now some swing voters who say they have "no problem" with gay people are afraid that marriage equality will "indoctrinate" their children and interfere with religious practices. And once voters are afraid and don't trust you, it's a lot harder to make them listen to facts that refute it.

So why did the San Francisco Chronicle make its front-page story on October 11th about a first-grade class attending their lesbian teacher's wedding? Going to see your teacher get married is nothing new, and certainly not front-page material. When I was in second grade, a (straight) teacher at my school got married. Not only did her students attend the wedding -- they even sang at the wedding. I don't fault the school for bringing the first grade kids to the lesbian wedding -- which, by the way, had the blessing of each child's parents. But putting it on the front page of the Chronicle gave the "Yes on 8" campaign what they needed: a visual that gays are "indoctrinating" young children.

According to Jill Tucker, who wrote the Chronicle story, the parents who organized the trip actively sought media coverage -- and the paper decided on its own that it was "news" enough to deserve front-page treatment. But the Chronicle didn't have to accept their solicitation. If this was 2004, when San Francisco conducted same-sex weddings in defiance of state law, it probably would have been newsworthy -- despite resulting in the same right-wing backlash. But now that gay and lesbian weddings are sanctioned by the Supreme Court, a wedding is really not noteworthy. Prop 8 opponents can point out the kids had their parents' consent to attend, but the damage was done to scare swing voters.

One might excuse the Chronicle for a temporary lapse in judgment. But its coverage of Prop 8 over the past two weeks has consistently framed San Francisco Values as freakishly out-of-touch with the rest of California -- just like they did before on other issues.

An October 14th story described Mayor Gavin Newsom as "everyone's worst nightmare" because the "Yes on 8" side used his Supreme Court victory speech in one of their ads--as if now we should never applaud a court decision. John Diaz even lectured Newsom that what draws cheers in San Francisco won't "play well in Redlands or Redding" -- as if those two Republican cities are more representative of California than San Francisco. No Democratic statewide candidate, by the way, ever does well in Redding or Redlands -- so don't be surprise when Newsom fares poorly in those parts for his gubernatorial bid.

Newsom himself only reinforced the Chronicle's meme by keeping a low profile during the Prop 8 campaign. He did speak at the "No on 8" campaign office kick-off in the Castro, but (half-jokingly) described San Francisco as "forty-seven square miles surrounded by reality." So according to our own Mayor, San Francisco isn't the "real" America? As far as I'm concerned, that sounds too much like how Republicans are talking these days.

On October 22nd, the Chronicle had another front-page story about Prop 8. Pursuing a narrative that only gives cover to swing voters for voting against marriage equality, John Wildermuth quoted a 29-year-old student who said she had gay friends -- but argued she could "still love these persons and be for Prop 8."

Why is that dangerous? Because supporters of Prop 8 claim their measure is not about hate -- but rather about preventing one group from "imposing" their lifestyle on the rest of us. Swing voters like to think of themselves as tolerant (but they're uncomfortable with anyone indoctrinating them), and such a line gives them the perfect "out" to say they can vote for Prop 8 without being bigots. Wildermuth, however, never used his article to ask an obvious question: how can you "love" gay people while taking away their rights?

But that wasn't even the worse Chronicle article that day. A companion piece about each side in the Prop 8 fight targeting African-Americans only further legitimized the fearful aspects of that community. The piece pictured a black woman wearing an Obama shirt and holding a "Yes on 8" sign -- without mentioning the irony that Barack Obama strongly opposes Prop 8. If the Chronicle asked her about that, her answer didn't make it in the article.

The piece also uncritically quoted a black minister, who explained his position in favor of Prop 8 by saying: "you didn't see very many blacks getting married in San Francisco." The Chronicle could have pointed out that (a) San Francisco has a relatively small black population, (b) gay couples can now get married anywhere in the state, and (c) there are about 7,400 African-American gay couples living in California. As Harrison Chastang has written, the black community today is less riled up to oppose same-sex marriage than four years ago.

Under the auspices of "journalism," the Chronicle painted a picture that implies black voters -- who will be voting in droves for Barack Obama -- will help pass Prop 8. Never mind that this coverage only brings out the worst aspects of fear and ignorance, at a time when black marriage equality supporters are working hard to educate their community about this critical issue.

Proposition 8 isn't your run-of-the-mill electoral fight where armchair pundits can reduce the coverage to "who's up" and "who's down" like they do for candidate campaigns. The stakes are much higher here because it's a constitutional amendment -- and one that will have a far more lasting effect on the lives of ordinary people. Politically, passing Prop 8 passage could be a disaster for marriage equality supporters -- turning back the clock on this civil rights movement for many years. That's why the Chronicle needs to be very sensitive on how they analyze the issue, without fueling lies and misconceptions.

The Chronicle may have taken a formal "no" position on Prop 8--as have virtually every major newspaper in California. But its news coverage will have a much greater effect on the outcome than the paper's oft-ignored editorials.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published. Outside of work hours and on his own time, Paul Hogarth has phonebanked for "No on 8" at their campaign office in the Castro--and urges readers to do the same.

Comments

[xdevildawg4u]

The San Francisco Chronicle continued their support for passing Amendment 8 Today when they launched a VERY onsided, biased and PRO Prop 8 article today claiming that the CA Attorney General nefariously changed the wording on the ballot in an UNFAIR and BIASED way to help the No on 8 side win. The article was HORRIBLY biased against the No on 8 side.

I honestly don't understand what's going on with the SF Chronicle. Are they collectively bi-polar or are they secretly a part of the Rupert Murdoch media empire.

They have CONSISTENTLY pushed PRO Prop 8 stories or anti No on 8 stories (like the distorted article about the lesbian wedding field trip where they completely and conveniently failed to mention that ALL of the children had parental approval to attend the event and the two children that didn't have parental approval didn't go).

THEIR video of the event with the children is now being used as a fundraising tool on the Yes on 8 website even the the parents of the children featured in the "fear" ad had DEMANDED that they STOP using their childrens' images to promote an issue that they 100% DO NOT SUPPORT.

[wndrwrthg]

The supporters are right, this will destroy the traditional marriage, just like the ability of minorities to wed whites did.

[flanardiente]

"I'm tolerant of, and some of my best friends are, so why can't you be happy with this little separate-but-equal thing we've got going here for you and your people?" A name-calling hate-spewing bigot is at least up front about his bigotry. These people need to get in touch with their inner hatemonger and just accept themselves for what they are. They'd be happier and the rest of us wouldn't have to roll our eyes every time they open their whining mouths.

[bklynsparrow]

When did we get to this point where we are so afraid of someone who is different than us is someone to be feared? when did we get to the point that freedom is now a political and religious tennis ball instead of an unalienable right? I truly fault the religious right for fostering discrimination and division- they want the right to define rights for everyone, but they are the very first to scream when you stop using "merry Christmas" and begin using the more inclusive "Happy Holidays." If that doesn't show a lack of good prioritizing and judgement I don't know what does. the Palinizing of thought.

That people are so terrified of homosexuals is an embarrassment. People so worried that homosexuals will warp their children or- GASP!- make them homosexual too! My earliest memory of a teacher abusing a child was a scandal of a male teacher fondling young girls in my school. I'd be a lot more afraid of the straight guy, folks. finally- all the religious bigots out there- look to your own glass houses. Your divorce rates, your wife and child abuse, your misuse of your tax exempt status, and your insistence on taking away the rights of other Americans (taxpayers might I add) to suit your religious bigotry.

[UrsaMajority]

AdamX spouted, "I hear few legitimate arguments - mostly accusations of bigotry and inequality."

Uh, Adam, there is something illegitimate about seeking equal treatment under law? Dang, the Fourteenth Amendment is so tough to understand, isn't it? There are parts of this country where that kind of nonsense causes people to nod their head in agreement, but it works with very few Californians.

And, given your cluelessness about what is a "legitimate" argument, I'm willing to bet that your gay friends aren't as tolerant of your vote as you think. They've probably written off expecting you to make much sense and figure there's no point in arguing with you.

[AdamX]

I agree- there should be 100 percent equal treatment. "Marriage" has NOTHING to do with that. You are talking about BENEFITS.

Marriage is a WORD that describes something. Come up with a WORD that describes this other thing, and I'll vote yes. You don't get to redefine the word to suit your interest, which is simply equal treatment. I am all for equal treatment. You'll just have to call your committed relationship something else. "Marriage" already has a meaning.

This has NOTHING to do with equality - pretend as you might. This has to do with what marriage is, and it is not, and has never been, a word to describe a homosexual relationship. That bothers you? That is unfair?

Give me a proposition that guarantees equal rights, and I'll vote yes. This is not about rights. It is about a WORD. Instead of wasting years debating a WORD, let's provide equal benefits, and a nomenclature that describes exactly what the situation is. What's wrong with having a word that describes long-term, committed relationships between gays?

Part of what defines all of my relationships is that I respect their opinion as much as they respect mine. I am not trying to convince you to vote yes or no on anything. I'm just sharing my opinion, which apparently you have difficulty accepting - that someone might have a different opinion, and that does not make them a bigot, or someone who is against the 14th ammendment.

[ViviT]

Alex, I think your view on the issue is quite narrow. Who is really allowed to define what marriage really is? Not one single person institutionalized it, since marriage has been all over the world since the ancient times and in many different ways. In fact, in ancient Asia, men were allowed to marry other men (although women were not, but that is a gender discrimination issue). If the government defines it, then it is an equality issue. What are we going to do next? Define how a rightful marriage is to be done? Marriage is a non violent issue and consensual on both parties, and everyone should have the EQUAL right to define marriage however they seem to be. Obviously, I don't think we share the same definition of bigotry either.

[UrsaMajority]

Paul, I live in the East Bay and strongly oppose Prop 8. But I think you're missing the point when you suggest that the Chronicle has an obligation to manipulate its news coverage to avoid giving support to the Yes on 8 forces. It's only responsibility is to report news. And if the Chronicle hadn't picked up the story of the class going to greet their teacher after her wedding, the Pro on 8 forces would have picked up on it anyway. And, yes, it was not a very good idea to do it that close to the election.

I'm mildly confident that, as with the ill-fated Briggs Initiative that tried to ban all gays from teaching in California, the late surge will turn against this hate-based initiative. But don't expect the media to carry our water for us beyond issuing editorials.

[skantea]

I'm not sure i totally buy blaming the chronicle for the way events unfolded. But it is true that if they are endorsing Gay marriage, it should be a little closer to the front page.

[gaja]

Thank you for writing this article. I thought the same thing when I read that line about Gavin Newsom. It's sad that Berkeley and SF publications have been so influenced by the religious right. I had hoped that bigotry would not be encouraged in this day and age...

[M1]

Hey, AdamX....please explain your position...why you are against gay marriage?

[AdamX]

Thanks for asking - I talked about it in a post above.

Equal Treatment for ALL - NOW!!!

That, of course, has NOTHING to do with the WORD "marriage". And that is what this whole debate is about - a WORD. Come up with a new word to describe long-term homosexual relationships, and give everyone the same exact benefits. I'll vote yes on that.

[hey0there]

on the bright side, its a newspaper. will they even be around for much longer? they are going the way of the cassette tape. they are holding on longer (im guessing the older the paper the longer they're gonna bleed before folding) but its only a matter of time.

[ViviT]

I have yet to hear a valid reason to oppose gay marriage and prove it constitutional. GBLT's deserve the same right to marry and become recognized as family just as any heterosexual couple wish to do. I believe divorce violates the sanctity of marriage more so than gay marriage, and yet almost half of all marriages in US end up in divorce.

Only a few decades ago were mixed racial marriages allowed in all states. People are free to believe that it is wrong, but that doesn't mean it changes that fact that it is discriminatory and bigoted.

[johnnyjust]

Why should the government be in the position of forcing people to pretend that homosexuality is normal?

[alguien]

you can believe anything you want, but everyone must have equal rights.

[Lemeritus]

Wait! You mean it isn't?!

[M1]

johnnyjust.....it is like slavery. There was a time when the majority believed slavery was normal. That blacks were property and women too. The majority believed neither frieed slaves or women should not have the right to vote or own property. The Federal Legislature passed the Post Civil War Amendments to give blacks citizenship removing the label of property (Dred Scott), the right to vote and equal protection under the law and Due Process.

Our laws require euality under the law....not that you believe a thing one way or another. The Equal protection under the law means that when it comes to a fundamental right like the right to marry that the law must treat all people equally. The state can not give the right to some and deny it to a few. This ideal is based in our Concept of Liberty/Freedom and rights deemed fundamental are not up to be decided by popular vote from a majority. They are inalienable rights and it is the job of the courts and the government to stand up for minorities who are being denied fundamental rights. It is the American Promise of equality, freedom and individual liberty and it has nothing to do with government trying to get you to think one way or another about homosexuality.

Separate is not Equal Plessy v. Ferguson..­....either everyone gets civil unions or everyone gets married. It is just that simple.

[MathIsTruth]

Your words are nonsense. Keeping gay marriage legal does not force anybody to pretend anything.

Why do you get to define what is normal?

Why should the government, in any case, have the ability to force people to conform to anybody's definition of normal?

What possible basis is there for believing that homosexuality is not normal?

Instead of making non sequitor comments about government, why not take the time to read and understand the thousands and thousands of things people have written to refute every single argument that anti-gays such as yourself mindlessly repeat ad nauseum.

[Quaoar]

The government isn't forcing people to pretend anything. Homosexuality is just as normal as being left-handed or having blond hair.

[lilymarie14]

Adam - instead of taking the "nobody understands me" position - why don't you just explain why you are opposed to gay marriage? geesh

[AdamX]

Hopefully it will jeoapardize it more when I vote YES on prop 8.

Do you want to hear some really hateful rhetoric? Listen to name calling and accusations towards those of us who share a different opinion and want to vote YES on 8. None of my gay friends are bothered by my vote - they disagree, but they know me, and how I arrived at my conclusion. No love lost.

But here on the blog, I hear few legitimate arguments - mostly accusations of bigotry and inequality, etc.

We should all be treated equally. We should all be entitled to the same benefits. These have NOTHING to do with gay marriage.

I hope I help to seal this deal. YES on 8.

[WolfLady]

Well, I'm sure those gay "friends" acknowledge your obvious expertise on bigotry and inequality.

~WolfLady~

[antaeus]

Are off your meds again?

[devdil]

My neighbor --an old lady in her 70s--had her "yes on Prop 8" banner stolen and an bsene message spayed on her car. You guys are entitled to think that she is a bigot AND she is entitled to think that gay marriage is wrong. Intolerance runs both ways. If gays want to make any headway on the issue, they better try and understand why majority of Americans are against gay marriage before dismissing the rest of us as "ignorant".
Next thing you know, there will be a ballot demanding benefits for polygamous marriages. This thing can open open a whole can of worms. But the extreme left never thinks through the consequences of any law that they put forward in their quest to serve the "under-priviliged". Just wait till the entire black community--one of the most socially conservative groups-- bails on democrats when gay marriage gains momentum throughout the US. This happened with the very palintiff oriented sex discrimination laws that were passed by Clinton's govt in the Anita Hill aftermath. Boy, did Clinton get hoisted by his own petard there.

[gaja]

I find it incredibly ironic that you brought up the point about polygamous marriages being on the ballet, when Mormons (proponents of polygamy according to their beliefs) have poured billions of dollars into this proposition.

Just how would you feel if certain religious groups started legislating their views and trying to reduce people's rights and that affected you directly? Would you think that it was okay then? The only thing that is "extreme" is the viewpoint that we should treat people differently under the law. Straight or not, that is just WRONG.

[dcg4mn]

also devdil:
No one reasonably compares slavery and anti-gay bigotry in SCALE, but there's a lot of overlap:
Both groups have been denied equal rights only because of who they ARE.
People in both groups have been MURDERED only because of who they are.
The arguments used to deny civil rights for blacks are the same ones used against equal rights for gays.
In some ways it's been harder for gays:
1 - A black child could at least depend on the support of their family.
2 - No black child was ever the only one in their family.
3 - No black child ever had to come downstairs and tell their family they're black.
Yes some polls show that blacks as a group have less tolerance for gay rights, but cultural reasons include strong religious beliefs, and the centuries of emasculation of black men by whites.
It may be enlightening for you to discuss gay rights with people who belong to both categories: black homosexuals.
The tone of your own blog is quite bitchy BTW, you might want to stop accusing others of that stereotype.

[alguien]

there hasn't been any letter coming out of the no on 8 campaign attempting to blackmail businesses that have contributed to yes on 8, now has there?

[ohmmoyhgawd]

So some of your best friends are gay?? Maybe -- are they of the "conservative gay" persuasion who would sell out their LBGT brothers and sisters just because marriage equality is not on their list of priorities? Are those your gay friends?? Because I tell you flat out that if I found out that any of my 'friends,' gay or straight, voted to do away with my constitutional right to marry the guy I've been with for the last 19 years, I would take a serious look that "friendship." I don't care how nice you are, or how nice you _think_ you are. Sure, I agree with your right to disagree; live your life as you see fit and according to your own values. But you'd be no friend of mine.

[WolfLady]

IF Prop Hate passes, another prop reversing it will be on every subsequent election ballot until it's repealed. The fundies cannot stave off the 21st century forever.

~WolfLady~

[AdamX]

Hate? Do I hate my sister? Do I hate my best friends? How dare you and your overflowing ego accuse me of hate. You don't understand my opinion, so you just come up with ridiculous explanations! Reminds me of Bachmann. Either I see things your way, or I am accused of hate! Who are you, Sarah Palin? I am not a hateful person, and you have no evidence that I am. I am simply a guy that thinks prop 8 is a GOOD idea.

Equality for all
End the hate
But this has NOTHING to do with equality
I'm voting YES on 8.

[M1]

Actually, in the law, it has everything to do with equality. Our Federal Constitution has been interpreted by the United States Supreme court to mean that marriage is a fundamental right. This means that no state can grant one group of people the right to marry under the law and deny it to another group (See Equal Protection of the laws clause of the 14th A). This means that even if prop 8 passes it will be struck down as unconstitutional by the Federal Courts.

Now, one the other hand, you might consider something more fair. Like the State granting Civil Union Licenses to everyone no longer refering to the term Marriage on the license form and then couples can seek solemnization of their Union at the church of thier choice and call it what ever they like. You know...separation of Church and state.

In this way, all persons can get married, have the same legal rights and issues of Religious beliefs can be laid to rest.

Are you with me AdamX?

[superlive]

You make about as much sense as a Vegan voting YES on Prop 2.

What exactly makes Prop 8 a "GOOD" idea that isn't predicated on a certain disposition to bigotry? How could this possibly not be an equal protection issue?

That your position might be rooted in archaic superstition only makes your justification less viable in any logical argument.