While casually flipping through today's New York Times, I came upon an article about New York governor Paterson's decision not to force a vote on same-sex marriage, because the state senate is "unsettled" in aligning its Democratic caucus, and also because Bronx Democratic senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., a Pentecostal minister, is stridently opposed.
Blah, blah blah, until we get this "background:" "Last month, the governor, a champion of same-sex marriage rights, vowed to make sure the Senate voted on the issue before breaking for the summer."
What's wrong with this sentence?
Since when is same-sex marriage a "right"? Why couldn't Danny Hakim, the reporter, have simply said, "...a champion of same-sex marriage, vowed to make sure..."???
I showed the piece to my husband who answered, "Of course. They're so biased. It's just like abortion--pro-life people are 'against abortion rights.'"
And so they are, in the politically correct world of the New York Times. Subtle mental manipulation, so easy to gloss over as it penetrates the brain.
Thank you for this post, Dr. Medved. I think as conservatives we're at a disadvantage when we allow the other side to define the terms, as they're so good and insidious at doing. If they can frame us as being "anti-choice" or "homophobic" or, as in this case, "anti-gay rights", before the debate even begins, we're already well on our way to losing the argument in the minds of people who are not as attuned to how powerful language is. We have to continue to point out the subtle ways that they try to do this and call them on it.
ReplyDelete