Commission on International Religious Freedom finds little progress
Steffi Reichert/URBAN ARTefakte
According to the mainstream media, same-sex "marriage" is on the rise in America. A survey published earlier this year by the Public Religion Research Institute found a majority of Americans support the concept, and other polls are showing similar results. Even the Chairman of the Republican Party — which has opposition to same-sex "marriage" in its official platform — tends to shy away from the subject.
And the media are right. There is no denying that a strong majority of younger Americans believe same-sex "marriage" should be legal. As older, more conservative, and more religiously affiliated Americans die, support for same-sex "marriage" will continue to grow.
But why has opinion on same-sex "marriage" reversed itself so quickly since 2004, when numerous states passed amendments to state constitutions to prevent the practice, with overwhelming majorities? Or since 2008, when even California supported a state marriage amendment?
I believe the answer lies, at least partially, in media bias and language choice. Rather than having a "majority" in favor of changing what marriage means, most Americans are simply being cowed into submission.
Consider, for example, this National Journal article on a young Republican group that is trying to change the GOP’s platform on marriage. Its headline declares the GOP’s position on marriage as "homophobic," and twice the article states that the GOP has "anti-gay language" in its platforms at the national and state levels.
Terms like "homophobic" and "bigot" litter blogs, articles, op-eds, and television shows. Former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich was a "bigot" according to many, even though his only sin was to donate to Proposition 8 six years ago. And Huffington Post has a whole page dedicated to the so-called homophobia of "Duck Dynasty’s" Phil Robertson.
Another bias can be seen the wording of poll questions on the subject, which often inaccurately ask if people support same-sex "marriage." (As marriage is between a man and a woman, it would be more accurate to ask if people support "changing the definition of marriage.") In asking this question, polling companies of all political stripes influence the way the public thinks of marriage and homosexual relationships.
After seeing such language used throughout mainstream media, and then parroted by politicians, who in his right mind would want to be labeled a bigot? Or a homophobe? And "anti-gay" must mean something awful, even if it rarely defined — after all, we all just want to be married!
If you Google "homophobia definition," this is what appears on Webster:
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
Yet Googling "phobia" brings this up:
an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation
In other words, "phobia," which is the base of "homophobia," is a fear. Yet "homophobia" has been expanded in this instance to include "discrimination."
Do so-called "homophobics" actually show fear of homosexuals? Again, Robertson was accused of being homophobic, but in his infamous comments of last year he condemned sin of all kind and expressed love and compassion for everyone. Yet, because he failed to embrace the homosexual agenda, he was accused of being "anti-gay," which translated into "homophobia," whose definition should be "a fear of homosexuals or same-sex attractions."
This definition of "homophobia" ignores the real difference between having a fear of something and having a principled disagreement with it.
Another windfall for the pro-homosexual cause has been the courts’ flouting of public opinion, in which a court substitutes its judgment for actual public opinion. Tyler Deaton, the campaign manager of the group National Journal, made the point directly: