The Manhattan Project
Controversy Over Rhee Now to Include Sex, Congress
Increased Urban Walkability For The Win
Report: CCDC Split From UDC Is "Critical To Success"
D.C. United Icon Ben Olsen To Retire
Social divisions and fissures make for good headlines. After all, it's much easier to write about group A feuding with group B than it is to have to explain that neither A nor B are neatly recognizable groups.
Today the Examiner attaches the social conflict story template to the local gay marriage debate, in doing so splashing a dramatic headline on their front page that warns: "Great Divide on Gay Marriage: D.C. Splits Along Racial, Cultural Lines." The related article, by reporter Bill Myers, attempts to take the temperature of how well the District's black Baptist ministers really represent the sentiments of black D.C. (There's also a sidebar titled, "Will gay marriage cause blacks to divorce the Democratic Party?", also written by Myers.) If you just glanced at these headlines, you'd get a sense that maybe D.C. Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) was right when a few weeks ago he warned of a "civil war" if marriage equality legislation moves any further in this city.
The whole storyline seems to be more smoke than fire, though. As we noted before, the Ward 8 Democrats met and voted 21-11 to support the move to legalize same-sex marriage in D.C., throwing a wrench into Barry's plan to be the sole barometer for his ward's feelings on the matter. And while a 2006 poll cited by the Examiner found that the District African American population is largely against same-sex marriage, a lightly attended protest in front of the Wilson Building a few weeks ago brings into question whether opposition would translate into actual political activism. (It's also worth noting that many of the protest's participants were from out of town.) Myers gives voice to some of these division doubters, quoting Metro Weekly co-publisher Sean Bugg, who notes, "It's an arguable point. But I think it's too early to say, 'Black D.C. thinks this or black D.C. thinks that.'"
But obviously, this issue is much more complex than that. It's true that religious African Americans may be less likely to support gay marriage because of their beliefs, but gay activists have retooled their messaging to focus on extending the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples -- thus removing some of the religious subtexts of the debate. And the African American community doesn't really appear to be as neatly arranged against same-sex marriage as many would like to think. Many younger activists argue that the same-sex marriage debate is an extension of the civil rights battles that raged decades ago, and that African Americans should be the first to sympathize with the sting of discrimination.
The discussion over same-sex marriage in D.C. isn't going to go away anytime soon, especially if D.C. Council member David Catania (I-At Large) lives up to his promise to introduce broader legislation later this year. In the meantime, presuming that every black person in D.C. is solidly lined up against it -- or that they'll partake in a "civil war" should same-sex marriage come to pass -- does a disservice to an otherwise complex and fast-changing debate. The Examiner editors who wrote today's tabloid-style headline are only helping to further the impression that a deep divide exists, when the evidence that that's the case is overwhelmingly scant.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
1. Eminent domain all churches in DC.
2. Replace them with gay foam party churches run by ordained "ministers" licensed to perform short duration marriages.
3. Pass a glory hole/anti-bacterial party foam/confiscatory gay marriage tax.
4. Use the proceeds to clean up all the plastic bags in the watershed and send Marion Barry to Guadalcanal.
5. PROFIT.
What really surprises me is that the Examiner is still in print.
As a propaganda machine, it puts the people's weekly world to shame with its far-right wing-nuttery in nearly every article.
I must say I pick it up and read it because its like a scary, someone really believes this drivel, version of the onion.
With all these newspapers folding, I'm curious how it is staying alive.
Leanleft,
I agree with you in that their opinions are so out of the D.C. mainstream that it's hard to consider them a local paper. On the other hand, their local reporting is generally top notch. What with the Post basically doing away with it's local reporting, the Examiner is a valuable resource. Except for its headline-writers, as the front-page today makes clear.
Martin:
Good point. They have articles about crime in my neighborhood of hill east that I never hear reported in the post. thanks!
I was going to say the same thing. I love their crime reporting. The thing with the Post is they usually only bother to print crimes at conviction. They seem to be taking a NYPost/Daily News approach. Don't try to compete with WaPo, instead cover the stuff they dont.
Wait, just because a paper does not reflect the 'mainstream,' it is not a local paper? That seems like a rather ridiculous thing to say.
I bet the publishers of the Washington Blade would be a bit surprised to hear that theirs is not a local paper. I mean, their target audience is not the mainstream, right?
Regardless of the journalistic merits of the Examiner, the paper does represent the interests of the 10-12% of city residents who tend to vote Republican.
The only thing worth reading in the Post Express is Pearls Before Swine.
And their crossword puzzle, which are reprints of the NYtimes
The Examiner is trying to wrest the mantle of Paper of Record to the forces of batshit right-wingery. Given that the Washington Times is a Wingnut Welfare rag propped up by the Unification Church, that's going to be a long uphill climb.
One of the most sickening things I have seen lately were the gay marriage protestors in front of the Wilson Building singing "We shall overcome". The terrible irony seemed to be completely lost on them.
Wow, I did not know that. It's so absurd, it's hysterical.
Whoa, hold up there. You're making the same mistake of over-generalizing, to some extent. I can't find mention of the 2006 poll in the Examiner article, but if you're talking about the 2006 poll cited in the WaPo, then I think it's not even correct to say that the poll "found that the District African American population is largely against same-sex marriage". In 2006, 49% of district African Americans said they would vote for a ban on gay marriage, while 42% said they would not. That's only a slim plurality, and I'll bet if you took a poll today it would be even closer. Opinions are changing rapidly on this issue.
In any event, I don't think it's fair to say that African Americans in the district are "largely" against gay marriage.
This is true. I did over-generalize. I tried to find the poll that was cited but it's nowhere online, apparently.
I've looked for it, too. I am especially curious to know what the level of support among whites was in 2006, since the Post made it sound like the poll was of all residents, regardless of race. The best I've been able to find is that David Rosenstein, an editor for the Washington Blade, seems to be the leader of the organization that conducted the poll back in 2006, Foundation for All D.C. Families. They should publish the results... As a political statistician, I would love to see their crosstabs.
I'm also surprised there haven't been more recent polls. My gut says they would prove conclusively that District residents would not vote to ban gay marriage, which would really put a damper on those calls for a referendum.
Isn't there a difference between "vot[ing] for a ban on gay marriage" and not "support[ing] the move to legalize same-sex marriage"?
To answer 'leanleft' who wrote:
"What really surprises me is that the Examiner is still in print.
As a propaganda machine, it puts the people's weekly world to shame with its far-right wing-nuttery in nearly every article.
I must say I pick it up and read it because its like a scary, someone really believes this drivel, version of the onion.
With all these newspapers folding, I'm curious how it is staying alive."
The Examiner is owned by a conservative reclusive billionaire from Colorado named Phil Anschutz. He pumps money from his operations in mining and the L.A. Kings that make money into his personal mouthpiece in Washington, the Examiner. Reverend Moon of the Reuinifacation Church (aka the Moonies) does the same for his own personal rag, the Washington Times.
As my personal take on those loud preachers who were outside the Wilson building two weeks ago--I often think about my high school football team. Those guys on the team back then who were the most homophobically-vocal about fags this and homos that are: Ta Da! Out of the closet now twenty years later at the reunion and own a B & B in Oregon with their husband. Me thinks thats why some guys get into the preachin' business.
The Examiner has also started calling everyone that advertises in the Gazette newspapers trying to drum up advertising business for the Examiner. I know we have had several contacts in the past week as we advertise in the Gazette. I don't know if they are doing this with Virgina papers as well, as we don't advertise there.