California court to hear gay marriage case in March

Gay activists find the best way to advertise their cause is to yell a lot. My three year old has also figured out this tactic.

That bastion of balanced reporting, Reuters, reports that the California Supreme Court has decided to admit arguments concerning Proposition 8 early in March ("California court to hear gay marriage case in March"). The LA Times also carries the story as a blog item ("Supreme Court sets March 5 for gay marriage arguments")

The Reuters article has quite a bias:

California voters on November 4 approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. A ruling by the same state top court which is now considering the ban had opened the way to same-sex marriage in May of last year, ushering in a summer of gay nuptials ended by the vote.

Notice the contradictory language. The amendment defines "marriage as between a man and a woman." In the next sentence, the Reuters' reporter says the court "is now considering the ban." There is power in the ideas behind words. The reporter has completely bought into the idea of "gay marriage" so that he doesn't even realize he's used poor grammar. Is Prop 8 a marriage definition, or a ban?

As another example of mainstream media at its unbiased best:

Proponents of both sides have agreed the ban limits rights of a minority group -- ban opponents say the court must defend minorities in such a case, while ban proponents say the people's decisions are final.

The first sentence of this paragraph is untrue. Proponents of Prop 8 do not agree that the proposition limits rights of a minority group. That is the reason gay rights activists are angry with the majority of California citizens because the activists feel their rights have been limited.

The reporter's separation of this issue in his final sentence is simplistic, and doesn't show any understanding of the issues involved. In this case, the LA Times blog reveals the real questions behind the court's look at Prop 8:

-- Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?

-- Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

-- If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

These questions have far-reaching effects on the future of marriage in the US. Let's hope the California Supreme Court doesn't cave in to the few ranting liberals and acknowledges what marriage is.