By Mark Rhoads -
The modern news industry seems to often violate one of the classic rules of journalism that used to define a news story as something unusual such as a man attacking a dog instead of the other way around. But news coverage of the "gay marriage" debate has become so distorted that some consumers of news might think a much higher percentage of the population is gay than is really the case.
This week after the Supreme Court decision voiding the Defense of Marriage Act, the Google search engine, which owns You Tube, is hard at work pushing traffic to hundreds of videos that supposedly celebrate "pride," which Google and You Tube apparently define exclusively as pro-gay videos.
Just imagine how public perceptions might change if Google instead pushed hundreds of videos that celebrate the wonderful life-affirming love of traditional married couples. But don't hold your breath that Google might offer anything like an equal opportunity to Christian and pro-family perspectives any time soon, because that is just never going to be compatible with their radical social agenda.
The bizarre distorted perspective of Google and You Tube is just one of the reasons that America's debate over public policy on marriage has been almost entirely a one-sided debate as far as the "main stream" news establishment is concerned. Many years ago gay leaders pleaded for tolerance of their lifestyle, but now they most often are found advocating intolerance of those who dare to challenge their aggressive prosletyzing among young people. The outrageous intolerant statements of Justice Anthony Kennedy this week only codifies what has long been true, which is that people who are not gay are not to be allowed to dissent in any way from a pro-gay agenda and any dissent that does arise from any source must be deligitmized by attacking the motives of the dissenter as someone who is either afraid of gays or who is a mindless reactionary notwithstanding thousands of years of western civilization to the contrary. A really secure and confident gay lobby would not find it necessary to push thier intolerance for dissenters so hard. This leads one to wonder if the gay lobby really does not have the pride it claims to have. Why not? Is it possible that the leaders dare not concede that some gay people are still not happy with their lifestyle choice regardless of the great effort to embrace "pride?" The real reason for the push for what advocates call "gay marriage" has very little to do with actual legal rights. Instead, it has to do with a highly emotional Leftist superstition that government-issued paper certificates can somehow be used as a substitute "blessing" to confer the moral authority of all of secular society on a living arrangement of partners and that is why dissent cannot be permitted.
