In an article in the Federalist, Robert Oscar Lopez takes journalists to task for dropping the ball on one aspect of all the same-sex marriage shenanigans:
Journalists with a shred of integrity would feel some curiosity about children who come out of these [gay] homes and oppose same-sex marriage. Wasn’t Sarah Palin roundly bashed by the mainstream press because she “lacks intellectual curiosity,” as Sen. Lisa Murkowski said?
Intellectual curiosity is generally perceived as a good thing—just not when gay activists have a storyline they need broadcast to get something they really want, and they don’t want people poking around and asking questions.
When gay people are involved in anything, the rules change to reflect that people who love the same sex are exceptional; I mean, they’re not just anyone, they’re “The Gays.” Interrogating them about what they claim is like going to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1635 and asking John Winthrop sensitive questions about his reading of Revelations. You just don’t do it. Like the Puritans, The Gays have founded a city on a hill, which must shine for all the world to see. Only “city on a hill” sounds so lame. For The Gays, it is a disco on a hill.
Lopez was raised by a Lesbian couple and doesn’t seem interested in debating the morality of homosexuality per se; rather, he’s against the idea of intentionally severing a child from one (or both) of her biological parents, which gay parenting requires.
Agree or disagree with him, I think its fair to say that he’s right on the money when it comes to the media’s complete lack of responsibility when it comes to covering culture war issues like this.
Sacrificing intellectual integrity for the sake of the Cause is both dishonest and hurtful in the long run. The sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, my church, was not nipped in the bud, in part because many in the hierarchy were more committed to preserving the image of a pristine and perfect clergy than they were to the truth, and to asking hard questions about the character of the men they had admitted to their ranks. To do so was to make a dangerous concession to secular liberalism, and to risk damaging the laity’s trust in Father. And as a result of their choices they have damaged so many lives and squandered what little moral authority they still had in the 20th century.
My point isn’t that gay adoption and the sex abuse crisis are somehow equivalent. But rather that it does no good to place any group of people beyond criticism and to ignore voices you don’t want to hear.
In this case there’s also an element of overcorrection thrown into the midst: most people are (rightly) appalled by the way that gays have historically (and currently, in other parts of the world) been treated, and, in wanting to rectify that, have uncritically lumped any criticism of the gay community under the homophobia heading.
And then there are the cynics – I mean people like the corporations who decided to boycott Indiana over the recent bill. Of course, said businesses are often still more than happy to do business with places like China, which as we know is renowned for its compassionate, just treatment of gays and other minorities. And politicians who have “evolved,” on the issue right around the time when it became politically expedient to do so. I am less sympathetic to these types. Actually, I’m not sympathetic to them at all, as they don’t seem to stand for anything other than themselves.
Again: whatever political, religious, social, sexual, whatever ideas you may have, never let a belief in your own self-righteousness cloud your judgment. You’re never off the hook.