The consensus media and social conservative issues, that is the topic of tonight’s Byline.
You know, this topic was going to be my lead topic before President Obama dropped his bombshell today, announcing that he supports gay marriage. His timing only helps.
We all know that the consensus media hates social conservatives, they hate people that hold traditional views.
Doesn’t matter if it is in the local or national newscasts or as we’ve learned from Ben Shapiro’s Prime Time Propaganda, in our favourite sitcoms – they push a liberal and often radical agenda.
There are a couple of stories in the news that touch on this – abortion and same-sex marriage. Thursday is the National March for Life and this week North Carolina voted on same-sex marriage, US Vice-President Biden and now President Obama announced their support of same-sex marriage.
First the abortion issue.
Remarkably, I’m going to do something here that I don’t normally do, I’m going to give kudos the Toronto Red Star.
The Red Star actually featured on its front page today a story about the pro-life movement and shockingly they called it the pro-life movement.
They also showed what we have been showcasing since we launched and that is that young women are now at the fore of the movement, are the leaders, are the trendsetters. People like Alissa Golob who we’ve had on this show before, people like Ruth Lobo, Stephanie Gray, Andrea Mrozek.
That young people, especially young women, are the leaders of the pro-life is something we have known for some time, it is nice that The Star is catching up.
They even predicted thousands will march. That’s impressive.
I remember going to the March for Life one year and seeing the lawn of Parliament Hill filled. That means a crowd of more than 10,000 minimum. The organizers said it was close to 15, 000. The Globe and Mail said hundreds were there.
We will see tomorrow whether the rest of the consensus media notices the March. Their normal way of operation is to give equal time to the dozen or so pro-abortion protesters as they give to the thousands of pro-life marchers. And unlike say a rally on the Robocall issue or anything against the Harper government – they don’t play up the March for Life as a big thing even though in all my time on Parliament Hill it has been the largest annual protest held.
I was speaking to a group meeting in Ottawa last night, the executives of Real Women Canada are in town for a conference and I had the honour of dropping by and saying a few words at a reception.
I was asked why the March for Life, why the abortion issue and so many other causes so near and dear to their hearts get little coverage and if it is covered it gets a slanted, biased coverage.
I told them the answer that many of you already know, the media is overwhelmingly left wing.
Of the hundreds of members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery that provide daily news coverage to secular media I can count on one hand the number of reporters who are pro-life or hold what you might call traditional social and moral values.
Most of the reporters are big government types and hardcore social liberals.
It’s the same with same-sex marriage, currently a topic in the United States.
I remember the first news conference I went to on Parliament Hill where people spoke out against the original Ontario court decision that allowed gay marriage. The hostility and the outrage directed towards those who simply said they believed marriage has always been and should remain a union between a man and a women was unreal. I had never seen such hostility from reporters and all these people were saying was they believed the definition of marriage that had always existed.
Right now in the United States they are battling over this issue. When it is put to the people, the people almost always vote for traditional marriage. That’s what happened in North Carolina this week where they voted on this ballot initiative.
“Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This Section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”
So the people have spoken, in North Carolina and in several other states but judges – and now President Obama – are going in another direction.
Mark my words, now that Obama has come out completely in support of gay marriage we will see an endless stream of media stories on the wonders of evolving. On the wonders of gay marriage and those that hold the traditional view will be shouted down as bigots.
That needs to be exposed for what it is and attempt to shut down debate.
This is why what we do here on Byline is so important and why we need your help in spreading the word by sharing stories you care about.
We give voice to your stories, a voice that had been missing in the media, we offer that debate. We had a win on an issue few others cared about – the back door gun registry issue – why? Because we gave it a voice. Hopefully one day we can do that on social issues as well.
We’ll do our part in the fight but we’ll need your help along the way.
And that’s the Byline.
Categories: Byline
Now that some pro-life activists are voicing opposition to PM Harper’s POV on launching a debate about abortion, the media is sure to give much more coverage and exposure to the pro-life side.
In this CBC article http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/09/pol-anti-abortion-protest-thursday.html NDP MP Niki Ashton is quoted:
“A woman’s right to choose is her own and not up to the state. That’s a position that most Canadians have dealt with and we’re ready to move on to other things.”
If Ms. Ashton really believes what she said, i.e. “A woman’s right to choose is her own and not up to the state” then I see no reason for the state to fund with taxpayers’ money that kind of choice, repeatedly in some cases.
However, because our society is no longer homogeneous, with everyone holding more or less the same belief system, matters of conscience like abortion and gay marriage can no longer be universally agreed upon, much less legislated. Witness the Supreme Court decisions on so-called swingers’ clubs (Kouri & Labaye decisions). I expect assisted suicide will soon become another socially acceptable “choice”.
On the issue of gay marriage, it’s strange that the millennial traditional definition of marriage could be changed rather easily while the Canada Health Act, which received Royal Assent a mere 28 years ago, cannot be touched without raising the ire of a majority of people. IMO, a civil union, registered partnership, or pacte civil de solidarité as the French refer to it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_around_the_world should have been an acceptable solution to gay partners’ demands.
BUT … although I consider myself a traditionalist, I believe the door has been thrown wide-open on some of these issues and I doubt the clock can be turned back.
Keep on keeping on God Bless you
Brian, the problem with the gay marriage debate is that marriage is NOT just a religious institution, it is also a secular one with legal implications. I’m sure we both agree (and I’m hoping you do) that all people have the right to have sex with anyone they like in their own home so long as it’s consentual by all parties. We can live with, and love, anyone we choose, but what about rights of survivorship for couples? In a heterosexual couple with children, should the mother die, guardianship passes to the father, but if the couple are two lesbians, and the biological mother dies, there is no recourse for the surviving parent. The child automatically becomes a ward of the state and, barring another family member to take custody, enters foster care. How would you feel if, heaven forbid, your wife should die, but because the government doesn’t recognize your union as anything legal, your children were ripped from you and sent to live with strangers? There are also tax implications, so now we’re denying them that as well. It’s got to be rights for all or rights for none, anything else, call it what you will, is just plain unfair. Should we decide to take this course of denying a portion of the population any rights enjoyed by the whole, we may as well go back to having “blacks only” drinking fountains.
My husband(a man-male) and I(woman-female) in the eyes of God are truly married.
Gays are not married in the eyes of God nor ever will be.
Therefore, no same couple who claim to think they are married will never ever be equal with me nor my husband in the terms of marriage.
Paul Martin defied 99% of the public to satisfy 1% of those who want gay marriage.
Liliey, if Sun News Network could afford a better hair stylist, you and the Freakzoid could at least be presentable, although neer believeable!