NYTimes/Boston Globe Continues as 'The Propagandist' for Gay Marriage

Media Watch:
NYTimes/Boston Globe Continues as 'The Propagandist' for Gay Marriage

The New York Times Company, owner of the Boston Globe and the New York Times, continued its role yesterday as the chief propagandist for gay marriage in Massachusetts and the nation.

On a major front-page story, the Globe printed the following headline, "State lawmakers seek to ban gay marriages." There was nothing new in the story from the New York-based conglomerate. The article could not be classified as a news story because it was merely just one more propaganda article about homosexual marriage.

"The New York Times Company owns both the New York Times and the Boston Globe," said Sarah McVay Pawlick, President of Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage. "It has the right to promote anything it wants. But it should tell the truth and not pretend to be an unbiased newspaper that prints 'All the News that's Fit to Print.' That is no longer what is happening."

In its story yesterday, the Globe first reported stale information about proposed laws that were introduced by legislators last December that would ban gay marriage. Then it said that Speaker Finneran would support such an amendment. But everyone already knows that Finneran voted for the Protection of Marriage Amendment last year, and he will do so again.

The Globe still cannot bring itself to report that the Supreme Judicial Court ruled on Dec. 20, 2002 that the Legislature violated the state Constitution when it adjourned without taking a vote on the Marriage Amendment.

For example, the Globe wrote yesterday that the Marriage Amendment was "killed" by the Legislature through a "procedural maneuver" by then-Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham that "avoided a vote on its merits."

Avoided a vote on its merits!?! A procedural maneuver!?! They broke the law on purpose!!!

There was nothing new in the story from the New York-based conglomerate.

The Globe has never accurately reported the Dec. 20 ruling from the SJC and it probably never will.

There's more. The Globe said yesterday that activists "feared" the Amendment was going to pass the Legislature last summer in July, so Birmingham "prevented" a vote from taking place by voting to adjourn and the amendment "died at the end of last year through inaction."

It didn't "die." It was killed. The SJC made it crystal clear on Dec. 20 that both the Governor and the Legislature had to obey the state Constitution and act before Dec. 31 to ensure that a vote was taken. Both the Governor and the Legislature ignored the Court ruling about the Constitution, as did the Boston Globe.

There was no mention yesterday about Pawlick's case in the SJC which was filed on Jan. 2, 2003. It asks the Court to send the Protection of Marriage Amendment back to this session of the Legislature for its consideration. After all, the Legislature deliberately failed to follow the law last year. That case in the SJC is still pending. The Amendment could very well be sent back to the Legislature again. But the Globe will never tell you that the lawsuit even exists.

"The Globe continues to report many lies," says Pawlick. "For example, in yesterday's story, they said that our Amendment would deny health care and bereavement leave to domestic partners. That is a lie! It's true that the Amendment would stop the Legislature from enacting civil unions like they have in Vermont, but it would not stop them from enacting specific benefits like health care and bereavement leave if they can get the citizens to go along. This is just an example of one of the many lies that the Globe has stated throughout. They have been the biggest opponent of our Amendment from the beginning. They have pushed and led Sen. Birmingham and others in their unlawful activities."

When editorializing in favor of the civil unions bill that was passed in Vermont in 2000, the New York Times said that domestic partnerships are a "crucial step forward" to gay marriage:

"[T]hough imperfect, [it] is a crucial step forward. It sensibly promotes the security and stability of gay families. In time, Vermont's example will show the rest of the country that same-sex unions are not a threat to traditional marriage and deserve the name of marriage."

Sidebar:
NY Times is Managed by Homosexuals,
Says Its National Political Correspondent

On any given day, three-quarters of the people who decide what goes on the front page of the New York Times are "not so closeted homosexuals," according to Richard Berke, the paper's National Political Correspondent.

Berke is a longtime member of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association who spoke at a 10th anniversary reception for the group in Washington, D.C. on April 12, 2000 at the National Press Club.

"This is at a newspaper where not so long ago-when I started there 15 years ago-the department heads were asking for lists of the gay reporters on different sections so they could be punished in different ways. So things have really changed at the newspaper. Since I've been there there's been a dramatic shift: I remember coming and wondering if there were any gay reporters there or whatever. Now it's like, there are times when you look at the front-page meeting and . literally three-quarters of the people deciding what's on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals. . [It is] a real far cry from what it was like not so long ago."