Course Evaluation

This course has been filled with a variety of news stories, blog posts, and quirky side stories.  It's been nice to become more informed about news stories and actually see how different stories are spread across multiple sources.  I found the most interesting part of this course actually came when writing our last essay about following a news story across different media.  I followed how the overturning of Prop 8 became a big media story in February of 2012.  It was interesting to see how one paper close in California reported on it compared to how The New York Times reported on it and then to see the millions of different spin-offs of the issue.  You never really realize how much a story expands until you look at a variety of different sources. I hope to use my knowledge of connecting sources to get a broader view of the news spectrum and not take everything I see or read at face value.

The Wedding Aisle to Gay Marriage

Allison Proehl

Professor Eric Leake

Writing

Blog Following Essay

The Wedding Aisle to Gay Marriage

            Same-sex marriage has been a controversial issue since the stories of Adam and Eve were first written. Across the nation it has been one of the largest social issues that the National Court system has left for the states to decide. On February 7, 2012 the Appeals Court of California in a 2-1 verdict, made the ruling to overturn Proposition 8. From their ruling came a hurricane of TV reports, blogs, articles, and more than ever a full fledge media discussion about the recent ruling. When the ruling to overturn Prop 8 emerged at the beginning of February of this year, the legalities of same-sex marriage awoke fierce debate between supporters of same-sex couples and those in opposition of gay marriage. By analyzing the blogs and articles written about the Appeals Court’s decision to over turn Proposition 8 we can gain a better understanding about how the flow of information circulates and is discussed. This blogosphere of information also allows readers to track the effect this court case has on state and national law regarding same-sex marriage.

            The California’s Appeals Court’s controversial decision to overturn Proposition 8 started a media frenzy.  The press have written articles and blogs about the decision and the possibility of what will happen next regarding the legalities of same-sex marriage.  After the final 2-1 decision was announced major media stations began to respond to the outcome. Since the whole decision was based upon California law, it’s important to take a close look at Newspapers in California. The L.A. Times was one of the major papers that immediately put out an article regarding Prop 8.  While reading the article, it is apparent, first from the rainbow flag picture that dominates the page, the title, and then the word choice of the author Erwin Chemerinsky, although the article tries to be unbiased there is a definite support of gay marriage throughout it. Although there is a Pro-gay marriage voice to the article Chemerinsky does a good job at looking at the logistics of Prop 8.  Unlike most of the other articles written, he chose to write about how Prop 8 should never have been put on the ballot back in 2008. “The ban on marriage equality for gays and lesbians serves no legitimate government interest. Under this reasoning — though it was not the holding of the case — any law denying marriage equality would be unconstitutional” (Chemerinsky). This is a very refreshing view that differs from the articles that are written completely on the moral issue of gay marriage and not on the legal ones.  In the L.A. Times’ article there is also a strong presence of practicality. Statistics that supporters of Prop 8 commonly use as grounds to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry are disproved. He writes about how marriage is designed to encourage procreation, yet heterosexual couples who either are enable or unwilling to procreate are still allowed to marry and gays and lesbians are not.  I really liked how practical his article was and how it took a majority of the arguments used by supporters of Prop 8 and put them to rest.  From this article the information regarding the Appeal Court’s decision is spread to all readers of the L.A. Times, as well as it gives a close up view of the court proceedings that are happening in the L.A. Times’ home state of California.

One of the other significant networks that responded to the recent ruling was the newspaper, The New York Times. As a result of the high sensitivity and controversy over same-sex marriage it was apparent that the Times wanted to report on the issue without bias. On February 7, 2012 the Times reported on the case, reporting the Appeals Court’s decision to overturn Prop 8. Their article gave a general history of the different court cases that same-sex marriage has battled and gave equal space for those in favor of gay marriage as well as those against it. The main focus of the article was not only to report on this extremely controversial issue but also to draw attention to the future of gay marriage at a national level. “Both sides in the case made clear that they intended to take the case before the Supreme Court in hopes of prompting it to settle once and for all an issue that has been fought out in courts, legislatures and ballot boxes since at least a 1971 case” (Nagourney). With the publication of this article regarding gay marriage (as well as 4 others on the same topic) the issues was spread to millions of readers.  On the NY Times’ article ‘Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California,’ over 1200 comments were posted regarding the subject matter thus expanding the conversation surrounding the decision to overturn Proposition 8.  In Nagourney’s article about gay marriage he links to the American Foundation for Equal Rights. The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) became the sole backer for the Perry v. Brown case which lead to the overturning of Prop 8.  Thus the blogosphere not only includes the Appellate Court’s decision but also the L.A. and New York Times’ articles, and AFER’s response to the verdict.

After the release of California’s Appeals Court’s decision to overturn Proposition 8 and the New York Times’ article about the court’s decision, the articles regarding the legality and right for gays to marry expanded to the American Foundation for Equal Rights’ website.  From the NY Times’ link to the AFER website, there is an article regarding the organization’s joy in the trial’s outcome as well as multiple reasons why they believed that Prop 8 should be overturned.  AFER Board President Chad Griffin was reported saying, “Every American, regardless of race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, deserves the same dignity and respect, the same freedom to love and to marry and to build a family” (U.S. Court of Appeals). This article along with the AFER websites is clearly in support of not only gay marriage but also fundamental rights that are written in the U.S. Constitution that gays have been denied.  I think they do a good job in their article about ‘furthering’ the conversation as Harris puts it. They not only acknowledge that Prop 8 was overturned but they point out sections in the Constitution that gays and lesbians are being denied. AFER expands the conversation from one Proposition against gay marriage and extends it to include basic human rights that the law has ignored. They take notice of ‘human dignity’ regardless of race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity and recognize that gays and lesbians are being denied both the right to marry and the right to be treated with equal dignity and respect under the law. After the release of the Ninth Districts decision and the publication of the article ‘U.S. Court of Appeals Uphold Federal District Court Ruling that Proposition 8 is Unconstitutional’ on its website the blogosphere is once again expanded to include more than 100,000 followers of AFER along with the thousands that found the original article on the New York Times’ website. 

In order to stay unbiased in his article regarding gay marriage, New York Times’ writer Adam Nagourney not only links to the American Foundation for Equal Rights but also to Protect Marriage.com. The Protect Marriage website expands the discussion about the Ninth Districts ruling on gay marriage to include those who support Proposition 8 and thus are against gay marriage. As a result of the Appeals Court ruling against Prop 8, it is appropriate that Protect Marriage’s main focus in their article is to counter the Court’s decision. Their main goal is to preserve the term ‘marriage’ for the union of a man and a woman and they use this notion in furthering their argument against those that support gay marriage. In their article they do not just disagree with the Court’s decision they “push beyond mere disagreement” (Harris 56).  The article opens up new lines of inquiry that the New York Times and American foundation for Equal Rights does not consider. They bring up the previous decision as decided by the voters of California back in 2008 and try to add that to their argument against gay marriage. “The panel’s ruling mischaracterized the purpose of marriage, failed to faithfully and fairly interpret the Constitution, and disregarded every relevant appellate and Supreme Court precedent in American history” (Hass).  Those in favor of Prop 8 are attempting to further their campaign by appealing to all of the Ninth District’s Judges and get the public’s support behind them by reaching out to their 100,000 followers.  Once again the blogosphere has increased from the first release of the CA Appeals Court’s decision, then from the L.A. and New York Times’ article summarizing the decision, and then finally it is expanded to both sides of the controversy. Readers of the L.A. and NY Times, American Foundation for Equal Rights, and Protect Marriage are all included in the blogosphere and thus the flow of information that was all spun from the result of the overturning of Proposition 8.

             As a consequence of California’s Appeals Court’s Decision to overturn Proposition 8, a national discussion regarding gay marriage was seen across the news and Internet.  The Court’s judgment sparked articles by major news publishers like the L.A. and New York Times, which has thousands of readers commenting on the article.  The opinions of both those in favor of gay marriage and those against it were both linked in the New York Times’ article and thus expanded the flow of information from a few thousand readers of the Times to millions of readers from multiple websites and blogs. By tracing the flow of how the overturning of Proposition 8 is being interpreted by multiple groups we are better able to understand the blogosphere’s affect on the nation.

Works Cited:

Chemerinsky, Erwin. "Prop. 8 Ruling: The Legal Path Ahead." Los Angeles Times.

     N.p., 8 Feb. 2012. Web. 5 Mar. 2012. <http://www.latimes.com/news/

     opinion/commentary/

     la-oe-chemerinsky-proposition-8-ruling-20120208,0,5128797.story>.

Harris, Joseph. Rewriting. Logan, Utah: Utah State UP, 2006. Print.

Hass, Carla. Official Proponents Appeal Prop 8 Decision to Entire 9th Circuit.

     Protect Marriage, 21 Feb. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.

     http://www.protectmarriage.com/blog/

Nagourney, Adam. "Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California." The New

     York Times. N.p., 10 Feb. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.

     <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/

     marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html?scp=7&sq=prop%208%20overturne

     d&st=cse>.

"U.S. Court of Appeals Upholds Federal District Court Ruling That Proposition 8

     Is Unconstitutional." American Foundation for Equal Rights. N.p., 8 Feb.

     2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://www.afer.org/news/

     u-s-court-of-appeals-upholds-federal-district-court-ruling-that-proposition-8-is-

     unconstitutional/>.

Extra Gay Marriage History in California (not part of the essay, just informative): In 2000 California enacted Prop 22, which stated that only the marriage between a man and a woman would be recognize in the state of California. This was closely followed by The Domestic Partnership Act in 2003 which gave the general benefits that those in opposite-sex marriages received to same-sex civil unions.  However civil union did not get the full benefits of opposite-sex couples, thus in 2004 Prop 22 was challenged and eventually invalidated.  Thus the opposing party of gay marriage enacted Prop 8. Prop 8 stated it did not recognize same-sex marriages in the state of California and eventually passed in California with a 52.3% approval.  As a small stipulation the court decided that the some 18,000 plus same-sex marriages that were preformed in California would not be nullified.  However same-sex couples were denied the right to the title of “marriage” thus in 2009, same-sex couples K. Perry and S. Stier and P. Katami and J. Zarrillo filed suit to get Prop 8 overturned. In August of 2010 U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Prop 8. After considering Walker’s injunction a the Appeals Court decided that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause as well as it violated the Equal Protection Clause. On February 7,2012 the Appeals Court made the final decision to overturn Proposition 8.