Current News and Media Videos

The Sillicon Valley Mercury News is reporting that the U.S. Census Bureau plans to count gay married persons in its next census the same as it reports unmarried partners. This carries very strange political consequences.

On the one hand, gay married couples are legally married if they marry in Massachusetts or California. Doesn’t that fact mean that they are to be counted among the census numbers as “married couples”? According to representatives of the U.S. Census Bureau, no.

Actually, I think it smacks of the same kind of political compromise that led to the 3/5 rule in the U.S. Constitution. Upon the founding of America, since slaves did not have a right to vote, Northern non-slave owners argued that they should not be counted in the Census numbers. Southerners wanted them counted. The obvious reason was because apportionment of legislative representatives was based on population. The South wanted to increase its power in Congress while the North wanted to diminish the South’s influence. They compromised by allowing slave owners to count their slaves as 3/5 of a person instead of a whole person.

The Census Bureau’s insistence that gay married couples be counted as unmarried partners is the same type of compromise, only it isn’t based so much on economics, as the 3/5 compromise was, as it is based on morality. Christian evangelicals and other conservative factions do not want to recognize marriage for homosexuals. Liberals and gay couples simply want the same political and economic rights as heterosexuals with regard to marriage contracts. The Census Bureau has evidently figured out a “moral compromise” - allow same-sex couples to marry, since they can’t stop it anyway, and don’t count them as married in the Census data, which would acknowledge the legitimacy of the marriage contracts. By disallowing the counting of marriage contracts between same-sex couples in the numbers of total persons who are married, the Census Bureau and its decision makers can essentially de-legitimize the practice of homosexual marriage without taking a stand on its legality. Very clever “moral compromise” on the part of the head counters.

2,700 marriage licenses in two days. Is that a victory?

Well, according to reports, in a typical June week the state of California issues 2,460 marriage licenses. But in just two days after making gay marriage legal in California there were 2,700 marriage licenses issued.

That doesn’t really mean too much. Yes, marriage license issuances went up. Not all of those were gay people getting married. These reports are for total marriage licenses. Let’s do the math.

• 2,460 per week is the norm (total licenses sans the gay marriages)
• Divide that number by 7 = 351.43
• Multiply that by 2 = 702.86

That’s the number of straight marriages we would have normally expected on any two consecutive June days in California, statewide. Subtract that number by the 2,700 licenses issued during those two days and that’s the number of gay marriage licenses issued, give or take. Roughly 2,000 licenses for gay couples - statewide, in two days.

Now, is that normative? No. You can expect that number to level off by next month. The initial surge of interest is due to the state of California opening the flood gates. It is likely, given that only a small percentage of the population is gay, that the typical 2,460 marriage licenses issued in a week will only slightly increase across the state.

What could happen is an influx of homosexual couples moving to California to take advantage of the new benefits issued them under California law. What is more likely to happen is gay couples living in other states will vacation in California, get married while they are there, and lobby their home states to gain the same privileges under their own state’s laws. For some, that will result in success sooner, but for others, it may never happen. A national push for gay marriage acceptance nationwide will continue to rip the country apart - socially, morally, and politically. The gay battle has just begun.

The FCC is supposed to represent citizens and safeguard rules that stop anyone from being the only source of news that the public receives. Too bad that the FCC does not feel it represents the public interest as they are supposed to.

Instead the FCC is just a puppet that will do whatever the large corporations want them to do. The FCC is a sham and a shame.

From the NYTimes
By STEPHEN LABATON

The head of the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday announced the details of his plan to relax the longstanding rule that had prevented a company from owning both a newspaper and a radio or television station in the same city.

One of the very rules that is meant to protect the public and assure that US citizens receive news from manby different sources. This rule prevented one corporation from becoming your only news source.

Why is that important? Because it eliminates objectivity. If that corporation owns all the news sources and a story comes along that they do not want you to hear, then they can choose not to report it.

Say they back a specific presidetial candidate and something comes up about their candidate that will hurt their chances of being elected. The corporation can just not report it.

Without any competing newspapers, tv stations, and radio stations who might have reported the story even when one of them did not, the public has a chance to hear all the news, not just what one company wants you to hear.

For 32 years, supporters of the restriction have maintained that it prevents the growth of ever- larger media conglomerates and helps to keep diverse voices on the airwaves.

These critics denounced Mr. Martin’s proposal for containing what they said were loopholes that could lead to widespread consolidation.

While they did leave in some rules that are supposed to leave diversity in the news, this is the first crack in the wall.

In a memo to employees on Tuesday, the head of Tribune suggested that he was dissatisfied, regarding Mr. Martin’s plan as not going far enough. He also said he would seek to have it expanded.

Therein lies the problem. Give an inch and they want a mile. The FCC has shown it is going to open the door for them to do so. In the past, even without this change, the FCC has been allowing corporations to break the rules anyway by giving them an exemption and using grandfather clauses.

This rule change is just the beginning and should not be allowed at all. It will be exploited and expanded and that will harm smaller newspapers and independent tv stations in favor of allowing mega corporations to BUY the news.

The Rest of The Story here

Why is this news?

Man marries woman. He’s tall. She’s not. Big news.

OK, so he’s the tallest man in the world. Should we assume that’s an obstacle to his getting married? Maybe it is, in China.

I think the real angle to this story is the fact that this man herds sheep and his new bride is a saleswoman. A sales woman - in a Communist country. And she marries a herdsman. That would be like a Communist dictator’s henchman marrying a corporate executive in America. That would be news.

News and Media Blog