Mass. court turns over gay marriage ban

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I don't think you really have a good grasp on the fairness doctrine as it applies to constitutional law, Wildbomb. Nobody is trying to remove bias from the media; the fairness doctrine was simply a badly worded restriction that, if interpreted literally, would bar stations from having any opinion pieces whatsoever. That's different than, say, Fox News spinning a Clinton aide's disappearance as a possible murder.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The stations could argue that they are being put under an unfair burden economically. They could argue that they are being required to forfeit money (yes, profit is not guaranteed, but they can argue that their ability to do business is being unfairly curtailed) while other media are not.

 

But, in all honesty, the burden ISN'T unfair. They're being asked to forfeit money, yes, but all of their competitors are also forced to do the same thing. It's still not the government's responsibility to make an industry economically viable, especially not one that reaps the rewards of a monopoly power over the population. I mean, come on, it's absurd how much they charge for advertizing. This isn't an argument that the FCC would use, but stepping back, they make MORE than enough profit to be able to take a hit of a mere 20 minutes a day in advertizing time.

 

But some candidates would get more time under this proposal as they'd have the 90 minutes of another state's time in addition to the 90 minutes of the state in question's time.

 

I don't get what you're implying here. They're not getting extra time, they're getting the same amount of time. Some candidates would simply have airtime in states which they aren't ballot qualified, potentially, and I don't think that's an equal protection issue since the overlapping markets occur in nearly every state.

 

But, several hundred channels would ALL have to do this? This comes suspiciously close to government-run television and I don't think the Courts would go for that, precedents be damned.

 

Thinking about it after I got sleep, every channel showing this sounds stupid. It'd probably be the same channels which must accept public service requirements as a stipulation for licensing (so, then, it MIGHT be all stations, but I doubt it).

 

But if numerous other channels are offering this, couldn't any station argue that NOT doing it is not a major issue?

 

And, again, this gives A LOT of power to the networks and the like and they have their own interests. If candidates have to live and die basically with the networks discussing their views, they might have problems.

 

As per the first point, it'd raise equal protection issues if it wasn't enforced, and therefore, they'd likely enforce it tightly just to avoid those issues.

 

With the second point, yes, but then again, campaigns which rely primarily on the advertising are not likely to win, anyways. However, the advertising is a very good way to at least get their name and message out there, and inform people how to further find information about their candidate if the advertising piques information. I mean, in all honesty, the average person doesn't even know who's running, yet alone what their website is.

 

I say remove restrictions and demand tight accountability, with the info being released to the public on a daily basis. If a party starts getting lots of donations from one or two people, rest assured, their opposition will bring it up and the candidate will have to explain it away.

 

You still run into the same problems, because if both sides have their hands in the honeypot, neither one of them is going to say a damned thing about it. In addition, probably all of two people would read those reports.

 

It's a decent idea, but just like the Freedom of Information Act, there are hurdles you'd have to jump to see ANY information; hurdles that aren't likely to be jumped by the average American seeking to become a more informed voter.

 

Television is the most widely held medium in the country (and probably the world). It is a much better tool for spreading information than simply records.

 

That seems like it would make current campaigns even MORE shallow and reliant on sound-bites. 90 minutes to make one's case to the country is not a lot of time. Heck, Clinton could have never done it as he did tend to go on and on.

 

To a certain extent, I agree; however, I also think that if done right, it would encourage people to research their candidates more and figure out what the difference is, etc.

[Guest MikeSC]

The stations could argue that they are being put under an unfair burden economically. They could argue that they are being required to forfeit money (yes, profit is not guaranteed, but they can argue that their ability to do business is being unfairly curtailed) while other media are not.

 

But, in all honesty, the burden ISN'T unfair. They're being asked to forfeit money, yes, but all of their competitors are also forced to do the same thing.

 

They could argue that if radio isn't forced to do it, they're losing to other entertainment competition. Ditto movies.

 

I know --- this is absolutely asinine and a God awful analogy --- but rest assured, it'd take months in court to resolve it.

 

It's still not the government's responsibility to make an industry economically viable, especially not one that reaps the rewards of a monopoly power over the population.

 

But, they can argue that the government is DIRECTLY HAMPERING them in their corporate affairs (which, yes, would be a lie since, for most of the 80's, NBC made their money on late-night, not prime time programming --- but this is the public persona that would be put out).

 

I mean, come on, it's absurd how much they charge for advertizing. This isn't an argument that the FCC would use, but stepping back, they make MORE than enough profit to be able to take a hit of a mere 20 minutes a day in advertizing time.

 

They could argue that the government is illegally seizing their money. Again, it's not an argument I'd personally agree with --- but if I was advising them and they really wanted out of this, this is a roadblock I'd put up just to stall and get the public against it.

 

And, rest assured, the public would turn against it.

 

But some candidates would get more time under this proposal as they'd have the 90 minutes of another state's time in addition to the 90 minutes of the state in question's time.

 

I don't get what you're implying here. They're not getting extra time, they're getting the same amount of time. Some candidates would simply have airtime in states which they aren't ballot qualified, potentially, and I don't think that's an equal protection issue since the overlapping markets occur in nearly every state.

 

Actually, in hindsight, you're 100% correct here. Being given time in a state where they aren't on the ballot for wouldn't really hurt anything.

 

I'll reiterate that I, Mike, do not honestly buy this line of thinking --- I think free ad time is a horrid idea, mind you, but I'm just tossing up as many complaints as I can think of that would possibly be made --- but this could be an issue.

 

But, several hundred channels would ALL have to do this? This comes suspiciously close to government-run television and I don't think the Courts would go for that, precedents be damned.

 

Thinking about it after I got sleep, every channel showing this sounds stupid. It'd probably be the same channels which must accept public service requirements as a stipulation for licensing (so, then, it MIGHT be all stations, but I doubt it).

 

I think pretty much all the channels do that.

 

But if numerous other channels are offering this, couldn't any station argue that NOT doing it is not a major issue?

 

And, again, this gives A LOT of power to the networks and the like and they have their own interests. If candidates have to live and die basically with the networks discussing their views, they might have problems.

 

As per the first point, it'd raise equal protection issues if it wasn't enforced, and therefore, they'd likely enforce it tightly just to avoid those issues.

 

Also, what about on-screen graphics? Would the channel be forced to show the footage with no graphics? If not, they could do a hit job on the candidate that way.

 

And what about when the network discusses a candidate. If they discuss one far more than another, wouldn't that be unfair and a possible issue? Let's say they discuss Bush far more than Dean --- couldn't Dean argue that since he and his supporters are barred from voicing their opinions in advertising, the extra time Bush gets on-air is unfair?

 

With the second point, yes, but then again, campaigns which rely primarily on the advertising are not likely to win, anyways. However, the advertising is a very good way to at least get their name and message out there, and inform people how to further find information about their candidate if the advertising piques information. I mean, in all honesty, the average person doesn't even know who's running, yet alone what their website is.

 

Well, in all honesty, nobody even begins to follow this, seriously, until October. Why candidates spend so much early on is a little lost on me.

 

I say remove restrictions and demand tight accountability, with the info being released to the public on a daily basis. If a party starts getting lots of donations from one or two people, rest assured, their opposition will bring it up and the candidate will have to explain it away.

 

You still run into the same problems, because if both sides have their hands in the honeypot, neither one of them is going to say a damned thing about it. In addition, probably all of two people would read those reports.

 

There are enough reporters who are seeking their big break that they'd find it. And each campaign would search for the problems of another --- and the campaigns that are too small to have a problem with this would contact the press about it.

 

I doubt it'd not get play.

 

It's a decent idea, but just like the Freedom of Information Act, there are hurdles you'd have to jump to see ANY information; hurdles that aren't likely to be jumped by the average American seeking to become a more informed voter.

 

Not relying on the average voter. I'm relying on a confrontational press corps and mud-slinging campaigns to do that work.

 

Television is the most widely held medium in the country (and probably the world). It is a much better tool for spreading information than simply records.

 

But it is harder to really screw around with records. With TV, you say it and it's forgotten. With records, they can more easily back-check. Not many people will sign their names to a form they know is fradulent. MANY more people will happily lie to the cameras.

 

That seems like it would make current campaigns even MORE shallow and reliant on sound-bites. 90 minutes to make one's case to the country is not a lot of time. Heck, Clinton could have never done it as he did tend to go on and on.

 

To a certain extent, I agree; however, I also think that if done right, it would encourage people to research their candidates more and figure out what the difference is, etc.

 

Rule 1 of the realist school of poli.sci: NEVER underestimate the laziness of the voters. Soundbites work really, really well for a reason.

 

Sad, but true.

-=Mike

...Who is actually enjoying this little debate --- even though I'm now just throwing up possible objections that I don't put any stock in --- just to demonstrate all of the hurdles.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So you are more qualified to choose a reconstruction company than the US Military, eh?

 

*Claps*

I couldn't believe it at first either, but there we are.

 

And explain to me what control Dick Cheney had in this, or why Haliburton is never allowed to have a government contract again, because I think I missed this.

 

They should COMPETE for the contract! You know, competition, right?

[Firestarter 0]

They should COMPETE for the contract!

They did. Now shut up.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Yeah, sure. Meanwhile, this appeared in the paper yesterday. For our friends screaming about the courts deciding everything:

 

----

 

How the press distorted the Massachusetts decision

Andrew Koppelman

 

The Massachusetts same-sex marriage decision was a big news story. Unfortunately, almost every major paper got it wrong. Here is a sample of the headlines: "In Mass., Same-Sex Marriage Ban Lifted." "Gays Have Right to Marry, SJC Says in Historic Ruling." "Gay Marriage Ban Rejected." "Mass. High Court Backs Gay Marriage."

 

The truth is that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Goodridge vs. Dept. of Public Health did not decree that same sex couples were entitled to marry. It said that they were entitled to "the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage." And the court did not require that marriage licenses be issued to the couples who were asking for them. It delayed any remedy for 180 days to allow the Massachusetts Legislature to act.

 

The court did not explain what the Legislature was supposed to do, but the delay makes no sense unless the Legislature has some choice other than to grant the right to marry (which the court could easily have done itself). The opinion is full of language about the importance of the right to marry, but none of that appears in the court's final order. The Legislature could almost certainly satisfy the court by following the lead of Vermont and California, which have created separate domestic partnership statuses for gay couples with all the rights and responsibilities, but not the label, of marriage. (On Thursday, Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly interpreted the opinion exactly that way.) That type of law is something most Americans can live with.

 

About two-thirds of Americans are strongly opposed to same-sex marriage, polls show, but the label of "marriage" is all that many really care about. When they are asked about merely giving gay couples all the same legal rights as married couples, the split is a third in favor, a third against and a third who are undecided.

 

After the Vermont Supreme Court declared that gay couples had to have the rights, but not necessarily the label, the Legislature acted and the sky didn't fall. Recently, when California followed Vermont's lead (with no prodding from any court) by legalizing domestic partnerships, the national press barely noticed. Massachusetts legislators appear to be under the impression that the court has left them no options, but this misreads the decision. Once it is understood that nothing happened in Massachusetts that hadn't already happened in two other states, the story is merely about a continuing trend.

 

The misreporting stems from several sources. The Massachusetts court's opinion is vague and easily misunderstood. Activists on both sides, each for their own reasons, interpreted the opinion in the most extreme possible way. The press wanted striking headlines. And President Bush, who immediately denounced the decision for violating the principle that "marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," hopes to capitalize on a backlash that will not materialize if the decision is understood. Bush is the largest beneficiary of the misunderstanding. He has been handed an issue that will energize his fundamentalist supporters and could split the Democrats in 2004.

 

It will not be the first time that misinformation has helped Bush. Who knows how much support the Iraq war would have gotten if 69 percent of Americans did not believe, on the basis of Bush's misleading insinuations, that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks?

 

There are powerful, principled arguments for legalizing same-sex marriage.

 

It would end a severe form of discrimination, challenge gender stereotypes and give recognition to many families who are already functioning very well. But it makes sense for gay rights activists to wait. Attitudes toward gays have been liberalizing for a long time. After a decade or two, objections to gay marriage may have dissipated.

 

Pushing the issue now invites backlash. Hawaii and Alaska amended their state constitutions to bar gay marriages after courts in those states seemed to be about to recognize them. The misunderstanding of the Massachusetts decision has invigorated a movement to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit both same-sex marriages and domestic partnerships.

 

Don't kick a hornet's nest, particularly when winter is coming and the hornets are going to die anyway.

 

Andrew Koppelman, professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law, is the author of "The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law" (Yale University Press, 1996) and "Antidiscrimination Law and Social Equality" (University of Chicago Press, 2002). This article first appeared in the Chicago Tribune.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...EDG9R377091.DTL