Media bias observed, instance 12,000,000,037

Today’s column by John Ivison presents the conventional view of the media classes. Entitled Tories Eye Changing Gay Union Stance, it discusses the Manichaean options before the federal Conservatives regarding gay marriage.

If the delegates in Vancouver vote to keep the clauses in question, it will confirm the prejudices about the party being the home of white, middle-aged bigots, beholden to no law but that of the Almighty.

But if the same-sex position is overturned, it will send the message that a new more tolerant and inclusive brand of conservatism is serious about challenging for power at the next election.

gay marriage

Manichaean refers to the doctrine of the Persian prophet Mani (216-276 AD), who held that there is a cosmic struggle between the forces of light and darkness.

An adherent of Manichaeism is called, especially in older sources,[9] a Manichee, or more recently Manichaean. By extension, the term “manichean” is widely applied (often used as a derogatory term) as an adjective to a philosophy of moral dualism, according to which a moral course of action involves a clear (or simplistic) choice between good and evil, or as a noun to people who hold such a view.

I was briefly married to a leftist, with the emphasis on ‘briefly’. The chief point of conversation was to signal virtue by how you named things. “Gay” meant you were enlightened and progressive, “fag” meant you were a reactionary bigot. No change whatever was required in one’s attitudes, which remained camouflaged behind progressive speech. Put on the iron mask of leftism and we can all talk through our masks: that is the first duty of the socialist citizen.

So in that spirit John Ivison is basically telling conservatives that leftists will judge conservatives to be electable if they hold attitudes approved of by leftists.

For my part I gave up the struggle against gay marriage long time ago, in that I see little harm, and if it does harm it constitutes issue #2491 in my list of things that a truly sensible regime might wish to reconsider and reform. But once you see this type of brow-beating by the media, you see it nearly everywhere.

Oh! the tyranny of having to fill column inches three times a week! What nonsense we are made to print!

 

Bookmark and Share
Dewar

The CPC would be wise to succumb on this point. As Dalwhinnie rightly says, the issue is so far down the list of things to fret over that its not worth the bother to put up a fight, presuming one were so inclined. What is truly ridiculous however is the amount of ink this topic will get from the MSM. Of course, no one will ask Trudeau why he thinks a Cabinet of only TWO genders is progressive … I mean, if Facebook has 51 gender options, why does Trudeau’s Cabinet only celebrate two? It is 2016 after all.

ward

Sure lets just roll over on one of the pillars of a strong and stable society.

I would suggest that rather than let the Liberals and their media arm decide the language and terms of the debate and what is acceptable, that the Conservatives better articulate why the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman must be the only definition.

The Libs really don’t much care about gays or gay marriage or much of anything else other than getting elected and creating blunt ideogical instruments to beat their opponents with. If that means creating a special interest group for gays, and then pandering to them with boutique cause for them, well, that is what Libs do. Not because they are high minded or morally superior, but because they can vilify their opponents with the issue (only using their language and terms of debate though)

No reason to not point this out.

Fundamentally the argument is not about being against gay marriage as it is supporting traditional marriage. There is a very big difference there.

You could just as easily make this a “conservatives are against polygamy” issue as well. Why should gays get to steal the spotlight?

Being for something does not make you axiomatically “against” something else.

Being in support of something means that by ones estimation it provides a better solution than other choices.

While many Christians may be against gay marriage due to their religious considerations, other Canadians regard it as morally repugnant, others yet such as myself regard it as an intentional destruction of one of the foundations of stable society.

I would like to know how it will be possible to open the door to changing the definition of marriage to accommodate one special interest group (gays) and then slam that door shut on another such as polygamists.

What about age restrictions on marriage? Why cant a 50 year old man marry a 14 year old girl if they are in love? Or a 30 year old woman and 15 year old boy? Would that be morally repugnant to some?

And what about polygamy? Winston Blackmore must just rub his hands together when it comes to fighting this issue in court. If 2 men can now marry, why not 3? What’s the big deal? Or 2 men and one woman or 1 man and 10 women.

I just don’t see how the definition of marriage can be changed to accommodate one special interest group and not another.

And another thought to consider is this.

The left never ever gives up a fight or concedes a point. Never. If they did they would frankly have to conceded that Stephen Harper was likely the best or one of the best PMs we have ever had based on his actions and record, and the respect he garnered internationally .

So to concede ground to the left is to concede the greater fight.

We already conceded it on abortion to the point there literally is no restriction on it in Canada. So next we concede gay marriage?

Whats after that? Free Speech, right to own a gun? Are these minor issues?

Climate Change?

Find me an issue that conservatives have not rolled on in the last 20 years.

In my opinion this is about trying to isolate the gay marriage position as a “Harperism”.

The left wants to make sure of one thing – that they never ever get that close to completely losing power in this country. They were one more conservative majority from doing so.

The progressive left realizes for the eventual day the Liberals are defeated federally, the conservative party needs to be remade back into the PCs of the Mulroney era – at the service of the laurentian elites.

And forcing the party, through media pressure to change their position on gay marriage is a major stepping stone to reshaping the Conservative Party into the Lib light party conservatives rejected over 2 decades ago.

Dig in and fight, do not concede.

Alain

I agree with Ward with one exception, that being that the battle to preserve traditional marriage was lost even before SSM entered the scene. It was thrown to the wind when shacking up or common law marriage was given equal footing with traditional marriage. It has gone down hill since and trust me it has not yet reached the bottom of the hill.

So far it seems to me that the CPC after Harper is determined to self-destruct by trying to win over those who will never be their friends, supporters or voters. Without a clearly and well defined ideology that they are willing and able to define and defend, they lose their raison d’être.

Jack Kent

Iveson writes about the cpc as if they are some kind of fringe party as opposed to a party that governed for the past decade.. Whatever. Personally, I’m anxious about offending Islam so maybe they should just ignore it. Diversity is a strength and all that.

Henry and Martha

CPC must stick to its principles and oppose gay marriage. The party stands for nothing if it takes positions based on getting votes.

Dalwhinnie

And there you have it folks. Eight responses, three or four different positions, a wedge issue if I ever saw one.
I was thinking that, just as Harper invented “boutique” tax credits, so the Liberals invent and succor “boutique” identity groups.

Ward

Wedge issues are what the liberals and media decide them to be. Tax credits are by no means boutique.
A wedge issue might be wearing a veil at citizenship swearing in. But despite the fact that 85+ percent of Canadians supported banning them – which was in agreement with the Harper conservatives- media decided to ignore that fact and treat it as one of bigotry. Apparently almost all Canadians were wrong but media and Trudeau were right.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *