Legislative Session Day Two: Political Correctness Run Amok at Register

Wednesday, January 13, 2010, 6:19
Battleground Iowa, Blogs
1,144 views
17 comments

By Emily Geiger ClayworthCovered-229x300

It’s the second day of the legislative session, and I’m already annoyed.

The first thing that irritated me this morning is, no surprise, the Des Moines Register’s coverage of the marriage issue.

I was trying to find a written version of Culver’s speech, and I clicked on the Register blog page. That was mistake number one.

You know how people in the media never refer to pro-life people as “pro-life?” They’re always “anti-abortion” or “anti-choice.” Well, now some in the media are playing those same rhetorical tricks with the marriage issue.

The hundreds of people who showed up for the Let Us Vote rally organized by Iowa Family Policy Center ACTION were the subject special blog post written by a special journalist, my friend and yours… Jason Clayworth.

Here is how Clayworth’s story began.

More than 50 supporters of ending equal rights for same-sex couples to marry have already crowded into the House balconies at the Capitol, more than an hour before Gov. Chet Culver is expected to speak.

The marriage opponents are mostly wearing red and are part of the Iowa Family Policy Center’s Political Action Committee’s rally, which will include a noon demonstration on the west steps of the Capitol.

At least four Iowa State Troopers are stationed in the balconies. No people will be allowed in the balconies who do not have a seat.

So now the pro-traditional marriage crowd has been re-labeled as “supporters of ending equal rights for same-sex couples”?

First of all, Jason, you need to come up with a shorter, catchier politically correct description. That’s just far too wordy.

Second, are you freaking serious? Could you be a little more biased? Did you get that language from your favorite Facebook group, “I support the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision on Gay Marriage” which you were a proud member of until you got called out for being openly biased on an issue on which you were going to be reporting?

Let me paraphrase Jason’s oh-so-skilled analysis:

“So like, a bunch of hillbilly moron bigots showed up at the Capital today to tell me I shouldn’t be able to get married, which is, like, totally uncool.

And they had the audacity to wear red, which really irritates me because we all know that is the color for AIDS awareness. I mean, hellooo. What were they thinking? And for most of them, red was completely wrong their skin tone.

Anyhoo, we had, like, four cops there ready and waiting for the ingrates to get violent, ‘cause we all know nerdy white Christians are always, like, one public male-on-male kiss away from going postal. So we put the fuzz on their asses just in case. Hee, hee. Hmmm….

Sorry, just got lost in a personal fantasy.

So like, gotta go. The formerly hot (now not) blondie is getting ready to strut down the catwalk, I mean, enter the chamber. Hee, hee. Sorry, got distracted again.

Gotta go see what spin One Iowa wants me to publicize this week. Ta ta!”

And for those you who think I’m being too hard on our friend Jason, just remember that if he were capable of writing a legitimate, unbiased news story, I wouldn’t have anything to complain about.

But, he’s not. So he’s going to keep getting called out and being exposed for the One Iowa propagandist he is.

Tags: Des Moines Register, Gay Marriage, Iowa Family Policy Center, Jason Clayworth

About the Author

Battleground Iowa has written 183 stories on this site.

Emily Geiger writes from a conservative perspective on everything from politics to religion to pop culture. Like the original Emily of Revolutionary War era, this Emily is delivering important messages crucial to winning the raging war of the time, but today, this is a culture war rather than a traditional one. And, like the original Emily, sometimes it takes a woman to do (or say) that which lesser men lack the courage and tenacity to do.

17 Comments on “Legislative Session Day Two: Political Correctness Run Amok at Register”

VastVariety wrote on 13 January, 2010, 7:57
Sounds like he is accurately describing what the LUV Iowa campaign wants to do to my civil rights.
Jeff wrote on 13 January, 2010, 8:12
So, what was the issue with his commentary? From the real part of his story, it seems the only issue you have is with:

“More than 50 supporters of ending equal rights for same-sex couples to marry”.

That is true, isn’t it? You would like to see equal rights for gay couples to marry ended. If that’s what you believe, own it in all language that may be used. So do you only agree when it’s in language you like? You’d rather that line read:

“More than 50 supporters of legislating marriage between only men and women”.

Whatever, same thing.

I believe abortion is wrong. It doesn’t make me angry to hear I am against a woman’s choice to “choose”…(primarily because I believe in personal responsibility and that sex is the choice and that you deal with the results of that sex responsibly).
Astroflexive Glide wrote on 13 January, 2010, 8:13
Ms. Emily: Your paraphrasing of Mr. Clayworth’s article is actually more apt. The LUV crowd was sparce. Most of them looked like they just came from a casting party for “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” Many did not have a full set of teeth. Most were obese. Some seemed dazed or medicated. Is this the best the radical right can do? If so there is indeed some hope. Of course I was thrilled that bullets continue to fly from the circular firing squad, especailly from that loser Danny Carroll who I thought had left us for good. Sorenson–what a disappointment. He continues his quest to blow a real chance at winning his district.
Jeff wrote on 13 January, 2010, 8:14
This marriage issue reminds me of the Henry Ford quote about the colors available in his new car. The ant-gay (or pro-heterosexual, if you prefer) marriage crowd feels they aren’t discriminating because you can still marry….as long as it is a member of the opposite sex.

Now THAT’s LIBERTY! It’s like the government saying, you can live anywhere you want, as long as you want to live in West Des Moines. Otherwise, you cannot.
ConservativeThinker wrote on 13 January, 2010, 8:21
Jeff

I like your analysis, allow me to apply it to your ’side of the aisle’ for a moment. You’re all for democracy and liberty up until you think you’ll lose a vote. Then hey, you’re all for voting…as long as its not on marriage right?
Conservative Demo wrote on 13 January, 2010, 9:08
Geeze em old girl, are you so dense that you don’t know that both sides of EVERY political matter use words to color the issues? Even and especially you, color your writings to make your viewpoint palatable and the other viewpoints ugly or un-pleasing.

If you actually are aware of it and write what you do, you’re a liar. If you truly aren’t aware of it, you’re dim witted.
Jeff wrote on 13 January, 2010, 9:11
> You’re all for democracy and liberty up until you think you’ll lose a vote. Then hey, you’re all for voting…as long as its not on marriage right?

Not true, I want liberty even when I lose. I sincerely try to be honest with myself, and learn from others. If I am being a hypocrite, I want it to be pointed out to me.

I am not certain it is an issue that should be left to the people, because I believe it is a right, not a privilege.
deschain wrote on 13 January, 2010, 9:11
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everybody against a government-enforced definition of marriage is a toothless, fat redneck. Haven’t seen that argument before. It was shrill, desperate name-calling then. Still is.

Be nice if the One Iowa (about as oxymoronic name as you can get, there, considering their funding sources) side would point out where, anywhere, any time, any person has had a right to a government-sanctioned marriage with no requirements other physical attraction. It’d also be nice if they would explain why they want to join an institution that, they’re quick to point out that straights have completely screwed up. (They haven’t, but government application of no-fault divorce and the court view that the only unenforceable contract between two consenting adults is the marriage contract sure has done a number.)

Oh yeah, a government-sanctioned marriage has all those benefits. Like halving the income test on itemized deductions for married couples vs. two singles. Or 2/3 the income test on AMT for married couples vs. two singes. Or 73% the income test on the child tax credit for married couples vs. two singles. Or the numerous advantages in this current health care debacle that singles have over married folks. Yep, those are big. Huge advantages to marriage as far as the government is concerned.

Come to think of it, maybe the people against this court ruling aren’t all that smart. If they were, they’d let homosexuals have the government institution. It’s next to worthless anyway. The tax code doesn’t support the institution. The courts don’t support it. The politicians show more interest in subsidizing broken family arrangements than they do in supporting and strengthening tried-and-true family arrangements. How much worse is one more decree from on high really going to make things?
deschain wrote on 13 January, 2010, 9:17
> I am not certain it is an issue that should be left to the people, because I believe it is a right, not a privilege.

And obviously, we don’t vote on rights. Good thing the Supreme Court passed the Bill of Rights, the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendment, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960, 1964, 1968, and 1971.

I’d hate to think of what this country would look like if we left the definition of rights to the people and their elected representatives.
Scott M wrote on 13 January, 2010, 9:36
Con Dems says: “Geeze em old girl, are you so dense that you don’t know that both sides of EVERY political matter use words to color the issues?”

Yes, of course people on a particular side of an issues use words to color it. But you apparently are so dense and dim witted that you don’t even realize you are proving Emily’s point.

Jason Clayworth is a REPORTER. He’s not supposed to be on a “side” of an issue, and he’s certainly not supposed to inject his personal opinions and biases into his newswriting, which you just admited he did.
bgunzy wrote on 13 January, 2010, 12:55
Jeff says: “I am not certain it is an issue that should be left to the people, because I believe it is a right, not a privilege.”

How do you determine what is a right and what is a privilege? What standard do you base your decision on? As an atheist, you don’t believe there’s any higher power than man, so where does your information come from to make you say it’s a right?
Jeff wrote on 13 January, 2010, 16:13
> As an atheist, you don’t believe there’s any higher power than man, so where does your information come from to make you say it’s a right?

The United States Constitution.
Scott M wrote on 13 January, 2010, 17:17
That’s funny, ’cause I don’t remember reading that gay marriage was a right in the constitution.
AuH20 wrote on 13 January, 2010, 23:10
Why don’t we just get the state out of the business of marriage? Marriage is rightly an institution of the church not the state.
VastVariety wrote on 14 January, 2010, 7:26
Scott – Just because it’s not specifically stated in the US Constitution doesn’t mean it’s not a right.

9th Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The courts have also many times stated that everyone has a right to marriage.
bgunzy wrote on 14 January, 2010, 8:21
The state has an interest in marriage as a building block and maintainer of society. Also, when certain contractual obligations are made in a marriage, the state has the responsibility to maintain justice (although this has been watered down by no-fault divorce).

Jeff – Your source of highest authority is a document written by man? That speaks volumes…
Conservative Demo wrote on 14 January, 2010, 11:30
bg, I’m sure that you don’t need reminding that the highest authority of our land _is_ that document “written by man”.