Media Celebrates Prop. 8 Ruling — but Where's the Live Shot from Colorado City?

Proposition 8 in California contains this simple statement, “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

A single judge in California reversed the vote of seven million people. Certainly, this issue will go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where another single Justice, Anthony Kennedy will probably decide whether to let the vote of the people stand, or whether he will be the person to define marriage for the future in America.

The media is celebrating this victory. Do not doubt me. Newsrooms held parties yesterday and the joy is evident on their “impartial” faces during every report on this issue.

They see this as an issue that begins and ends with gay marriage. To them, this is all about gay marriage and only about gay marriage. CNN goes to a gay bar in Hollywood to get reaction. The graphics and headlines say this is an issue of “same-sex marriage.” I must correct their narrow vision here. This is an issue of defining marriage, and there is a major difference. If this is going to the U.S. Supreme Court and will define marriage in America (which it will), then where’s the live shot from Colorado City? I hear all the time this issue is just about two people who love each other. I will ask, who chose the number two? Why just two?

You know Colorado City, dontcha? It’s in Arizona, but close enough to the borders of three other states so that polygamists can high-tail it to another state when the coppers come a-callin’. They define marriage in a much different way than most. I happen to not like their definition: one man and 3,4,7, or a dozen women. They also seem to like them rather young. If the definition of marriage changes, then Big Love becomes legal and who says Young Love will not as well? Oh, you can tell me that you think this is all sick, and I would not disagree, but since we are opening up the rules here, who is to say where this goes?

Which brings me to the question I have asked often in my newsroom to my gay friends and I will ask again here. Who gets to define what marriage is? Should Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco decide? Should Warren Jeffs, the accused polygamist, decide? Should a gay judge decide? Should the people of a particular state decide? Should social “norms” decide? Should Anthony Kennedy decide? How about me, should I get to decide? Should everybody just decide for themselves?

In the end—as we fast-forward a dozen years or so, the answer will be that nobody can decide. Marriage will be everything to everybody and thus, nothing to nobody. There are also some serious Constitutional issues here about how this determines the rights of the people and the states to decide their future.

To the media covering this story–think outside the box. This is not just about gay marriage. I know you want it to be because that’s your issue, that’s evident in each of your reports. Try something different. Do that “live shot” from Colorado City and see what they think about that messy little law that limits the number to a man and a woman. Then ask the town patriarch what he thinks about that messy little law that says he can’t “marry” that 13-year-old girl down the street. Why does marriage have to be between a man and a woman, why not a boy and a woman? Who sets the rules?

Right now, marriage is a privilege licensed by each state. Every state has its own rules. I live in Nevada, we advertise how few rules we have here so that people will come here, get married, party and leave their cash. Even “free-form” Nevada overwhelmingly (70%) passed a Constitutional amendment similar to California’s about 10 years ago. Nevada’s reads: “Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.”

There are a lot of aspects to this emotional issue. I would just ask the media to understand exactly what is happening here. This is not just a gay marriage issue, it is much bigger, this is an issue of how we define marriage forever in this country. If it means everything to everybody, it means nothing to nobody. Perhaps that’s part of the plan.