Jon Stewart ridiculed reporters unmercifully this week for our blanket coverage of the case of the lying memoirist, James Frey.
Why was it, the host of “The Daily Show” wondered, that reporters pulled out all the stops to skewer a guy who made up stuff about his life in the interest of selling a book, while they continue to coddle political leaders and repeat the baldfaced lies they used to justify sending American troops to war?
Why are the media so shallow?
Good question.
I thought of this as I listened to reporters interviewing the advocates for Colorado’s marriage amendment, an initiative that, if passed, would do, well, absolutely nothing.
Despite this absurdity, a large throng of reporters, photographers and cameramen gathered and dutifully recorded the words of two Coloradans and a transplant from the East Coast who identified themselves as representatives of Coloradans for Marriage.
Without this constitutional amendment, said Bishop Philip Porter, president of the organization, “we will bring upon ourselves untold misery.”
Now in the reporters’ defense, it’s important to mention that despite numerous questions aimed at clarifying this statement, that “misery” remained “untold,” though Porter invoked “the love of a mother” and “the gentle guidance of a caring father” as likely casualties if the amendment to the state constitution fails.
This is but a small scoop from the steaming pile of nonsense delivered to the state Capitol on Wednesday along with the 68,000 signatures to put this amendment on the November election ballot.
The amendment, proposed by Coloradans for Marriage, states simply: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”
Under a bill passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor, this already is the definition of marriage in Colorado.
Porter, Ruben Mendez, who is vice president of the organization, and Jon Paul, a recent arrival from Connecticut who is executive director, insisted that the constitutional amendment was necessary because “a single judge could overturn the state statute.”
That’s more nonsense, according to the attorney general’s office.
“A judge can issue an opinion that a statute is unconstitutional under either the state or federal constitution, which would then have to be reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court (if the grounds were a federal violation),” said deputy AG Jeanne Smith.
A single judge cannot reverse a state statute – ever.
Further, recasting a statute as a constitutional amendment does not make it immune from judicial review.
In fact, if nothing else was learned, that should have been the lesson of Amendment 2. The anti-gay rights amendment, which was passed by voters here in 1993, subsequently was ruled unconstitutional by the state supreme court. That ruling was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Still, Coloradans for Marriage, with the backing of Focus on the Family, the National Association of Evangelicals and a bevy of other religious organizations, has made this redundant and meaningless statewide campaign a priority.
Why?
Porter intoned that it’s to “preserve that most basic of structural units of human society.” But since the amendment changes nothing, that’s more hooey.
So it’s fair to speculate that the real reason for this initiative is a get-out- the-vote drive for the anti-gay rights crowd during a critical election year.
Yes, in the face of an unpopular war, a botched response to a natural disaster, the incompetent administration of a national prescription drug plan and a rash of political corruption and money laundering scandals, nothing mobilizes conservative voters quite like stirring up visions of gay weddings.
And here in the media, we’re always happy to help.
Diane Carman’s column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. She can be reached at 303-820-1489 or dcarman@denverpost.com.
