At 10 a.m. PT today, Thursday, May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court released its decision regarding the legality of an earlier state decision to limit marriage to being valid and recognized by California only if it is between one man and one woman.
The court found in favor of the plaintiffs in case S147999, making California the second state to allow same-sex marriage. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry under state law, and marriages commenced in May 2004.
NLGJA would like to remind journalists, bloggers, columnists and media analysts the important role they play in giving citizens the information they need to understand the full impact that today's ruling will have in their communities and across the country.
Journalists covering the issues of same-sex marriage, civil unions and partnership rights should familiarize themselves with specifics of the California case, the history of other cases involving marriage rights for LGBT individuals and the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Reporters should note the differences between marriage law and the legal designation of civil unions, the latter currently issued only in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire. Civil unions are presumed to extend marriage benefits and protections; however, they do not include federal benefits available to married couples. Civil unions also have no effect on religious congregations and their option to bless or not bless civil unions registered with these states.
As NLGJA has previously noted, the oft-used term "gay marriage" is both inaccurate and misleading. "Gay marriage" implies the creation of a new set of legal standards and guidelines as opposed to what is being sought by most advocates - the extension of currently existing benefits and responsibilities to include same-sex couples. More appropriate terminology in discussing such legislation would be "marriage rights for same-sex couples." Or, in those instances where a briefer description is necessary, "same-sex marriage" as "same-sex" is a more accurate and inclusive description than "gay."
Proper framing of stories is essential when considering potential sourcing. Same-sex marriage remains controversial, and many different sets of opinions may be individually valid, but may be less appropriate when played against one another. For example, legal expertise should be differentiated from religious quotes and opinions. A legal expert's comments on points of marriage law and civil legislation should not be contrasted with opinions of theologians.
Journalists should also consider diversity of opinion when bringing these stories to readers, viewers and listeners. Look for voices other than the standard "go-to" sources quoted most often, and work to go beyond preconceived ideas regarding who would be the "pro" and "con" sides of the marriage debate. Not all members of the LGBT community are in favor of same-sex marriage; not all members of communities of faith are opposed.
For background information on aspects of the marriage debate, journalists should reference facts available on various Web sites, including:
- The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has compiled comprehensive background on issues surrounding marriage for same-sex couples.
- Beliefnet.com includes news, opinions and resources regarding marriage from faith-based perspectives.
- FindLaw.com provides legal news and commentary, in addition to background information and documents.
- About.com offers a state-by-state guide of marriage law, as well as text of historical documents.
- NLGJA offers resources and guides for journalists reporting on LGBT people and issues, including our Stylebook Supplement on LGBT Terminology.
