Contessa Brewer | Gay Marriage | Maine | News

BigGayDeal.com

Contessa Brewer Uses Anti-Gay Rhetoric in Maine Marriage Report

Brewer

Said Brewer in reporting on the Maine vote: "And today you can add Maine to a long line of states, about 30 so far, where voters have chosen to define marriage traditionally: The union between one man and one woman."

Media Matters' Jamison Foser notes: Mainecouple

"'Define marriage traditionally' is straight out of the anti-gay movement's talking points. They work the phrase (and variations of it) into everything they say about the subject. And it isn't accurate or neutral language. It is telling that the construction 'Define marriage traditionally' is a relatively new one. If you go back a decade, you'll be hard-pressed to find many uses of it (or variations of it) in the media. A Nexis search for 'marriage w/5 tradition! w/5 defin!' returns only 317 hits from prior to the past 10 years. No, the phrase is new -- cooked-up by anti-gay activists, because they know 'deny gay couples the right to marry' doesn't poll as well. So why is an MSNBC anchor adopting it? It's not like it's accurate. It wasn't too long ago, after all, when laws in America defined marriage as the union of one white man and one white woman, or of one black man and one black woman. That was the 'traditional' definition of marriage in America, until people saw the light. Now they want you to believe marriage has always been defined the same way, so they can claim tradition is on their side. It isn't true -- but MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer parrots their rhetoric If Brewer had introduced the segment by saying that Maine voted to 'discriminate against gays,' you can be sure the Right would be apoplectic -- and other reporters would point to it as evidence that MSNBC is a left-wing channel."

Brewer uses the term again at about 4:50. She then went on to interview Sarah Dowling and Linda Wolfe from Freeport, Maine and Mary Bonauto of GLAD about the election.

Addendum: I should note that I think the rest of the report, aside from the use of the unfortunate term, is pretty good.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I don't really have a problem with Contessa or what she said.

    Also I saw her interviewing an anti-gay pastor yesterday and she made some very very good points for our side. You should post that clip as well.

    Posted by: George | Nov 5, 2009 8:16:41 AM


  2. This vote illustrates once again that the state by state strategy is doomed to failure. Civil rights have never been won at the ballot box. Imagine if there were no Civil Rights Act of 1964 and blacks had to win their rights state by state through the South, and at the ballot box to boot. We must have federal action, through the courts and Congress, before we ever achieve equality.

    Posted by: charley | Nov 5, 2009 8:18:07 AM


  3. This is precisely why I always cringe when the phrase "gay marriage" instead of "marriage equality" is used. There's no such thing as "gay marriage". Its marriage, period. The former gives the impression that we're looking for something separate to be created. This is another right wing talking point that the masses have unfortunately adopted.

    "Voters rejected gay marriage." vs. "Voters rejected marriage equality."

    or

    "I don't believe in gay marriage." vs. "I don't believe in marriage equality."

    Words matter.

    Posted by: JOHNINMANHATTAN | Nov 5, 2009 8:25:57 AM


  4. It is very obvious that Contessa supports our cause. While I agree with JohninManhattan that words matter, in this case I do not think Contessa should be condemned for her statement. Poor choice of words? Yes. However, that is certainly NOT the defining issue of this report!

    Posted by: Mark | Nov 5, 2009 8:56:16 AM


  5. isn't she the one who introduced Jesse Jackson as Al Sharpton then blamed the staff who wrote it on her card wrong? Yeah, right, de-contessa, ship her over to FOX.

    Posted by: cd | Nov 5, 2009 9:17:44 AM


  6. The marriage battle fought in Canada years ago was successful in courting public opinion as campaigners were speaking about "equal marriage". It was always "equal marriage", not "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage".

    It's not easy to be against equality, and "same-sex" puts the focus on sex vs. relationship.

    Language is so very important.


    Posted by: Dickster | Nov 5, 2009 9:19:40 AM


  7. Yeah, this one's not black and white. It's true that the traditional definition of marriage in America up to a point was racially specific, and then everyone realized we were wrong, and changed the definition. But that doesn't mean it wasn't still one man and one woman all along. The simple truth is that hetero marriage IS the traditional definition of marriage, and we're asking our countrymen to take a big progressive leap and redefine it forever so it's equal for all people.

    We are correct and just and our cause is based in reason, and we will win. But we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking we're not asking for a huge change in our society. I believe the angriest among us need to understand this: that those that disagree with us aren't evil, but thickheaded; they're just miseducated and need to be re-educated. And that deserves our patience.

    Posted by: JeffRob | Nov 5, 2009 9:20:10 AM


  8. I think we have enough enemies to fight that we don't need to drum them up where they don't exist. But you can be assured GLAAD will send out a press release about this post-haste!

    Posted by: dizzy spins | Nov 5, 2009 9:22:09 AM


  9. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aCCZtb1cX4

    Watch this clip. Clearly, Contessa is an ally. There's no need to be picking on her.

    Posted by: George | Nov 5, 2009 9:35:19 AM


  10. Did Contessa write the script, or did she merely read it? Methinks the latter.

    Posted by: Hank | Nov 5, 2009 9:36:52 AM


  11. Yeah, I agree. There is so much to be angry about... this just makes us look petty.

    Posted by: Robert | Nov 5, 2009 9:38:17 AM


  12. As others have said, you're barking up the wrong tree. She was dumbfounded by some of the things the anti-gay pastor was saying. She's not anti-gay b/c of that one thing coming out of her mouth.

    Posted by: joey | Nov 5, 2009 9:44:26 AM


  13. I saw the stories in question when they first aired and did not take any umbrage at all. The minister she was interviewing is a leader in the anti-marriage movement in DC. His rhetoric was both ignorant and hateful. Contessa is a terrific supporter so we should go after our enemies where they exist.

    Posted by: David | Nov 5, 2009 9:52:54 AM


  14. have to say MSNBC is left leaning, I don't think that it was intentional

    Posted by: George | Nov 5, 2009 9:54:28 AM


  15. I can't stand Contessa or MSNBC, but to try and find bias in something as benign as that is preposterous. Don't give a forum to this kind of idiocy. It makes us all look ridiculous.

    Posted by: lincolnlounger | Nov 5, 2009 11:48:36 AM


  16. I am black as well as bisexual and as a committed civil rights activist, I've always cringed when I work with others who find racism and anti-minority interpretations and go on the attack. While I understand why and the painful history that has led to such sensitivity and distrust--I've lived through it myself, after all--it only serves to make a minority look like an alarmist, extreme, fringe group, which is exactly what our opponents want to paint us as to the vast majority of people who are relatively uneducated about and oblivious to our issues (a big part of getting the progress we need made, made, is by reaching those people).

    Tradition: "a long-established action or pattern of behavior in a community or group of people, often one that has been experienced from generation to generation"

    The traditional understanding of marriage in our society as always been one man, one woman, it is the historical norm in America and western society. It is wrong, but many traditions (the use of slave labor in some cultures or the subjugation of women as second class citizen the mutilation of female genital organs or the arrangement of marriages in others, etc.) are ultimately shown to be outdated or flat out hurtful and are often changed or abandoned through the work of committed activists like many in the gay community.

    But to say that someone who calls what many people from simple uneducated people who fear change, to outright bigots, are advocating (the preservation of a traditional definition marriage) what it is...exactly that "traditional marriage" is "anti-gay" or using "anti-gay" language is unfair to them (we have commenters now saying "ship her over to FOX" when the interview that followed was thoughtful and challenged the bishop's bigoted views several times while retaining appropriate journalistic distance--hard to do--several times) and cheapens the accusation when someone really does use anti-gay language.

    When we call someone using the right word in the right way "anti-gay" because we don't like something it makes it a lot weaker the next time we cry foul about a reporter who really does use anti-gay language. We'll get accused, and perhaps rightly so, of playing the victim and the very real accusation in the worst cases just looks like another example of us whining about how we're not catered to. I've been here as a racial minority and it hurts the cause.

    I hope marriage between one man and one woman isn't the traditional understanding of marriage one day, and I believe it won't be in 25 years or so. But for now it is the traditional definition and experience of marriage. Someone who calls one man-one woman "traditional marriage" is being accurate, and hopefully will only be accurate for a few more years as our traditions change.

    (And I totally agree re: "gay" marriage. There is no gay marriage, only marriage, though there can be "a" gay marriage, in terms of an appropriate requirement to make the distinction. But I don't think again, someone who uses gay marriage vs. marriage is using "anti-gay" language, just language that isn't particularly helpful to the cause.)

    Posted by: BreckRoy | Nov 5, 2009 11:56:04 AM


  17. Lay the fuck off of Contessa. I can personally vouch that she is an ally and friend of the gay community. I'd even go as far as to lovingly call her a "hag." I'm a little disappointed that Andy doesn't know this and that this post even went up on Towleroad.

    Posted by: Giancarlo Blandon | Nov 5, 2009 12:07:03 PM


  18. Given your headline, I half expected to read that Brewer had said "fags shouldn't get married." *That* would be anti-gay rhetoric.

    One man, one woman *is* the traditional definition of marriage. To pretend otherwise, or to suggest that anyone stating that fact is anti-gay makes us all look ridiculous. There are plenty of things to get offended over; this is simply not one of them.

    Posted by: Mike | Nov 5, 2009 12:15:18 PM


  19. I had to read what she said three times and frankly, I still don't see how she is using any language that is "anti-gay."

    Contessa is clearly a supporter of the movement, if you've ever bothered watching her you'd know that. Trying to attack her for something as absurdly benign as that one sentence is only going to make her less interested in standing up for us.

    Posted by: Sam | Nov 5, 2009 12:33:14 PM


  20. HETEROSEXUAL-ONLY MARRIAGE. That is the proper phrase to use for those people seeking to "define" marriage as between a man and woman. And, yes, Contessa did use the termonology of the heterosexual-only marriage supporters.

    Posted by: Bill | Nov 5, 2009 3:12:00 PM


  21. What the hell else would you call it? Meets the very definition of the word "tradition."

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition

    Posted by: Nick | Nov 5, 2009 6:33:32 PM


Post a comment









« «Ted Haggard Starting New Church in His Living Room« «