Representation of The Issues Related to Same Sex Marriages in The News Media

The great country of The United States of America was built on an idea of total religious freedom. With this idea of religious freedom, America was also decided to be a nation without an official religion determining any law in the country. This was referred to as a separation of Church and State. The idea behind this is that no religious belief will interfere with the law of the land. While that is the legal status of The United States, in actuality there has been very little real separation between Church and State as Christianity and Catholicism has dominated politics for centuries. The topic I will be discussing – same-sex marriage – is said in the bible to not be a real marriage. In the eyes of the bible, a marriage is between one man and one woman, end of story.

The fight for same-sex marriage primarily started in 1993 when the Supreme Court of Hawaii voted 3-1 that the state could not ban same-sex marriage without a “compelling reason” to do so, before sending it back down to the lower courts. Before the courts could settle on the issue, voters passed a law called the Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs) which banned same-sex marriages. Although a same-sex marriage had never been performed yet, this issue nonetheless prompted over 40 states to pass the same DOMAs over the next few years. Eventually, President Bill Clinton signed the act into national federal effect. In what follows, this paper will detail 3 distinct points of view regarding the controversy surrounding Kim Davis.

Starting in 1999, states began to recognize that same-sex couples deserved the same rights as opposite-sex couples and began issuing “civil unions” which effectively gave them the same rights, without having the name “marriage”. By September 2010, 30 U.S. states had obtained a state-wide ban on same-sex marriage. Within the years between 2003 and 2011, several states had begun to support and legalize same-sex marriage.

Beginning in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court took on the issue by announcing a debate would be held on a bill to repeal the DOMAs. On May 9th, 2012, President Barrack Obama publically announced his support for same-sex marriage, becoming the first sitting president to do so. In 2013 and 2014, there were several hearings that overturned the act on a case-by-case basis. Finally, in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized the marriage of same-sex couples in a 5-4 vote in all 50 states. As of June 26th, 2015, 19 out of the 194 countries in the world currently allow same-sex marriage. This vote led to a political explosion between people who support same-sex marriage, and those who do not support same-sex marriage. It seemed to successfully split the nation further into two distinct groups which is the fire-starter of my topic of interest.

Despite the national legalization of same-sex marriage, approximately 40% of the country still strongly opposes same-sex marriage and same-sex couples in general. One of the very heavily publicized cases of government workers refusing to issue marriage licenses belongs to a woman with the name Kim Davis. Davis, a Democrat, belonged to the Rowan County of Kentucky, and had been elected the county clerk in January 2015, succeeding her mother. After the U.S. Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, Davis stopped issuing marriage license to anyone in Rowan County, Kentucky. Kim Davis was forced to attend a court hearing about her refusal to issue marriage licenses, where she was told she must comply with national law and continue to issue marriage licenses or at the least, allow other deputies in her office to sign the marriage certificates without her name. Due to her refusal to accept these terms, she was held in contempt in jail for 5 days before being released and relenting to allowing her deputies to grant licenses to all couples and claiming she will not interfere, but she will not have her name on the certificates. She had not expected to become such a well-known figure, she was merely following her religious beliefs, claiming her Christian beliefs come before her job; “My constituents elected me. But the main authority that rules my life is the Lord.” Marriage licenses issued by Rowan County no longer carry Davis’s name. The documents state they are issued “pursuant to a federal court order.”

ABC News is a very reputable news source known for its typically very moderate viewpoint. ABC News’ Paula Faris sat down with Kim Davis and interviewed her on her decision to suspend issuing marriage licenses in her county. Davis explained to Faris her thought pattern; “I can't put my name on a license that doesn't represent what God ordained marriage to be.” She further explained that she has strong religious beliefs and continues to believe that God meant for marriage to be between one man and one woman. ABC explains that despite the fact that the main publicity Davis has received has been negative, she has also received hundreds of gifts and messages of support such as notes, crosses, and prayer shawls for her personal beliefs in her Christianity. This article informs the reader about both sides of the story while maintaining a primarily unbiased viewpoint. In turn, the reader is now able to form his or her own opinion about Kim Davis, her actions, and how they feel about the same-sex marriage debate as a whole.

Contradictorily, Fox News, a historically conservative leaning source, presents a clearly more biased description of the events that took place surrounding Kim Davis. While Fox News outlines the basic facts of everything that occurred, the source then leans biases into its description of the issue. Fox News explains that Davis’ reasoning for her actions were justified because of her faith in Christianity. However, the source then agrees with Davis’ defense by explaining that her actions were, “protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.” The source attempts to use this amendment as a way to persuade the reader into believing that this is a justifiable action due to rights protected by the law. Another example of their political bias was the opinion of the author, Andrew Napolitano, who stated that “The court properly interpreted its duties under the Constitution, but was wrong to incarcerate her.” A normal unbiased party would have simply stated that the court interpreted its duty within the Constitution, and would not have gave an opinion on whether it was right or wrong to incarcerate her. When analyzing this article by Fox News, it is evident that the writer is attempting to persuade the reader in the direction of believing that Kim Davis was justified in her actions.

On the other hand, CNN, a historically liberal leaning source, displays a more left-biased description of the controversy surrounding the arrest of Kim Davis. In the beginning of the article, author Michael Martinez, starts off with a statement that says “Same-sex marriage was supposed to be a settled matter in America it's a constitutional right  but the issue returned to headlines this month after a Kentucky county clerk refused to license those nuptials.” This statement is the very first glimpse into the case involving Kim Davis and immediately taints the reader’s viewpoint by issuing the opinion of the author. Later in the article, Martinez makes sure to bring up the fact that Davis has had four previous marriages. The author seems to do this is an effort to point out the idea that Davis has no business deciding who should and should not have the right to be married. By reading this article by CNN, it is increasingly clear that the author attempts to persuade the reader in that his belief that Kim Davis was not justified in her actions.

For my final new source, I decided to take from a non-US publication – The BBC. The BBC is a very reputable news source known primarily in the UK, but is most similar to CNN of America, due to its liberal biased viewpoint. The BBC did not conduct an official interview with Davis, but the way in that it portrays the sequence of events is easily through a biased lens. “He added that letting one person's beliefs supersede the authority of the court would be a dangerous example to set” referring to the district judge presiding over her case, David Bunning. The BBC purposefully leaves out many vital things about the reasoning behind Davis’ decision in an effort to provoke the sense that she was entirely wrong and without reason.

In conclusion, ABC News, Fox News, CNN, and the BBC all take different political biases in their reporting style of the events surrounding Kim Davis. While ABC News presents a viewpoint that is primarily unbiased and clearly outlines the facts, Fox News, CNN, and the BBC take a political stand and spin the story to fit their own respective political biases. For any reader attempting to gain knowledge of national events through sources such as Fox News, CNN, or the BBC, they are essentially unable to form their own opinions before being subjected to the bias of the authors.