(CNN) – Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska announced her support Wednesday for same-sex marriage, becoming the third sitting GOP senator to back the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Wow, what a shock.


Media coverage supports gay marriage, Pew poll finds

A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows that as the country’s attitude toward gay marriage changes, so has the media’s coverage of it. The poll suggests that media coverage has been more supportive of gay marriage.

Researchers found that 47 percent of the 500 news items surveyed showed a more supportive point of view on the topic. Just 9 percent focused on those who oppose and 44 percent were a mix of both point of views. Pew said that stories that had twice as many comments from supporters as opponents were classified as ‘supportive’ of gay marriage. If it didn’t meet that standard, they considered the story neutral.

According to Mediabistro, Pew looked at various forms of news coverage, looking at data from newspapers, cable, network TV, radio and sites like Gawker, BuzzFeed and Politico. Even Fox News has coverage that is more supportive of gay marriage than opposing it.

Politico reports that the poll on media follows a Pew poll on public opinion on gay marriage, which showed that 51 percent favored it and 42 percent were still opposed.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is expected to make two important decisions on gay marriage. It could rule on California’s Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/2013/06/media-coverage-supports-gay-marriage-pew-poll-finds

So what? A majority of Americans still support it. Even in the pew poll

Totally untrue. Majority are agaisnt it, by wide margin, it's why even in California, one of nations most liberal states, it could not pass. In New York, it would not pass, as in California, it was forced on citizens through behind door deals and legislative vote. Let Americans vote in election on it, watch it get shot right down.

Yeah you clearly know what you're talking about that's why they "could not pass it" in other states like Iowa and Minnesota. A wide majority are against it? Maybe in the south haha where people actually do hate it. But the trend is showing more and more Americans are for it. Media bias or not

How can you factor in that so many people are afraid to say anything against these types of subjects.

Not wanting to be bashed by others. Whom seem to get all the attention because they are so vocal in the matter.

Isn't there anyone else who thinks that it is immoral, absurd and inhumane to put basic human rights up to vote anyway? Why does anyone has a right to weigh an opinion on who somebody else can marry or not? What's next, a vote on what we could eat on Sundays?

Karl, I see your point! and it came thru with just one poster and post, which showed it right there.

Some ideas are are like putting gas on a fire.
and other people think the more/louder they yell and scream that it makes them seem like they are in the right. which is just bull.

Please don't be afraid to post what you like and don't let others scare you away from any thread on here.

The point, which you conveniently sidestepped, was biased reporting in the media.

And it's wishful thinking to believe a majority of Americans support gay marriage. Last time I checked, significantly more states have banned it than allow it. But you keep dreaming.

And two more just made it legal in the past year. Keep denying change ivy cuz it's coming and it's here to stay

Ivy is right though, any media bias should be called out whether you agree with them or not. Would Ivy call them out if it was the other way round? That's a different question, but regardless the media should be neutral on every issue imo, just reporting the news in it's entirety without pushing an agenda.

I did know what I was talking about. That upsets you apparently. New York and California could not pass it through elections. Do you dispute that? States passing it are states where they know they have vote, but majority of states won't get it through fair elections.

Yeah we'll I seem to recall New York passing the law. So I don't know what you're talking about, and camarel ivy would not call out a media bias on the other side because he would have no problem with it. That being said, I'm not saying I support the media bias towards the left because its there and it bothers me too sometimes. On the issue of gay marriage there could be misreporting but I do not believe a majority of Americans are against it. That is wishful thinking on the other side

The people of New York were going to vote it down, I posted how Cuomo snuck it through in legislative arm-twisting. Same for California except they did get chance to vote, and voted it down. Then it was passed by politicians anyway. Read articles I posted, look at the big money from gay groups behind it. Only way that sick law could pass was through those meanT

As they should in the first place. Gay right's are not ours to give, it should be guaranteed by any government who doesn't trample on human rights.

It's not a right to let people like that adopt kids, or a right to declare a sick lifestyle normal because of political pressure. If people into sado masochism organize and raise money, will couples in leather and carrying whips be considered good parents, and normal? How about people into threesomes?
Most people in America are against,it, what about citizens right to vote? Citizens in California said no, their vote was discarded. New York knew citizens would vote it down, they would not allow people to vote on issue. Voting rights and rights of majority have been trampled.

If a sadomasochistic couple is heterosexual, they already HAVE the right to marry and have children. If you or I found that lifestyle loathsome, there's nothing we can do to stop them from living it. What they do is not illegal, as long as they're both of legal consensual age. The same goes for a heterosexual couple that is into swinging. It's not illegal.

Yet if a committed homosexual couple wants to marry, why is that illegal?

If a sado masochistic couple keeps it to themselves, it is not an issue. If they want to force us to accept it as normal, like homosexuals are, it is an issue.

So, if their lifestyle is a secret, that's OK?

We all have secrets.

First of all, I don't care if all people are straight save for a gay couple, that couple have a right to live and be married and have kids, just as any other couple has such a right. Government should protect them from the intolerant mob.

Second of all, what you do in your bedroom, has no bearing on what sort of a parent you are. There are always social services who can evaluate all parents.

No offence, but that's a bit rich coming from an (Iranian,Scot,Anything), i'm not meaning to be cruel but commenting on American matters in the way you do (and if i did) is ridiculous imo . Sort out your own country then lecture US citizens imo.

I agree with gay marriage, mainly because i don't really care, my mums twin is gay and he thinks this has been blown out of proportion. Both sides should stop the partisan rhetoric and just let the people decide imo.

I don't think I need to be from anywhere special to have an opinion and voice it, especially on a message board, on www, where you don't have to say where you live and where you are from. I hope that it be even richer that there are people in the part of the world with intolerant governments that are more tolerant than some who live in democracies and are intolerant. I hope this would make them rethink their prejudices.

I agree with your comment entirely, i also have quite similar views on gay marriage as you. However i don't agree with the way you talk to the Americans on this site, who disagree with you. By making out as if their intolerant because they have different views on gun control and gay rights, the majority of this site disagrees with them, but you're the only one imo that makes out as if their almost immoral for having these views. If i've misinterpreted your prior comments then i apologize, if not the last sentence of my last comment still stands.

Just where in the Gun debate did I mention that anyone with different opinion than mine is intolerant? Do you even know what my opinion on that issue is? And what else would you call the behavior of someone who cannot make peace with gay marriage except intolerant? I don't get to call an intolerance as such, since they are Americans and I'm not? What sort of logic is that?

You know, you act the way you see fit, and I do the same. Anybody who doesn't like reading my opinion, as always can ignore my posts. After all, you are not the moderator of this board, just as your cheerleader isn't, but always has to comment on all my behaviors here, while he says he doesn't care.

I could care less about you or your laughable views any more.

I like many others have had the same problem with you. How many does this make?

I do very much enjoy it when someone PEGS YOU for what you are and how you treat people.

I could never have expressed it as well as that post spelled it out.


Oh and I didn't read anything that says you have to be a moderator to have an opinion on people, or their posting style as long as you are civil to them.

So you are wrong AGAIN.

I would think most people may post something when you talk about them like you just did rather then ignore you. Your not going to get free shots at people wiythout it being addressed back at you princess. After all this is the American Way!

Sure that you care less. You just happen to be anywhere that I post to criticize the way I debate with others. Does that mean I get to call you for what you are FS? I don't think that would make for a civil discussion anymore. Meanwhile, you always be on the look out for a big dog, to say me too, me too.

Look the way you post is completely condescending and patronizing. I may strongly disagree with most of what you say but if you went on about it a little less viciously I wouldn't have a big of a problem it. To add insult to injury you're not even American and I will say this: you are no impartial judge on the daily ongoings of US politics. The fact that you try to pass yourself off as such is laughable

I don't think I was more vicious than I was being treated viciously on a regular basis. If you have a problem with the way I talk to FS, I'm not sure why you don't have a problem with the way he talks to me.

Voting on giving homosexuals the right to marry is absurd, no matter where it happens. It's a very simple idea that people's basic rights are not ours to give, and if we have not recognized their rights up to now, it's us who is to blame, regardless of what our nationality is. This is not an American issue as you make it, it's a global issue. If my opinions makes you laugh, why don't you laugh it off? Why does it make you so angry?