For the most part, I am respectful of The New York Times. I do consider it to be the "paper of record," even if that is an antiquated idea. With a few exceptions, I think they have a solid editorial staff and bullpen of reporters. But, the shine came off a little with this article I read today.
What I read was a relatively decent article on how some heterosexual couples are waiting to get married until gays and lesbians have the same right. Now, there were the obligatory mentions of celebrity couples who do this (I won't bother mentioning their names), but much of the article focused on young professionals, graduate students, law students, and so on, who have also made this choice. What's wrong with that, you ask? Well, the New York Times put it in the "Fashion & Style" section of the paper.
Follow me over the fold as I vent.
Ok, the problem with this article stems from something that is called the context of viewing in media and art studies. As readers and consumers, there is an additional layer of meaning depending on how, where, and why we view a text (using text loosely here). For example, viewing a work of art in an art history textbook in a college class is a much different experience than viewing it in either its original setting or a museum. Simple point (and poor example), I know. But, the context of viewing is an important concept and comes in to play all the time. We make unconscious use of it when we realize someone gets all their news from Fox News.
Anyway, enough with the lesson. The point here is that a political protest has been radically stripped of its meaning by classifying it as either "fashion" or "style." And the problems go beyond even where I found the article.
Here's a quote from the article:
"I usually explain that I wouldn’t go to a lunch counter that wouldn’t allow people of color to eat there, so why would I support an institution that won’t allow everyone to take part," said Ms. White, 24, a law student at the University of California, Davis. "Sometimes people don’t buy that analogy."
I find the analogy quite effective actually. Cornel West has even suggested that we can't be a country free from discriminating until we criminalize discrimination, and his point was that laws banning gay marriage created an atmosphere of intolerance. He folded gay rights into race equality by making it an overall movement of civil rights, and not just civil rights as commonly understood as equal rights for African-Americans.
Good for the NYT--they made me think a bit. But, this excerpt is placed right next to a photo of Charlize Theron and Stuart Townsend, who are also waiting until gays can marry to marry in their own right.
Figures like James Dobson and Jerry Falwell decry gay marriage by describing being gay as a "lifestyle." If it's a lifestyle, then it can be adopted, chosen, changed. It's basically an add-on to being human, not being itself. Now, I doubt the editorial staff for the Times intended all these things when they put this article in what amounts to a lifestyle and fashion section for trendy young adults, but, this placement speaks volumes about how our society views equal rights, being gay, marriage, and politics. These young couples who are choosing not to be married (and who often call their significant other "partner" rather than more traditional nomenclature) are making a serious political statement that The New York Times has made into little more than a curiousity.