Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Lawbeat

Legal News

: Lawbeat

Law-free coverage of same-sex marriage arguments

By Mark Obbie

On NPR's Morning Edition, I heard a story on today's upcoming California Supreme Court arguments (I'd provide a link, and quotes, but the story hasn't shown up on the Web site). It was routine coverage of the case, which tests the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Ordinary though the story and anchor's lead-in may have been, they bungled a key piece of legal context by using words that imply the court is arbitrarily passing judgment -- based, perhaps, on its own whims -- on a politically and culturally sensitive issue. I wish I could quote it directly -- I kept both hands on the wheel, rather than trying to take notes -- but the gist of it was: The court will decide whether to strike down the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Strike it down, or not, based on what law? We're not telling!Compare that to some of the print coverage that has done a better job of explaining what the court actually must decide -- and on what it must base that decision. When Greg Moran of the San Diego Union-Tribune previewed the arguments on Sunday, he played the political impact of the case front and center. But he didn't ignore what's really to be decided by the court, explaining that the state's ban is challenged by parties "who argue that the ban is unconstitutional discrimination." Veteran legal reporter Howard Mintz had only 232 words to play with in this Mercury News story today, but he managed to make clear that the case pits "California laws restricting marriage to a union between a man and a woman" against "civil rights lawyers for gay couples who argue that the same-sex marriage ban violates their equal protection rights because they do not get the same treatment as heterosexual couples." In other words, it isn't just a court eyeing a popular policy and deciding if it approves. (Mintz wrote at greater length about the case on Sunday.) None of these stories would warm the heart of an expert. But it's not experts we're writing for. Quick-hit stories for casual readers and listeners are the reality. The question is whether we'll insert a few well-chosen words to portray legal reality. And the even more important question is whether we'll provide that extra and important context in cases where there's great potential for an angry public railing at the court from the left or the right for supposedly inserting itself into a hot-button issue. (More news links previewing today's arguments, via How Appealing.)

Full post as published by Lawbeat on March 04, 2008 (boomark / email).