Monday, June 23, 2008

A Significant Ommision

If you read this story, you'll read about the terrible torture of a five-year-old boy at the hands of his mother, and other women, one of whom is described as a "roommate."

This story says the woman is a "friend" of the abusive mother.

And this story goes a bit farther, calling her a "live-in girlfriend."

But only this World Net Daily story uses the "L" word, calling Starkeisha Brown a lesbian.

Now, child abuse is a terrible crime no matter who's committing it. And the fact that Brown and her lesbian girlfriend, along with a third woman who's so far just being called the "babysitter," made this young boy's life a living hell is horrible regardless of the relationship between--or among--the women.

But in any other case of parental involvement in child abuse, the media falls all over itself telling us exactly how each or both parents were involved. We've seen headlines screaming about husbands who beat their children and wives who drown them, about foster parents who abuse and about grandparents who molest.

Reading the first two articles, especially the LA Times article, the reader learns that the boy's mother was involved in this poor boy's torture--but that another woman or women were also involved, for reasons that remain ambiguous and hidden unless you seek other sources for this sad, sad story.

Why would a California newspaper, one that's been pretty celebratory of all those lesbian weddings since last week, suddenly turn coy and display reserved propriety about mentioning the lesbian relationship involved in this ugly story?

One reason, I'm sure, is because of the media's complicity in the whole gay marriage story--they can't switch from their "yay lesbians!" hat to their "uh-oh, girls behaving badly" hat without highlighting their cheerleader outfits. (HT: Some Have Hats). But another reason is that the media simply can't afford for people to start asking the tough questions now about the potential of harm to children that may or may not come in the wake of widespread gay marriage.

Lest anyone think I'm saying all gay people raising children are physically hurting those kids, I'm not, emphatically. Our Catholic Church does teach, though, that those children are being spiritually harmed by being presented with a model of the family that is completely out of line with God's plan. And while the data is hard to track, there is evidence that suggests that same-sex couples experience higher rates of domestic violence then heterosexual couples. There is no data available on whether rates of child abuse will be higher among these couples--but no one will know, if the rates end up being as hidden as the lesbian status of the partners in this current example of abuse.

The fact of the matter is that no one really cares whether gay marriage ends up hurting kids, literally or spiritually/emotionally/psychologically. Just like no one cares whether gay shacking-up contributed to the harm done to Ms. Brown's little boy. It's politically incorrect even to wonder about such a thing.


Scott said...

There is certainly an agenda among media here as you say, but I also think it can be chalked up to plain ol' cowardice. Witness their reluctance to mention islam in connection with stories of violence. Mark Steyn had a great illustration of this a while back:

Thursday's New York Times: ''Nalchik, Russia — Insurgents launched a series of raids today in this southern Russian city, striking the area's main airport and several police and security buildings in large-scale, daytime attacks that left at least 85 people dead.''

"Insurgents," eh?

From Agence France Presse:

"Nalchik, Russia: More than 60 people were killed as scores of militants launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."

"Militants," you say?

From the Scotsman:

"Rebel forces battled Russian troops for control of a provincial capital in the Caucasus yesterday . . ."

"Rebel forces,'' huh?

From Toronto's Globe & Mail:

"Nalchik, Russia — Scores of rebels launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."

"Rebels," by the score. But why were they rebelling? What were they insurging over? You had to pick up the Globe & Mail's rival, the Toronto Star, to read exactly the same Associated Press dispatch but with one subtle difference:

''Nalchik, Russia — Scores of Islamic militants launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."

Ah, "Islamic militants." So that's what the rebels were insurging over. In the geopolitical Hogwart's, Islamic "militants" are the new Voldemort, the enemy whose name it's best never to utter.

Daddio said...

There has been a lot of this stuff in the news lately. I wonder about the connection between these women's same-sex-attraction and their abuse of this male child. It's commonly held that SSA is a result of poor fathering, and these women may have been acting out in true feminist male-hating fashion.