NYT Reporter: Traditional Marriage Supporters ‘Unworthy of Respect,’ Deserve Incivility, Marriage Is Whatever Gov’t Says It Is


Civil discourse has long been regarded as a necessary component of a well-functioning democracy. But a New York Times reporter believes that value should be abandoned in relations with those who disagree with him on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Josh Barro claimed that those who oppose redefining marriage to include same-sex unions are “unworthy of respect” and he is justified in being uncivil toward them in a Twitter debate with Ryan Anderson, William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

The debate began when Barro tweeted on July 23 that “anti-LBGT attitudes” should be “ruthlessly” stamped out. Several conservative publications noticed the tweet and wrote about it (see here and here). They pointed out that in 2012 a gunman did try to “stamp out” the traditional marriage supporters at Family Research Council. Barro clarified that by “stamp out” he did not mean to “off people,” but “we should make anti-LGBT views shameful like segregation.”

On July 26, Anderson, who writes and speaks often in defense of the traditional definition of marriage, tagged Barro saying that “we may disagree, but no need to be uncivil.” To which Barro responded with the argument that segregationists should not be shown respect. He also described the expectation of civility in political discourse as “ridiculous.”

In a couple of different replies, Anderson argued that it is possible and preferable for those with disagreements to show respect for one another. Even those with deeply flawed thinking, such as segregationists, are deserving of respect due to the “innate human dignity” of every person, he added.


Anderson wrote about the exchange for a July 29 op-ed for The Daily Signal.

“Leave aside the dismissive way he refers to policy arguments for why marriage should be the union of a man and woman as ‘anti-gay’ (much like liberals deride pro-lifers as ‘anti-choice’ and welfare reformers as ‘anti-poor’),” he said. “The larger problem is that one of the country’s leading policy wonks and correspondent for The New York Times thinks that some people are ‘unworthy of respect.’ Not that some ideas are unworthy of respect, but that the people are.”

The Twitter debate also included a debate about the definition of marriage. Anderson has co-authored a book and several articles (here, here and here, for instance) presenting a case against changing marriage to include same-sex couples. The debate over marriage is not a debate about “equality,” Anderson says, because to know whether two things are equal, you first need to know what they are; so the debate over marriage is, at its core, a debate about what marriage is.

Barro argued that marriage is whatever government says it is. If that is true, Anderson responded, then “government could never define marriage wrongly,” so the real question is “how should government define it, based on what it is.”

“That’s part of our disagreement. You think the state creates marriage, I think the state recognizes marriage, based on human nature,” Anderson added.


10 thoughts on “NYT Reporter: Traditional Marriage Supporters ‘Unworthy of Respect,’ Deserve Incivility, Marriage Is Whatever Gov’t Says It Is

  1. I don’t know whether it makes it better or worse that the New York Times has (sort of) had moments of self-awareness. The Times’ own employees tasked with evaluating whether the paper had a liberal-bias problem concluded,

    “for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it’s disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading”


    “developments like . . . gay marriage [are treated] more like causes than news subjects.”


    Having confirmed that it had a problem, I guess the Times decided not to do anything about it.

  2. It is strange these newspapers won’t take a more balanced approach. They are destroying their own profitability by alienating readership as their markets become peeved with them. In Australia the Fairfax newspapers were once respected for their truthfulness and reliability, and their conservative protection of the mainstream values of the community. But over the last thirty years they have lost readership and barely make a profit because they challenge and abuse traditional values, but they stubbornly persist in their self-appointed role of reformer, which equates to social vandal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s