Written by William I. Greener III on Tuesday - January 31st, 2012
Did you read about the wife of the conservative Republican governor who spoke before a traditional marriage group and said that only “cowards” had prevented the state legislature from passing a law to guarantee the preservation of traditional marriage? Surely, you saw the editorial denouncing her for interfering in such a sensitive subject. You remember how outraged they were that the wife, also a sitting judge, had demonstrated her inability to set aside her personal point of view which rendered unsuited to serve in a position that required an ability to impose “blind justice.”
You don’t remember any of this? No wonder. It never actually happened. You know what did happen? The wife of the liberal governor of Maryland, Catherine O’Malley spoke before what the Washington Post called “a national conference of gay-rights advocates.” What did Mrs. O’Malley have to say? In addressing the failure of the Maryland legislature to pass a law allowing for gay marriage, she “blamed the demise in the General Assembly on ‘some cowards that prevented it from passing.” With the predictable outrage in response to her statement, Mrs. O’Malley has subsequently issued the predictable apology.
The article observes that “as a sitting judge, Catherine O’Malley is prohibited by a judicial code of conduct from engaging in partisan political activity.” It goes on to note that “aides say that Catherine is passionate about legalizing same sex marriage.”
How about refraining from engaging in “partisan activities?” Well, according to the article, “last year, the first lady met privately with several wavering lawmakers, urging them to support the bill.” That sounds a little like lobbying. Not to worry though. “She said at the time that her advocacy was ‘just as a citizen.”
So, what’s my problem with all of this? Just that the article appears in the Metro Section. There is no editorial condemning her involvement, much less one calling for her to resign as a judge.
Forget for a moment what your position on gay marriage is. That is not the point here. The point here is that if it had been a wife of a conservative governor, speaking before a traditional marriage group, calling opponents of what she wanted “cowards,” the Washington Post would have put the story—and not for a single day—on the front page of the news section. Had that wife also been a judge and had that wife engaged in lobbying for legislation, the Post would have editorialized for her to resign.
As it stands now, the Washington Post can break its arm patting itself on the back congratulating itself that it “reported” the story. Yes, indeed they did. However, can anyone whose I.Q. exceeds single digits pretend they did it in the same way they would have, if the offensive remarks had come from a conservative?
It is this shaping of what counts and what is important—always with a liberal slant—that offends. It is the idea that there are always two sets of rules. Under the first set, crossing the street the wrong way by a conservative is “visible disdain for following the law.” Under the second, armed robbery is a “principled attempt to feed one’s hungry family.” It is wrong is what it is.
