Betcha didn’t know NewsCorp has launched a gay wedding magazine, didja? They have, because if there’s one thing that Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp loves more than conservative propaganda, it’s money, and when New York legalized marriage equality this year, guess who was first in line to cash in on the predicted economic boom? Yup, you guessed it! Surprise, surprise.
But NewsCorp’s skip down the gay-aisle hasn’t been without its stumbles. Their clumsy entree into the world of marriage equality has elicited snorts of derision from GLBT activists and media. And taking a look at articles like “Wedding Night Advice From A Heterosexual,” one can easily see why:
Here’s a taste:
Because gays weren’t allowed to marry in New York until recently, you no doubt have a raft of questions about how to properly consummate a wedding.
Seriously? Gay people need wedding night advice from straight people because the law changed? Can you be a little more condescending, please? The whole thing is just beyond silly; I’ll let you read it for yourself, but sage advice like
New York State’s legal embrace means its time to show your partner that you are now connected to each other in the most physical, intimate, way.
just left me scratching my head. But what do I know.
That advice was written by “Wedding Pride” co-editor Gersh Kuntzman — I know, the name made me chuckle too, but it’s not an alias, the guy actually works for NewsCorp’s New York Post. Not surprisingly, as On Top Magazine revealed, the New York Post wrote an opinion piece last June in opposition to marriage equality, calling it “a matter of conscience,” and saying,
Since the dawn of human history, marriage has been defined as the union between one man and one woman, the point being procreation — that is, raising children in a stable, nurturing environment.
That’s actually not true. Since the dawn of human history, marriage has more often been defined as the union between one man and many women, and the point has never been procreation. It has always been an economic transaction. But I digress.
So very interesting that the “heteroseuxal” offering “homosexuals” wedding night advice works for the paper that wrote an editorial opposing marriage equality. Can you say awkward?
As Equality Matters so rightly points out, the most awkward thing of all is NewsCorp’s tortured pretense:
The real problem is the internal inconsistency when it comes to News Corp.’s relationship with the LGBT community. With Wedding Pride, the company can make a profit by appearing as an ally to LGBT people – interested in their stories, their futures, and their rights. At the same time, the company uses Fox News to demonize and belittle every effort by the community to become more fully equal.
Indeed.
If none of this makes any sense to you, it helps to remember that conservative outfits like NewsCorp really have no principles save the profit one. If something looks like it will make them a buck, then expect them to support it. Usually such issues are clear-cut but sometimes things get a little iffy. NewsCorp can usually be trusted to unflinchingly embrace the mouth-breathers and bigots who make up the conservative base. On some issues, however — GLBT equality and green initiatives, for example — the conservative position is actually at odds with what benefits NewsCorp’s bottom line. So NewsCorp is left trying to find some wiggle room in that corner it has backed itself into.
It’s not pretty. It’s just sad.
Southern Beale 
This whole ordeal reminds me of the Simpsons episode “There’s Something About Marrying,” which details this exact thing. Springfield needs tourism revenue, so they decide to legalize gay marriage. Even for dudes!
Hey, The Simpsons is owned by Fox, and therefore, owned by Newscorp. They went full circle in a span of seven or so years.
You wrote “marriage has more often been defined as the union between one man and many women”.
That’s not true and not even mathematically possible in societies with an equal amount of men and women, which most have. The only ones who practiced polygyny were those who had excessive financial means, i.e. the nobility or rich merchants. The common people always tended to be monogamous.
We’re probably splitting hairs here. If we’re talking about what has “defined” marriage, which is what the sentence read, then I stand by the statement. 80% of all human societies have accepted polygyny, historically and cross-culturally. If we’re talking about sheer numbers of marital unions, then yes, monogamy is more common.
But the quote wasn’t saying what the most common form of marital union is. It said what has historically defined marriage, and what historically the purpose of marriage has been. It’s simply wrong to say historically the purpose of marriage has been procreation and monogamous union. You don’t need to be married to procreate. Marriage has always been an economic transaction, be it between two people or more than two people.
SB, you’re correct. One of the reasons for marriage has always been about economics. However there are others, including a way to ensure that one’s offspring are ours. Biology, I think, trumps all.
Marriage certainly ensures nothing of the sort! Only a DNA test can do that! This is why patrilineal societies are so bizarre. Before the advent of DNA testing we can pretty much guarantee who one’s mother is. Father? Not so much. 🙂
Additionally, if that were the case then how do you explain adoption? Adoption is an altruistic act, biologically speaking, and viewed through that lens it has been explained as a means of ensuring the survival of the species as a whole, not just one family unit. So yes, biology may trump all, but you need to broaden your definition of “all.”
It does come back to economics, or at least patrilineal property ownership. If a man is married to a woman (and the woman changes her name and thus becomes part of his family), then regardless of who actually fathered her children, those kids have his last name and are part of his property or wealth-generating family. When they receive his farm or whatever other property upon his death, the property is staying in his family.
Skimming over this I thought the “advice column” was something from The Onion or Harvard Lampoon.
On a totally unrelated note, the NPR-distributed program “On Point” is going to have a show about “A Case for Irony”. I think it’s predestined to fail:
“For some 30 years–roughly as long as the Twin Towers were upright–the good folks in charge of America’s intellectual life have insisted that nothing was to be believed in or taken seriously. Nothing was real. With a giggle and a smirk, our chattering classes–our columnists and pop culture makers–declared that detachment and personal whimsy were the necessary tools for an oh-so-cool life.”
The guest, a Professor Jonathan Lear, can’t seem to tell the difference between Rush Limbaugh and Stephen Colbert. I look forward to an hour of false equivalence.
“Both sides do it!”
Gah.
I’ll correct myself: Maybe I’m wrong about it, I’m simply too much a School of Engineering guy. There’s something going on there completely beyond my ken, unless Camus was a French music hall star or Kierkegaard was Tommy Salo’s backup goalie.
I suspect the real problem is that “the good folks in charge of America’s intellectual life” are just now finding out that they’re really not in charge of anything at all: never have been, never will be.
It wasn’t foul-mouthed bloggers and reality TV whichtoppled the Ivory Tower.
I never called myself an intellectual, and cannot pretend to have comprehended great swaths of the show.
There was a point when it was decided the celestial spheres model of the solar system was broken, even though it was considered the go-to theory for over a millenium. Either those great thinkers are all broken, or the folks like Cokie (“But the Democrats!”) Roberts are.
I know where I’d place my bet.
Because gays weren’t allowed to marry in New York until recently, you no doubt have a raft of questions about how to properly consummate a wedding.
It’s true. Before same-sex marriage, I never, ever knew how to have same-sex sex.
Where “true” means “I accidentally made wine come out my nose, I was laughing so hard.”
Well and clearly you didn’t know how to have celebratory sex. Because without marriage, there was nothing for same-sex couples to celebrate. No birthdays or anniversaries, no milestones like job promotions and certainly nothing like finding out you’re pregnant or approved for an adoption.
Another subtle message that’s woven throughout “Wedding Pride”: gays are NOT like the rest of us! Even if New York says you can get married! Never forget it!
Well and clearly you didn’t know how to have celebratory sex.
Is that sex with party hats?
LOL. I’m sure Rick Santorum would not approve of any such thing.
I…umm…I’m sorry, I was about to say something, but I forgot because has anyone else noticed that the blonde looks ready, willing, & able to kill someone with her bare hands?