I see this headline:
Sounds good. Religious freedom sounds good. Marriage equality sounds good. Both sides sound reasonable. How to decide? So difficult. So very very difficult.
But … really?
We know what marriage equality means. Same sex marriages should have the same legal standing as other sex ones. That seems to say what it means and mean what it says. So far so good.
How about religious freedom? In context, what they’re talking about is permission not to recognize other people’s gay marriages. They want to treat others according to their own religious beliefs. To, for instance, not rent to a gay couple. Or quite possibly not employ them.
But religious freedom refers to you living according to your own religion (within the bounds of civil law). Forcing others to live according to your beliefs is the opposite of religious freedom.
Calling it “religious freedom” is a shameless attempt to drape coercion in the respectability of civil rights.
And assisting the shell game by parroting the self-serving terminology is aiding and abetting the deception.
Being a reporter or opinion writer means being as objective as you can, and it doesn’t mean acting as a stenographer for every interest group’s flimflam for their agenda.
Call things by their right names. Religionist coercion is anything but religious freedom.
Regurgitating deceptive names is the same nonsense that has allowed people to call themselves pro-life when they seem totally uninterested in helping anyone to actually live. After a few decades of that newspeak, de jure forced pregnancy is almost back.
These things matter. Words matter.
Truth is not lies and lies are not truth. Until we start using language as if it means something, the slide into meaningless bullshit  will only accelerate.