Facebook
Patrick Murphy, a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania and a veteran of the war in Iraq, is leading the effort in the House to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Last month on Huffington Post, Jason Linkins commented on an article from the New York Times on Murphy’s efforts. He shows us this quote:
"I served with great soldiers who were thrown out just because they were gay," said Mr. Murphy, who is married. "I was disheartened that the Constitution that I took an oath to support and defend was really being abused by that policy."
He then goes on to make this point:
I'm having a hard time believing that any journalist anywhere would write something like:
Patrick Murphy, who is married, favors broad reform of our nation's health care system.
Or:
Patrick Murphy, who is married, favors tax breaks for first responders.
Or:
Patrick Murphy, who is married, broke with his fellow Democrats in opposing their proposed budget.
There's no other mention of any party's marital status in the article, save for the subject of the article -- Murphy -- who is spearheading the repeal effort. It's strange and it's creepy and it's frankly condescending in the way it suggests that Murphy's efforts are legit because it's a straight man sticking up for gay and lesbian soldiers, whose own judgments on the issue are biased, I guess? As if we can't completely trust the opinion of a Lieutenant Dan Choi or a Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach without a heterosexual co-signing it?
I want to thank Jason Linkins for pointing this out. What do you guys think it means or implies that Murphy’s marital status was thought to be relevant enough to mention in an article on DADT? Do you agree with Linkins’s assessment?
~ Samantha
I don't think we can know for sure whether or not the author meant to shoehorn some editorializing into the Times piece, but this much is clear: biography does not confer argumentative legitimacy.
Murphy's argument in favor of DADT repeal is not stronger because the Congressman is straight. That makes no sense. The argument should serve as the justification itself, no matter who's doing the talking.