i assume they mean fewer people are either getting married or staying married. i'm female, 29, and have absolutely no desire to get married or have children. marriage is a business decision in 2007 and little more.

Let's see if there's a retraction or clarification. This is as bad as the WH press briefing using FOX's "fair& balanced" slogan.

I think it is sad the we still have monarchs. When do we get to drag them to the gallows already?

Hm. "Under attack" is not choice language, but Brian Williams (and perhaps whomever wrote that copy) is not immersed in gay politics and probably doesn't know or care that "under attack" is common verbiage used by right-wing hatemongers.

It's common knowledge that half of all marriages end in divorce (and a much higher percentage in the conservative south), and he's talking about a long-lasting marriage. I think it's safe to assume that's what he meant. I would caution gayfolk not to get so worked up about this, as it will do nothing but lend credence to the assumption that lefties are militant thought police.

Innocently using "marriage under attack" is akin to innocently using "welfare queen" or "death tax." It's coded, loaded language, right-wing rhetoric, and Williams would have to be an idiot not to know it. And what of his director, writers, producers, and staff? All idiots? No one knew? No one caught this? Please.

The notion that Brian Williams doesn't know that "marriage is under attack" is a primary meme of the far right, and is code for "gay marriage will render my life meaningless" in those circles, is laughable. He's not a stupid man.

The "half of all marriages end in divorce" notion, which is rather difficult to prove statistically, has been around for several decades now. Divorce has been legal in some circumstances since the beginning of recorded history. Williams is a twit.

You nailed it right on Sniggles.

At ease Dan.

Fuck the mainstream press and their willingness to swallow every specious right-wing claim as conventional wisdom. This militant lefty gayfolk has had it.

Thanks for posting this. I noticed that crack the moment it leapt out of his mouth and was wondering what the hell was wrong with him. Then I was wondering what was wrong with me. This was the first time in ages I'd even bothered watching the network news, and I was vowing never to do it again afterward. It's like every time I tune in after a period of not watching it seems like network news has just sank a little deeper into the gutter.

I hate these people. I grew up watching Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley and I hate what network news has become now. What's worse, what's the more morally corrupt...a totalitarian state with no freedom of the press, or a democracy with a free press that sells out?

Yeah, "in decline" is very, very different from "under attack."

Didn't watch it, don't care about the increasingly irrelevant broadcast "journalism" in this country, but @4 and @6 are correct.

Marriage is under attack--by straight people. Gay marriage is a red herring used to beat the drum of right-wing "values". But the genie's out of the bottle and he ain't going back in. Women's liberation, the Pill, no-fault divorce and legalized abortion all have a much bigger impact on the institution of marriage than gay marriage.

And those influences aren't going away any time soon. Why? Because even the wing nuts benefit from them, even if they publicly denounce them as part of their political agenda.

Marriage is under attack by the GOP from public restrooms all across the country.

That means the other half of marriages end in death -- frankly I'd rather be divorced than dead. Only about 10% of the population is divorced at any given time, so marriage/widowhood is by far the predominant state of adults.

Innocently using "marriage under attack" is akin to innocently using "welfare queen"

Oh god, Dan. I love you, but that is such bullshit. While arguing the line at which to draw "to retract or not to retract?" is fruitless, I'd say it's more akin on the offense-o-meter to calling a black person "articulate". Misguided and offensive? Yes. Malevolent? Only if you're a baby.

THIS STORY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GAY PEOPLE.

I was in a hetero marriage and it failed. The breakup wasn't our fault at all - it was the gays, constantly attacking us. So sad. Kudos to the queen and her consort (or whatever) for fighting the good fight and withstanding the constant barrage of gayness. (p.s. I'm being sarcastic.)

I agree, though, Dan - the rhetoric used, whether intentionally anti-gay or not, perpetuates all this homophobic crap and all these stupid ideas. Maybe "marriage" statistics aren't looking too good - but saying that "marriage is under attack" implies a kind of malignant motive by some sinister force. Language is powerful.

God Save the Queens!

If Williams clarifies and says that the comment was not about gay marriage, then I'm will to accept it as stupid, crappy writing and let it go. Shit happens.

If he fails to clarify, then I'll assume that he meant exactly what it sounded like he meant, and take it as a sign that he's out to move NBC to the hard right ala Fox. In which case us faggots have good reason to be pissed off and should let him know as shrilly and screechingly as we can.

It's common knowledge that half of all marriages end in divorce

Yeah...but that's not to say that those people were attacking Marriage - capital 'M'. They were just divorcing. Maybe it was their own marriage that was under attack...but that's not to say that they were attacking marriage as an institution.

Attack on marriage rhetoric isn't about divorce. It's culture warrior rhetoric and it points its finger at things like co-habitation, sex before marriage, and same sex marriage. It's rhetoric that invents enemies who want to do away with marriage entirely. Those enemies are anyone who wants or needs to construct their intimate lives somewhere other then the standard religious fundamentalist family unit. According to the people who employ it, we're not just trying to live our own lives, and secure our own households, we're attacking theirs, attacking their families, attacking their marriages, and so we cannot be accommodated, we must be eliminated.

Occasionally the folks who employ that rhetoric point their fingers at things like no-fault divorce, but only to the degree they're blaming all the dirty hippies and feminists of the 60s for changing the rules of family life. That's what the attack on marriage rhetoric is about. There can be only one kind of family. Anything else is an attack on marriage.

I actually watched this last night, and from the story it was pretty clear that they were contextualizing the phrase "under attack" within the royal family itself. I admit that Williams used regretful language, but it's pretty clear from the piece that they were highlighting Queen Elizabeth's 60 year marriage in contrast with her children's inability to stay married (all except for Prince Edward have been married and divorced).

Making such-a-deal out of "under attack" is the same as making such-a-deal out of "gay agenda". In both cases, there has to be one: 'under attack' implies a vast conspiratorial cabal exists in a war room where gaggles of gays slavishly work on plans to disassemble the prostitution of hetero marriage. The Gay Agenda room is next door, walls covered with lists of fashion tips, show biz ideas, p.c. position papers and "how-to" guidelines on getting rich, getting laid and getting approval. Your S.Q. is set way too high.

Aren't you being baited by right-wing anti-gay rhetoric by giving "attack" weight by claiming any use of the word is inherently anti-gay? There's context to this piece.

Don't shoot yourself in the foot by latching "gay" onto every use of the phrase "attack on marriage".

Williams tried to juxtapose the longevity of the Queen's marriage with the current decline in marriage and rise in divorce. I think his introduction shines a critical light on the fickle condition of marriage today. Cleverly, he makes an ironic use of the phrase "marriage under attack" to illuminate the sorry state of hetero marriage today.

What Bruce said.

@22 - seattle98104 can you name any other instances in the last 5 years of someone publicly declaring an "attack on marriage" that was not a reference to gays?

I don't think gays are latching on to the phrase or shooting themselves in the foot. I think the anti-gay movement latched onto it a long time ago, owns it, and shoots us in the face with it every chance they get.

@25 but we're not even talking about an anti-gay hit piece, watch the video, and if you can't understand the usage of the phrase (as 23 pointed out as an affront to HETERO marriage) I suggest enrolling in a basic English course.

How can heterosexuals claim that marriage is under attack by the gays when it's the gays who plan, coordinate, cook, serve and officiate all their weddings?

You want us to really attack marriage? Pick out your own fucking floral arrangements, and see what you end up with.

@26 - I did watch the video. I do speak english as a first language. The piece he is introducing has nothing to do with gays (except the totally fruitiness of the Monarchy, but that's another post).

What stood out to me was the "marriage is under attack" phrase. That's an extremely loaded phrase. It's so owned and used by the anti-gay right that when anyone uses it, it almost implies an anti-gay political agenda. Almost. I'm willing to believe that Williams didn't intend it that way, but I'd like him to say that.

And you and @23 have do not know what Williams meant. You cannot read his mind, you don't write his copy, and I'm not taking your word for it. And for pete's sake, let's keep it civil.

@20 - and since Edward is gay, his marriage to Sophie is something of an arrangement as well. Unless of course, he isn't gay. But when you read gossip bits in newspapers as far away from London as Hong Kong, and you spot an article informing that Edward's friends refer to him as Doris, well, here we go again with another concerted attack on "gay marriage". When will it ever stop?

Dan, I know it's tough to admit sometimes, but not every single thing is about the gays, you know.

"Attack" is an exciting word. It is used by the media ALL THE TIME. Kinda like "war." War on drugs, war on crime, war on fois gras.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I'd give Williams the benefit of the doubt on this one. The NBC news team has long been known as a fairly liberal one. It's hardly FOX.

Even if it's not about The Gays and their insidious plot to destroy marriage, it is still a somewhat respected newsreader - who people are used to hearing stating facts, and not editorializing - stating unequivocally that we are "in an era where marriage is under attack." It doesn't matter whether he meant by gays, or cohabiting unmarrieds, or divorcees . . . the statement is fundamentally untrue, and plays right into the fundies' attacks on all the aforementioned groups.

No, he's right.

Marriage is under attack.

Just think of all the closeted gay Republicans married to women who are under attack for living a lie in their marriage.

I'm not including gays who marry women because they like them and want to raise kid(s) with them - that's different. Sometimes one could marry just to be a parent, especially if they're a friend.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a minute that Brian Williams doesn't know that "marriage is under attack" is a loaded right wing phrase. Or that none of the other newsroom staff or editors knew.

Puh-lease.

They know exactly the implications behind the phrase and they put it in the story with intent. Why they chose to is a bit baffling to me, but to brush it off as accidental or unintended is totally naive.

Until Gay-Americans started asking for the same civil right to marriage certificates that str8-Americans get NO ONE ever suggested Marriage was "under attack". Yup this IS about Gay-Americans and our uppity request for equality.

What 33 said. It's impossible to separate attack-on-marriage rhetoric from the culture wars over marriage equality. To argue that Williams and staff didn't have precisely that resonance in mind is to say that they've spent the past ten years with their heads in the sand. The very idea of an attack on marriage -- of marriage being an institution vulnerable to external forces -- makes no sense outside of this rhetoric.

It's the royal family that's attacking marriage. But it's rather ironic that it's the gay son who's still married.

Let's ask the google:

8,310 hits for +"marriage under attack"

3,090 hits for +"marriage under attack" -homosexual -homosexuals -gay -gays -lesbian -lesbians -"brian williams"

and of those that don't mention gays or lesbians or BW, how many aren't rightwing or critical of rightwing?

This is 100% right wing talking point and google proves it.

Let's ask the google:

8,310 hits for +"marriage under attack"

3,090 hits for +"marriage under attack" -homosexual -homosexuals -gay -gays -lesbian -lesbians -"brian williams"

and of those that don't mention gays or lesbians or BW, how many aren't rightwing or critical of rightwing?

This is 100% right wing talking point and google proves it.

SDA in SEA is absolutely right. "Marriage is under attack" is loaded with anti-gay connotations. @26, back to English class with you.

sickening. who is this creep? it's 1984!

London received a "pummelling" did it? For that word alone he deserves a kick in the crotch that knocks his teeth loose, the ignorant patronising **** for brains.

43,000 dead civilians by 1941 is a "pummelling" and 9/11 is undoubtedly the end of the world. Pathetic.