There wasa littlebias by omission in Tuesday's story on the passage of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California,as reported by San Francisco-based Jesse McKinley , "California Asks Court to Weigh Ban on Gay Marriage ."
The California attorney general asked the State Supreme Court on Monday to review the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the voter initiative passed two weeks ago that bans same-sex marriage....Supporters of the ban also urged the court to rule on it, and asked for permission to intervene in its defense. As attorney general, Mr. Brown would represent the state in defending the proposition, but its backers suggested that he could not "be counted on to vigorously defend the measure" because, they said, he opposed it during the campaign for its passage.
It is not known when the Supreme Court will decide whether to take up the case.
McKinley's Tuesday storymade the California vote on Prop. 8 sound more dramatic than it was by completelyleaving out the context: Gay marriage wasn't even allowed in California until this June, after the state Supreme Court struck down state laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman andtook it upon itsel to decidethat gays had a constitutional right to marry.
The California high court did take up the case, McKinley announced in a Thursday follow-up story, "Top Court  In California Will Review Proposition 8 ," that briefly noted gay marriage was in fact new for California:
The proposition, which overturned a May decision of the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage, has been challenged by a number of cities and civil rights groups, which say it is a substantial revision of the state's Constitution, and therefore requires legislative approval.
Don Feder of Accuracy in Media has more on what the Times left out.