Should The Examiner carry same-sex marriage announcements?
Submitted by Dale Brendel on June 4, 2009 - 8:35pm
We've received a fair number of emails and calls on this issue since the story broke earlier this week. Some against our decision, others in support. This wasn't a news department issue, but now it has become a news story. I know a few bloggers have already weighed in, but what does everybody think? Are we wrong, or does the reasoning that since Missouri does not recognize same-sex marriages as legal so we shouldn't run them in the paper stand up?
- Dale Brendel's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Filed under:
Comments
If same sex marriage means gay or lesbain, I am against it and I strongly believe it should be made illegal, what on earth is happening in this world. If you need escorts like London Escort Agencies then go there, but don't mind same marriage should be made illegal.
Marriage in any form shouldn't be up to the government to decide. Marriage is a religious institution and should be left to the religions to deal with as they see fit. Separation of church and state kinda stuff. There should be contracts as far as inheritance, taxes, property stuff like that that the government deals with, not marriage.
I also find it interesting that you think that same sex marriage is illegal due to moral issues, however, your morals say it's ok to promote an escort site and apparently your morals also condone sex outside of marriage and prostitution.
No. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Missouri. It may be a news item to the couple involved, but it's about as much news to me as reporting that Bob across town got himself a new bass boat or new dog. Bob may have had a ceremony celebrating it, but worthy of an announcement in the newspaper it's not.
Complacency is the enemy. Be educated. Be aware. Be involved.
By "not legal" do you mean illegal as in against the law or do you mean not officially recognized? Are heterosexual marriage announcements newsworthy to you?
Post 'em. I expect my newspaper to report and inform, and all announcements serve the informational goal.
You're a newspaper right? Your report news. You sell advertising. You sell classified ads.
Newspapers need income and need to find it any way possible.
So sell the space. If anyone for any reason wants to put their personal business in your paper charge them for it. Doesn't matter if it's a traditional marriage ceremony, a same-sex ceremony, an obituary, or a birth announcement. Charge for it and let it all fly. If you keep it to local area people/places/things it should provide an entertaining part of the paper. Pet obituaries, pet marriages, first birthdays, etc... Let everyone see what anyone is willing to pay for.
If you want to be a little more conservative you might consider only announcing pairings that will naturally result in future subscribers. Long term thinking...
Instead of calling it marriage, any marriage, be it gay or straight, should be known as a "Civil Union" by any government body.
The way I see it, marriage is a ceremony sanctioned by any religious organization, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, or whatever. That leads to the biggest problem with the debate and extending the same rights that people have in a heterosexual relationship to those in a homosexual relationship - bigotry brought forth by religion. What's amazing about this, is the core message of any religion is love for your fellow man, even if his viewpoints aren't your own.
So instead of calling it "gay marriage", you call it "straight civil union". That takes the marriage part out of the debate. You'll still have the license, the tax break, the healthcare benefits, and (for more than 50% of us) the nasty divorce. Then it's up to religion (or for the agnostic and atheist among us, lack thereof) to decree if it's marriage or not. This makes for a win-win for everyone, and separates church from state that much more. And remember boys and girls, America wasn't founded to convert everyone to Christianity or kill them in the process, something that has long been forgotten by many people in government. Also, I don't remember anything in the Bible, the Torah, or the Qu'ran saying that we should be ruled by a Theocracy.
As for the announcements of gay marriages, I'm all for it. If a couple has found happiness with one another and made it legal (at least in 5 states), then the Examiner should let those people pay to let the world know, and we should be happy for them no matter how we feel about their lifestyle. The world is a very depressing place these days, and we really do have worse things to worry about than homosexuals being able to marry or civil-unionize, whichever way that you look at it.
Well said, everybody should have a civil union as far as the government is concerned and if they want to get married in a religious ceremony, that is up to them as well.
I would say...the paper has the right to refuse to run the announcements, as they are a private entity. But that does not mean it is right for them to refuse to run them.
I vote yes, you should run them if requested.
To me it's an easy answer. If my wife and I had gotten married in another state and wanted our home town paper to announce it, would they have announced it? I know they announce obits for people who used to live in the area as well, why not wedding announcements for whoever wants them put in the paper.
In my opinion it's the same thing.
NO!! And again NO!!!!
valerie
So.
You charge people for paper space.
And since it makes people sweat, you're blaming the state for your lack of free speech?
Oh examiner
You already HAVE run it haven't you, you took their money, put it online, then took it down and gave them their money back.
blogs.pitch.com/plog/2009/06/star_examiner_wont_run_same-se.php
Disgusting.
So you do not think gay's money is as good as mine that I pay to subscribe to this under reported crap?
Seriously?
And here I thought as of late your paper was worth it as your reporters were actually FINALLY starting to ask tough questions.
........what about the "Middle Easterner who married an 8 year old.?......if he moved here then we would have to honor him with the same "right" because it was legal in his country.........where do we draw the line?..............according to gay activists......the only factor to be considered in marraige is "if the two parties love each other"........and "want to commit"...........so there you are.............it's EVERYBODY'S right........if I want to make my dog a "life partner"......and "love him".......and"want to commit to him".......it shoudn't matter WHAT state law is.........an institution is OBLIGATED to run my "wedding announcement".......if even a fantasy wedding.........or merely a "ceremony"...........legality has NOTHING to do with it..........in IOWA?...........I believe that they ARE obligated..........as any other state that sanctions "same sex" marraige..........here?.........I believe it is an institution's right "to choose"............according to the will of the readers who read the paper.........and the staff who run the newspaper...............it will probably surpirse you to know that i have had around 5-6 gay friends in my life.....as well as many gay customers............back then they lived their life......and we let live......nobody tried to cram anything down other people's throats......which is what's going on now in the United States.......being in the U.S. doesn't mean people don't have to observe state rights.......if an institution CHOOSES to do so it shouldn't be "crucified" for doing so.....they are listening to the people........I personally couldn't care less.....all I care about is the "intsitution's rights" being honored......if state law isn't liked then change it......if the people won't change it.......move.........but don't expect everybody else to choose what you have chosen.....it's the desire of gay activists to make this lifestyle as normal as possible.......it's NOT normal.........everybody doesn't HAVE to be normal.........it will never be treated as normal.......because it's NOT............normal means the "parts fit"........and "procreation"......the species persists instead of dying out........as defined by nature.......not me..........I hear analogies made to lizards and other aniimals about "being natural"..........then I hear...."don't compare this to bestiality"..........lol.......hard to keep up. with the logic here.......we are far more accepting in this country than around the world......
eldoggg
No.
If these papers took it seriosuly, then the KC Star would not have this article highlighting a famou gay man's marriage?
Correct me now I'f I'm wrong???
www.kansascity.com/402/story/1222579.html
After keeping his private life out of the spotlight for years, David Hyde Pierce has announced his marriage to longtime partner Brian Hargrove.
The former "Frasier" star spoke candidly in an appearance on ABC's "The View." Wearing a wedding band, Hyde Pierce revealed they tied the knot "very quietly" in California on Oct. 24.
The actor and Hargrove, a producer, are still legally wed despite the California Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to uphold Proposition 8. The gay-marriage ban was approved by voters in November, stopping legal nuptials going forward.
Angered by the ruling, Hyde Pierce said Thursday: "It's like, 'Oh great, we made the cut.'"
He called it a "very odd thing" that strangers have a vote on his private decision to marry.
And they NEWSPAPER did not take a payment from him to print it, they just thought it would help to have it for their readers, so tell me now, how that makes any sense?
I don't really care. I don't look at marriage announcements anyway. My husband and I did not put an announcement in the paper when we got married. I am not sure why so many people are so concerned with the lifestyles of others anyway. I do not want to know what other people do in the privacy of their own homes, neither do I care what the gender is of those who live in the same home. Why others are so concerned is beyond me.
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
look around this old world we live in boys and girls....no longer than we are likely to be around.....you need to find someone to be with to make your life as happy as can be. life is way too short.
one of my very very best friends is gay....and he and i dont always see eye to eye about his lifestyle....but the point is just that ...it HIS lifestyle...let us not be the judge and jury...let the big guy make that call when he reaches the pearly gates....you know im pretty conservative in my views....but i say let them enjoy their lives and share the joy they have .....post away examiner...to do otherwise would be unjust discrimation.
todd
".but i say let them enjoy their lives and share the joy they have .....post away examiner...to do otherwise would be unjust discrimation. "
I agree.
Especially when we are talking about the media.The fact is, if they claim it's because it is not recognized by our state and it's a legal issue, they're full of it, they, like any gay man or woman, have the right to free speech and decide what they print.
If they refuse, it will be unjust discrimination.
If they refuse, it's because they felt pressure from those who believe their own way is the best way, and buckled and became a controlled newspaper that will only print what most people think is okay. May as well be a leaning Publication or released from a Religious Institution. News Papers and media should respect and uphold freedom of speech. The fact so many lean one way or another and don't respect freedom of speech is why the newspaper industry is tanking.
People have more freedom on line and less locales thinking their ads should call the shots. On the internet you can get all people's views, because it's out there, and the majority can't control it like thought police.
**Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.**
Why wouldn't you?
Just because Missouri does not recognize same sex marriage, do you not think their family and friends would? What about something to clip out that serves as a memory. Why is it every other couple can have these things, but we hide behind a very biased, and religiously pushed state law to hold it back from others?
I hope you reconsider.
After all, as a newspaper and media outlet, you do have more free speech protection than other business's do you not?
I don't know why the Examiner wouldn't carry same-sex marriage announcements. If you think you might be offended, then don't read the marriage announcements.
Exactly.
Plus it's all going to the same cash cow.
Why can anyone except gay people buy announcements? Makes no sense.
Yet parents who live here and have kids living in other states, and marrying in other states can pay for an announcement in the local paper so their own friends are aware?
It's all silliness.
well maybe there just happens to be just a few people on here with some sort of morals left and know its disgusting/ an abomination/ etc. I know I was all like "what the crap?" when I saw the gay couple on here on the wedding page. Most of us don't care to see two dudes or women together on here. If they want to live that lifestyle then so be it. But I dont care to see it or be around it. By the way, I'm in no way "homophobic" so no one don't even try to come back with me with that load of bs.....
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
It's only an abomination if you make it that way. :)
The Examiner's policy is absolutely correct. Missouri law does not recognize the union of a couple of the same sex as a marriage, so why should the newspaper? If the pair wishes an announcement in the paper they could take out a small dispay ad for that purpose.
Because the Newpaper is supposed to respect free speech and allow ALL opinions, not just the ones that make people happy.
Also because the newspaper is NOT the state Government, it's the Media.
If the Government runs our newspapers we have bigger issues than Gay rights my friend.
That is the exact reason the paper should put them in. Just because something is not a law doesnt mean a paper should base what its news is off that. My opinion on gay marriages is this. If the government is telling them they cant get married its no different then when they said black people go to the back of the bus. If someone were to say that to a black person today there would surely be a fight a law suit media coverage and the rev Jessie Jackson would surely find is way to get involved. Yet when the government says gay people cant get married no one really thinks of it like that. I've been with a lot of london escorts who were lesbians and they say the same thing.
That is the exact reason the paper should put them in. Just because something is not a law doesnt mean a paper should base what its news is off that. My opinion on gay marriages is this. If the government is telling them they cant get married its no different then when they said black people go to the back of the bus. If someone were to say that to a black person today there would surely be a fight a law suit media coverage and the rev Jessie Jackson would surely find is way to get involved. Yet when the government says gay people cant get married no one really thinks of it like that. I've been with a lot of london escorts who were lesbians and they say the same thing.
Submitted by Adam.s on June 29, 2009 - 7:57am.
You're right, Adam. But I don't get one little thing. Why do gays want to marry? I mean if people love each other why don't they just live together? So I don't consider this to be a great problem.
So with that reasoning, the Examiner would never take a minority viewpoint or advocate for change from the staus quo. Henceforth, the newspaper becomes a propaganda rag for all mainstream philosophies.
It stands to reason that publication of controversial issues should be avoided whenever possible because advertisers may boycott or customers may unsubscribe. It hurts the credibility of the paper whenever its writers publish articles without editoral approval. Editorial staff must do more to censor blogs that express original content or take up concerns which do not serve the majority of readers.
The People control government and it is only right that that the media "should" convey only what the majority finds as acceptable activism in the world around them. If the behavior does not conform, it must be condemned.
Homosexuality is an unnatural state. Unnatural states require unnatural actions. Publication of marriage announcements is a natural process. Publication of gay and lesbian unions requires an unnatural method of publication. Take out an ad.
You might want to rethink you're unnatural state there. There are several species of animals that practice homosexuality, including a species of lizards thare are all female. One of the females simulates the sex act so that the other female can lay her eggs. I'm fairly certain that the animals are only doing what's natural to them.
I don't know about you, but for me, life's pretty short. I have enough going on trying to figure out what's right for my own stuff, let alone trying to figure out what's right for everybody else. Who am I to say that what you're doing that's not hurting anybody else, you can't do?