Union Leader won't print announcement for gay wedding

[KBCraig]

http://www.wmur.com/r/25481016/detail.html

Paper Won't Print Gay Couple's Marriage Announcement
Man Says He's Shocked By Newspaper's Decision
POSTED: 4:41 pm EDT October 22, 2010
UPDATED: 6:29 pm EDT October 22, 2010

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- The state's largest newspaper is coming under fire for its refusal to print a wedding announcement for a gay couple getting married this weekend in Portsmouth.

Manchester native Greg Gould said the day same-sex marriage became legal in New Hampshire was a proud one for him.

"It sort of highlighted all our values we had when we grew up -- individual thinking, independence," he said.

Despite now living in New York, Gould and his soon-to-be husband, Aurelio Tine, set a wedding date for Saturday in Portsmouth and hired a wedding planner to help out.

"There are still a lot of nerve-wracking challenges that any couple faces when they get married," Gould said.

But he said one challenge they didn't expect came from the state's largest newspaper. The couple said the New Hampshire Union Leader told them that since it was a same-sex marriage, the paper would not print the announcement.

"I was really disappointed because the Union Leader is a big voice in the state of New Hampshire, and they seem to be so out of touch," Gould said.

Gould took his complaint to the publisher of the paper, but to no avail. On Friday, the Union Leader released a statement saying: "This newspaper has never published wedding or engagement announcements from homosexual couples. It would be hypocritical of us to do so, given our belief that marriage is and needs to remain a social and civil structure between men and women." ( Read Full Statement )

Wedding planner Kate Parker said the decision left her flabbergasted.

"To me, as a planner, it's just a wedding, a wedding between two people," Parker said. "So let them celebrate it."

Parker blogged about Gould and Tine's story on her website, and she said she was stunned by the dozens of responses.

"It's pretty amazing to see a state that can be known as somewhat conservative to be so supportive," she said.

In its written statement, the Union Leader said it is not anti-gay, but has a constitutional right to print or not print whatever it wants.

Gould said he doesn't see that as an adequate response.

"To specifically exclude same sex-couple's wedding announcements is particularly vindictive," he said.

Mo Baxley, executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry, said she was saddened by the Union Leader's policy but "hardly surprised."

"The Union Leader's opposition to gays and lesbians being treated equally under the law is no secret to those of us that live in New Hampshire," Baxley said in a written statement.

Baxley said her group supports freedom of the press, saying it's vital to a free and democratic society.

"We defend the constitutional rights of all, even those we disagree with, and look forward to a time when all New Hampshire families are celebrated," Baxley said. "We send our congratulations to Greg and Aurelio." ( Read Full Statement )

The couple said they have contacted gay and lesbian groups regarding the issue, and they said they are examining their options.

[Pat K]

They have every right to be small.

[Russell Kanning]

I support their decision.
I myself would also not attend a gay wedding. I don't want to encourage the behavior.

[SethCohn]

I support their decision.
I myself would also not attend a gay wedding. I don't want to encourage the behavior.

Ah, but would Cardinal Canning marry a gay couple, with the state not being involved at all?

and it doesn't really matter the answer, Russell, I'm not judging you... I believe that the UL has the right to refuse to print something... just as other papers have the right to print whatever they wish (or not).

This will be an interesting year coming up in the Legislature: there is already a bill to repeal gay marriage submitted.  If elected, I'll be voting against it, I've been public about that, as it's clearly discrimination to _limit_ who can take advantage of the legally provided services on the basis of sexuality.  If someone submits an bill/amendment to completely _remove_ marriage from the purview of the government, I'll support that.  Government shouldn't be in the business of marrying folks...

[Lloyd Danforth]

Services?

[toowm]

I'm going to boycott the Union Leader!

Oh, wait. I haven't bought a paper in six years.

They still print?!?

[AntonLee]

I do not support their decision past their ability to make it.  I support any two people choosing to make an agreement together to spend their lives in harmony.

I do not support the Union Leader and I will not buy their product.  Seth is right, the government should not be involved in a union of people under god (or not).

[SethCohn]

Services?

There is a host of 'services' that having a marriage license affords the individuals involved.  We can debate the value of these (and we'd likely agree, most of them _should_ be contractual, and not government provided/required/forced by default or fiat or mandate,) but they exist regardless, Lloyd.

And speaking as someone who _doesn't_ have a marriage license, but is 'married' without benefit of the state's "blessing" (which thanks to the laws here in NH, still considers me to be unmarried in the state's eyes) I know there are some things I don't get that anyone with the same relationship validated by a piece of paper _do_ get as a result.

A good (but flawed, in many ways) list:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/13187/congratulations-on-your-marriage-and-open-thread-question

[dalebert]

Well, damn.  I was kinda hoping to get a Cardinal Kanning non-State wedding if/when the time came, but I assume that's not actually been an option.

[KBCraig]

I don't want to encourage the behavior.

Yes, marriage is bad behavior.

[Jim Johnson]

 The Union Leader is a stuck up, prissy, self righteous and arrogant dinosaur.

[Russell Kanning]

Well, damn.  I was kinda hoping to get a Cardinal Kanning non-State wedding if/when the time came, but I assume that's not actually been an option.

you are correct sir

[Tim L]

It's their right to publish (or not) what they choose whether big brother finds it p.c or not.If it were my paper I'd print it ,but I respect their decision.

[AntonLee]

it's got nothing to do with big brother or being politically correct.  No one here is saying they don't have a right to print whatever they want.  To be honest I'm not sure how one can respect bigotry in any form.  Maybe the Union Leader should start printing a cartoon version of the Turner Diaries soon.  Not that it'd matter to me, because I'll spend zero on that rag from now on.

[dalebert]

It's their right to publish (or not) what they choose whether big brother finds it p.c or not.If it were my paper I'd print it ,but I respect their decision.

This is what some refer to as vulgar libertarianism.  It's a tendency of libertarians to define all right and wrong by the NAP.  If it's not a violation of the NAP, it's A-okay!

The fact that I respect the NAP means that I won't use violence to change behavior I don't approve of.  So that means I won't use violence, particularly government violence, to change their behavior.  That doesn't mean I respect their decision or that I'm not in my rights to do many things, short of violence or fraud, of course, to try to change their behavior.

I remember when I referred to a particular building of a particular irrational (IMHO of course) belief system as being a monument to stupidity.  My friend said I should respect their beliefs.  I said "Hit the breaks!  I respect their RIGHT to their beliefs.  I absolutely do not respect their beliefs and will not pretend to.  That's MY right to my belief that they're spectacularly irrational and my RIGHT to express such views openly and honestly."