Largest NH paper won't print gay marriage notices

Largest NH paper won't print gay marriage notices

hosted.ap.org[/url ]

New Hampshire's largest newspaper is defending its decision to refuse to publish marriage notices for gay couples. The newspaper says it has a constitutional right to choose what to print and opposes the new law. Publisher Joe McQuaid says the paper isn't anti-gay but believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
[url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/10/24/2010-10-24_new_hampshires_largest_newspaper_rejects_gay_couples_marriage_notice.html]www.ny dailynews.com

This story intrigues me because it plays at that strange place where the lines get blurred between the freedoms of one and the freedoms of another. The act of placing a public notice for a legally sanctioned marriage (Gay marriage is legal in NH) seems like something that should be allowed - since the paper already has a section for heterosexual marriage announcements.

I am torn in opinion here. On the one hand, the paper has a right to print what it chooses, within reason and with regard to legality. But refusing gays a public service that is offered to hetero couples just doesn't seem right to me...

I checked the website for the Manchester Union Leader hoping to find an editorial article, but saw none.

So, ATS, I put it to you. Your thoughts, opinions, ideas???

~Heff

[url=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_NOTICES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-10-24-07-28-33]hosted.ap.org[/url ]

What part of "marriage is between a man and woman" don't you understand?

What part of the 1st Amendment don't you understand? The little thing about freedom of the press?

This thread is gay.

I can see that this is a fair and balanced newspaper, good grief

I want to know what his personal belief has to do with it?

Originally posted by Carseller4
What part of "marriage is between a man and woman" don't you understand?

What I think about marriage is as irrelevant as what you think of it. The state of New Hampshire allows for same sex marriage so your point is absolutely moot.

Originally posted by Carseller4

What part of the 1st Amendment don't you understand? The little thing about freedom of the press?

The first Amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Source

Seeking for a paper to serve it's constituency equally is in no way, shape, or means, an abridgment.

Originally posted by Carseller4

This thread is gay.

And thank you for your valuable contribution, insight, and participation in this thread.

~Heff

i think its cool that they are exercising their rights.

however i would think that it wouldnt be in the newspapers best interest commercially, but then again i suppose that depends on the demographics of the area.

i think that in the same sense people demand tolerance for gays, those same people should give equal tolerance for non-gays. in this particular instance, i think the newspaper's delivery on the issue was presented respectfully and should be honored.


yet somehow i think certain groups will be up in arms over it. to them i say, if this isnt the ideal way to respectfully disagree, then what is? expecting somebody to change their stance/views on a matter due to "political correctness" is fascism at its finest.

they said they werent anti-gay. but including gays in that section would be going against their beliefs, so i suggest they make an additional section called "civil unions" or some other word.

Adding this separately as the AP code in the OP is loopy...

New Hampshire's largest newspaper rejects gay couple's marriage notice Read more: www.nydailynews.com...

Stop the presses! New Hampshire's largest newspaper is under fire for refusing to publish marriage notices for same-sex couples -- even though the state is one of five in the U.S. that recognizes gay marriage.

"This newspaper has never published wedding or engagement announcements from homosexual couples," McQuaid said in a statement to New Hampshire's WMUR. "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 and our opposition to the recent state law legalizing gay marriage."

And that gets at the heart of what I am interested in... The statement "opposition to the recent state law".

Legally I think this is a very gray area that needs to be addressed.

~Heff

it sort of sounds like they are just covering their behinds.

from the way it is worded, it sounds like they may have some comments on the record, or maybe even published in their own newspaper, that would blatantly label them hypocrites if they included gays to that column.

i would think the advocacy groups would be all over them if they did infact take an opposition stance, only to be followed up by semi-endorsing or semi-legitimizing the same issue.

it would/could be the end of that newspaper.

it could be something as simple as endorsing a Governing candidate in previous election, that took an opposing stance.

reply to post by RelentlessLurker


Hey RL!

From what I am gathering as I read this, there has been at least one editorial published in this paper which was very anti-homosexual. As soon as I can collate more data I will post it here.

The part of this that intrigues me so much is that it is a public notice. Not an advertisement proper. In essence, to me, it is somewhat like the paper taking a stance on not allowing notices for garage sales run by Catholics and not protestants. Take the inflammatory subject of "gay/straight" out of it and that is how it seems to me.

~Heff

These PEOPLE should absolutely have the right to have the Announcement in the paper.
The fact of the matter is that they do have that right.
Just as they have the right to get married in any state.
They have every right, that I have.
NOTHING I am able to do is being kept from them.
If they want to marry and have the Announcement in the local paper, all they need to do is marry someone of the opposite sex.
I stated this in another thread and I will in this one as well, so before you start flaming me as some sort of hate monger please consider the following.......


Do overweight people get "special rights" in this country? No they have the same rights as you and I.
Many people claim that people are born "Gay".
Well many scientist also say that there is a "fat gene" and people with it are more likely to be overweight.
Does this mean that they Have to be overweight or that they just have to work harder not to be?
The big difference I see between the two is that most people who are overweight want help dealing with their disorder.
Most people who are Gay think the rest of the world needs help dealing with "their" disorder.

The paper is exercising its right to freedom of the press. Any consequences they face for this decision, they will have to deal with.

I don't think the government or ANYONE should dictate to the paper what they print.

I disagree strongly with the NH paper, but support their right. If I lived in NH and were getting this paper, I would stop my subscription immediately. I think it's a pretty crappy thing to do to show discrimination that publicly, but people are doing it more and more.

It feeds the division.

Well it's obvious that this paper is not journalism then. Because journalism is impartial and has no room for ones personal agenda....

Sounds like they just demoted themselves to an editorial rag

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Thanks for replying BH!

One of the things I am trying to track down is the subscription rates for this paper to be able to track any potential decline. Obviously that is, ultimately, how the people will "vote" as it were upon this issue, I think.

~Heff

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Totally agree. A paper or news organization that only presents one side of an issue is worthless, IMO. That's why TV news gets no attention from me. It's all biased.

Too many news organizations (including this paper, apparently) use their publicity as a platform to push an agenda. They are as guilty as FOX news and MSNBC. There is no news any more. A newspaper shouldn't be a collection of editorials. That's a rag.

I just found more from the statement by Joseph W. McQuaid, the publisher of the Manchester Union Leader:

regarding the law in New Hampshire legalizing same sex marriage

That law was not subject to public referendum and the governor (John Lynch) who signed it was elected after telling voters that he was opposed to gay marriage. Indeed, in no state where the public has been allowed a direct vote on the subject has gay marriage prevailed.

While the law sanctions gay marriage, it neither demands that churches perform them or that our First Amendment right to choose what we print be suspended. In accordance with that right, we continue our longstanding policy of printing letters to the editor from New Hampshire citizens, whether or not they agree with us."

Source

As a resident of the southeastern US, I read these words and hear echoes of my regions shameful past here. I see shades of Kent State. Discrimination hiding behind morality and law is still, in my opinion, only discrimination.

~Heff

First thing though is to recognize that a 'public announcement' is something that the paper offers. Since it is a service it offers, they have the right to refuse that service to whom they wish to refuse it to.

But to show how a politician twists the discussion, Source

Democratic Senate candidate Paul Hodes sent a letter to McQuaid demanding the newspaper respect the state law. "The Union Leader’s disgraceful policy of exclusion harkens[sic] to a different time in this country when people were denied opportunity because of their race, religion and ethnic origin," Hodes wrote.

The emphasis is mine, because there was no opportunity denied here. Even though his context is correct, this candidate is trying to obscurely connect a legitimate claim to this discussion knowing the lack of critical thinking the general voter base has.

The paper right or wrong will be judged by the free market and the free will of people. Unfortunately, this will most likely be used to call for Government intrusion into further regulation of the Free Press.

Is this "service" offered free of charge?

If the paper charges any kind of fee for the service, then I would have to agree that it is their right to refuse the commerce of gay couples.

However, if this service is offered free of charge to married couples, then this fails arguably into the realm of a Public service, for which the paper could be rightly accused of illegal discrimination if it is denied to certain groups solely on the basis of sexual orientation.

Consider, for comparison, a store with a restroom. If the store clearly posts a sign outside the restroom's locked door that says "For Customers Only", the store could (probably shouldn't, but could) deny access to that restroom to someone just walking in off the street. However, it would be a different matter entirely if the sign posted said "Whites Only".

As a strong proponent of both free speech, and privately owned business rights, I condone the paper's actions, and support them in exercising their freedoms as American citizens.

That said, I find it disgusting and would hope that the social consequences they face reflect appropriately, with canceled subscriptions as the citizens who voted in the law show their disapproval the American way, by supporting with their hard earned cash media outlets that are more receptive to all tax payers, not just heterosexual ones.

reply to post by Bhadhidar


You are mixing Public service, as rendered by the State with public announcement service, rendered by a privately held company.

Even if they offer such a service for free to heterosexual couples to announce weddings and engagements, it violates nothing if they deny that very service to a homosexual couple.

I would say your argument would be correct if they were allowing the free service to heterosexual couples and then charging homosexual couples, but from what I have read, that is not the case.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
The emphasis is mine, because there was no opportunity denied here. Even though his context is correct, this candidate is trying to obscurely connect a legitimate claim to this discussion knowing the lack of critical thinking the general voter base has.

The paper right or wrong will be judged by the free market and the free will of people. Unfortunately, this will most likely be used to call for Government intrusion into further regulation of the Free Press.

I do have to refute your statement about "lack of critical thinking the general voter base has". New Hampshire voters are, as a whole, probably the most astute people who do vote. If you ever have lived in NH during primary season, you would know that NH voters make it a point to examine every political candidate who aspires to office.

This paper, I'm sure, has weighed the balance of what will happen in the light of this decision. I don't believe they are anti-gay, and possibly would acknowledge "civil unions". This is my opinion only.

Mahree