Same-sex wedding notices

The P-B doesn't publish free same-sex wedding notices in our lifestyle news columns.

This is in keeping with most U.S. newspapers that still publish free wedding notices. Many metro-sized newspapers don't carry free wedding notices at all.

We do publish paid wedding notices for same-sex couples. Those run as "Celebrations" ads.

Our policy recently made news in a Twin Cities gay-lesbian magazine, and the story was picked up by KSTP-TV. Several readers have followed up with questions and comments.

Here's our rationale: We publish notices for marriages legally recognized in Minnesota. This allows for clarity and consistency in our wedding notices at a time when there's great disagreement and political controversy over same-sex marriage, and while marriage laws are evolving.

What do you think?

Comments

[Joe Mirabella]

You want to know what I think? I think your paper is playing up it's homophobic policy to draw attention to itself for profit. I think it is sick.

[SirPablo]

I never understand all the hate for gay people and gay couples. Are so many people that insecure about who they are that they feel a gay couple next door might make them gay? And this arguement of needing a mother and a father is kinda out the window when you ask "Which is better, two parents or no parents?" Back when I was a child, it was nice to know that you had parents that loved you. I'd rather have that than being a ward of the state.

And yes, hetero couples get the butt lovin' on, so why should it be illegal? And what right do you have to tell anyone what they can and can't do in their house, especially if it has no direct effect on you and it is between two consenting adults?

[Mike]

The horrid references and allusions to homosexual marriage being equal to a racial prejudice aside, I would have to concur with the paper on this one. Homosexual marriage is not legal. The paper certainly has every right to run their business as they see fit. If you don't like it, don't buy their paper. In any case, stop belittling the struggle of the African-American in our society by equating your choice of a perverted lifestyle to the African-American people's struggle to overcome racial prejudice. Frankly, it is insulting and unnerving.

[Brian Hokanson]

My extended thoughts on this are at my blog here.

(I'd put this in a trackback ping but the server isn't letting me...)

[Jay Furst]

Thanks for the comments...I'll pick off your questions one at a time.

Brian: We publish Olmsted County marriage licenses in the local news pages and we get those directly from the county. The free wedding notices that are published in the lifestyle pages are confirmed with the people who submit them, but we don't go to the courthouses to verify licenses, etc. Regarding inclusive vs. exclusive, we obviously prefer inclusive...we also try to have guidelines that give readers (as well as staff) consistency in reporting and handling contributed material such as wedding notices...I can see your argument, but we've come down within the margin of error on the other side of the line...

Stephan: Regarding charging for all wedding notices...we consider this type of social news important to readers and prefer not to charge for it at this time...other papers (mostly larger papers) obviously do charge. We also believe basic obituaries should be free of charge, unlike most papers.
But you're right, requiring payment does absolve the newspaper of making editorial decisions...

Chuck: Don't misinterpret our guidelines for publishing free wedding notices as a political or values judgment on same-sex marriage. Our news columns are neutral on that and every other issue on which we report; our editorial page views are also separate from the news columns.
This is one of the dicier areas of the newspaper world -- drawing bright lines between news content, the editorial page, and contributed lifestyle content such as wedding notices. I think readers often miss or disbelieve the distinction, and we need to work harder at making the distinctions clear.

Tom: I respect your viewpoint. It's our company's goal to be a progressive and inclusive force in the community.

[tom]

I can't help but wonder if you would have posted the marriage announcement of a black/white marriage back when in some states it was illegal for blacks and whites to have gotten married.
As long as you have a policy that discrimates against anyone who has legally gotten married - no matter where, your paper isn't worth reading or spending money on to support it. Count me out.

[tom]

I can't help but wonder if you would have posted the marriage announcement of a black/white marriage back when in some states it was illegal for blacks and whites to have gotten married.
As long as you have a policy that discrimates against anyone who has legally gotten married - no matter where, your paper isn't worth reading or spending money on to support it. Count me out.

[Brian Hokanson]

I am simply using this comment to kindly point out to Jay that the questions in my first comment have thus far gone unanswered. :-)

[BlondebutBright]

I agree with Stephan - why don't you charge for all marriage announcements? Or don't charge at all - but the current distinction will continue to raise criticism.

After all, the section that such announcements are published in is entitled "Lifestyle," not "Legally Recognized Unions" or something similar.

[Andy]

Charles,

I'm sure some same-gender couples will have children, but you make assumptions that the majority of couples are interested in having children. I am one of those that does not, but I still expect the same benefits, physical, psychological, and spiritual, that is afforded to my opposite-gender counterparts.

[Eva Young]

I'd like to thank Jay Furst for blogging about this issue - and soliciting feedback about this policy.

[Eva Young]

Chuck,

You are avoiding the issue here - which is the Rochester Post Bulletin wedding announcement policy.

So are you suggesting that the Rochester Post Bulletin's policy be wedding announcements for straight couples who don't engage in sodomy only?

Legal marriages only? How would you propose enforcing this policy.

I'll talk about the side issues you raise.

How is your analogy of typhus and smallpox related to this issue?

How does the possibility of gays getting included in the institution of marriage hurt the institution? The same arguments used now to argue against same sex marriage were used to argue against interracial marriage.

As far as your comments about Bob Battle go, that's the same guy who said that Gays are the cause of the decline of the Roman empire. Battle speaks for himself, not for all African American ministers.

Certainly Willie Wilson - ED of the Millions More March seems to agree with Battle - but he is rather an embarrassment - and I'd hope that you would think his "sermon" is inappropriate for children. The text of the sermon is posted here. It describes Wilson's fantasies about gay sex in lurid detail.

http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2005/10/michele-bachmann-janet-boynes-and.html

On the issue of sodomy - that is something married couples engage in also - it's not a gay only thing.

Also - since you raise the issue of the African American Community, Tony Perkins - the keynote speaker at the Minnesota for Marriage rally, paid Klan wizard David Duke 82K for his mailing list. Tony Perkins also spoke to the racist Council of Conservative Citizens.

I challenged you to publicly condemn Perkins for these actions on Craig Westover's blog. You just avoided the issue then. I repeat my challenge.

http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2005/04/ask-senator-bachmann-to-condemn-tony.html

[Charles Darrell]

Nice spin. However, a same-sex marriage deprives a child the civil right to a mother and a father.

True, marriage in America is in poor health. However, just because the patient is sick with typhoid doesn't mean we should expose him to smallpox.

Preserving marriage as between one man and one woman is far from hate speech. The civil rights argument is a euphamism that provides cover for a behavior most Minnesotans's oppose.

Tell me, is it fair that marriage be re-defined to affirm sodomy? If so, we have to agree that sodomy is more important than the definition of family, children, fidelity and commitment.

I wonder how many Minnesotan's would agree that traditional marriage is hateful because it is defined as between one man and one woman?

[Reid]

It doesn't surprise me. Just one more illustration of Rochester being homophobic and treating gay people like second class citizens. And Charles, the issue isn't about race, so don't bring it in to the picture - it brings no value to your arguement. I just don't understand how two men or two women getting married would threaten heterosexual marriages...? It's stupid to think that, really.

[Mark]

If a reader is going to defend the traditional definition of marriage, he should at least spell it correctly.

[Brian Hokanson]

Charles, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why the Post-Bulletin shouldn't publish the announcement for free. Because that's kind of the topic of this thread, and you avoided it quite well. Using some great B-section-esque random quotes, I might add.

Actually, now that I think about it, your comment does raise a very interesting point in regards to this conundrum. Do you believe, since your argument is based on the premise of "motherless and fatherless homes," that newspapers should abstain from publishing announcements until it is certain that the couple will not divorce? With around 50% of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce in three decades time, are not those 50% of heterosexual marriages as unethical as gay marriages, in that respect?
And reflecting this in the newspaper would better teach children about the true purpose of marriage, right?

I eagerly await your answer.

[OpenMinded]

Frankly, I would think that two mothers or two fathers who don't discriminate against fellow human beings would be better than one mother and one father who can't see past sexual orientation. Love is love whether it comes from a man or a woman and LOVE...not HATE is what a child needs to learn!

[Charles Darrell]

As same-sex "marraige" is illegal in Minnesota, the Post Bulletin should not publish any announcement. There is a mountain of socilogical data that proves children need, both, a mother and a father in the home. A same-sex "marriage" deliberately creates fatherless and motherless homes.

A reader commented upon civil rights. Ask most black Americans and they will agree that same-sex marriage is not about civil-rights. Rev. Roberts Battle recently said, "98% of black pastors firmly stand for marriage as between one man and one woman." The African American community understands the meaning of a mother and a father in the home. They also teach us that two loving people in a committed relationship does not work. As Star Parker said, "We have tried to raise our sons with a mother and a grandmother for decades. It doesn't work."

If readers are concernced with civil rights, lets support the civil rights of a child to the "diversity" of a mother and a father, married and in the home.

Two mothers don't equal one father. Two fathers don't equal one mother.

Chuck Darrell
Director of Communications
Minnesota for Marriage

[Stephan Jennebach]

Jay,

why not simply charge for ALL wedding notices, regardless of the couple's makeup? You would avoid the whole problem. What's another $50 or $100 for the wedding announcement in the paper, when most people already pay thousands of dollars for their wedding?

Just my two cents...

[Andy]

I think it's been illegal to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation or gender identity since, like, 1993 in Minnesota. Is something like this covered? I should think so.

[Andy]

I think it's been illegal to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation or gender identity since, like, 1993 in Minnesota. Is something like this covered? I should think so.

[Teresa DeWitt]

As a lesbian in a committed relationship for almost 9 years, I feel the Post Bulletin did the right thing. However, I would hope when and if civil unions or marriage is approved for gays they will they be more than willing to post the announcements.

Rochester has grown in so many ways, this shouldn't even be a issue or pushed at this time.

[Brian Hokanson]

Here's the next logical question, then: is the legal status of all opposite-sex marriages verified? That is, do you request a copy of the marriage license, for instance?

For a newspaper desperately trying to gain readers and attract a young audience, does it not make more sense to create inclusive rather than exclusive policies? And at the root of that question is an even more important one - if the couple in question isn't lying, Jon Losness admitted that he created the (unwritten) policy by himself, without even any input from staff, much less from readers and subscribers. Is that the best way to tackle such a culturally significant issue - an issue which, I might add, is quite reminiscent of another issue involving marriages merely 2-3 decades past?