New Hampshire's largest newspaper is defending its decision to refuse to publish marriage notices for gay couples.Of course you're not anti-gay! Who could ever have even gotten the first hint of such an idea? You just think they shouldn't have the same rights and privileges as everyone else. You just think it's by definition impossible for gays to have a "real" marriage. How could anyone think that makes you anti-gay?
New Hampshire is one of five U.S. states to have legalized gay marriage. Two men getting married in Portsmouth on Saturday wanted to publish a marriage notice in the Union Leader of Manchester but were refused.
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.
Democratic Senate candidate Paul Hodes called on the paper to change its policy. GOPper candidate Kelly Ayotte ran away from the issue. Which, if we're to listen to some, is what Hodes should have done.
Posts
2 comments:
This has nothing to do with bigotry.
I think people who talk like you have in this post willfully misunderstand the religious point of view. Marriage is enforced or sanctioned by the state as a contractual obligation. It is no different from a civil union except in name. Whereas marriage as a religious ceremony is much more than a simple agreement.
Personally, I believe the state should not be involved in religious matters and should not sanction any marriage. If property rights need protections, then civil unions may be entered into by any two parties. So long as the word marriage is left to religion, most resistance to your desires disappears.
Anyway, the owner of that newspaper can do what he likes and it's none of our business.Resorting to namecalling as you do won't help your cause.
This has nothing to do with bigotry
Of course it does and your comment does more to confirm that fact than it does to refute it:
I think people who talk like you have in this post
And I think people who talk like you have in this comment contend that as soon as someone invokes God that all criticism of their position is instantly rendered anything from wrongful to offensive. Sorry to tell you this, but the word "religious" is not an ethical or moral "Get Out of Jail Free" card.
I also think that your parsing of "marriage" is a fallback position, a desperate attempt to maintain some special place, some special essence, to marriage "as a religious ceremony" - that is, in the context of the post, as "one man and one woman" - even as the tide of history is running against you.
What's more, your distinguishing between a mere "contractual obligation" and something "much more" is deeply offensive, as it insists that those not married in accordance with the strictures and definitions of a church cannot have as deep and true a commitment to each other as those who were. Don't deny it; it must be insisting that, because otherwise the contrast, the "much more," evaporates.
Finally, to say "the owner of that newspaper can do what he likes" is both pointless and silly. The issue is not, never was, whether or not he had the legal right to refuse to publish the notice, but what his refusal and the reasons he gave for his refusal say about him. Cutting to the core, he refused to publish it because of his personal distaste for the relationship of the couple in question, a distaste so intense that he would deny them the opportunity to post a run-of-the-mill announcement in the paper.
Yes, that is clear evidence of bigotry, evidence no degree of quibbling about the meaning of the word "marriage" will dispel. Period.
Post a Comment