A newspaper in New Hampshire refused to print a wedding announcement for a gay couple. The couple, Greg Gould and Aurelio Tine, got married last Saturday. Both were very happy and proud when gay marriage finally became legal in New Hampshire, saying that it highlighted their values of individual thinking and independence. They wanted to announce their wedding in one of New Hampshire's largest newspapers, but the newspaper told them since it was a same-sex marriage, it would not print the announcement. The couple knew they were going to face challenges, but did not think that this was going to be one of them. The paper made a statement saying: "The 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 a man and a woman." The paper also said that it is not anti-gay, but has a constitutional right to print or not print what it wants.
This story just reminds us that no matter what laws are established, people will continue to believe what they believe. Just because New Hampshire made gay marriage legal, does not mean that everyone in New Hampshire now believes that gay marriage should be legal. This also goes along with other issues, such as abortion. Abortion is legal, but it is a very controversial issue that people have many different opinions on. Personally, I believe that marriage should not be restricted just to a man and a woman. It made me sad to read that the newspaper wouldn't print the marriage announcement and put a damper on this couple's wedding. Even though the newspaper did not have the same beliefs as the couple, I think it should have been more open and accepting of the couple's marriage and should have printed the announcement for them.
People need to be more accepting of beliefs different than their own. This doesn't mean that they need to adopt the beliefs of others, but they need to accept that they exist.
What are your thoughts on gay marriage? Do you believe that it was okay for the paper to not print the announcement, since they were using their "constitution right" to freedom of the press? How do you think we could make people more accepting of the beliefs of others?
http://www.wmur.com/news/25481016/detail.html?source=htv
Aside from printing outright lies, this paper has every right to print or not print whatever it wants. “This doesn't mean that they need to adopt the beliefs of others, but they need to accept that they exist.” This newspaper is not denying that gays do not exist they do however chose not to publish what they do not want to. To use the same argument if people “need to be more accepting of beliefs different than their own” that goes both ways. You cannot tell the people at this newspaper that they need to accept your belief without telling them that their belief is wrong. People today tend not to notice all the hypocrisy in what they say. You cannot make someone believe what you believe only they can decide for themselves. I can just imagine what could happen because of things like this. This may be a stretch but, People will be so outraged that this gay couple could not get their wedding announcement that they government could get involve and start telling newspapers what they can and cannot publish. They way this country has been going is ridiculous. Everyone needs to be politically correct and cannot offend anyone. Soon people would not be allowed to speak their minds at all and we will have a puppet country.
ReplyDeleteLegally, it must be said that yes the newspaper had a constitutional right to publish what they want. Morally, I personally do not believe it was okay for the paper to not print the announcement. I feel that especially after the recent string and awareness of gay suicides, this was a perfect opportunity for a newspaper that is one of the largest in a state to make advances in human equality, regardless of sexual preferences. People always reference the Constitution in there being freedoms of speech and of the press, but it cannot be forgotten that the preamble of the same document states that one of its purposes is to establish justice. I would have printed the article of the marriage.
ReplyDeleteMy personal beliefs are that any individual should be able to marry and have a relationship with whoever they want. This article reminds me of the stories we hear about when the colored and white segregation ended. Even though blacks were legally allowed to go to school and intermingle with the whites, that doesn't necessarily mean that the whites are going to accept it. Even after colored people were allowed to do the things that white people did, there were still those people that refused to accept the change. Some white owners of restaurants did not allow colored people to enter in to their establishment or sometimes white business owners did not hire colored people because they could not trust them and didn't want them around. Over time this situation has gotten better and better and people realize more and more that the only difference that separates them from colored people is the color of their skin.
ReplyDeleteEven though it was morally wrong to not publish the wedding announcement in the newspaper, there are no laws preventing them from saying no. The only solution I can think of is have everyone that is bothered by this incident write about it and spread the news. It is up to the publishers to accept gay people for who they are and it is going to be hard to change their mind on the issue. Maybe if they see how much it is bothering other people maybe just maybe they will start to realize the injustice that they are causing.
The newspaper was well within its constitutional right when it decided not to print this marriage announcement. In my opinion, a person can marry whoever they love, no matter the gender. I am well aware that not everyone shares this view with me; therefore not everyone who reads this highly popular New Hampshire newspaper would agree with the union of a same sex couple. The newspaper aims to print stories which will entice its readers, not drive them away. Not wanting to print this marriage announcement does not necessarily suggest that the members of the newspaper are all discriminatory and against gay marriage, they are thinking of the reader response they would get if such an announcement was printed.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that people need to be more accepting of one another but this change cannot be forced upon everyone. It must be done subtly for ten it will face less resistance. If the newspaper does not feel comfortable publishing such an announcement, it should not be fought against; one should just look for another avenue to acceptance.
While I acknowledge that the newspaper has the constitutional right to print what they choose, I think it was wrong for them to exclude this couple's marriage announcment. More important than individual constitutional rights is the basis of this entire country--equality. Most people don't think twice about the equal treatment they receive based on their gender, class, or orientation. For example, when I get married, I know I'll be able to have my marriage announcement printed in almost any newspaper I choose. Why should a gay couple not have that same opportunity? Marriage is a happy occasion. With all of the unhappy, tragic headlines in the news lately, I don't see why a newspaper wouldn't want to print something positive, regardless of the subjects' sexual orientation.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is true that the newspaper reserves the right to publish what it wants, refusing to print the announcement has pushed back the progress that New Hampshire made by legalizing gay marriage. Not printing the announcement is telling people that although New Hampshire legalized gay marriage we do not accept it. Saying that they don't print the announcement because they have never done so is stupid. Just because they haven't done it before doesn't mean they "cant do it now." They may say that they are not anti-gay but their actions suggest otherwise.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that everyone should be entitled to love whoever they want without prejudice. However, this is not the case and a lot of people are, in a sense, punished because of their sexual preferences. This case is the perfect example of how two people who just want a normal wedding end up suffering for it. Due to their same-sex marriage, they were prevented from having their wedding announced in this newspaper.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of how I feel about the topic, the point is that this newspaper was well within its rights to refuse to publish their wedding announcement; they are protected under the freedom of the press. Hannah also raised an interesting point that the point of the newspaper is to attract readers. There are those few individuals who are strictly against homosexuality and publishing this one announcement could cause the paper to loose some of their readers. This paper demonstrates how they are more concerned with the number of readers they have than taking away one couple's privilege that all heterosexual marriages receive. I do not agree with this newspaper's belief and I think change needs to be made to ensure that all people are entitled to the same privileges regardless of their sexual orientation.
Morally speaking, it is wrong for the paper to announce the weddings straight couples and not the weddings of gay couples. This discriminates against gay couples and encourages others to alienate gay couples. Legally speaking, the paper can choose not to print the announcement although it is not the right thing to do. We cannot make people think certain ways or accept others but we can influence their thoughts. The best way to convey thoughts on to others is to teach by example. It can take a long time, but if more people show their acceptance of others then others may follow suit and also accept people different from themselves.
ReplyDelete