Mississippi newspaper owner defends gay marriage cover story

[Thynight]

A newspaper in rural Mississippi is defending its decision to run a cover story on what it called the first same-sex marriage in the county it serves.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...140311568.html




It is nice to see a newspaper covering the news even when they know it will cost them readers.

[T-Rexx]

When I read articles like this, I lose all hope for the south.

We have stories about child molesters, murders and all kinds of vicious, barbaric acts of evil committed by heinous criminals on our front page and yet we never receive a call from anyone saying 'I don't need my children reading this.' Never. Ever. However, a story about two women exchanging marriage vows and we get swamped with people worried about their children.

Stories about murder and depravity are de rigueur. But a love story offends.

[T-Rexx]

One thing I'm not clear on.

How did they have a gay wedding in Laurel, Mississippi, when gay marriage is not legal in Mississippi?

[T-Rexx]

Here is the Laurel, Mississippi Leader-Call's "Soundoff" web page (for public feedback), in case you'd like to send a little love their way:

http://www.leader-call.net/14501/1799/public-forum

[JockBoy87]

One thing I'm not clear on.

How did they have a gay wedding in Laurel, Mississippi, when gay marriage is not legal in Mississippi?

You can have a gay wedding anywhere in the world.

You can have one on the Moon, underwater, or on Mt. Everest. Of course that doesn't mean you can always get a certificate.

[Zeno Lorea]

It is nice to see a newspaper covering the news even when they know it will cost them readers.

Yes, and it's even nicer to know it cost them a grand total of fifteen subscribers. That's negligeable even to the standards of a local community newspaper. The publicity was probably priceless.

[T-Rexx]

You can have a gay wedding anywhere in the world.

You can have one on the Moon, underwater, or on Mt. Everest. Of course that doesn't mean you can always get a certificate.

I could award myself a Nobel Prize, too. But that doesn't mean I would get the certificate.

This wasn't even a real wedding, it was just play-acting. And yet, it sent Mississippians into a frenzy!

In 1926, Basil Rathbone and the entire cast of the play The Captive were arrested because the plot line included a lesbian character! Nobody actually participated in any gay sex (or any sex of any kind), but merely talking about it was enough to get them arrested.

Mississippi is making progress. Now, they're only 90 years behind the times.

[JockBoy87]

This wasn't even a real wedding, it was just play-acting.

It certainly was very real to them, and I'm sure the happily married couple isn't losing sleep over your opinion.

[Rolyo85]

I could award myself a Nobel Prize, too. But that doesn't mean I would get the certificate.

This wasn't even a real wedding, it was just play-acting. And yet, it sent Mississippians into a frenzy!

In 1926, Basil Rathbone and the entire cast of the play The Captive were arrested because the plot line included a lesbian character! Nobody actually participated in any gay sex (or any sex of any kind), but merely talking about it was enough to get them arrested.

Mississippi is making progress. Now, they're only 90 years behind the times.

That is incorrect. For MANY people - especially financially stable people - marriage is not about any rights or legalities, but simply a ceremony signifying a union. The marriage ceremony and the marriage certificate are two separate things, and both are "real". Just because it's the latter that is the focus of our fight (as it should be), doesn't make the former meaningless.

[T-Rexx]

It certainly was very real to them, and I'm sure the happily married couple isn't losing sleep over your opinion.

That is incorrect. For MANY people - especially financially stable people - marriage is not about any rights or legalities, but simply a ceremony signifying a union. The marriage ceremony and the marriage certificate are two separate things, and both are "real". Just because it's the latter that is the focus of our fight (as it should be), doesn't make the former meaningless.

Yeah, sure, the wedding ceremony is important to the couple involved. But it is not about them alone.

A wedding marks a right of passage for the community. It marks a change in a relationship from simple devotion to a legal commitment for life. It is a dramatic transformation in a relationship. A wedding means that society will now regard this relationship in a unique manner, with special privileges and special obligations.

That hasn't happened here. I don't doubt that this couple is very much in love, and I don't doubt that the ceremony means a lot to them, personally. But, society has not bound them together in a legal contract. They are not married. Their ceremony was a commitment vow, not a wedding.

[JockBoy87]

A wedding means that society will now regard this relationship in a unique manner, with special privileges and special obligations.

That hasn't happened here. I don't doubt that this couple is very much in love, and I don't doubt that the ceremony means a lot to them, personally. But, society has not bound them together in a legal contract. They are not married. Their ceremony was a commitment vow, not a wedding.

Who's society?

They are de facto married if not de jure, if their community, friends, and family members support them. I doubt they got married alone with no support, so they are married.

[T-Rexx]

^ The primary thing which changes as a result of marriage is not how the married partners treat each other, but how the rest of the community treats them.

Sadly, nothing about the way Mississippi treats this couple has changed here. Which makes it all the more inexplicable that people would object to this ceremony.

[JockBoy87]

^ The primary thing which changes as a result of marriage is not how the married partners treat each other, but how the rest of the community treats them.

That is exactly the point I treated in the post you careted to.

By the way, why do you think July 4 is Independence Day and not September 3?

Sadly, nothing about the way Mississippi treats this couple has changed here. Which makes it all the more inexplicable that people would object to this ceremony.

Because opinions are changing in Mississippi, just not as dramatically or extensively yet as the rest of the country. The Baltimore Sun ran shamelessly vituperative reader editorials against gay marriage. There will always be hate.

[MisterMajestic]

There are parts of Mississippi not aware the Civil war is over. I am amazed that Oprah made it out...

[T-Rexx]

By the way, why do you think July 4 is Independence Day and not September 3?

George W. Bush has (at least) three honorary doctorates.

And yet, somehow, he's still an idiot.

Because opinions are changing in Mississippi, just not as dramatically or extensively yet as the rest of the country.

There are parts of Mississippi not aware the Civil war is over. I am amazed that Oprah made it out...

Mississippi just ratified the 13th Amendment - 148 years after it became law.

Perhaps in another century-and-a-half they'll have gay marriage.