Dallas Morning News Changes Policy on Same-Sex Marriage Announcments

On the surface, it seems like a small change. Same-sex marriages have, until now, been placed in the commitments sections of DMN.  But starting yesterday, they will be in the Weddings section. But the struggle at the paper had gotten complicated and litigious.  The Dallas Voice has the story.

Mark Reed-Walkup and Dante Walkup of Irving, who were legally married in Washington, D.C., last year, filed a discrimination complaint against The DMN in December, alleging that the policy violates a Dallas city ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations. The DMN initially indicated through its attorneys that it planned to defend the policy, based partly on Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage. But in a meeting with the couple on Thursday, Moroney and DMN Editor Bob Mong informed them of the policy change.

Moroney told Instant Tea today that the newspaper made the change, which takes effect immediately, because it was “the right thing to do,” adding that he isn’t worried about backlash from conservative readers.

“When you do the right thing, you just do the right thing,” Moroney said. “I believe that publishing same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legally allowed, that publishing those under the Weddings heading in our newspaper, is the right thing to do.”

I’m continually fascinated by the controversy over wedding announcements because in many papers–including DMN–these are paid announcements. In a time when the media is struggling, it’s fascinating that newspapers are ready to turn away money just because they want to take a stand on LGBT lives.

That said, congratulations to DMN for changing its policy. It is the right thing to do.

Conscience Rules for Caterers?

With passage of a law legalizing same-sex marriage in New York, we are beginning to see “second day” stories about the decision and its impact.  One of the more curious arguments being hashed out in the media is whether wedding vendors who are opposed to same-sex marriage should be able to discriminate in providing services.  In short, should caterers have a conscience rule that protects them if they don’t want to provide pigs-in-a-blanket at a wedding between two women.

USA Today’s Cathy Grossman does a nice job in her Faith and Reason column looking at the coverage and suggesting some shortcomings in how the issue is being examined.

The Boston Globe, looking at the battle in New York last week as the religious exemption was hashed out, talked to New Yorkers in the wedding and marriage services industry and found some nervous people:

Bill Banuchi, who provides Christian marriage and family counseling and seminars through his Marriage and Family Savers Institute in Newburgh, N.Y., said he wouldn’t be protected by any religious exemptions because his business is considered a tax-exempt, not-for-profit educational charity, not a religious institution.

“We have certain principles and ethical guidelines we’d have to compromise,” Banuchi said Wednesday. “We would be in violation of the law and open to being sued for discrimination, and we could lose our tax-exempt status if we refused to counsel couples according to their value system. Our value system is that the only authentic marriage is between a male and a female.”

But the Globe hit a point that seems to have been lost in all of this discussion. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is already against the law in New York., says Susan Sommer, director of constitutional litigation for Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization.

Grossman hits on an important point that is essential for journalists to keep in mind in exploring these arguments. There is already an existing set of laws–the predate same-sex marriage–and those laws already deal with discrimination and a possible religious exemption. Interviewing experts on religious liberty who can talk about the law in this area, and not just talking-point, is a helpful approach to looking at the issue.

In her piece, Grossman highlighted a critique at the conservative media watchdog website GetReligion where pundit Mollie Hemingway said the press had failed to explain how individual believers are effected by the changes and will be forced to comply with non-discrimination laws.  Here’s what she said in the comments to her post.

And there is so much epistemic closure among adherents of this view, that these media figures would probably come off like idiots if they even tried to broach the topic. Which, for the most part, they’ve avoided simply by not broaching the topic.

I’m shocked at how unable many reporters are to consider unintended consequences of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, or, you know, just when I ask them to define marriage and ask some probing questions about their definition.

It’s unbelievable how uninformed and unthoughtful many reporters are when it comes to these things. And it shows in their coverage. And I say that as someone who doesn’t even believe the marriage can or should define or redefine marriage! Imagine how actual proponents of traditional marriage laws might feel about the coverage.

There’s no question that orthodox Muslims, Jews and Christians (not to mention those freethinkers who simply recognize marriage as a heterosexual institution) will be treated like racists when it comes to same-sex marriage. I had a reporter who covers this issue at one of the largest papers in the country tell me that this is what they are just this past week.

I’d agree that the press hasn’t done a good job covering this issue–and Grossman’s column and the AP story are a good start–and a good place to start would be examining talking-points like this and helping readers, viewers, and listeners understand the law and how it balances competing rights. High-octane rhetoric like this needs to be put into context and grounded in the law and policy.

DADT and the Chaplains: A Response to GetReligion

A quick note about the continuing saga of Chaplains and DADT, an issue we’ve covered extensively. At the conservative media criticism blog GetReligion, Terry Mattingly used one of our blog posts to suggest that NLGJA believed there was no religious liberty conflict in the DADT/chaplain situation and we were not committed to fair and accurate journalism.

I’ve since learned that they have significantly edited my response, so I wanted to post it here.

On behalf of NLGJA’s blog, I appreciate you linking to us although I wish you had done a better job of characterizing our disagreement with the Associated Press article. I have blogged before about the need to better coverage of the chaplain/DADT issue, but we just disagree about what better coverage would look like. Far from believing there is no conflict, I suggest we don’t understand the conflict and we shouldn’t accept the word of activists groups to define the conflict.

In my blog about the AP piece, I criticized the complete lack of balance, the focus on hypotheticals, the lack of a “new” news hook, and the failure to put the issue in perspective. I also, of course, criticized them for largely cribbing your opinion column instead of doing objective, fair reporting on the issue.

The current Pentagon report provides much of the perspective that his discussion has needed. Instead of relying on activist group rhetoric, it focuses on the Pentagon’s rules, reiterates the freedom that chaplains have, and reinforces that chaplains are expected to serve the military by treating servicemembers with respect and dignity. It also points out that few chaplains actually say they would quit if DADT were repealed.

Those are good jumping off points for fair and accurate coverage of the issue that puts the religious liberty issue into perspective and context, something NLGJA has been encouraging journalists to do all along. What we criticize is largely cribbing articles from opinion columns, failing to represent religious voices that support repeal, and relying on press releases and political actions by activists groups instead of focusing on facts.

Another Marriage Announcement Debate, This Time in New England

It’s hard to imagine that something is sweet and innocent as the announcement that two people are getting legally married would cause controversy, but this week brings another kerfuffle over running same-sex marriage announcements.  This time, it’s the conservative New Hampshire Union Leader.

The Leader’s publisher–Joseph McQauid–issued the following statement in response to a request from Aurelio and Greg to have their legal marriage mentioned in the largest newspaper in the state.

“This 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 men and women, and our opposition to the recent state law legalizing gay 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.

We are not “anti-gay.” We are for marriage remaining the important man-woman institution it has always been.

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.”-Joseph W. McQuaid Publisher

Traditional, American journalism doesn’t usually include the royal “we” when talking about news decisions influenced by editorial-board decisions. Usually, the editorial board doesn’t influence the news pages, but apparently not at the Union Leader.

Marriage announcements play a role in celebrating the community where a newspaper operates.  To not include legal marriages in that state based on publisher/editorial board opposition to those legal marriages is not reflective of traditional journalism standards. It is an insult to the community and violates the spirit of good, community journalism.

 

Assessing the Bullying Coverage

A tweet this morning from Queerty cemented something I’ve been wrestling with about the last two weeks of coverage regarding bullying of gay teens: it’s actually been pretty good.

It seems like LGBT stories come in cycles and we are currently in a cycle of stories about gay teens committing suicide because of bullying.  Lots of people have been asking whether there is more bullying and more suicides, a question that is as much about the media coverage of those issues as it about the actual data.

(If you are interested in some data and research, a good place to start would be a newly-released study by the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, and the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.)

What’s good about the coverage is that journalists haven’t fallen into the unfortunate habit of feeling like they need to interview opposing voices.  Maybe because it’s about bullying and not just LGBT issues, the stories have been blissfully free of “crazy minister” interviews or the need to include someone from Focus on the Family or Family Research Council to provide a countering voice.

There are, for sure, voices out there who are opposed to including anti-homophobia information in anti-bullying training in schools.  But now isn’t necessarily the time for those voices to be used as a counterweight. We can all agree that suicide is bad and kids being bullied is bad and broadcasting an 18-year old kissing another boy on the Internet is bad.  That doesn’t require a dissenting voice.

UPDATE: A new post on Bullying and Religion: the Second Wave Stories

Here is some coverage that has been good and has provided especially interesting angles to approach the story:

Wall Street Journal’s Digits Blog – How Social Networking Influences Coming Out

New York magazine –Tyler Clementi’s Suicide: More Than Cyber-Bullying

National Public Radio – Student’s Suicide Highlights Bullying Over Sexuality

This story, by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, on the death of Asher Brown
Vodpod videos no longer available.

CBS Evening News – Gay Student’s Death Highlights Troubling Trend

Vodpod videos no longer available.

What’s you sense of how this story has been covered? Let us know when you see stories that deserve attention (or a little criticism).