Greg Gould has his roots in New Hampshire, and he was very much looking forward to the day when his wedding announcement could appear in the Union Leader, the local newspaper to his hometown of Manchester. Except, sorry, it’s not gonna happen. Because he’s gay.
While Gould and his husband (he and Aurelio Tine were married on Saturday in Portsmouth) stressed like any couple about wedding day minutiae, they were floored to learn that their marriage, despite being legal according to the courts, was not evidently good enough for the Union Leader. Although same-sex marriage is now legal in the Granite State, it seems that the state’s largest newspaper is going to flex its …
… political muscles under the blanket of “freedom of the press.”
The couple said the New Hampshire Union Leader told them that since it was a same-sex marriage, the paper would not print the announcement.
“I was really disappointed because the Union Leader is a big voice in the state of New Hampshire, and they seem to be so out of touch,” Gould said.
Gould took his complaint to the publisher of the paper, but to no avail. On Friday, the Union Leader released a statement saying: “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.”
Um … and there was probably a point in time when you wouldn’t publish wedding announcements for interracial couples. Interreligious. Inter-fucking-socioeconomic.
The world moves on, Union Leader, and you move with it … or you look like a horse’s ass. Which you do.
And I’m sure you’ll all be shocked to know that the Union Leader was adamant in a written statement that it’s not “anti-gay, but has a constitutional right to print or not print what it wants.”
Okay … so why are you choosing not to print the wedding announcements of same-sex couples if you’re not anti-gay? Why are you choosing to play the “constitutional right” card over this if Gould’s sexual orientation doesn’t bother you?
I think maybe that’s what pisses me off the most here. It’s 100% evident that the newspaper is taking this course of action because their publishers do not approve of gay marriage—they even admitted this in their statement. And yet they have the audacity to claim that they’re holding back on this for “constitutional reasons” and not because they’re “anti-gay”? If you’re going to be bigoted, ignorant morons, at least have the guts to own it!
Mo Baxley, executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry, said she was saddened by the Union Leader’s policy but “hardly surprised.”
“The Union Leader’s opposition to gays and lesbians being treated equally under the law is no secret to those of us that live in New Hampshire,” Baxley said in a written statement.
Baxley said her group supports freedom of the press, saying it’s vital to a free and democratic society.
“We defend the constitutional rights of all, even those we disagree with, and look forward to a time when all New Hampshire families are celebrated,” Baxley said. “We send our congratulations to Greg and Aurelio.”
When my parents got married in the early seventies, their wedding announcement went into great detail about the “intricately beaded bodice” of my mother’s dress as well as an overview of what my grandmothers wore. Wedding announcements today tend to focus more on the accomplishments of the bride and groom (or the groom and groom, if you’re not trying to publish it in the stupid Union Leader), but the point is the same: to spread glad tidings of your official joining together with your partner.
Why would anyone want to stomp on another person’s parade, particularly over what is supposed to be a celebratory, joyous day? Oh, right, because they might be bigoted a-holes, that’s why.
