October 25th, 2010
10:16 AM ET

Newspaper won't print gay marriage announcements

Greg Gould and Aurelio Tine say they just wanted to share their wedding plans.

So they went one of the largest papers in New Hampshire, where gay marriage is legal and generally accepted, to work up a wedding announcement.

But the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Manchester paper known for its conservative viewpoints, refused to print it, a decision that has sparked anger from the couple and lit up the Twittersphere and the Web.

"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 told CNN affiliate WMUR-TV in Manchester.

The newspaper, however, issued a statement saying that printing the announcement would be "hypocritical" given its previous practices.

“This newspaper has never published wedding or engagement announcements from homosexual couples," Publisher Joe McQuaid said. "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.”

In its full statement, printed online, the paper said firmly that it is not "anti-gay" and because of press freedoms can choose to print - or not print - whatever it wants.

Still, that move hasn't stopped the matter from becoming a controversy, with Democratic Senate candidate Paul Hodes, making it an election issue as well.

Hodes wrote a letter to the paper that read in part: "Mr. Gould and Mr. Tine will become legally married this weekend and they should have the same opportunities as everyone in New Hampshire to have their marriage publicized and recognized. The Union Leader's disgraceful policy of exclusion harkens to a different time in this country when people were denied opportunity because of their race, religion and ethnic origin."

What do you think? Should the paper give gay couples the same chance to announce their weddings? Or does freedom of the press override that, and allow the newspaper to make the decision it did? Let us know what you think in the comments below.

soundoff (665 Responses)
  1. LEADINGVIEW

    IF I OWNED A NEWSPAPER, I WOULD ONLY PRINT WHAT I WANTED TO PRINT AND NOTHING MORE!!
    I APPLAUD THEIR EFFORTS IN KEEPING WITH THEIR TRADITIONAL VIEWS AND STANDARDS!
    WHY IS IT THAT PEOPLE ALWAYS FORGET THAT THE APPEARANCE OF EVIL IS STILL EVIL?
    GOD ALMIGHTY ALWAYS LOVES THE PEOPLE, HE JUST HATES THE SINS!!

    October 26, 2010 at 2:35 am | Report abuse |
  2. D. Carlton

    Marriage is a civil ceremony as well as religious one for some and becomes a PUBLIC RECORD. If this paper recognizes any marriage announcements, they should recognize ALL which are legal within their state. "Hypocritical" or not, they should simply change their policy starting now.

    October 26, 2010 at 2:46 am | Report abuse |
  3. Sam Daughtry

    Is being gay a choice? Apparently the New Hampshire Union Leader thinks so. Years ago newspapers would not print Jewish or interracial wedding announcements. But today most people are raised into religious choices or rapidly changing the landscape of racial diversity. Those same newspapers that would not print wedding announcements in the 1960’s because of racial or religious indifferences print them today without hesitation. But a so-called credible news source like the New Hampshire Union Leader that has a responsibility to its community to report leads, community archival events and notices remain biased and continues to resonate the traits of indifferences and prejudices of the 1960’s by not allowing gay/lesbian wedding announcements. Religion is a personal matter and experience and not a public domain to be interpreted or owned by any individual or group as if for some reason gays or lesbians are less religious than the straight community. This is the stigma of being a bully and/or labeling a community as second-class citizens – identical in slavery to the civil rights movement. The GLBT community is not the enemy. Those that covet judgment and commandment, if you are religious and believe obstruction of civil liberties is just, seed an enemy of hate within their hearts and heedlessly spread that seed in the hearts and minds of its readers.

    October 26, 2010 at 2:46 am | Report abuse |
    • Deb

      It IS a choice, to be good is a choice to be bad and promote evil is a choice, to follow Yahweh is a choice too.. or you can follow Baal...

      October 26, 2010 at 5:31 am | Report abuse |
    • Mark

      Sorry, Deb - that's false and it's ignorant.

      October 26, 2010 at 7:19 am | Report abuse |
  4. dwayne

    Remember; There are no such places as heaven and hell you will be a much happier person.

    October 26, 2010 at 2:47 am | Report abuse |
  5. Samuel Dechter

    Seems to me that if one has the freedom to demand recognition, then another has the freedom to not recognize the first. Freedom of speech and freedom of action is not a one-way street.

    October 26, 2010 at 2:48 am | Report abuse |
  6. dwayne

    Jesus was not a god; just a man they bleed out.

    October 26, 2010 at 2:51 am | Report abuse |
  7. bobby

    THE ANSWER TO THIS SIMPLISTIC PROBLEM IS THIS; if you offer one person (or persons) a public service, under a public license, you must offer it to all. otherwise, it is the same as refusing service to an individual at a lunch counter in a public restaurant. if you withdraw that service to part of the public, you must withdraw that service to all of the public. the paper's action can be construed as racist in a court of law and it's license to print and mail it's product should be withdrawn.

    October 26, 2010 at 2:51 am | Report abuse |
  8. Ted

    ....SAVE AMERICA.......SAVE YOUR JOB...........SAVE YOUR HOME...

    YOU MUST VOTE REPUBLICAN...VOTE REPUBLICAN....VOTE REPUBLICAN
    PLEASE GET OUT AND VOTE...TAKE FAMILY AND FRIENDS....WE WILL LOSE OUR NATION IF YOU DON'T...WE WILL BE LIKE CUBA WITHIN 2 YEARS.......NO TIME LEFT...VOTE REPUBLICAN...

    October 26, 2010 at 2:56 am | Report abuse |
    • Robert

      You are right, i will vote, vote on anything and anyone but republicans since the country can NOT afford more years with the idiots that created this mess we are in

      October 26, 2010 at 5:29 am | Report abuse |
  9. Al

    Kay:
    I don't think many of these people "hate" God. It's just that if you are Gay you can't believe in God. Or if you do, you would fear him because the actions of gays are against the teachings of God. You can't believe in God and act against God's word. But I believe he did give us free will. And that free can come with at a price.

    Really? God's word. The Bible. The book humans wrote. The same book that says it's ok to stone your disobedient child to death. Try using that defense in a court of law and see how far it gets you.

    October 26, 2010 at 3:01 am | Report abuse |
  10. Am

    The owner of the paper print whatever he/she/they please. There is no law requiring them to print anything.

    October 26, 2010 at 3:06 am | Report abuse |
  11. dwayne

    The bible is a book of myths and gods only exist in weak minds.

    October 26, 2010 at 3:09 am | Report abuse |
  12. Jesus

    Someday all lies, will be Judge by the Lord Jesus Christ! You can deny the Truth with a zillions words, but the Truth will stand above all. When are you going to accept the Truth, when the Rock fall on your head? You can deny God existance right now, but someday you can't deny that God exist, because you will be standing before Him in the Judgment Day. The day is approaching, where every knees shall bow and every tongue confess, that Jesus is Lord of all. King of kings and Lord of all lords. Those names are not found in the Book of Life, will be thrown in the Lake of Fire.

    October 26, 2010 at 3:27 am | Report abuse |
  13. bryson waddell

    This newspaper (founded in 1863) was also renowned for objecting to woman voting .. and to interracial marriages..
    Is anyone surprised by this ?

    October 26, 2010 at 3:36 am | Report abuse |
    • mikeL

      Hmm, let's see, if it was back in the 1800's then that was pretty much standard for most newspapers. I bet some your ancestors had exactly the same views as well.

      October 26, 2010 at 6:50 am | Report abuse |
  14. Brian C

    For All those who feel no rights have been taken away from Christians. I have one that is very obvious to me as a university student studying genetics and biotechnology. I cannot mention the idea of creationism without being attacked and ridiculed. Is this simply based upon the fact that science cannot prove creationism, science has failed to prove anything on how life started, the foremost thought by darwinist is that life piggy backed on crystals...what? I learned that in a university setting yet am mocked when I say God can create life and they think crystals gave piggy backs and somehow life started? By not being allowed to share the way I know life created in an academic setting I know rights have been taken away from Christians, and not just Christians all those who know there is a God over all.

    October 26, 2010 at 3:40 am | Report abuse |
    • thatguy

      Why even re-post that you were thoroughly owned the first time (look above)

      October 26, 2010 at 6:36 am | Report abuse |
    • Margot707

      You have every right to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, and was created in 7 days but you must expect ridicule from those who study science when you express those views, just as you scoff at their views. BTW, don't expect to get a degree in the hard sciences.

      October 26, 2010 at 6:48 am | Report abuse |
  15. lana

    long ago our gov set the stage 4 this kinda behavior Do they think the military's gay free?

    October 26, 2010 at 3:44 am | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20