newspaper ticks off community it serves!! woot woot!

[Jane]

Mississippi Newspaper responds to readers angry that they did their...

Our local LDN could learn a thing from the owner of this newspaper! Read the owners reply in italics it is awesome.

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.

On Feb. 7, the Laurel Leader-Call published the story Historic Wedding: Women wed in Laurel through smiles, tears about the wedding of Jessica Powell and Crystal Craven. Craven has been battling brain cancer. The women exchanged vows earlier this month at a ceremony in Laurel, Miss., attended by family, friends and Craven's doctors.

"If chemo doesn't work, we don't know what happens after that," Craven told the paper.

"This is true love," Powell said. "Love is love. It knows no gender."

She added: "I don't remember voting on straight marriage, so why is gay marriage an issue?"

The story sparked a backlash among readers in a state that does not legally recognize same-sex marriage.

"We shouldn't have to defend every decision we make here at the Leader-Call," Jim Cegielski, the paper's owner, wrote in an editorial published on Saturday. "However, the intense reaction to our gay wedding front-page story, which led to a deluge of hate calls, letters, e-mails, Facebook posts, soundoffs and random cross stares thrown in my direction, warrants some sort of response. So here it is."

Cegielski continued:

We were well aware that the majority of people in Jones County are not in favor of gay marriage. However, any decent newspaper with a backbone can not base decisions on whether to cover a story based on whether the story will make people angry.

The job of a community newspaper is not pretending something didn't take place or ignoring it because it will upset people. No, our job is to inform readers what is going on in our town and let them make their own judgments. That is exactly what we did with the wedding story. Our reporter heard about the wedding, attended it, interviewed some of the participants and wrote a news story. If there had been protestors at the wedding, we would have covered that the exact same way … but there weren't any. We never said it was a good thing or a bad thing, we simply did our job by telling people what took place.

I took the bulk of the irate phone calls from people who called the paper to complain. Most of the complaints seem to revolve around the headline, "Historic Wedding," and the fact that we chose to put the story on the front page. My answer to the "Historic Wedding" headline is pretty simple. You don't have like something for it to be historic.

The holocaust, bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Black Sox scandal are all historic. I'm in no way comparing the downtown wedding of two females to any of those events (even though some of you made it quite clear that you think gay marriage is much worse).

[...]

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.

I had at least 20 or so readers express to me they think gay marriage is "an abomination against God." We never said it wasn't. We never said it was.

"We were simply reporting to the best of our ability," Cegielski wrote. "However, I can't help but be saddened by the hate-filled viciousness of many of the comments directed toward our staff … No one here deserves to be berated or yelled at simply because we were doing our job."

Fifteen readers canceled their subscriptions in protest, according to Cegielski.

"You have every right to cancel your subscription," he wrote. "But you have no right to berate and belittle anyone on our staff."

[Hat tip: SheWired]

[Willy]

I agree that the paper should have run the story since it was news and a "first" in that community but what did Cegieliski expect the reaction would be especially after putting it on the front page. What people like Cegielski fail to realize is how this topic affects people who are apposed to gay marriage. Being against gay marriage is not the same as being against the person who is gay. I understand that people are born gay and that is just the way they are but the negative feelings about gay life styles is not something that was just plucked out of the air. It has it's roots deep down in human DNA. Humans are meant to be heterosexual. If we were meant to be gay none of us would be here now. The laws of nature whether it be evolution or biology are dictating to non gays that homosexual activity is against basic human instincts and for those that support gay marriage to call that reaction to gays as homophobic is moronic. Check your body parts. They didn't evolve to be used in homosexual liaisons. I for one am sick and tired of these pea brained progressives who try to twist the fundamental concepts of human biology by  justifying abnormal behavior as "normal" and labeling those that appose it as being abnormal. The opposition to gay sexual activity and marriage is rooted deep in our genetic makeup.

[Jane]

AS long as its two hot chicks I am okay with it. ugly ones or men its gross.

[XLFD]

Jane,

I would agree with you if you amended your statement to say: "As long as it's two hot chicks who have a pumpkin fetish or who are not totally averse to having an ex-firemen hose them down..."  ;- )

[Jane]

lol, now that sounds like the rest of the guys I know!

[Lisa O'Brien]

I don't think it's deep rooted in our genetic makeup (just some choose to find it an aberration), I personally don't care if people are gay, what adults do with consenting adults is none of my business. Life is short if someone finds love with a member of the same sex, I wish them all the best - I would never begrudge anyone their happiness. Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of mankind. 

[XLFD]

If Mississippi had same-sex marriage as a law, I think the newspaper's decision would have been legitimate.  But when they effectively glorify an illegal event by putting it on the front page in a good light, they are editorializing and advocating for something illegitmate in this red state. 

The various points the editorial makes would not play well with me.  Sure newspapers put heinous acts by evil people on the front page all the time, but if they portray such as great acts by good people, they risk backlash by people that don't see things in terms of moral relativism through secular-progressive glasses.   Putting it on the front page without any context is what gets a lot of people upset, putting it in the features section with some context would have been better for all, in my opinion. 

[AQUAMAN]

Willy, you hit some critical nails on the head that I totally agree with. Except for one: "I understand that people are born gay and that is just the way they are". NO, nobody is "born gay" genetically speaking. This is a choice that they make given their physical and mental makeup, and brainwashing by the liberals that want everyone to accept whatever they want and be accepted for it, regardless of law, religion, morals, ethics, and history. Legally speaking,  Mississippi does not recognize gay marriages, therefore, the marriage is illegal, and should be nullified. Perhaps there are legal ramifications such as a civil/criminal arrest that pertain here, I don't know. The other thing is the obvious exploitation of the event by putting it on the front page, "in your face", type action. It could and should of just as well been put in the weddings/engagements section of the paper. I don't see where the editor is justified in this action, he asked for extreme controversy, and he got it, simple as that.

[Willy]

From the people that I know who are gay and who have confided in me about their "situation" I have concluded that they have indeed been gay all of their lives. I have a relative who says that as far back as they can remember there was no doubt they were attracted to the same sex. This also is the case of someone I have been friends with since we were 6 years old. And they say that is the situation with all the gays they are associated with. So that's what I am basing my opinion on as to people being born gay. 

[AQUAMAN]

With all due respect Willy, I have also heard that sour note played out at times, and mostly by very left wing liberals, asking for acceptance and praise for a decision they themselves made during some young/advanced period in their lives. I don't buy that crap for one minute. And here's how I think we could prove it: take any child, male or female, (not infant that has no communication/analytical skills yet), say between the ages of 5 to 10 years old. Set any of them down and ask them their sexual preference, and see what they say. I really doubt many would have the concept of what you are asking. But if they did/do, how do you think they would reply? Some say and think they have been gay all their lives, you mean since infancy, below the age of 5 down to 1 year old? It simply cannot compute. Not only are these babies infantile in thinking and doing, they cannot even talk/read/write yet. They're main concern is survival, breathing, walking, eating, and learning the basics of life. How on earth can they be formulating any opinions about sexual orientation then? Just saying, this is common sense. And I think the left libs use this line of thinking to blur the truths and spin-doctor this as another agenda that must be accepted and praised by all others not in agreement.

[Willy]

I'm relaying information I was told. There would be no point for them to lie about their sexual orientation or their feelings toward the same sex. What possible reason would there be for a heterosexual person to suddenly decide to be gay no matter what age they are. I also believe people are born heterosexual because I've liked girls as far back as I can remember. I had girl friends before the age of five and I even had a crush on my baby sitter and kindergarten teacher. So, in my opinion, age plays no role in being attracted to the opposite sex and I assume that holds true for gays being attracted to the same sex. That's why I can understand how gays can be the way they are.  However that doesn't mean I agree with the activity they engage in or the fact they want to use "marriage" just as straight people do to legitimize their relationships. The purpose of marriage is and always has been to unite "Jack" and "Jill" not "Jack" and "John".

[XLFD]

Here's an interesting comprehensive review of various studies trying to resolve that basic issue by scientist Richard Deem:  Are People Born Gay?

It's conclusion:  " Why are people gay? The question of how homosexual orientation originates has been the subject   of much press, with the general impression being promoted that homosexuality   is largely a matter of genes, rather than environmental factors. However, if   one examines the scientific literature, one finds that it's not quite as clear   as the news bytes would suggest. The early studies that reported differences   in the brains of homosexuals were complicated by HIV infection and were not   substantiated by larger, better controlled studies. Numerous studies reported   that possible hormonal differences affected homosexual orientation. However,   these studies were often directly contradictory, and never actually   measured any hormone levels, but just used proxies for hormonal influences,   without direct evidence that the proxies were actually indicative of true   hormone levels or imbalances. Twin studies showed that there likely are   genetic influences for homosexuality, although similar studies have shown some   genetic influences for homophobia and even opposition to abortion. Early   childhood abuse has been associated with homosexuality, but, at most, only   explains about 10% of those who express a homosexual orientation. The fact   that sexual orientation is not constant for many individuals, but can change   over time suggests that at least part of sexual orientation is actually sexual   preference. Attempts to find a "gay gene" have never identified any gene or   gene product that is actually associated with homosexual orientation, with   studies failing to confirm early suggestions of linkage of homosexuality to   region Xq28 on the X chromosome. The question of genetic influences on sexual   orientation has been recently examined using DNA microarray technology,   although, the results have largely failed to pinpoint specific genes as a   factor in sexual orientation."

[Lisa O'Brien]

If it's the same Richard Deem, I would take his findings with a grain of salt. I don't understand why it's such a huge issue, if it's 2 consenting adults let them be happy, it does not affect anyone else.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3FCLOKYEQFFWX

"Richard Deem is an evangelical Christian, who is ministering to reach scientists and secular rationalists with the gospel of Jesus Christ. He works as a molecular biologist in Crohn's Disease research and enjoys the study of all sciences along with the Bible. His ministry, Evidence for God from Science, demonstrates the compatability of science and the Bible and answers many of the common objections raised against Christianity and the Bible. Go to GodAndScience.org (http://www.GodAndScience.org) to learn more."