Skip to comments.AP Caves Into Gay PC: 'His Husband' and 'Her Wife' Are Now Accepted Stylebook Terms
Posted on 02/21/2013 8:44:50 PM PST by Nachum
After overwrought pressure from the usual gay "anti-defamation" lobbyists, the Associated Press has caved in and made another new statement approving the use of "his husband" and "her wife" in news stories. as if they've taken a stand for neutrality, instead of rewriting the gender dictionary.
"Victory!" was the headline on several gay websites as AP issued a new entry in its AP Stylebook Online, and is scheduled to appear in the 2013 print and mobile additions:
husband, wife Regardless of sexual orientation, husband or wife is acceptable in all references to individuals in any legally recognized marriage. Spouse or partner may be used if requested.
"The AP has never had a Stylebook entry on the question of the usage of husband and wife," said AP Senior Managing Editor for U.S. News Mike Oreskes. "All the previous conversation was in the absence of such a formal entry. This lays down clear and simple usage. After reviewing existing practice, we are formalizing 'husband, wife' as an entry."
In a "victory" article for the Los Angeles Times, Nathaniel Frank argued that to refuse to surrender to gay definitions of English is editorializing: "[T]hose who get married have already decided about terminology. APs job is to reflect this reality without hesitation. Anything else is editorializing.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Now the pressure will really be cranked up on anyone in organizations who finds same-sex marriage morally objectionable. More and more people, especially in management will find it a firing offense to “discriminate” by declining to use HR-specified terms for employees with same sex “spouses”.
Jesus, who was recognized as a prophet by all three monotheistic religions, is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. Scripture in many ways and places also tells us that God defines sexual morality and that people who refuse to practice that His morality simply do not qualify for His freely given gift of eternal life. (for example, see Ephesians chapter 5). Of course, people are free to believe whatever they want, but that does not change what God clearly said to us.
If you review the arguments advanced by supporters of same-sex marriage (like at HRC.ORG), you will find that many of them are related to taxation, inheritance and medical issues, all issues controlled by the State. But existing law addresses those and any defects in the law can be easily repaired apart from the issue of “marriage”.
I dont want a government that can tell me what I may or may not do in the privacy of my own home or relationships. In a secular Constitutional Republic with a provision that prohibits Congress from making any law respecting religion, I have to allow others to have their own beliefs and morality. I can only be an advocate for the morality and beliefs that I think are true. I take my understanding of sexual morality from Scripture and that is where I learn that God considers sodomy to be an abomination to Him.
If a State decides that two (or more) people can marry, if that is all that happened, I could live with that because I don’t have to approve, change my beliefs or what beliefs I pass on to my children.
However, once gays and their supporters have sufficient influence with a State to redefine marriage, they dont stop there. They use the State to forbid me from acting on my morality and beliefs. In fact, the State in some cases forces me to accommodation in their practices.
If I have children in public school, the State will insist on teaching them that gay marriage is just as normal as God’s definition of marriage. You will be sanctioned as a parent if you attempt to remove your children from such indoctrination. As long as they are enrolled in government-controlled schools, they will be graded on how well they accept the State’s idea of normal, or refuse to reject God’s idea of normal.
If you run a business that could provide services to the public, you will be sanctioned if you decline to treat gays as non-gays. For example, if you run a wedding photography business, you will be sanctioned if you decline to photograph a gay wedding. This has already happened in California and New Mexico .
You may lose control of your own property. 
You might have to go out of business to stay true to your principles, so as to avoid being fined or sued into bankruptcy. [3,4]
From the article:
“Wedding vendors elsewhere who refused to accommodate same-sex couples have faced discrimination lawsuits and lost. Legal experts said Discover Annapolis Tours sidesteps legal trouble by avoiding all weddings.
“If they’re providing services to the public, they can’t discriminate who they provide their services to,” said Glendora Hughes, general counsel for the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights. The commission enforces public accommodation laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, sexual orientation and other characteristics.”
In short, gays will demand that non-gays accept them as moral equals, which they are not and cannot be. When the State says they are equal it is forbidden for a private citizen to dissent from that status. In doing so, they seek to force me to give them approval for something that I will never approve of. It is that last point that galls gays the most.
Curiously, when advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry, they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does. I would ask how same-sex parents are going to react in the future when, for example, Utah public schools officials require that teachers instruct the children that LDS-related polygamy is just as “normal” as same-sex “marriage”. The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality, something that LDS polygamists never demanded.
 Refusing To Shoot Gay Marriage Is Discrimination, Says New Mexico Appeals Court
 Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises
 Opposed to same-sex marriage, company ends wedding business
Trolley owner says move made to avoid potential lawsuit
 Baker refuses to make wedding cake for lesbian couple and ‘calls them abominations unto the Lord’
Aaron Klein, owner of Sweet Cakes in Gresham, Oregon is the subject of a state investigation after one of the brides-to-be filed a complaint
I like it: This way we know right off that the story is about queers.
But “his husband” automatically puts that man in the inferior position, as “her wife” puts her in the superior position.
Isn’t that sexist or oppressive or something?
Liberal politics is so confusing.
20+ years ago I was informed by a colleague on an elected board that I was to refer to my HUSBAND as my “partner”....otherwise I was “offending” people. Course she also told me I shouldn’t order a “skinny” latte...as it could offend FAT people....LIBERALS are LOONY!
To many, the language and its meaning was already changed when the state recognized the concept of ‘gay marriage.’
You could have all sorts of fun with this, like two heterosexual crossdressers of the opposite sex switching terms, or two sex changed men who both want to be called wife. Or when a gay man wants to be known as ‘his wife’ or a gay woman ‘her husband.’ After all, it’s about whatever they want, and it’s no more impossible than a ‘gay marriage.’ Exept to state, who considers it very possible because judges, pols, or the majority decided it was.
let me give you an answer...........we didn't protest at all!!!!!
It makes life easier for everyone. No hesitations, no throat clearing, no “you knows”, no “ahems”!
Another sign of the Apocalypse.
Could you further explain your logic as to inferior and superior positions?
The whole thing is ridiculous, but at least “her wife” and “his husband” are clear and concise, unlike so much politically correct language.
Elderly cat ladies at miffed that their polygamous relationships with animals are not so respected by Buttociated Press.
Oh really? The state of Texas does not recognize same sex marriages. See if any AP stories originating from Texas mention "her wife" (in the case of the Houston mayor) or "his husband".
The goal is to smash monogamy and the patriarchal institution of marriage.
Moslems are pissed that the cat ladies got there first.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.