Same-sex unions in 'News' - Dallas Morning News to publish FREE same sex unions announcements

The Dallas Morning News ^ | July 6, 2003 | By ALINE McKENZIE / The Dallas Morning News

[MeekOneGOP]

Same-sex unions in 'News'

Announcements are a 'logical step,' says publisher

07/06/2003

By ALINE McKENZIE / The Dallas Morning News

Starting July 6, The Dallas Morning News will publish announcements of same-sex unions. The announcements will run alongside paid marriage and engagement announcements on Sundays.

"The publication of same-sex union announcements is a logical step for The Dallas Morning News to take," says James Moroney III, the paper's publisher and CEO. "We are now in line with practices of most major metropolitan newspapers across the country.

"We convened a meeting of representatives from the Cathedral of Hope as well as four other men and women from various businesses in order to represent a good cross-section of Dallas' gay community," he says.

The paper's parent company, Belo Corp., began offering benefits to same-sex partners of Belo employees in January, and the new policy on union announcements is a natural progression, he says.

Heather Jace of Melissa and her partner, Jandy Jace, are one of the couples running announcements in today's paper.

"We're real happy," says Heather Jace, 25, an office manager. "We want people to know, 'Hey, we're just like you. We've got a house, we've got a job, we have pets, we pay bills.' "

The couple had a small commitment ceremony in Playa del Carmen, Mexico, on June 9, followed by a reception when they returned home. She says she isn't worried about any sort of backlash from the announcement. "I would like to think the community is mature enough to accept it and embrace it," she says.

Vanessa Benavides and Amy Davis, two Dallas attorneys who had a black-tie commitment ceremony in Dallas on June 14, are also buying an announcement. The couple also got married in Canada on June 23, and Ms. Davis took the name Benavides.

"I think it's important to let the community know that we go together, that we have made this commitment," says Vanessa Benavides, 28.

"I think that's the importance of marriages – to have witnesses to know that we've made this commitment together."

The paper's criteria for publishing an announcement are that the ceremony takes place in public, and that somebody officiates.

A two-inch announcement is free, while photos or longer announcements are charged according to size.

The Dallas Morning News joins 205 other papers that publish same-sex union announcements, including 10 in Texas, according to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination, or GLAAD.

"I'm so happy and so glad to hear this," says Monica Taher, people of color media director for GLAAD.

She worked last year on the group's project to get additional papers to publish same-sex union announcements.

The New York Times' decision last August to begin publishing same-sex union announcements was a watershed, she says.

Since then, many more papers have begun publishing such announcements, she says.

At some papers, executives had argued that printing same-sex announcements was tantamount to taking a political stand, but GLAAD representatives responded that not running them was also taking a political stand, she says.

Pamela Strother, executive director of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, also praised The Morning News' new policy.

"It's fantastic that The Dallas Morning News has moved forward on this," she says.

"It shows that a newspaper in a region that might be seen as conservative is willing to step out on this."

NLGJA leaders have also been meeting with newspaper executives, including The New York Times' publisher, says Robert Dodge, last year's president and a writer in The Dallas Morning News' Washington bureau.

"Our work was journalist to journalist, colleague to colleague, behind the scenes," he says.

E-mail amckenzie@dallasnews.com

---

Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/texasliving/stories/070603dnlivsamesex.a86e9.html

[DAnconia55]

I certainly wouldn't take my grandson to Disney World at a time when a bunch of faggots were parading around with their perversion proudly on display for all to see. In fact, given Disney's promotion of their agenda, I'm not even sure I would take my grandson to Disney World at all at this point,

We agree.

But see, I know it's not my place to try to get the Federal Goverment to stop Disney from having Gay Days.

And I also know since I'm not a Disney stockholder, I don't have any say on how the company is run.

[MeekOneGOP]

Hmm . . . . please see post #39.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/941180/posts?page=39#39

[DAnconia55]

If conservatives across the country really want to stop this (which I believe they do) then we must stand together in some form other that just are vote

1. You won't
2. You can't
3. There's not enough of you

[Ahban]

55's bromides have already been refuted, yet he continues to insist that the Constitution somehow prevents free citizens from ordering their society as they see fit. This is an error that none of the founders held.

While some areas are off limits, especially to Federal lawmaking, sexual behavior is not one of those areas. The Founders understood that it is a force powerful enough to destroy OUR country, if allowed to run wild.

If the Chancellor and D'Anconia want to sodomize one another, they should leave Texas, or any other state where the citizens exercise their constitutional right to order their society as they see fit, and move to the Blue Zone, where those people can do the same. THAT is the vision of Freedom and Liberty that the Founders had, not rule by a half dozen tyrants in black robes ruling on every law of every local one by one.

[DAnconia55]

While some areas are off limits, especially to Federal lawmaking, sexual behavior is not one of those areas

Then cite the passages in the Constitution that allow the Federal government to ban sexuality.

[DAnconia55]

If the Chancellor and D'Anconia want to sodomize one another, they should leave Texas, or any other state where the citizens exercise their constitutional right to order their society as they see fit, and move to the Blue Zone, where those people can do the same

Clueless, aren't we?

Here was the legal status map before the SC ruling. Not much area you have to hide in.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The rankest form of fundamentalist hypocrisy is the fact that you people shriek like a bunch of hysterical old women whenever government does not set forth your religious dogma as government policy - and at the same decry that as a loss of your "freedom" to set rules for everyone else.

I don't see how you do it with a straight face.

[Ahban]

I am glad to hear that you are not homosexual. At the risk of thread-clogging, I will post an article that takes care of all of the arguments you have raised over the past week in defense of the courts bench-legislation-

There are a lot of myths that I feel compelled to dispel about the supreme court's recent bench-legislation throwing out state's sodomy laws.

Myth One: Decisions between two consenting adults is their own business, and the government should stay out of people's bedrooms.

The biggest threat to our country is not people who want to legislate morality, its those who are destroying our culture with immorality.

I have a thought experiment that should highlight what is at stake.....

Take two nations that have equal resources in every other way. In one, the laws of Texas apply, go beyond it even, cohabitation is illegal and there is no such thing as 'no-fault' divorce when children are involved.

In the other nation, half the population engages in sodomy and prostitution. The other half is cohabiting, except for those engaging in polygamy. We are all consenting adults here, right?

Which nation will be the greater nation 100 years hence? Whose children will be most emotionally stable? Which people will be happier, more free, and more prosperous? There is no doubt in my mind that nation whose laws best conform to the actual moral order of the universe will be the nation whose citizens are most blessed.

What I just described with the two nations is just what the founders proposed with the several states. Let each make its own laws and see which one produces the better society. That is real 'diversity'. Secularists idea of diversity is to have Federal Storm Troopers going to public places around the country to tear down plaques of the Ten Commandments, but permitting us to replace them with pictures of two homosexuals engaging in anal sex! Welcome to 'diversity', Amerika style.

Myth Two : Sodomy Laws are a violation of the Due Process clause of the Constitution.

Sheesh, people don't know what 'due process' is, even judges.
I agree that due process must be upheld, but there was due process in this case. The judges are supposed to make sure the arrest and conviction procedures are the same for all groups, not decide which groups activities should be legal or illegal.

For example, if the law said that homosexuals could not testify in court, or that it was ok for vigilantes to beat them up, or that it was OK to use evidence obtained without a warrant if the charge is sodomy, then that law should be thrown out. They would not be getting due process. What should not be thrown out, is laws against specific behaviors. It is up to each state to decide what should be legal or illegal. Don't give me that hokem about legislating morality. All laws are legislated morality- that is a primary function of law.

Due process is using the same legal procedures for all groups, even groups of criminals. Plus, 17 years ago the Supreme Court decided that laws against sodomy were reasonable, now they decide they are not? This argument destroys all basis for a fixed standard of law, without which we shall descend into ever increasing chaos.

It is true that some actions of the federal government must be done in a reasonable manner (i.e. no "unreasonable search and seizure",) but that has no impact on what the state might be searching for. Could be crack, child porn, moonshine, Cuban cigars, whatever. In this case they had a bogus report of a crime when the police burst in, but they had reasonable cause to bust in. They are in error when they claim that every law passed by every state is subject to change as soon as a new court takes over and redefines the law as "arbitrary" and "unreasonable".

Original intent is important here. Not one of the founders who drafted the constitution, or those who passed the 14th amendment, intended to stop states from passing laws against sodomy (what the majority of their citizens knew to be sinful behaviors). Not one. I defy anyone- including the justices who ruled in this case. Show me from their writings that this is what they intended! Liberty is not license. Every state in the union had what some call 'sin laws' on the books regarding 'private' behavior, including sodomy laws, and none of the founders spoke out against them.

Myth Three: Ok, but it violated the Constitutions clause on "Equal Protection" under the law, because it was ok for a man and woman to something that it was illegal for a man to do to a man. That's not 'equal protection'.

(Rolling eyes here at liberal ignorance and stupidity) Words mean things. "Equal" means something. It means "of the same value". Two men having sex may be "equivalent" to a man and a woman having sex, but it is not "equal".

To be consistent with this thinking- consistent in leading our society down into a debauched moral cesspool, one would also have to claim that the equal protection clause was written to protect polygamy, incest, prostitution, adultery, and perhaps even bestiality and necrophilia if the owners sign the right papers first.....Such people should take a good look at how much destruction they are willing to unleash to justify their ungodliness. They should not be surprised that the responsible among us unite to rebuke them.

Equal protection means just that, protection. It has nothing to do with what activities the law condemns. It has everything to do with the government protecting the victims of those crimes by punishing those who victimized them. If crimes against blacks or gays were not investigated, or prosecuted, then they don't have equal protection and the feds could step in.

Again, there is no way on Earth the Founders / writers of the 14th amendment intended the equal protection clause, or the due process clause, to enable sodomy. Its absurd. Insisting that is what it means in no way changes the facts of original intent.

Myth Four: but it did violate their constitutional "right to privacy"!

That one is a myth alright. Their is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution. There is a guarantee against "unreasonable search and seizure". This is about the same thing as a "right to privacy", but there is a big difference. The first says that the government cannot investigate you unless their is reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. The second is a contrived fiction that says "some things, we elites don't allow the people to call crimes". Its used by the court as a "get out of jail free" card for crimes that they consider "private matters" (like butchering an unborn baby"). For these favored crimes, the very act of catching you committing a crime seems to be proof that the state was watching you too closely! Drug dealers would love such reasoning to be applied to their cases!

At the whim of the court, certain actions are deemed to be "private matters" subject only to the autonomous will of the individuals involved. Such acts are deemed to be outside the purview of law regardless of the corrosive effect they have on society, and regardless of the will of the people.

The conservative may think, "Good, the individual is above the state!". Wrong. The state is above the individual who cannot not live with other like-minded individuals to order their society the way they think best. The state's version of morality triumphs over yours in this model.

By the way, "Hate Crimes" legislation will still be enforced by the courts, punishing you for your presumed thoughts, intents, and motives. Somehow, these are not considered "private matters" by the court. Yet when a homosexual college professor with an IQ of 120 seduces a student with an IQ of 92 it is a "private" matter. When a woman goes to an abortion clinic and has an abortionist rip up her baby the transaction between the three of them is a "private matter". As these examples show, the "Right to Privacy" has nothing at all to do with privacy, and everything to do with a secular state making war on traditional morality.

So what about solutions?

A lot of people have suggested reasonable short term solutions, such as a Marriage Amendment, or Congress taking the ability to rule on certain matters out of the court's hands, or even impeachment of judges who are becoming more and more tyrannical and out of step with those they are supposed to serve.

In the long run though, the best answer is to put back in a counterweight to federal encroachment of the several States that was lost when we went to direct election of Senators. When the state legislators picked senators, you could be sure that those Senators only chose judges who would respect the right of states to make their own laws. Repeal of the amendment calling for direct election of senators is thus a possible solution. More likely though, is to get an amendment passed that reads thus...

Supreme court justices shall be picked by the President, with the advice and consent of a majority of the Governors of the Several States, such judges to serve during period of good behavior for terms of ten years, subject to renewal by the same process.

This would end a lot of abuses.

[MeekOneGOP]

Wow. Yep, promoting the Gay Agenda alright, and ceasing to accept advertising for straight clubs. Sheesh ! I wonder: Do they accept advertising from known Gay Bars ?? Hmm . . .

[kittymyrib]

The Muslims will be more successful in cleaning up the homosexual mess we have in this country. Christians have been very ineffective at upholding public morality, which is one of the reasons Muslims give for their war against us, and America has become a cesspool of tolerance.

[DAnconia55]

Myth One: Decisions between two consenting adults is their own business, and the government should stay out of people's bedrooms

Nothing that you stated in the passage backed up your points, or made any logical claim of evidence whatsoever.

Myth Two : Sodomy Laws are a violation of the Due Process clause of the Constitution

Not seen this one. Don't care. Agreed.

Myth Three: Ok, but it violated the Constitutions clause on "Equal Protection" under the law, because it was ok for a man and woman to something that it was illegal for a man to do to a man. That's not 'equal protection'.

And here you're outright wrong.
If it is legal for woman to have oral sex with a man, then it must be legal for a man to do.

And then we continue the rant with beastiality, and a lot of other red herrings not related to the issue at hand.

Myth Four: but it did violate their constitutional "right to privacy"! That one is a myth alright. Their is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution.

Wrong again. 9th and 10th Amendments. If a power is not explicitly listed as beloning to the Feds, it belongs to the states or the people.

For you to be right there'd have to be a "The people do not have a right to privacy" clause in the Constitution.

In the long run though, the best answer is to put back in a counterweight to federal encroachment of the several States that was lost when we went to direct election of Senators

Well, you finally said something sensible.

[Ahban]

No, you are not clueless, but you are wrong on this issue.

1) That maps reflects that activist judges have been throwing out sodomy laws all over America. Arkansas had its thrown out less than two years ago, Georgia the same I think.

2) Your relentless agressiveness in your desire to stamp out our freedom shows that even when you have 37 of 50 states who have the laws your way, that is not enough for you. You have to get in the business of those other states as well. Dissent cannot be allowed to remain even in one corner of our vast nation. Your concept of liberty bears a remarkable resemblance to totalitarianism.

[DAnconia55]

The Muslims will be more successful in cleaning up the homosexual mess we have in this country. Christians have been very ineffective at upholding public morality, which is one of the reasons Muslims give for their war against us, and America has become a cesspool of tolerance.

Whew. Now there's a quote for you.

It's ok. We can all be Muslim. They'll kill the gays.

LOL..

[LibertarianLiz]

Yesterday I pulled my mail out of the box and there was a large post-card type piece from Naturalizer shoes. I haven't bought anything from them for about a year or more so they were sending me a notice and some percentage off my next purchase or something.

Any-whoo, I turn the card over and there on the "front" of the postcard are two lesbians hugging one another. One was sitting, shirtless, and the other was sitting on her, the shirtless girls, lap with her legs wrapped around her.

I was offended. I know the ad-guys in NYC and LA seem to think everyone loves this stuff, but I honestly do not want to be faced with companies sending me postcards with lesbians on the front in sexually suggestive poses. I am calling this company on Monday to tell them to take me off their mailing list, but I was just amazed that someone at that company saw no problem in sending this in the mail to me.

[DAnconia55]

2) Your relentless agressiveness in your desire to stamp out our freedom shows that even when you have 37 of 50 states who have the laws your way, that is not enough for you. You have to get in the business of those other states as well. Dissent cannot be allowed to remain even in one corner of our vast nation. Your concept of liberty bears a remarkable resemblance to totalitarianism.

Ah. Stalinist definitions, is it?

Main Entry: lib·er·ty
Pronunciation: 'li-b&r-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French liberté, from Latin libertat-, libertas, from liber free -- more at LIBERAL
Date: 14th century
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice

In other words - liberty is NOT being able to tell people what to do. It's the ability to DO WHAT YOU WANT.

[sweetliberty]

So let me see if I have this right.....you think that decent people, especially if they're Christians that actually try to live their beliefs, should simply hole up in their homes if they want to protect their children from the pervasive decadence that is being handed down by a liberal and utterly corrupt court legislating from the bench while the faggots take over the streets and the public arena while at the same time God is being driven from it. If you can't see the flaws inherent in that mentality, then no amount of logic will help you, so why should I waste my time? My impression of you from everything I have seen in your posts is that you go from thread to thread hurling insults at reasonable people without offering "reasonable" replies. If you have a point, there is a right way and a wrong way to present it. Launching attacks on individuals and that which they value highly, is not the way to make your position heard. But then, maybe you don't really care about being heard or facilitating the debate, but rather seek to inflame the rhetoric.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Well there ya go.

I've always said that if a Moslem conqueror was marching across America, the first people lined up to kiss his rump and say "there is no god but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet" would be the fundamentalist evangelicals - because then they would be able, through force of law, to establish their desired state of misogynist oligarchy that oppresses gays, women, booze and popular entertainment.

Its always so much more important to enforce dogma through civil and criminal law than to persuade through example.

[Sam Cree]

"apparently as an assault on the last preserve of the traditional masculinity they have declared war on"

Do "gays" feel they must destroy traditional gender roles in order to feel secure in the ones they themselves have chosen?

[computerjunkie]

Thought you might be interested in what's happening in MY neck of the woods! This was in "my" (probably former) newspaper this morning.

[Ahban]

You sure are a fast reader- proof you are no dummie, but I don't think you read it all. The "Equal Protection" clause does not apply to man on man sex for other reasons besides the fact that buggary is not of the same value (that is what equal means) as man-woman sex. to whit..

To be consistent with this thinking- consistent in leading our society down into a debauched moral cesspool, one would also have to claim that the equal protection clause was written to protect polygamy, incest, prostitution, adultery, and perhaps even bestiality and necrophilia if the owners sign the right papers first.....Such people should take a good look at how much destruction they are willing to unleash to justify their ungodliness. They should not be surprised that the responsible among us unite to rebuke them.

Equal protection means just that, protection. It has nothing to do with what activities the law condemns. It has everything to do with the government protecting the victims of those crimes by punishing those who victimized them. If crimes against blacks or gays were not investigated, or prosecuted, then they don't have equal protection and the feds could step in.

Again, there is no way on Earth the Founders / writers of the 14th amendment intended the equal protection clause, or the due process clause, to enable sodomy. Its absurd. Insisting that is what it means in no way changes the facts of original intent.