To this paper, there is apparently something wrong with that

Paper in Utah refuses to run wedding announcement of gay couple who legally married in Cali in 2008 (announcement was to be in advance of a family gathering).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_newspaper

A Gannett paper, the chain that supposedly so values diversity.

 

A policy he undoubtedly came up with ... on Aug. 9. :

 

I wonder what, if anything, corporate will have to say about this publisher's decision.

I worked at a small Gannett daily in an ultra-conservative area a few years ago and it would run these announcements. Took a lot of flak every time one ran, but they did it. The policy there was if the marriage was legally recognized in the jurisdiction it was performed, then the paper would run it. I assumed all Gannett papers had a similar policy.

 

Keep in mind folks that this is Utah we're talking about. Not exactly the most open minded state. I don't think it's as much of a Gannett issue as it is a Utah issue.

 

It does. It values Anglos AND Saxons.

 

Where is the Elkhart Truth when you need it!

 

Gannett values money. It will blow off a $150-200 wedding announcement if it might cost them a $2,000 a month advertiser. Being St. George's location, I wonder how many group shots they've run in the wedding section.

 

For those who think the publisher is intolerant, those who militantly advocate for gay marriage don't strike me as being open minded.

Who said that gay marriage had to be okay? It's not as if the majority of the country approves of it.

 

Well, that certainly makes it OK.

 

Stitch, my comment was aimed at the polygamous sect near St. George, not all LDS, but I agree, it was a gratuitous shot by me.
That said, I can't believe a publisher made the comment that a picture might make readers "uncomfortable." That right there is why newspapers have lost their way. Newspapers should never be afraid to ruffle a few feathers. I realize the area is very conservative, but this is going to cause a bigger stink than just running the thing would have done. Gannett can't claim with a straight face that they allow individual newspapers to establish standards that reflect the communities they serve, because they don't. I wonder if it would have been different if they just bought a regular ad - Gannett's standards there seem a bit lower.

 

Dan, I apologize for my insult and deleted it in my post.