Debate over the Rochester Post Bulletin Policy
The Rochester Post Bulletin Post blog asked for comment about their policy on marriage announcements. Chuck Darrell, director of communications for Minnesota for Marriage stopped by to comment. He predictably brings up 5th Ward council member, Natalie Johnson Lee's buddy, the anti-gay African American minister, Bob Battle.
As same-sex "marraige" [sic] is illegal in Minnesota, the Post Bulletin should not publish any announcement. There is a mountain of socilogical [sic] data that proves children need, both, a mother and a father in the home. A same-sex "marriage" deliberately creates fatherless and motherless homes.
A reader commented upon civil rights. Ask most black Americans and they will agree that same-sex marriage is not about civil-rights. Rev. Roberts [sic] Battle recently said, "98% of black pastors firmly stand for marriage as between one man and one woman." The African American community understands the meaning of a mother and a father in the home. They also teach us that two loving people in a committed relationship does not work. As Star Parker said, "We have tried to raise our sons with a mother and a grandmother for decades. It doesn't work."
If readers are concernced [sic] with civil rights, lets support the civil rights of a child to the "diversity" of a mother and a father, married and in the home.
Two mothers don't equal one father. Two fathers don't equal one mother.
Director of Communications
Minnesota for Marriage
Posted by: Charles Darrell | Oct 21, 2005 10:07:29 AM
Brian Hokanson challenged Chuck:
Charles, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why the Post-Bulletin shouldn't publish the announcement for free. Because that's kind of the topic of this thread, and you avoided it quite well. Using some great B-section-esque random quotes, I might add.
Actually, now that I think about it, your comment does raise a very interesting point in regards to this conundrum. Do you believe, since your argument is based on the premise of "motherless and fatherless homes," that newspapers should abstain from publishing announcements until it is certain that the couple will not divorce? With around 50% of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce in three decades time, are not those 50% of heterosexual marriages as unethical as gay marriages, in that respect?
And reflecting this in the newspaper would better teach children about the true purpose of marriage, right?
I eagerly await your answer.
Posted by: Brian Hokanson | Oct 21, 2005 11:49:34 AM
I'd be interested in the answer to that one also.