So first Arkansas’ paper The Batesville Guard omitted the mention of a dead man’s husband from his obituary. Then GLAAD got them to change their policy and make a charitable donation in his name. THEN, the paper reneged on their agreement and ran a catty full-page editorial explaining why.
But now, after receiving more than 5,000 complaints, the paper has reportedly agreed once again to discuss creating a more gay-inclusive obituary policy. However, the paper hasn’t gone on record about their most recent change of heart, so we shouldn’t hold our breath until we see the deceased’s man’s husband mentioned in black and white.
On a happier note, the Dallas Morning News has agreed to start running same-sex wedding announcements.
Cam
Good for the Dallas Morning News.
As for the other paper, it shows one thing. The people that keep telling us to back off our legislatures and our courts, saying that you can’t legislate acceptance are wrong. This paper is backing down not because they have changed their mind, but because it could become unpleasent for them financially to not change their policy. Pressure is good.
Jeffree
I’ll believe the Batesville Guard has stepped up when I see it, or when it gets reported on here.
Local papers may think their bigotry goes unnoticed, but the reality is that when the LGBT press is vigilant in covering these stories, the national & local pressure mounts. And as @Cam said, that creates change.
Good on the Dallas Morning News. I wonder how well the Methodists & (Southern) Baptists are handling the change…
Mike
We ran a pretty scathing editorial of our own in our magazine (Arkansas’ GLBT magazine). We made sure to credit CAR and Queerty in bringing the issue to the national forefront. I’ll personally believe it when I see it. The editorial is on page 26, I believe: http://www.issuu.com/outonthetownmag/docs/oottv2i6
the crustybastard
Said before, will say again:
If a person’s religious congregation (where they might spend 1 hour a week) bears mention in The Batesville Guard’s free obit, it’s not unreasonable to ask that the 24/7 companion of the deceased merits at least the same regard.
The paper has no business passing judgment on who and what was important to the deceased. If they want to apply a word limit, that’s reasonable. If they want to exclude profanity or tirades, that’s reasonable too.
What they’re currently doing is tantamount to printing the names of the deceased’s biological offspring, but excluding adopted ones because the publishers think they’re not “real” children.
That’s bullshit, and it shouldn’t be tolerated by sensible people.
Brian Miller
Who still reads newspapers? They’re as obsolete as wagon wheel makers.