Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
October 25th, 2010
06:43 AM ET

Blocked Gay Marriage Announcement

New Hampshire is one of many states where gay marriage is legal and accepted. However when it comes to wedding announcements, The Manchester Union Leader, one of the states largest conservative newspapers, refused to print the wedding announcement of Greg Gould and Aurelio Tine earlier this month.

Publisher Joe McQuaid replied with this statement:

“This newspaper has never published wedding or engagement announcements from homosexual couples. It would be hypocritical of us to do so, given our belief that marriage is and needs to remain a social and civil structure between men and women and our opposition to the recent state law legalizing gay marriage.”

Is the Union Leader “Out of Touch” as Greg Gould says or are they taking a stand against gay marriage in the state of New Hampshire?

We want to hear what you have to say about the Union Leaders actions! Post your comments and Kyra Phillips will read some of your responses during the 10 o’clock hour.

Filed under: Kyra Phillips
soundoff (122 Responses)
  1. EB

    I am all for gay marriage and equality of rights. But, as a business owner I fully support the paper's decision to make decisions for their company without anyone else's input. It's no one's business what they put in their paper.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:14 am |
  2. Kole

    Yes, they are out of touch. But because we live under the protections of the first amendment, I must support their right to not publish the announcement.

    I also must support my or anyone elses right to believe their thinking is archaic bigotry and to never buy their paper again. I also support my or anyone else's right to form a boycott of the paper.

    My family is from the south. This type of thinking smacks of 1960's southern thinking all over again. Sigh.......

    October 25, 2010 at 8:18 am |
  3. Janelle

    It's private and it can do what it wants. If it was public it would be a different story.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:20 am |
  4. KW

    Totally Agree with the rights of the paper.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:20 am |
  5. Jim

    As a newspaper editor and publisher, I have to say there is no doubt the newspaper can choose to run or not run anything they wish. It is a private business and the content of the paper must be edited and controlled by the staff. I doubt we would run the same announcement but I have not yet had to tackle this situation.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:20 am |
  6. John Pantzer

    Politically, the Union Leader seems to have lost this argument. By refusing to run the announcement they have brought themselves, and the issue, national publicity. Had they simply published the announcement the whole issue would likely have passed quietly into history.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:21 am |
  7. Kevin

    I am not anti-conservative. I just don't think that conservatives should be allowed to marry, adopt, raise children, share all of the legal and financial benefits that other couples enjoy, or have their marriages announced in the newspaper.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:21 am |
  8. Linda Hoopingarner

    I agree with the paper. It says in the Bible that homosexualality is a sin. Will love the sinners but not the sins.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:21 am |
  9. chris

    I believe the Union Leader has the right to refuse any editorial or announcement that they feel is against there beliefs. People should respect their rights.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:21 am |
  10. Dan C

    Whether the newspaper is right or wrong, your presentation of the question for the poll was obviously biased.
    It's not hard to tell what you think of the issue,

    October 25, 2010 at 8:21 am |
  11. steve

    I think that there is more to this legally. We have laws in this country that protect minorities from discrimination. No company or public place can refuse service to a black person or Hispanic person so why would it be appropriate for this newspaper to discriminate against a homosexual couple. If this couple were to go into a restaurant and they were refused service the restaurant would be sued and lose. The same principle and laws should also protect people here. The newspaper, albeit privately owned should have to practice the same rules of fair treatment as any other company.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:21 am |
  12. Jesse

    It is a privately owned company If they do not want to publish the announcement they shouldn't be forced to. There is still freedom of press. This paper is conservative and just like a person they are entitled to their opinion no matter how far behind the times they are

    October 25, 2010 at 8:21 am |
  13. Ed from Chicago

    As a privately-owned business, the newspaper is free to print or not print what they please. But, I don't think it is smart. Those in favor of equality should and will boycott the paper and make their displeasure known. I predict a reversal of their position in a few days, now that the story is out.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:22 am |
  14. Joseph Kraatz, Oceanside, CA

    Yes, they have the right to not publish the announcement. However, it smacks of censorship and would make me suspect of anything that they print in the future.

    With this revelation they are no longer a viable dispenser of news but are manipulators of news. Sounds like the old Hearst newspaper industry.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:22 am |
  15. Daniel

    I totally agree with the paper's decision. It is their prerogative.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:22 am |
  16. Mike

    the same lame arguments were used against interracial marrige
    how sad bigotry is bigotry

    October 25, 2010 at 8:22 am |
  17. Mark Johnston

    I am writing this as a fully out GAY man. The paper has the right as any business to decide what it does and does not do. We are quick to claim discrimination when some one does not do what we think they should. The constitution is our most cherished document, and it protects our freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. The same freedom that allowed those men to go on CNN is the same freedom that allows the paper to not print their wedding. True love of Free Speech is to support those who chose to speak opposed to us.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:22 am |
  18. Charm

    The newspaper is owned by a private entity and therefore is free to uphold their beliefs. I personally don't approve of gay marriage and am glad to see there are still some people who stand firm in their convictions.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:22 am |

    Did anybody remember to read our state lic. plate, "Live Free or Die"!!!

    October 25, 2010 at 8:22 am |
  20. Jerry Durbin

    I have nothing against gay marriage and peoples rights. However, as a private business I would fully support the paper's right's to print or not print any ad's that they wish.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:23 am |
  21. Jacob Edwards

    I support the paper and think every right to deny this announcement. I don't think the couple exactly needs to announce their wedding thanks to the coverage but could they not find another channel to go through?

    October 25, 2010 at 8:23 am |
  22. Carrrol

    The new paper is not a state run business, therefore they have the right to run whatever they so choose.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:23 am |
  23. Christopher

    I fully support the newspaper in not submitting the announcement to be published. Marriage is clearly a union between a man and a woman. If gays and lesbians want to unite, that is their business, but they should consider calling their union something other than "marriage".

    October 25, 2010 at 8:23 am |
  24. Karen Cox

    The newspaper is privately owned and they have the same rights as all Americans...freedom of speech and freedom of they have the right to not print whatever they choose to not print. I feel that if we aren't careful in all this...our freedoms to be against something are slowly being taken away. Not all disagreement of an issue is bashing, bullying or a hate crime!

    October 25, 2010 at 8:23 am |
  25. Casey

    Ok, the paper stated publishing the wedding announcement would be 'hypocritical.' Here's my they agree with every story published in their paper? Probably not. Why should this be any different?

    October 25, 2010 at 8:24 am |
  26. Mark in Texas

    They were correct in standing their position. Here is the analogy.
    The times and thinking have changed so as their failing readership of the paper realizes it is being manipulated by prejudicial voices they will also stop advertising and stop buying the paper. The idea of not advertising same sex marriages will fadealong with the idea of of advertising witch hunts.

    Similar to CNN's Black in America's portrayal of Black as a genetic group that also behaves as a group and therefore is subject to debt as a group. The viewers will wake up, turn off their TV's, and heal their manipulated minds.

    A pot really should not all a kettle "Black"

    October 25, 2010 at 8:24 am |
  27. cericca

    I'm proud of this newspaper standing up for something!!! Just b/c they claim its legal doesn't make it right. I don't understand how our country gotten so bad, always trying to keep everyone happy even when we know its wrong.....again I say I'm proud of this newspaper taking a stand. Now if they were only more of to stand for Godly principals.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:24 am |
  28. dan

    I support gay marriage, but I also support the the individual right to be opposed to it. Journalistic outlets should be free to make those determinations. Forcing a newspaper to print something is the same as not allowing them to print something.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:24 am |
  29. Aubie_Mommy

    While I am not homophobic, I don't believe in gay marriage. Marriage should be between a man and a women. This is my opinion and I am entitled to it.

    The paper has every right to decide what they should and should not print, with it being private owned. If the paper believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman then so be it. There is no point in making a huge deal or trying to fight it, they will not print the announcement. They have to up hold their standing or they will be contradicting themselves.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:24 am |
  30. meeka

    Who cares they are in love. That is all that counts right? Yes I think the newspaper should run it. Its the right thing to do. Its still a marriage and new Hampshire allows it.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:24 am |
  31. jesse king

    I know it kills you progressives when a conservative newspaper has an opinion contrary to yours. Get over it!! The Ubion is just exercising their legal {and I might add, their moral} responsibility to their subscribers. If a person doesn'like their stance {or approves of it} then they can either drop their subscription or buy a new one. I smell a circulation increase.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:25 am |
  32. charles


    It is obvious to me that you have a pro-gay agenda and are on a personal crusade to defend the gay agenda. You are entitled to use your news broadcast to endorse and defend any issue you wish. Likewise, this private newspaper can the right to choose what is and is not newsworthy and to publish or not publish any announcement it chooses, that includes same sex couples who want to announce a marriage. For some people this union is not spiritual and does not exist regardless of what the law says.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:25 am |
  33. coco

    I back the news paper !! I am very tired of the gay dom..I am not gay and have gay friends. But would like to not go to a mall or a park or any public place, and have to explain this to my young child what is going on. monitor tv or newspapers because its being force on those who dont believe in this way of life. And not feel we have to be punished if we dont want to be forced into gay dom.. Its the same with streight people also I dont want to see PDA or nudity on tv eveytime its on...

    October 25, 2010 at 8:25 am |
  34. John Sellers

    In all fairness to the gay couple who want to advertise their marriage in the newspaper, don't try to pull the old entitlement string. No, you are not entitled to an announcement. The newspaper has a right to its choice, also. And, the newspaper did not attacked your freedom of choice, so don't try to justify an attack on the newspaper's freedom of speech.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:26 am |
  35. Jean Bermel

    Makes me wish that I lived in New Hampshire and was a subscriber to the Manchester Union Ledger. that I could promptly cancel my subscription.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:26 am |
  36. B. Thomas Lewis

    This is another example of the news industry trying to shape our social response's. The newspaper is private, and has the right to print what materials it so desires. By your insistence, you seem to disregard the fact that a preponderance of the American population to not agree with this unnatural merging of the same sex. Leave our customs alone, and stop trying to tell us what is right.

    B. Thomas Lewis

    October 25, 2010 at 8:26 am |
  37. janice cunningham

    i am a born again christian and believe that marriage is between a man and a woman

    October 25, 2010 at 8:26 am |
  38. DMO

    Just because the state legalized gay people to get married doesn't mean it legalizes or makes others accept it. The newspaper has a right to publish what it wants. Like they said, they believe in a union between man and woman not gay marriage as 90% of Americans think. They can start a gay marriage website if its that serious for everyone to know. Why do you want it published? It's your own business, we don't want to know, keep that disgust to yourself. Our kids don't need to see this especially if they are being raised correctly. Next thing they are going to want to do is adopt children, which is a horrifying thought, to raise them in this crap. You're "able' to get married, just be happy with that.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:27 am |
  39. Josh

    Just because the state allows gay marriage doesn't mean that everyone in the state is pro gay marriage, if the paper doesn't want to post the announcement they don't have to, it would be like posting an ad for democrats in a paper for republicans, though sometime we might not like it we must uphold all freedom of speech.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:27 am |
  40. gay marriage supporter

    I support gay marriage and the right of Gays to have all the rights of a married people, Since the Manchester Union Ledger is a private business it has no obligation to run the ad,

    Just as gays and gay businesses have the right to not spend money to advertise in their newpaper.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:28 am |
  41. Robert

    Let's see how the consumers that purchase and the business that run ad's in that paper feel about the decision not to run the announcement. When revenue drops 10% + in the next month I bet the paper will change it's tune.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:29 am |
  42. Chuck

    I agree 100% with the newspaper and what they did and why they did it. We should have more forthright and candid decisions of this kind. Marriage's purpose, according to the Judeo-Christian values this country was founded on, was to procreate. A gay marriage cannot procreate. Should they have the same rights as a hetero marriage, of course. Should it be called a "marriage", of course not. Should the newspaper, private or public, have to print what it does not find newsworthy, no. The first ammendment gives me freedom of speech, but I still cannot (nor do I want to) yell, "Fire!" in a movie theater, and I should not be forced to do so.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:29 am |
  43. Ray Lundborn

    In your duscussion about this decision the Union Leader made, which I think is wrong, you have to understand that the UL has always been a conservative, right wing, Republican newspaper and it hasn't, nor does it appear that it will change its beliefs.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:29 am |
  44. lance

    although my beleif system is based in biblical standerds, and i dont beleive the same sex marriages should become law. i also have a tolerant place in me that is also formed from that faith that has been given me to love them in spite of there choices as we all make choices contrary to what GOD calls us to be. now about this situation with union ledger not printing there announcement i fully support because they too have a choice in printing it or not. why should some ones choice be taken away because some one else chooses to engage in something that doesnt mesh with my rights. i spport the papers choice and i accept the choice of those who engage homosexual relations. i dont have to allow them to change the way i run my bussiness(if i owned the union ledger). have a great week

    October 25, 2010 at 8:29 am |
  45. Steve Evans

    The Newspaper has the right to print what they what, BUT What year do they think this is? Gay people along with any intellegent person should never buy their paper or read it online ever again.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:29 am |
  46. Kelly J

    I am not gay, nor do I condone or approve of homosexuality, although I do feel that humans do not need to be or should be discriminated against, nor do they desire to be for any reason, which is exactly what the "Union Leader" is guilty of here. This couple is not violating the law of the state they reside in in any way that I can see. The "Union Leader" needs to move into the 'present' and jettison the 'past.'

    Denying this gay couple it's wedding announcement is nothing less than the paper shooting them selves in the foot. Undoubtedly, their readership and support will decline.

    If the gay men want to wed, so be it. I would go to another paper and continue there.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:29 am |
  47. Tony

    In my opinion marriage is a sacred ceremony that has always and should always be kept between a man and a woman. If people decide that they rather be gay then so be it but just because we live in a country where everyone has the right to do what they want to, that does not mean that we we should allow them to step on the principles that civilization has been built upon. There are people in this world that truly believe that all Americans should die; I guess we should support their beliefs as well.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:30 am |
  48. Tim

    Of course a privately owned paper has the right to publish what it chooses
    but, does it choose to publish death notices of only heterosexuals or news items that involve only straight people? Of course not. The Union Leader can say that it is not anti-gay all it wants in addressing the fact that the paper treats gay wedding announcements differently, and that's fine, But, treating one group differently from another – no matter what the reason or belief needs to also be called what it is , discrimination.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:30 am |
  49. Gabriela

    By refusing to print the announcment, They are stating an opinion where an opinion is Definitely Not celled for. It is nothing Less than a bigoted opinion and while they are free to do what they want, they should not try to claim that their choice is Not a statment of bigotry.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:30 am |
  50. Cordele

    No it is not hypocritical that this newspaper is not printing the announcement of the gay marriage. Just because the state says something is or is not legal doesn't mean anyone has to agree with it. And if they printed a reason why they didn't endorse gay marriage, they would be on CNN again defending why would they do an editorial against these gay men. We have to understand, gay is not okay with everyone. And this is America and no one is a puppet of the government.

    - If CNN wants to publish their gay wedding CNN has the right to do so, just as this newspaper has the right not to do so.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:30 am |
  51. Andre

    Hi Kyra,

    God loves gays, but He does not recognize gay marriages. The paper does not have to recognize gay marriages either. It does not necessarily mean they hate gays. They are voicing their view like everybody else does. Whats wrong with that? Right is not wrong.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:31 am |
  52. Dick McGee

    The Union Leader has the same agenda as every other privately owned business in New Hampshire: that of creating a product that will attract the largest number of consumers, to provide them the largest profit possible. If they choose to define their readership as predominately biased, bigoted, conservative, homophobes, that it is their right. However, they must be willing to suffer the consequences of devaluing the level humanity in their market. The Christianity displayed by the Episcopal church in New Hampshire is just one bit of evidence that the paper is wrong in their assessment.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:31 am |
  53. S. Spears

    "If you do not stand for something you will fall for everything." A private company has the right to print what they like. If this becomes a national issue to make the paper print homosexual wedding announcements, would those in support of the homosexuals become bullies? Let the paper maintain their right to print what they like, just as the homosexuals maintain the right to practice their chosen orientation. Their announcement is national news now.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:31 am |
  54. Patrick S.

    I don't think that the values that the Union Leader are holding to are political whatsoever. Vindictive? No- that would imply the denial is a personal attack against either gays or against the couple directly- which is not the case, as I believe.

    The editors and publishers of the UL deciding against publishing the announcement would be something along the lines of the gay couple seeking to book a church for their wedding and being turned down at the Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin. Would that be wrong? Whose rights should be respected here? Should a paper bend its ideals and values to include a gay wedding announcement or should the gay couple simply back off? No, of course not.

    At the end of the day, the couple should not expect everyone in the world to sway to their diverse morals in order to accommodate them. Instead of attempting to rally an alternative culture against the newspaper with the sensationalism of the issue, they should respect the paper's decision and focus more on their marriage than what others think about it.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:31 am |
  55. DAVE

    I applaud the newspaper for not buckling to the pressure of political correctness. They have the right to print or not print any story they choose.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:32 am |
  56. Juls

    The fact that the state of NH allows gay marriages are irrelevant here; it is the newspaper's right to set and follow up on their rules. I completely support the Publisher's controversial decision to refuse to print the announcement and stick to his and the newspaper's principles. What is the point of having rules if they can be so easily broken?!

    October 25, 2010 at 8:32 am |
  57. Jean Mallery

    What ever happened to " STRAIGHT RIGHTS " concerning marrage ?. Why not go to another Newspaper ?. Or could this be just another example of Gay Rights causing their own problems and putting the " staight " on the defensive...Hummm the plot thickens..

    October 25, 2010 at 8:32 am |
  58. Spencer

    The newspaper has every right to reject making the annoucement of the gay couple's plan to marry. Because the state of New Hampshire is a state where homosexuality is legal makes no difference. The newspaper is correct, marriage according to the Bible is between a man and woman. I wonder why we keep ignoring God's instructions on how we should live? This action would be telling our children that it is perfectly ok to live a gay life, that is normal when it is extremely abnormal. This is not bigotry it is following the Word of God.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:32 am |
  59. bill

    seems to be a case of another seek out a law suit . the couple picked out this paper on purpose cause they new they were not going to post it
    anyways . were does it say in this world , just because we are gay you have to do for me ??? hey , i have gay friends and been to there weddings ,but been there as there friend ,not there to approve gay marriage > until God comes down from the Heavens and changes the Bible himself marriage is said ti be between a Man and Woman !!
    between politics and these gay issues it makes you want to just give up

    October 25, 2010 at 8:32 am |
  60. C. Leopold McNees

    Yes, the Union Ledger is "out of touch"! Instead of the Manchester Union Ledger stating, "they have never posted announcements of gay weddings", they should change that policy and begin posting them? They are fighing a loosing battle, when not only the state of New Hampshire has adopted acceptance of gay weddings, but then too, Canada, the U.K., France, Spain, Denmark, etc., etc., have accepted gay marriages or civil unions. A newspaper willing to publish their opposition to gay marriages and to their own state law allowing them, is of course, prejudiced against gays.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:32 am |
  61. J.S.

    I believe you are asking the wrong question. The question should be: "Does an aggrieved party have the right to force a privately owned newspaper to publish what the aggrieved party dictates?"

    This came close to occurring in Canada, when a certain minority group insisted to a Human "Rights" Tribunal that an article (written by them) be published in Maclean's magazine. I trust that Americans have a better sense of what "private ownership" means.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:32 am |
  62. lance

    if you choose to be gay thats your choice. the rest of the country doesnt have to change there system to adapt to your choices. we all have choices and i dont have to give up mine for yours

    October 25, 2010 at 8:33 am |
  63. Richard Belardo

    These (should I say guys) should be happy they are allowed to get married in this state.

    Why must they insist that their engagement be made public?
    It is the right of this newspaper to publish only what they want.

    I have nothing against gays but cannot understand why they have to make such a public display of their sexual preference.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:34 am |
  64. Sean

    Funny how the same people who are outspoken about gay marriage are the same ones caught with mistresses. How does one undermine the institution of marriage but not the other? This hypocracy is deeply rooted in bigotry and misunderstanding.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:34 am |
  65. Corrine

    You sound out of touch, no matter how much you try to make wrong right. Its still wrong. marriage is between a man and a woman and its biblical. Its a God thing. Please do your research and perhaps find something worth why to report on. I thank God that their are still some God fearing people left in New Hampshire

    October 25, 2010 at 8:34 am |
  66. Susan Sutton

    Kyra, All we hear about anymore are gay rights. Gays are not the only people living in this country. If the owner of the newspaper does not want to display an announcement of a gay marriage, this is his right and he should not be condemned for it.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:35 am |
  67. Ann Clem

    Yes, the paper has the right to print what it wants, but being from a small southern town in TN., "selected news" isn't truly the NEWS. Open people's minds. Don't allow them to remain in their caves.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:35 am |
  68. Monica Dove

    I support Gay Marriage 100% However, if the newspaper chooses not to list the men's marriage, that is their right. I live in NH and I would never read such a conservative newspaper as the Union Leader anyway. I give these guys a thumbs up for trying to bring about change but my advice is to forget about it and not give the Union Leader any notoriety. Let's celebrate this couple's marriage in publications that don't discriminate.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:37 am |
  69. tim

    It's so refreshing to see a news paper that stands up for good morals, I am going to purchase their paper and have it delivered to my house here in FLORIDA.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:39 am |
  70. c. kay

    Does the newspaper claim to serve all the people of New Hampshire? If so, they should run the announcement for any resident of New Hampshire. Do they publish advertising from gay-owned businesses and sell subscriptions to gay couples, some of whom might be married in other states? In the absence of any other remedy, the gay community should boycott the newspaper, and boycott the advertisers, informing the advertisers why they are being boycotted. This has proved effective in times past.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:39 am |
  71. Brenda Paulson

    To my mind, a newspaper is in the business of providiing news, editorials AND services, Wedding announcements fall into the services catagory no matter who the nuptials are between and the editorial page does NOT belong on the wedding announcement page. Therefore, I think in my enlightened opinion they are WAY out of line and should get their stone age editorial minds out of their you have to live your life my way only ass and get over it. Run the announcement prudes!!

    October 25, 2010 at 8:40 am |
  72. CD

    What bothers me is the hypocricy of this country....claiming freedom, equality, & justice for all, the right to pursue happiness, separation of church & state, and right to free speech. These two people love each other, want to spend the rest of their lives together, and spread the good word to friends and family just as heterosexual couples do. Their love should be celebrated!! Sadly, we are decades away from that kind of thinking in this country.

    In the meantime, the editor could have allowed a simple announcement in the paper. The editor does not have a right to discriminate what social announcements get posted. Would we allow an editor to ban wedding announcements of people based on their skin color, weight, attractiveness, or any other number of personal biases?!

    Obviously, this editor does NOT live by the motto: "I may not agree with what you're saying, but will defend your right to say it." Who knows what other news is being controlled and edited out of this newspaper?

    October 25, 2010 at 8:40 am |
  73. Mark Anthony Adams

    Here is my comment in regards to the gay couples wedding announcement denial from the Union Leader newspaper. The Union Leader is a private business and has the right to print what they please. They have the right to stand by their beliefs and values that are associated with the institution of marriage. The gay rights activist and gays in general are pushing their "issues" and beliefs on everyone and I hate to tell them but not everyone has to agree with them and their WRONG lifestyle. Just because the government legalizes homosexual activity does not make it the right thing to do. I believe that this wonderful newspaper chose to stand by its belief and was not forced or intimidated to accommodate gays and their actions. I also disagree with Kyra and her comment. She stated that “the newspaper could print the wedding announcement and then print and additional commentary explaining why this newspaper chose to print the gay wedding announcement”. Why? Why should they have to even acknowledge the homosexual activities? Television news channels and the media in general give enough attention to the homosexual issues and in doing so publicize their actions quite enough.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:42 am |
  74. Skip Guidry

    A newspaper, even if it is a private business still has public responsibilities. Can a newspaper refuse to publish wedding announcements for mixed race couples? Can it refuse to publish honor role students from Muslim Schools? Can it choose to not publish stories about hate crimes? We are now in an electronic world with immediate access to information, a world where newspapers are struggling for relevance and revenue. You'd think The Union Leader would think twice before turning down ad's and alienating a demographic group it should be cultivating. Who do they think is running B&B ads and buying the Union Leader Guide to New Hampshire Antiquing?

    October 25, 2010 at 8:42 am |
  75. Annette Harpell

    Regardless if you agree or not with the Union Ledger,(I don't) , it is their right , as a privately owned business, to publish what they want. . Just because something has become 'law', that doesn't automatically change someones opinion. I respect their standing firm on what they believe. Would I be offended as a subscriber to their paper if I read the announcement- absolutely not.... My advice however to the couple getting married- now that you've been heard by millions, get down off the soapbox and enjoy your marriage.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:42 am |
  76. Mike

    We live in the best country. As such, businesses have rights just as all Americans do. Manchester Union Ledger is not using its paper to slander anyone it just isn't supporting same sex marriage. As Americans we all have the choice who we want to support every year during elections. As a consumer we have the right to support corporations by purchasing their products. The newspaper has conservative views that may be of religious concern (not sure), which encourage their decision making. We cannot fault them for that. However, consumers can choose not to purchase their paper if they chose to do so.

    This freedom of choice seems to be no different from how networks like CNN, FOX, and CNBC report the news with their own liberal or conservative spin.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:45 am |
  77. Dave

    I suspect the Union Leader has profited from the sale of newspapers to pedophiles, rapists and murderers. It seems hypocritical to reject a wedding announcement of law abiding citizens? And how can freedom of speech be a defense when your line of business is one of the most important avenues for people to communicate? Maybe the phone company will be next and censor your calls if you speak about things they don't believe in. The bottom line is these are law abiding citizens trying to announce to friends and family their intent to enter into a legal union in the state of MA.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:46 am |
  78. Jack Pearson

    As we evolve into a parallel universe, it is a shame that the media refuses to report progress no matter what the subject. Here are two individuals that want to celebrate love via legal marriage in the state of NH and deserve to be able to inform the public of that in their home newspaper. Bravo to Greg for wanting to share his love! The Manchester Union Ledger needs to step up and publish Greg's announcement no matter their politics.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:48 am |
  79. D. Ryan

    Union Leader is not so much out of touch as attempting to spread their touch or message. It is hypocritical of publisher Joseph McQuaid to say the newspaper is not anti gay and then promote the idea that gays should not be afforded the same "social and civil structure" rights as heterosexuals.

    October 25, 2010 at 8:49 am |
  80. Michael Armstrong Sr.

    The paper has every right to exercise America's family values with or without other new's organizations approval .

    October 25, 2010 at 8:53 am |
  81. mrs.murder market

    its really not fair because if there married than there married u should post it .. stop trying to be so worldly in get caught up in what the world has to say about what you think think for yourself ... stop being so media literiate its not fair to thoses couples if the pay they should see there names just like any other paying custmore

    October 25, 2010 at 8:55 am |
  82. Carol Thebarge

    ‎.How ironic that the Union Leader will publish scandals, report grisly
    details of the crime scenes , take monies for double paged-ads depicting lovely bottles of legal " DRUGS" for state liquor stores, yet stand firm on the issue of non-publication of same sex marriages.. A gross injustice and outrageous ... the "LEADER"???
    Every person who condemns gays has no right to claim exemption from the direct or indirect cause of these young innocents suicides.. be it through innuendo, direct bullying, or outright verbal derision.

    On the other hand, those of us who take a stand for their rights , will add to their longevity and future happiness through living with or marrying their loved ones. Choose ye this day which side you would want to be on
    Religion may make a judgment for many and I will not enter a discussion on this here, only to say, " Isn't it just grand that they have that right, and feel safe from attack by taking a stand for what THEY
    believe in..They also feel "saved" by not honoring others "rights" feeding their own fear of not being "saved". This, I believe , is the height of ego.. it is self serving and totally disappointing to the Jesus I have come to know..

    October 25, 2010 at 8:56 am |
  83. Randy

    Of course the paper has a right to discriminate against gays and not publish announcements, just as both straight and gay people have the right to boycott the newspaper. If you do not want to treat gays as equal citizens, then we'll simply find another newspaper to read because that is our constitutional right to do so!

    October 25, 2010 at 8:59 am |
  84. Kenneth Hrabb

    Good for them. Giving in to the so called gay rights is wrong, and i wish more people would think about this issue. Anyone who is not gay must know deep down that the gay life style is wrong. I have nothing against them until i am forced to support and accept there way of thinking.


    October 25, 2010 at 9:02 am |
  85. Robert Cline

    Once again when you voice your opinion about your beliefs the gay community goes into an uproar. What is this world coming to when you have to accept everything that the gay community wants. If I was the publisher I would do the same. Don't have anything against gays but like the newspaper company my belief is that a marriage is between a man and a woman not people of the same gender. The gay community has brainwash children and adults alike with their wanting to be heard and wanting to be recognize. How do you explain to a child that a man and a man getting married is okay? How can you as a gay minister preach to me when you are going against what the bible says. It seems that as long as you go ahead and agree with gays then everything is allright. Finally the media is always saying that the majority of the nation is for gays...where in the hell do they get these statistics from ....gays.. I wonder. Gays need to understand that not everyone is going to embrace what they want or what they like.....everyone is free to their opinion but it seems like when opinions are being voiced against gays the gay community reacts. You cannot force a lifestyle on anyone and belief that they have to accept your lifestyle... this is America.

    October 25, 2010 at 9:02 am |
  86. Sandy Ward

    Three cheers for the Union Leader refusing the wedding announcement. If everyone that agrees with them would speak up, maybe things would change. Most people seem to be afraid to voice their HONEST OPINION because they know they'll be called names
    like homaphobic, etc. Do we still have free speech in this country????
    I am sick of seeing this lifestyle being used to brainwash us via
    movies, sitcoms etc. If I lived in New Hampshire I'd subscribe today
    to the Union Leader. I'm retired and feel I can only afford one
    newspaper. Thanks to whomever made this choice.

    October 25, 2010 at 9:02 am |
  87. Miriam

    I'm in no way opposed to gay union. I do know that in the bible God ordained marriage between a man and a woman, "wife", cited in numerous places in the bible and it should be kept that way. In regards to the privately owned paper, that's exactly what they are, privately owned and can hence print what they deem fit for their paper.

    October 25, 2010 at 9:09 am |
  88. Carol Thebarge,NH

    On the day gay marriage became legal in the state of NH, I was privileged to perform the ceremony for two gay men , They were refused by two other Justice of the Peace Officiants on the grounds of their religious convictions. A week later, I had a hate crime performed in my driveway by two professed Christians. I was raised in a church that condemned homosexuals way before same-sex marriage marriage was even thought of .. in my day, the word gay had not been coined, we called them "queers:.When I stopped parroting the beliefs presented to me by (so called )"followers or Christ",and started the search for where this was condemned in the Scriptures , I discovered it in Leviticus , the Old" testament. ,,,obviously written by a scribe that was either fighting his own orientation, or like myself in youth, influenced by others toward the bigotry. Nowhere can it be found in the chapter of John,, who was the closet to Jesus. Paul also had a tough time with this, and it can be soon detected he was a misogynist , showing no respect. Many historians speculate what the "thorn" in his side was, that he asked , 3 times , to be "removed" from him. Love , Life, Truth and judge not ? Jesus. I do character, not gender. A halo for all..

    October 25, 2010 at 9:13 am |
  89. Chris

    As a private business owner I support the paper's decision, its their right and is in their policy. The have stated their position. This is fine and part of the Capitalistic foundation of this Country. What is a problem is the "idea" Krya put forth this morning. To state that "the paper should consider running the engagement announcement and then an opinion column explaining their position" is pure bait and switch tactics/politics. This obviously gives the couple what they want and puts the paper on the defense regarding their policy. This is not needed. Why even propose such illogic? It turns a simple issue already resolved into a battle with the paper. This is not responsible journalism Krya, rather politics and picking a fight. The facts are what they are. This kind of illogical talk is what has put this Country into its current distress. Hopefully more people can see this for what it is and clear the smoke. Let's move on.

    October 25, 2010 at 9:14 am |
  90. liz ahn

    A paper is a public forum and he has no right to exercise his personal beliefs. Can you trust anything in this paper if anything can be sensored by the editor? Or is everything prejudiced in one way or another?
    Was there ever a time that newsprint was impartial and only gave the facts. This fact is that gay marriage is LEGAL in NH, as it should be in all states.

    October 25, 2010 at 9:15 am |
  91. Charles Farmer

    Good for The Union Leader, we are going to politically correct this country into oblivion!

    October 25, 2010 at 9:17 am |
  92. Karen in Ontario, Canada

    As a pround canadian living openly in a same-sex marriage I am always baffled by the American reaction to gay marriage. Loveand open commitment threatens no one.

    October 25, 2010 at 9:19 am |
  93. Joshua

    There is a lot of talk about the Union Leader rep moving into the "present age". I would like to note that the homosexual lifestyle is an ancient practice dating thousands of years before Christ. Some people believe that this practice is antiquated and will not survive the evolutionary process. Being against the idea of homosexual "marriage" has nothing to do with being out of date!


    October 25, 2010 at 9:32 am |
  94. Elvia M. Chalmers

    I find it interesting that liberals believe in "choice" unless it is not what they choose. If someone chooses to accept what the Bible says and to be true to their faith, they are considered "old-fashioned' so I guess, "choice' is just "gay" choice or "choice" that agrees with their position. The newspaper has not violated any legal rights of this couple.

    October 25, 2010 at 9:32 am |
  95. Warrington K. Webbe

    As a private company the Union Leader has a right to choose not to announce gay civil unions, it is not discrimination it is a choice. Just like the choice they made to be that also discrimination?

    October 25, 2010 at 9:33 am |
  96. Jonathon

    While certainly a newspaper has the right to choose what it will and will not publish, all newspapers have an obligation to report the news, be a forum for opinion, and provide public service announcements. Not publishing the announcement undermines the integrity of the newspaper in its responsibilities as a public forum. If they will not print a wedding announcement for a gay couple, will they also refuse to print a letter to the editor in speaking in favor of gay marriage? Would they fairly treat an article involving a gay couple? Although it would be hoped that their position on gay marriage would not undermine its integrity, it certainly calls it into question.

    October 25, 2010 at 9:33 am |
  97. Nicholas Roach

    I believe we need to be tolerant of the Union Leader newspaper's right to favor 1st cousins marriage and some brother – sister marriages over gay marriage because the editors and publishers want to preserve their hillbilly image being so in the Mountains of New Hampshire. I do however think they don't realize most of their New Hampshire readers are more evovled.

    Nicholas Roach
    Brossard, QC – Canada

    October 25, 2010 at 9:34 am |
  98. Allen B

    All editors for all papers and magazine choose what gets printed. Articles are denied all the time. It's just because they are homosexual that they complain about it. If it were a real marriage between a man and women and they're story got denied, I bet this story wouldn't be on the news. This is typical of homosexuals if they don't get their way they whine and cry. It's getting old and I'n not bending rules and truth for a very minor minority of this nation.

    October 25, 2010 at 9:35 am |
  99. Glen Shouse Jr.

    With all of the hatred in this world and this country alone, why are people worried about who someone loves. I am a straight man and I don't understand homosexuality, but as a straight man it's not for me to understand. I'm more concerned with the happiness of everyone. Everybody has a right to be happy. Everyone has a right to share the announcement of what is to be one of the happiest days of their life. Whatever happened to love thy neighbor? If you have a problem with that at least respect them as human beings.

    October 25, 2010 at 9:35 am |
  100. Blake

    I don’t see how anyone could deny the newspaper is discriminating. Not printing the wedding announcement has nothing to do with the paper’s editorial image, it’s “news” they refuse to print. It’s not too far a stretch to see it as analogous to “colored only” bathrooms.

    October 25, 2010 at 9:38 am |
  101. JacqueinNH

    In the Live "Freeze" or Die state, the Union Leader is often regarded as The "Unless Leader"........ there are reasons for that. That is why there are other quality papers that are more tolerant. The UL favors the right even though the largest group of voters are independent...The late, William Loeb who started the paper was myopic at best and the tradition continues.

    October 25, 2010 at 9:38 am |
  102. Rod Holiday

    I feel that gays who want to be married should be afforded the same benefits as heterosexuals. I also think that gay's shouldn't expect the church, the media and society at large to embrace their decision to marry.

    October 25, 2010 at 9:44 am |
  103. Carol Thebarge,NH

    ‎ And a Postscript to my earlier post?

    How ironic that the Union Leader will publish scandals, report grisly
    details of horrendous crime scenes , take revenue charged for their double paged-ads depicting lovely bottles of legal " DRUGS" for state liquor stores, which by the way are housed on our state highways ... yet stand firm on the issue of non-publication of same sex marriages.. A gross injustice and outrageous ...
    the "LEADER"??? How hypocritical..

    October 25, 2010 at 9:46 am |
  104. Shelley

    Newspapers should not be required to print anything. However, we as progressive, open-minded, non-descriminating people can choose to never buy their newspaper again.

    October 25, 2010 at 9:49 am |
  105. fotyc

    If I were a reader of that paper, I would now question every news story they print – do all of their opinions on issues influence what they print? Their integrity is now clearly and publicly in question. I'd have to find another newspaper.

    October 25, 2010 at 10:12 am |
  106. Susan

    The Union Leader isn't "anti-gay"? Refusing to represent gays as they attempt to inform the public of a legal union sure seems anti-gay to me. Though the paper is entitled to its "freedom of speech", shouldn't this couple be allowed the freedom of speech to advertise their engagement like other citizens and paying customers? Denying service to a certain group of people is nothing short of discrimination.

    October 25, 2010 at 10:19 am |
  107. Diane Blanco

    I do not think the paper is out of touch.Thank God someone still stands up for the truth of how marriage was,is and should always be,one man and one woman.

    October 25, 2010 at 10:44 am |
  108. Mookie

    A good lawyer could argue that a newspaper is a private business run with public accommodations. A newspaper paper prints birth, deaths, bankruptcies, accidents, and weddings all as a matter of public record. By denying the gay couple, they were denying the legal public record of that marriage. The marriage is a legal valid act in the state of NH and should be reported as such. Freedom of the press is only for those that ones that own a press? It would make a very interesting case.

    October 25, 2010 at 11:20 am |
  109. Greg Cunningham

    Regarding the newpaper choosing to, or not to, print an article. I think that it is well within their discretionary business necessity to keep their circulation.
    The other thing I believe that people should keep in mind is that most people (not of the homosexual agenda) consider homosexuality as sexual perversion, and by extension, gay marriage being a perverson of marriage!
    It is my opionin that homosexuality is a sexual choice and nothing more. The act of homosexual sex is perversion, at least that's how I see it. For a newspaper to run an article contrary to their moral beliefs, would be asking them to accept a lower standard of the very beliefs they hold dear. Comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage is a red herring, because an interracial marriage is still a man and a woman, and not sexual perversion.

    October 25, 2010 at 11:49 am |
  110. Karen Brimley

    When and why would any union be wrong? Why can't a 29 year old man marry a six year old girl? What would make him wrong? If he strongly believes he's in love, why can't he join in marriage with this child? When and Why would it be wrong to allow two men and a woman to marry? What would make this right or wrong..? Popular opinion? I can't base my life on others opinion – because it will always change! I have a strong/solid foundation in the Word of God- which you should get to know.


    October 25, 2010 at 12:20 pm |
  111. Robert

    We are a progressive nation although some would rather repress with their narrow minded beliefs or bigoted agendas. The bible this, the bible that. Doesn't the bible say something about women being subservient to their husband and stoning in the cases of adultery? Some had used the bible as a case to discriminate against interracial dating and marriage.
    The bible should not be used as a case to discriminate, if it was the way of the land and gospel we would all be going to hell in a hand basket.
    That being said I feel any private business should be able to conduct their business the way they see fit while within the guidelines of state and federal statute. BUT, as a gay person I myself would not support any business or their advertiser affiliate if they did not give equal rights to all. Joe's car dealership and Mary's appliance shop should realize that they will be effected by someone's personal beliefs and decision not to run the announcement.

    October 25, 2010 at 12:26 pm |
  112. equality

    What's next? Are they going to have to have their own drinking fountains, are they going to have to ride on separate buses, eat and shop at separate places because it's my right now to serve them? Everyone knows that racism goes hand-in-hand with bigotry. Make it simple boycott the paper and their advertisers. I may chose not to run Conservative ads anymore now, or religious ads, or ads that depict white fat slobs eating at McD's. I guess that would be my right, but IS IT RIGHT?

    It's time to start a website listing their contributors and advertisers as bigots and racists.

    October 25, 2010 at 1:58 pm |
  113. george shook

    it is time for us to stand against gay unions, we are proud of their stand here in iowa marriage is between a man and a woman

    October 25, 2010 at 1:58 pm |
  114. carol

    the union leader probably decided to pick which group would be more offended, so i hope the community as a whole shows them they made a mistake by boycotting their paper.

    October 25, 2010 at 2:46 pm |
  115. David in Houston

    Robert Cline wrote: "How do you explain to a child that a man and a man getting married is okay?"
    You tell them matter-of-factly as possible, "Most people grow up to be straight - that's where boys fall in love with girls. Some people grow up to be gay - that's where boys fall in love with boys, and girls fall in love with girls. Not everyone is the same, and that's okay. You can be whoever you want to be when you grow up, and you can fall in love with whoever you want to."

    Now, doesn't that sound like the kind of world you'd want to live in... instead of all this intolerance and hatred?

    October 25, 2010 at 3:31 pm |
  116. Aloysius Schneider

    The lunch counters in Alabama fifty years ago used the argument that, as private businesses, they could serve or not serve whomever they chose. The New Hampshire newspaper's argument sounds very much the same and is equally wrong.

    October 25, 2010 at 4:58 pm |
  117. Greg

    For those that say interracial marriage is different, go read up on some history. Religious arguments and the Bible were used against that too. So how is it those arguments are considered wrong now? 50 years from now, people will look upon the anti-gay arguments in the same light and wonder how people could ever have been so cruel towards their fellow citizens. Yes, the paper can discriminate if they want, but at least be honest about it and say you are in fact anti-gay if you are. Just be aware that history might not judge you kind for it.

    October 25, 2010 at 5:36 pm |
  118. John Tyler Erie, Pa

    Shouldn't they be impartial whether reporting news or a marriage announcement? They weren't being asked to report any illegal activity.

    October 26, 2010 at 7:45 am |
  119. Heidi

    I totally support the paper's "RIGHTS" decision to print what they choose. Do I think it's wrong "PERHAPS" it is, but it should be their "RIGHT" to do so. Don't demand rights if you can't respect the rights of others!

    October 26, 2010 at 9:01 am |
  120. Stephanie

    Sure the paper has "rights", as does any business. It's perfectly legal from a political stand point.

    But it is in bad taste. And frankly, quite sad. There is no economic or business advantage to NOT printing the announcement, especially if marriage is currently legal in the state.

    Our country needs a wake up call. "Seperate but equal" is not equal at all. And EVERY citizen of this country deserves equality before the law.

    October 26, 2010 at 1:42 pm |
  121. Morgan

    gay marriage is the same as any other they should print those wedding announcments that is toatally not cool.

    October 27, 2010 at 10:59 am |
  122. Andy M

    Freedom of Press, First Amendment Right. They can do whatever they want!

    October 27, 2010 at 2:53 pm |