Editor Censors Gay Man's Obituary

[Matt Algren]

I don't usually shill too much for my blog other than in my signature, but I'm making an exception today. I posted something yesterday that got more disturbing after I was done with it.

The basic gist of the original post is in the thread title. The editor of the local free newspaper in my hometown censored a gay man's obituary to change his "partner" into a "friend".

After I posted about it (and Daniel commented), I got a reply to an email I'd sent to the newspaper in which the editor, one Dale Grimm, acknowledged that "the editing of Jeffrey [redacted]’s obituary was an editorial decision."

I left it alone partly because it was late and partly because I was afraid of how he'd answer my next question. A reader wasn't so timid. She got a response from Mr. Grimm this afternoon.

Thanks for contacting us.

The idea that a man can consider another man his “spouse” is ludcrious. Had the obituary come in identifying his daughter as his “spouse”, should I have printed it that way? What if it had identified his dog as his “spouse”?

If you had cared so much about this individual as you imply in your e-mail, why did you not encourage him to seek help for his problem? Homosexuality is a demon that thousands of people have escaped.

We are not in the business of promoting sexual activity or political agendas. We are a small town newspaper informing our community of events that they will want to know about. We have the right to print what we wish and to edit anything that we find objectionable.

Your IP shows you to be from New York, and this is not the e-mail address publicized for comments to the New Carlisle News, so your e-mail must be from some organized effort. Since you are not in the community that we serve, your comments will carry no weight.

We have a long way to go, don't we? Even in death, they want to make us invisible.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

I don't usually shill too much for my blog other than in my signature, but I'm making an exception today. I posted something yesterday that got more disturbing after I was done with it.

The basic gist of the original post is in the thread title. The editor of the local free newspaper in my hometown censored a gay man's obituary to change his "partner" into a "friend".

After I posted about it (and Daniel commented), I got a reply to an email I'd sent to the newspaper in which the editor, one Dale Grimm, acknowledged that "the editing of Jeffrey [redacted]’s obituary was an editorial decision."

I left it alone partly because it was late and partly because I was afraid of how he'd answer my next question. A reader wasn't so timid. She got a response from Mr. Grimm this afternoon.

Thanks for contacting us.

The idea that a man can consider another man his “spouse” is ludcrious. Had the obituary come in identifying his daughter as his “spouse”, should I have printed it that way? What if it had identified his dog as his “spouse”?

If you had cared so much about this individual as you imply in your e-mail, why did you not encourage him to seek help for his problem? Homosexuality is a demon that thousands of people have escaped.

We are not in the business of promoting sexual activity or political agendas. We are a small town newspaper informing our community of events that they will want to know about. We have the right to print what we wish and to edit anything that we find objectionable.

Your IP shows you to be from New York, and this is not the e-mail address publicized for comments to the New Carlisle News, so your e-mail must be from some organized effort. Since you are not in the community that we serve, your comments will carry no weight.

We have a long way to go, don't we? Even in death, they want to make us invisible.

No. We do not have a long way to go. They do.

Rick

[Zerbie]

Oh, that makes me feel sickened to see such a level of deliberate cruelty.

Yes, Rick is correct. They do have a long way to go.

[Duskmelt]

"Promoting sexual activities..."
That's horrible! How about we adopt a similar, yet equally cruel policy where a husband has his loving wife referred to as a friend or buddy? It makes sense since having a straight relationship is just a sexual activity!

"...or political agendas..."???
It's sad yet inevitable that all commited same-gender relationships must be so political- I mean it's only their love lives and somtimes even their lives that they are fighting for.

I need not rage more, there is no one to convince on this board that whoever wrote that letter is terribly misinformed and has no respect for, what I'm fairly certain that it is, love.

And I don't think that it is the bigots that have a long way to go; they are, in their minds, without a doubt that their beliefs are the real deal. They won't budge an inch from what they see as the truth. We have a long way to go. Not only the LGBT, but all the straights that recognise injustice when they see it. We need to unpolitically spread the word, and make the truth part of reality so that people can stop being mistreated, even when they are no longer with us.

Easy to say, hard to do, but it's a must.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by Duskmelt

"Promoting sexual activities..."
That's horrible! How about we adopt a similar, yet equally cruel policy where a husband has his loving wife referred to as a friend or buddy? It makes sense since having a straight relationship is just a sexual activity!

.....

Easy to say, hard to do, but it's a must.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/bl...andgender/755/

I no longer recognize marriage. It’s a new thing I’m trying.
Turns out it’s fun.
Yesterday I called a woman’s spouse her boyfriend.

She says, correcting me, “He’s my husband,”
“Oh,” I say, “I no longer recognize marriage.”

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by keltic63

http://www.religiondispatches.org/bl...andgender/755/

This sort of thing could put me off. And I've been shouting for marriage equality since I was 6. It might just depend on the couple, whether this sort of thing works or backfires.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

This sort of thing could put me off. And I've been shouting for marriage equality since I was 6. It might just depend on the couple, whether this sort of thing works or backfires.

it has to be done "right" somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and then allow the conversation to grow from there. I don't think I'd ever do this in a way that would seriously disrespect another's relationship.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by keltic63

it has to be done "right" somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and then allow the conversation to grow from there. I don't think I'd ever do this in a way that would seriously disrespect another's relationship.

I can see needing to read the situation and peoples' reactions really well to pull this off without it backfiring. I get really fierce if I sense someone disrespecting my husband. It's one of the few occasions when I do. Well, and that's why these marriage 'amendments' offend me so deeply -- that anyone would do that to other couples. Beyond ridiculous.

I also see why someone might think of this tactic. Many people are surprisingly lacking in imagination.

[Matt Algren]

I have no idea how this might affect communications (I was planning on contacting the funeral home on Monday), but I just realized that the deceased is the younger brother of the manager of the funeral home that is handling the services (including the obituary).

It could really go either way.

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

This sort of thing could put me off. And I've been shouting for marriage equality since I was 6. It might just depend on the couple, whether this sort of thing works or backfires.

I know one thing for sure, I can do it without serious negative repercussions. I can begin by correcting people when they refer to Jenna as my wife - I think Jenna will be inclined to go right along with it, as well.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

I know one thing for sure, I can do it without serious negative repercussions. I can begin by correcting people when they refer to Jenna as my wife - I think Jenna will be inclined to go right along with it, as well.

Ohh! Like, do it in reverse!! I hadn't thought of that. Actually, that might be more effective than the other way 'round. For when addressing other straight couples.

I don't think my partner would go for it, though.

Now that you mention it, there's a straight (and I think, married) guy in Tucson who sometimes collaborates on 7 Straight Nights who refers to DH as my 'partner,' knowing we're married, and I sense he's doing it on principle. I don't bother to correct him, since my husband IS my partner.

As said before, it just depends how it's said and how it comes across.

[Alecto]

You'd know better whether or not it's the case, but some people deliberately get in the habit of saying something like "partner" specifically because it's gender neutral and doesn't get caught up in the legality of marriage. So, if someone's say a teacher, and they want to ask (for whatever reason) whether someone's got a significant other, using "partner" would be one way of asking that question without putting queer folks on the spot about the intricacies of the status of their relationship. I find myself often not sure how to answer questions because I feel like the question as stated might not be the question someone actually means to ask.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Alecto

You'd know better whether or not it's the case, but some people deliberately get in the habit of saying something like "partner" specifically because it's gender neutral and doesn't get caught up in the legality of marriage. So, if someone's say a teacher, and they want to ask (for whatever reason) whether someone's got a significant other, using "partner" would be one way of asking that question without putting queer folks on the spot about the intricacies of the status of their relationship.

With ya.

I find myself often not sure how to answer questions because I feel like the question as stated might not be the question someone actually means to ask.

Awright, ya lost me there.

RE the first bit -- reminds me of a close friend from graduate school who had this female prof whose classes she loved, who was just so cool. Prof kept referring to her 'partner.' Invited the class to her home for a reception after the semester was over, and my friend rang the doorbell. A man answered the door. My friend thought she had the wrong house until her prof ran over and said "Hello (Zerbie's friend), I see you've met my partner."
My friend was sure her prof was lesbian until that moment.

[Alecto]

When someone asks me "do you have a girlfriend?", I don't know what question they actually WANT to know the answer to. The simple answer to the question as asked is always going to be "no". But if it's a doctor, maybe they want to know "are you sexually active?". Or, if it's family, or an acquaintance, maybe they want to know "are you seeing anyone?". People don't always realize it, but very often the words they use aren't actually asking the question they want to know the answer to (because those questions are seen as "rude").

As for the professor, there is a growing movement within academia to kind of...identify with the queer movement. Heterosexual folks (and, in fairness, one or both of those people may have identified as bisexual) sometimes take on the identity of "queer" because they see it as a political word, like "feminist". Personally, I totally disagree with that, but a similar spirit prompts a lot of people to be amiguous about their heterosexuality. I don't fully get it, but it's like they're willing to take on any repercussions of being percieved as gay in an effort to get people to rethink their assumptions. "Parter", afterall, is a gender-neutral word: why should we assume that only people who are gay or lesbian would use it?

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by Alecto

When someone asks me "do you have a girlfriend?", I don't know what question they actually WANT to know the answer to. The simple answer to the question as asked is always going to be "no". But if it's a doctor, maybe they want to know "are you sexually active?". Or, if it's family, or an acquaintance, maybe they want to know "are you seeing anyone?". People don't always realize it, but very often the words they use aren't actually asking the question they want to know the answer to (because those questions are seen as "rude").

As for the professor, there is a growing movement within academia to kind of...identify with the queer movement. Heterosexual folks (and, in fairness, one or both of those people may have identified as bisexual) sometimes take on the identity of "queer" because they see it as a political word, like "feminist". Personally, I totally disagree with that, but a similar spirit prompts a lot of people to be amiguous about their heterosexuality. I don't fully get it, but it's like they're willing to take on any repercussions of being percieved as gay in an effort to get people to rethink their assumptions. "Parter", afterall, is a gender-neutral word: why should we assume that only people who are gay or lesbian would use it?

I agree with what you've said, but think there is another category. Jenna and I both bend the norms of gender considerably in behavior, tastes and, in Jenna's case, even how she dresses and does her hair. Me? Well, I don't dress. (Let the puking begin.)

When we identify as queer heteros, we are acknowledging more than a political alliance or fashionable trend. In our deepest beings, we feel more at home with gays, lesbains, transfolk and just out and out gender-benders than with straights. And I did mean "at home". It goes way beyond having an affinity and is inextricably wrapped up somehow in our identities.

I'm NOT fishing for more warm, fuzzy responses with my next comments. It leaves us, sometimes, with difficulty knowing where we fit in at all. We don't want to be part of the hetero crowd - it largely disturbs us. But, because we do not indentify clearly on any scale of sexuality or gender, we feel a little timid about claiming "queer". We don't want to insinuate ourselves where we don't belong. So, it gets confusing, at times.

[u-dog]

I believe that I understand what you mean when you describe the feeling of not fitting in any identified world.

[christa08]

At the risk of sounding cheesy or silly, I believe in making your own world.

Maybe it's just in my personality, but I hate "the expected." I just try to be different than what everyone decided I should be.

Jenna and I both bend the norms of gender considerably in behavior, tastes and, in Jenna's case, even how she dresses and does her hair.

I think my husband and I are kind of like this. We don't follow society's gender roles or norms (unless there's a spider around ) We just do what feels natural to us personally and we could care less what others think about it.

[dsdrane]

I've long bemoaned the continued lack of satisfying words to describe my romantic relationship.

Dash is not (yet) my husband, but he certainly is not merely my boyfriend. "Partner", even today, still strikes me as too business-like. "Lover" might as well be "f*ck buddy". (And don't even get me started on top vs. bottom!)

It's not like we haven't had enough time to coin some newer, more appropriate terms, right?

I sometimes enjoy referring to him as "my better half", because it gets the point across, is playful, and is soooooo true.

Hmmmm...how about "live-in chef (with benefits)??

I guess there's no other choice but to tie the knot....