PennLive Takes a Stand on Same-Sex Marriage, Lands in Controversy

penn-liveAfter the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on same-sex marriage Friday, PennLive/The Patriot-News’ editorial board announced they would “no longer accept, nor will [they] print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage,” sparking even more debate.

The editorial board wrote a piece on Friday – entitled “The Supremes got it right – It’s no longer ‘gay marriage.’ It’s ‘marriage.’ And we’re better for it.” – in which they laud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the constitutionality of gay marriage bans across the country.

“[Supreme Court Justice Anthony] Kennedy nailed it. There are no rights more fundamental than due process and equal treatment under the law,” the piece states. “These unions are now the law of the land. And we will not publish such letters and op-Eds any more than we would publish those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic.”

Many readers and conservative news outlets criticized the move, including Fox News, prompting a bit of backtracking from PennLive.

“We will, however, for a limited time, accept letters and op-Eds on the high court’s decision and its legal merits,” Opinions page editor John L. Micek wrote later on Friday.

“This apparently did not satisfy readers, who posted a cascade of critical comments online,” Fox News.com wrote of the situation. “One read: ‘Clearly, PennLive’s policy is not to limit criticism of settled law, but rather to limit criticism of settled law that its editor likes.”

On Saturday, Micek wrote another column apologizing for the misunderstanding of the editorial board’s message.

“As the comments on our main story about the ruling — many of them openly hostile — began to pile up, I decided I wanted to send the strongest possible message that the Opinion pages of PennLive and The Patriot-News would be space for civil discussion of one of the most important civil rights rulings of our lifetime,” Micek wrote.

“More than once yesterday I was referred to as “f****t-lover,” among other slurs,” Micek continued. “And that’s the point that I was trying to make with our statement.”

PennLive’s opinion pages will remain open for civil discussion and “intelligent and reasoned debate on the issues of the day.”

June 29th, 2015 | Posted in Front Page Stories, Harrisburg, Top Stories | 16 Comments

16 thoughts on “PennLive Takes a Stand on Same-Sex Marriage, Lands in Controversy”

  1. John M says:

    Did Montco PA Dem just compare the safe and constitutional marriage of 2 sisters or 2 brothers to bestiality?

    Corbett, is that you masquerading to cause trouble? Don’t send opinions like this to PennLive.

  2. a dude said says:

    Way to hen peck. That’s like holding up gay priests as proof gayness harms society. At least that’s hundreds of priests. You have 1 example, ha! My brother and I cannot harm society. We cannot even procreate and your example says other relationships are unequal. What could be more equal than two brothers? Which bigot’s standard should we follow, yours?! You’re a hypocrite just like the rest of them. Hater!

  3. Montco PA Dem says:

    From The Blog on Huffington Post, 2/12/2012:

    “In 2008 the California Supreme Court distinguished polygamy from the right to same-sex marriage by explaining that polygamy is “inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.” Polygamist leaders like Warren Jeffs, who last year was convicted of multiple sexual assaults and incest-related felony counts, illustrate how polygamy is inherently conducive to power imbalances, sexual subjugation, and other abuses that do not inherently exist in the case of same-sex marriage.”

    So once and for, everybody got that? Polygamy, incest, bestiality — all banned for promoting provable harm to society.

    Now just stop it.

  4. a dude said says:

    @thefacts are you bigoted to my love like the conservatives or are you cool with my brother and I marrying?

    Besides Micek, Bill O’Reilly has advocated equality, even for siblings, for almost 2 decades. These are the true love-thy-neighbor types.

  5. thefactsbeatyouropinion says:

    I believe it was the philosopher, Swift, who said,
    “Haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.” Cue the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth as people get the civil rights the Constitution guaranteed all along. To the rest of us, our Constitution is not a right-wing document, nor is it beholden to the myriad interpretations of myriad denominations and ideologies. While far-right pseudo-Christians attempt to re-write history regarding who was and wasn’t bigoted in the past, the rest of us understand that conservatism has always been the refuge of self-entitlement to authority, bigotry, and zealotry. Friday’s ruling will understandably place modern talkshow conservatism on the wrong side of history, and thanks to the easily-researchable nature of the internet, it’s followers will not be able to deny their stance in some future debate.
    In short, conservatism, and each conservative who now defends their stance, will forever be linked to homophobia and zealotry. Forever.

  6. David Diano says:

    Leviticus 11

    Summary: Don’t eat pigs or shellfish, because that’s a sin.

    “1And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, 2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. 3Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. 4Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 5And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 6And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 7And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. 8Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

    9These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

  7. bungy says:

    Leviticus 18:22.

  8. Anonymous says:

    If John Micek isn’t fired for this debacle the publisher should be taken to task. Who are they?

  9. John M says:

    Leviticus is hate speech.

  10. to be fair says:

    It took Democrats less than 150 years to reverse their opposition to the Gettysburg address. Hundreds of thousands of them though did die while killing that many Republicans who were fighting to free the slaves.

  11. The Lost Dutchman says:

    Well, it took them only a day to reverse themselves on this, as opposed to 150 years to correct their stance on the Gettysburg Address. So they’re learning.

  12. Observer says:

    Cue the whining from the hate-filled homophobes, clinging to their misread bibles.

  13. a dude said says:

    I plan to marry my brother soon and Micek is the only one who stands up to bigots for us.

  14. Unsanctioned R says:

    I for one am ecstatic that I will no longer have to read a dissension to the fact that money equals speech in this rag now that the Supreme Court has settled the matter.

  15. Unsanctioned R says:

    Exactly Dr.! The apology assumed that he was publishing “f****t lover” in the past and he no longer would stand for it.

  16. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    The rationalization by Micek for his initial [revelatory] action was lame, and it reflected the sad evolution of journalism away from speech/press freedom.

Comments are closed.