More on Anti-Gay Quotation Marks
---
Recently I criticized and critiqued a Wall Street Journal editorial that not only opposed the overturning of the Solomon Amendments, but also did so in a very vicious and condescending way, including, inter alia, the gratuitous use of quotation marks around "discrimination" when discussing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Today we see similar journalistic unprofessionalism and immaturity in the Washington Times:
Keep in mind that this is not an editorial or an op-ed piece -- it is an ordinary news article. So why insert gratuitous quotation marks around "marry" and "marriage"?
Whether you like it or not, whether you're willing to compromise your journalistic and editorial standards or not, marriage-without-quotation-marks exists in Massachusetts. The New York State case was about marriage-without-quotation marks.
Even if you can't be tolerant and accepting of gays, even if you can't be open-minded to evolving societal standards, even if you can't help being a bigot, you can still be professional. Why go out of your way to hurt and to demonstrate your bias? Why embarrass yourself?
And while we're on the subject, exactly what pine cone is up conservatives' butts regarding the absolute insistence on using "homosexual" over "gay"? I can understand the nomenclature fixation in the abortion debate (i.e., both sides want to be "pro-something"). But what exactly is the point of using a term that tends to have a negative connotation and is not the appellation of choice within the community you're describing?
Honestly, from my (admittedly biased) perspective, you're making fools of yourselves. (Not that there's anything wrong with that...)
Related Post:
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and Don't Use Quotation Marks
Today we see similar journalistic unprofessionalism and immaturity in the Washington Times:
A Manhattan judge has found a constitutional right to "marry" [sic!!!] for homosexual couples, in stark contrast to three upstate judges who found no such right.
...
Homosexual rights advocates were elated by the ruling of New York State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan, who was elected to the bench in 2002.
...
Same-sex "marriage" [sic!!!] currently is legal only in Massachusetts.
Keep in mind that this is not an editorial or an op-ed piece -- it is an ordinary news article. So why insert gratuitous quotation marks around "marry" and "marriage"?
Whether you like it or not, whether you're willing to compromise your journalistic and editorial standards or not, marriage-without-quotation-marks exists in Massachusetts. The New York State case was about marriage-without-quotation marks.
Even if you can't be tolerant and accepting of gays, even if you can't be open-minded to evolving societal standards, even if you can't help being a bigot, you can still be professional. Why go out of your way to hurt and to demonstrate your bias? Why embarrass yourself?
And while we're on the subject, exactly what pine cone is up conservatives' butts regarding the absolute insistence on using "homosexual" over "gay"? I can understand the nomenclature fixation in the abortion debate (i.e., both sides want to be "pro-something"). But what exactly is the point of using a term that tends to have a negative connotation and is not the appellation of choice within the community you're describing?
Honestly, from my (admittedly biased) perspective, you're making fools of yourselves. (Not that there's anything wrong with that...)
Related Post:
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and Don't Use Quotation Marks
Related Posts (on one page):
- DADT: Washington Times Behind the Times
- More on Anti-Gay Quotation Marks
Posted by KipEsquire on
5 February 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
