On Friday, February 15, members of Alaska’s House Majority (Republican) Caucus laughed after being posed a question from a reporter on the body’s position on same-sex civil unions or marriages. Caucus members had gathered to report it’s guiding principals, of which civil unions or same-sex marriages did not rank.
Video of the exchange can be seen via YouTube, and the caucus felt a need, on Monday, to release a statement in regards to the incident. The statement alluded to an inside joke as the reason for the laughter, but, of course, the viewer is not privy to inside jokes. The laughter seems as though it is in response to the legislators’ feelings on civil unions and same-sex marriage.
YouTube, for all of its faults, makes the world a more scrutinized place. Some might say we all have to be too politically correct. I think we are all just a little more accountable for our actions, words, or both. Politicians would do well to remember that.
Less than 10 years ago who have known about this exchange in Anchorage, Alaska? The folks in attendance and maybe the folks who read or watch the news in the city, and then only if those outlets chose to run or to air the exchange.
The reaction and the apology also point to a cultural change in the US. Would the same group have felt the need for such an apology five years ago or even a year ago? I don’t think they would have. What do you think?
A story broke over the weekend of an Atlanta wedding photographer who’s advertisement was rejected from an Atlanta wedding magazine because it feature two women getting married. The photographer, Anne Almasy, responded with an open letter on her website. The letter prompted a response from the magazine editors.
In brief, the response was apologetic but it sounded a little too familiar. Familiar because it sounded like the choice to reject the ad was made not because of sound or, at least, established protocol but on a gut reaction. A gut reaction that the publishers are more than likely wishing they would have mulled over a little longer.
Almasy’s letter has been reposted via social media sites and featured on larger blog sites since she first posted it, which means negative attention for Weddings Unveiled, the publication that first rejected the advertisement.
I had a several reactions to story, but my initial reaction was how had a wedding magazine not prepared for this? How? Why? In 2013, when same-sex marriage is legal in nine states as well as the District of Columbia, representing 15.7% of the US population (based on 2011 population). Additionally, two Native American tribes—have legalized same-sex marriage, and Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states or jurisdictions.
These are questions the media has to ask itself. What is the newspaper’s policy on running same-sex engagement and wedding announcements? Will our wedding magazine feature same-sex weddings? How do we defend our stance to the public? Do we announce this using our editorial or commentary space?
We have seen from this instance what can happen when a media outlet doesn’t plan ahead. When media professional act on a gut feeling or hunch or act in a discriminatory fashion, it gets notice. Just do a quick Google search for “gay couple denied wedding announcement in newspaper.”
The media should already be prepared and ready to move forward, but if you’re not just take a look at Anne Almasy’s website and the responses to her post.