More than likely, if we would have known they were both men, we wouldn't have run the article. As it turns out, both men had moved away and were angry with their parent's treatment of their union. To get even they ran the article.
I guess in this circumstance we were a little more progressive-but only by accident.
Plus, I belive the Times and other papers publishing same sex unions have some requirements that couples must meet , just like in birth, death and "traditional" marriage announcements.
Publishing same sex announcements, -- or obits for the family pet for that matter (Which I think the St. Pete Times started doing)-- isn't an effort to change society but to reflect parts of it that haven't made it into the papers on a daily basis. Ignorance and "otherness" breeds contempt. By making same sex unions part of the in-print human landscape may do a lot to knock down people's preconceptions.
