Mother’s Day story about lesbian couple creates controversy at Annapolis paper

On Mother’s Day, the Annapolis-based Capital ran a front-page story about a lesbian couple and their two kids. “Mama and Mommy” — as the story was headlined — was quickly criticized in the comments section.

It makes me ill to think that innocent children are brought into abnormal situations and THEN the same-sex partners start thinking about how to “protect” those kids as an afterthought.

Solution: You are entitled to marry and have children with someone of the opposite sex. You have that same right as everyone else. You are not disenfranchised, except by virtue of your own insistent anomaly.

The story was defended, too.

A mom is a mom is a mom. Who cares if that mom loves unicorns or popcorn with M&Ms or Jack Black or another woman? Her love, dedication, worries, struggles, sacrifices, and soul are the exact same the mom next door, down the street, or across the country. What is wrong with you people?

Capital editor and publisher Tom Marquardt addressed the controversy in a column — running the story on Mother’s Day was a mistake, he said — but his piece was spiked after some staffers objected.

Here are a few passages from the draft that Marquardt circulated in the newsroom:

There is an old saying in journalism that, adjusted for modern times, goes something like this: Architects cover up their mistakes with vines, attorneys send theirs to jail, businesses write them off, and doctors put them 6 feet under. But a newspaper publishes its mistakes for all to see. And that we did on May 8 with a Mother’s Day story on a lesbian couple raising two baby boys born to them through artificial insemination. The reaction among our readers was swift and damning.

In previous years we have written about single moms, poor moms, foster moms and handicapped moms — as well as the traditional moms with big families and heavy workloads. This year was different but difference is not what our readers wanted on a day when dad and kids shower love on the family matriarch.

Unfortunately for us, we lost sight of what the readers want to read: feel good stories about people who reflect their values. Newspapers need to mirror its readers — all of them perhaps, but inclusion not at the exception of the majority.

Only one reader complimented me for our non-traditional Mother’s Day story. The majority who reacted saw this story as the final liberal straw in their local newspaper or wanted to make a statement with their cancellation.
I suspect that many of you were very uncomfortable with the story and angry for us putting it on the front page, but found forgiveness and perhaps more tolerance. Thank you.

The decision to feature this story sparked long discussions between me and the editors. Lessons were learned, although at great expense and aggravation. Had we included homosexual couples in a wide-ranging story about mothers and published it on some day other than Mother’s Day, readers probably would have been more accepting of it. There was a better way to tell this story and to also tell the story about the traditional family.

Marquardt tells me in an email: “It would be wrong to assume that the column would have run without editing and adjustment — I gave it to the key players seeking feedback, correction and suggestions. I am meeting with the staff in a few minutes and out of that conversation may come reason to write about the subject in a different way. But that particular column will not run.” He also says he wants to make it clear “that my objection is not the story, but the story running on Mother’s Day.”

UPDATE: Marquardt emails: “We had a good, open meeting. The staff suggested I write a column about our internal struggle and I may do that.”

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • StudioTodd DESIGN

    Other “common sense positions” about parenting that have been proven wrong over the years:

    • children should be seen and not heard
    • spare the rod and spoil the child
    • if you show too much affection to your child, he will turn gay
    • you should limit how often you pick up your child so that he doesn’t turn out nervous and weak

    Over time, people have come to realize that these ideas are ridiculous and even harmful to children. But if we were to follow your reasoning, we’d all be slapping around our affection-starved kids.

    What you are actually saying is that you will not change your position no matter what evidence is presented. If the evidence contradicts what you have always believed, it is dismissed. That’s traditionally referred to as being “willfully ignorant.”

    Regardless of this, you never really answered my question. Children raised in homes by same-sex parents don’t seem to be complaining about it. So why are you?

  • Anonymous

    Again, it is not “outrage”as you try to mischaracterize it. Children benefit from common sense positions that have been held by traditional wisdom and not irresponsible political correct social experiments, backed with flimsy advocate ‘research.”

  • StudioTodd DESIGN

    I doubt the child who was brought into the world would be as outraged as you seem to be. I’m sure they are just thankful to have been born to parents who want, love and care for them.

    So who benefits from your outrage?

  • Anonymous

     Didn’t call all gay people pedophiles so your lying.

    and yes i support civil unions because its a common sense approach, and your bogus race analogy does not hold water.

  • Anonymous

     I have raised two wonderful children who I hope will be using their free speech to refute your silly claims in the future.

    You love studies when they agree with your world view, but the American Psychological Association defended “the science” of the Rind study and not the morality. I enjoy how you explain that I don’t understand the studies or peer review, when you buy everything that agrees with your world view and reject it when it doesn’t. Lots of politics in Psychology and Sociology. Take care yah, I’ve got to work..I am sure you have plenty of time for outrage and spellcheck!

  • Anonymous

     More name calling. I have a Bachelors degree in Biology and masters in Business. So I may have a little more education and experience in science than you think I do. But Biology is a real science unlike socialogy and psychology which have been highly politicized.

    Hey as a “real” Chrisitian I think maybe you should get over yourself.

    I didn’t call all gays pedophiles..you obviously missed the point about the Rind study..maybe your education should be called into question?

    Free speech is mine and everyone’s business and its just too bad for you that society does have an interest in how children are raised. We all have the right to use speech for moral persuasion.

  • Anonymous

    Stev84 clearly made up statistics about more in hetro christian sodomy  than in gay community. Its laughable.

    As far as effects of of same sex parenting over male felmale parenting..Nothing I have said has been debunked by any studies..studies on this subject  are biased, agenda drivien, inconclusive because of lack of real data..so why don’t you be responsible and try to really address the question Is it better to bring the a child into the world with a mother and father? Is it irresponsible to do otherwise?

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    They did not defend the “pedophilia study”.  You clearly are too myopic to understand what was actually determined by the study.  You also don’t understand that many times, science studies uncomfortable topics in order to learn more about them.  It also takes more than one study to come to a conclusion that can be generalized to the entire population.  You, on the other hand, lunge at any study that might help to justify your own pre-existing bigotry.  It’s crystal clear, and it’s revolting. 

    And I believe you are the one calling gay people pedophiles.  After something like that, anyone anywhere can call you any name in the book with impunity.  However, I’ve restricted my characterization of you to what your own rhetoric has confirmed.  You are a right-wing christian supremacist bigot.  And as such, I think YOU are unfit to raise children, either alone or with anyone else. 

  • Anonymous

    There are no scare quotes.  You didn’t read or understand the point about the studies.  I actually have no problem with gays.Their private business is their own.  However, I do have a problem with selfish people, (could also be a hetro single mother or hetro single father) who purposely choose to bring a child into the world without a mother and father.

    I know you’d like to make it about hating gays and make me into some monster to cope with why you can’t address a very serious moral question.

  • Anonymous

    There are no scare quotes.  You didn’t read or understand the point about the studies.  I actually have no problem with gays.Their private business is their own.  However, I do have a problem with selfish people, (could also be a hetro single mother or hetro single father) who purposely choose to bring a child into the world without a mother and father.

    I know you’d like to make it about hating gays and make me into some monster to cope with why you can’t address a very serious moral question.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    Wow.  I’m sorry for what you’ve gone through.  No one should have to endure that.  But I know that your experience will help make you a much better mother for your own children.  Happy belated Mother’s Day to you.   

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    Honey, I’m a Christian myself.  The real kind.  The kind that stands up for minorities when people like you call them pedophiles.  You’ve provided no coherent arguments to refute, just your bigoted beliefs.  And if you have a problem with the peer review process, then I’d suggest taking it up with Elsevier.  Somehow, I don’t think you have the scientific or educational background to make any kind of coherent criticism of the scientific review method.
    Again, the structure of other people’s families is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  Get over yourself.   

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    Oh, sure. You support civil unions.  Separate, but equal.  Great.  That’s worked so well in the past.  And if calling gay people pedophiles isn’t homo-hatred, then I don’t know what is.  Your arguments are quickly falling apart… because they weren’t based on a firm foundation to begin with. 

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    Oh, so you’re an expert about the origins of homosexuality now?  Awesome.

    The details of other people’s families are non of your fracking business.  They deserve every bit of their equal civil and human rights because they’re Americans and human beings, not because little busybodies like you agree with how they live their lives.   

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

     There’s nothing moral or civil about attacking someone else’s family.  And seriously, Bill Ayers?  Who cares?

  • Anonymous

    I guess you didn’t read or understand the posts. The same organizations you revere for their “science” also defended the pedophilia study. the point was you can’t rely on these studies and even your own side had to take a moral stand

    Again name calling doesn’t address the real issue..Is it moral and responsible to purposely bring a child into the world without both a mother and father?

  • Anonymous

     Steve and Yah,

    No one has refuted my arguments and all you guys do is name call and get upset when I point out your so called “science” is inconclusive and biased…too bad no one seriously addresses the very real fairness concern about purposely bringing a child into the world without both a mother and father.

    If the southern poverty law center really monitored “hate” groups they would look at your guys posts..shows the eft for the real hypocrites they are. You seem to hate christians and reliigous people and name call and mock when you can;t address arguments

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    Oh, so once someone who’s actually READ and UNDERSTOOD the study you’re citing shows that your claim is simply not true, now you’re falling back on scare quotes and calling the study pseudoscience.  I get it. 

    Your morality ends at the tip of your nose.  If you have problems with gays and lesbians, then don’t enter into a gay or lesbian relationship.  But you’ve fetishized your religion so completely that you feel that you have the right to tell other people what they should or shouldn’t be able to do based on your own personal delusions. 

    Your bigotry is not truth.  And you know it.  You’re just to afraid to admit it, because that would mean that you’re NOT better than those disgusting sodomites, just different.  You use your derision of the “other” to make you feel better about your own lot in life, and you’ll likely cling to that holer-than-thou attitude until the day you die.  Oh, yes.  I’ve known people like you.  And it’s pathetically sad. 

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    Stev84 forgot to mention that those same groups are officially designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Nice company you’re keeping, missy. 

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    Well, when you don’t listen to anyone’s arguments, then the only thing left is to name-call.  You’re a bigot.  Plain and simple.  But that’s okay, honey.  Your kind will die off soon enough.  The polls have shown for years that the younger generation sees these things very differently.  All we have to do is hold the line until enough aged bigots finally are called to the Lord.  Too bad the rapture was a scam.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    You’re the one who keeps bringing up pedophilia.  And the fact of the matter is that the reputable scientific community agrees with my statement.  Look it up for yourself.  And please… the man-boy love association?  Gross.  Like there aren’t any equally-disgusting heterosexual counterparts to that phenomenon?  What about all those women married off at 13 or 14 to some religious wacko?  You’re completely obsessed with pedophilia, and you need to get some professional help.

    The only thing your pathetic commentary on this subject has shown is that you’re a religious zealot.  There’s no point in arguing with you, because you can’t reason someone out of a position you didn’t reason yourself into. 

    Your continuous blathering about common sense just proves that sense is far from common.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    That’s because anti-gay bigotry is a Biblically justifiable but no longer socially acceptable bias.  Get used to it. 

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    What statistics?  You wanna talk about made-up shit?  How about your stupid BS about gay people that has been completely debunked by the scientific community and yet you still cling to it?  I think you’re just stuck on it out of a sense of pride.  You know that the evidence shows that you’re wrong, but you despise being wrong more than you care about your fellow man.   

  • Anonymous

     You are still under the mistaken assumption that you have presented any arguments.

    If your screeching can be called anything it’s the same talking points that can be copy/pasted from the usual anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family, NOM, etc. They have already been refuted ad nauseum. You are also completely immune to any actual counterpoints. So why bother? Mockery is so much more effective

  • Anonymous

     I believe in real science, not this politically agenda driven psuedoscience in the  so called social “sciences”

    Point was your lauded reputable Amercian Psychological Association supoorted the “science” of the Rind study. Your bias informs what you accept and what you don’t, peer reviewed or not.

    Also, no one is denying anyone’s civil rights.  No one is arguing for passing a law that gay couples can’t have biological children, surraogate or otherwise.  I just pointed out the selfishness of this on moral grounds. Stating something a position that was (and still is with most Amercians) widespread common sense – that  children should start life with a mother and father if possible. For stating that position, all one gets is left wing hate, name calling and a few people selecting their “scientific studies” to reinforce their  bias. I can certainly take….but read many of  the hate filled posts in response to me stating a politically incorect truth. It makes my point.

  • Anonymous

     yes its very clear you don’t address arguments and just name call.

  • Anonymous

    Tom, I am very impressed with your left wing civility..exactly my point.

    Your buddy Bill Ayers is a distinguished professor today, so professional success really tells us nothing about how well anybody is doing or not ,or their moral character.

  • Work Avoidance Log

    Editor Marquardt in Annapolis obviously missed the cautionary tale of one Richard Connor, Editor & Publisher of the Portland (Maine) Press-Herald which, just this past September–you know, come to think of it, I believe it was September 11th–published a photo on page one. Just a simple photo, of some Portland residents praying to mark the end of a religious holiday while kneeling and bowing.
     
    Toward Mecca.
     
    Oh, they had trouble.
    Up there in Portland, Maine.
    There came a hue and cry
    And that rhymes with “I”
    And that stands for Islam.
     
    Some readers were offended that the Press-Herald ran an account–with a photo–of a few of their neighbors praying to mark the end of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan on September 11, the ninth anniversary of the day on which some other Muslims, who were neither those readers’ neighbors nor, it appears, very prayerful murdered more than three thousand other people who were also, technically, not those readers’ neighbors, but who were Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Baha’i, Buddhist, and Sikh; some were probably Rastafarian, Wiccan, Neo-Pagan and Spaghetti-Monsterist; still others were atheist or agnostic; and, of course, Muslim. The Press-Herald’s Editor-Publisher Connor actually did what you, Mr Marquardt, planned to do: he published a note to readers on the front page that began:

    “We made a news decision on Friday that offended many readers and we sincerely apologize for it.
    “Many saw Saturday’s front-page story and photo regarding the local observance of the end of Ramadan as offensive, particularly on the day, September 11, when our nation and the world were paying tribute to those who died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks nine years ago.”
     
    Consider yourself lucky, Mr Marquardt. So far, you’ve been mocked only on Poynter’s website. Your unlucky colleague in Maine was (deservedly) mocked in Time magazine (http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/14/911-hysteria-maine-newspaper-apologizes-for-daring-to-run-muslim-photo-on-saturday/), the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/portland-press-herald-apol_n_719607.html) and Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/ramadan-picture-apology-2010-9). And that was just for starters.
     
    With apologies (but not on the front page) to Meredith Willson, now Back to Work:

  • Anonymous

    What a mockery of Mother’s Day.
    I spent 30 years doing the conventional mother celebration “Hallmark” thing – the flowers, gifts, handmade cards you spent a week on, breakfasts in bed, family dinners. I did it and taught my children to do the demonstrative celebration of their grandmother.
    My mom has never celebrated me. Didn’t care one fig what I wore or what I ate. Never played the nurturing mommy role. Battered me physically as a child and emotionally as adult. We pretend she’s great. She didn’t protect me as a child and she isn’t a resource to me as adult. If I have trouble, I make sure she never knows about because she’s ghoulish in her delight at my misfortune.
    Then when I was a middle-aged adult, she had a freaky meltdown in front of my own children. My sin: I introduced her as my mother. It turns out she hates being called “Mom.” She considers it a forced title that defines her existence, rather than a term of endearment. She believes that title to be part of the machine to subjugate women. She wants her children to address her by her name. Wow, who knew? 
    Yeah, whatever. I don’t believe it. Just one more justification to be mean and abusive.

    I realized that even in my anger and sorrow, I felt sorry for her. She has never felt the surge of pride and delight in her offspring that I feel. She never feels the everyday joy of stupid silly nothings, like the extra beat of my heart at the vision of daughter’s pretty hair reflecting sunlight. The chuckle that bubbles up in me when my kids do something unintentionally cute. The involuntary grin that comes to my face when my boy plays guitar and sings an off-the-cuff made-up song about me. She never feels this. That’s very sad.

    But oh, to be a wanted child. What fun to be adored by one’s mother. I would love to feel annoyed about all the typical commonplace gestures of affection and love and smothering that my kids are annoyed at me about. I would love to experience the genuine concern for my well-being by an adult woman. 
    People, THAT’S what Mother’s Day is about.

    I’ve been ripped off. I don’t get a different Mommy; this is the one I have. This is my biological mother; I don’t get to choose another or get a childhood do-over. Is this somehow a superior experience, more genuine, than the lesbian couple’s children? I don’t think so – who would?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Denise-Clay/1257851749 Denise Clay

     Here’s my thing: I did a Mother’s Day story for one of the papers that I wrote for on Moms who were homeless and battling substance abuse that were celebrating their first Mother’s Day clean and sober and in a home with their kids. But before I wrote one sentence or did one interview, I talked with my editor and she said it was cool for me to do this. My question is, did the editor and the reporter talk before this story was written, and if so, why is the editor backtracking now? If you approved it then, why are you throwing your reporter under the bus now? If you ask me, the editor should be fired for not doing his job. To say he’s shown bad leadership is an understatement. He’s totally lost the control and the trust of the reporters he works with, or if he hasn’t, he should.

  • marvin.vann1963

    “My objection is not the story, but the story running on Mother’s Day.” Because lesbian mothers are clearly less worthy than others?  Grotesque.  This editor needs to get his bigoted behind into the 21st century.

  • marvin.vann1963

    “My objection is not the story, but the story running on Mother’s Day.”  Because Lesbian mothers are less worthy than others?  Grotesque.  This editor needs to get his bigoted behind into the 21st century.

  • http://ravcasleygera.com/ Rav Casley Gera

    At least pander grammatically.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZAIZZ2DH3TCGTI5ZPVPLU2G3WM Wee

    The Rind study was conducted to answer a question: “In the population of persons with a history of CSA [child sexual abuse], does this experience cause intense psychological harm on a widespread basis for both genders?”. The reasearchers found that there was no statistical evidence that it caused harm. Again, this was a statistical answer, not a moral one. In fact, the conclusion of the study was that even though CSA may not statistically result in harm, this does not mean it is not wrong or morally repugnant behavior and the authors denied that their findings implied current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed.

    If you don’t believe in science, then all you have are your “feelings” and “common sense”. If you wish to deny civil rights to a minority, you will need far more than that. Arguments that are supported by science are valid in a court of law, “feeings” are not.

    Oh, and you seem to keep making the assumption that all studies are equal. In science, they are not. Studies that are peer-reviewed hold a higher status than those which are not. Studies that have shown gay parenting to be at least equal to heterosexual parenting are peer-reviewed, studies that say otherwise are not peer-reviewed because of the numerous faults to their design.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZAIZZ2DH3TCGTI5ZPVPLU2G3WM Wee

    Clicked it twice.

  • http://profiles.google.com/manawlf Sarah Wheeler

     I’m sorry, that’s some of the funniest shit I’ve ever read.

  • http://profiles.google.com/manawlf Sarah Wheeler

    I firmly believe that every child should be a wanted child.  Kids whose parents had to work for them have a good start, whether the founding couple is straight or gay.  It’s just… the kids of gay parents have that automatically going for them in the first place.  Like you said – zero accidental or surprise pregnancies.

  • http://profiles.google.com/manawlf Sarah Wheeler

    You know, Rob, I don’t think you have any personal experience being raised by a same-sex couple.

    Therefore I would kindly suggest that you actually listen to the adults, teenagers and children who have actually experienced this and believe what they tell you.  You have all these lovely ideas about how people should be raised and what kids need to be psychologically healthy.  I imagine you must care about the topic very much.

    So, aren’t you concerned about connecting your ideas with reality?  Why aren’t you listening to people with experience – actual gay people, their kids, doctors and scientists?  You mentioned studies, so I know you’ve heard about them.  Yet you ignore them.

    You have nothing more than ideology that is utterly divorced from reality.  It’s a fiction.  They are just ideas that you cling to, that have nothing to do with real people who grow and live and love. 

    Personally, I haven’t the faintest idea why you won’t listen to the testimonies of people who live the reality of what you’re preaching against.  I hope you find the courage someday to challenge your assumptions, to listen to real people instead of straw men, and above all to stop hurting the children you claim to be fighting for.

  • http://profiles.google.com/manawlf Sarah Wheeler

     I know a troll when I see one, honey.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tom-DeVries/545783006 Tom DeVries

     Wow, the “radical ruinous 60s”.  Wife and I raised four hippie kids then – goats, chickens, nudity, dope… the whole disaster.  One is raising her own children and running a business with her husband.  One’s president of a high tech company in New York City.  One’s president of a solar financing firm and the youngest is a lawyer at Google.  A family is a family.  Go screw yourself.   

  • Anonymous

     Since you are so fond of The Americian Psychological Association, perhaps you’ll enjoy the Rind study of 1998 which they defended pedophia as not being harmful…these studies are all silly so stop quoting them.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s not pretend. You clearly aren’t interested in honesty.

    Being gay is about sexual attraction. Not sex. A person can be completely celibate and they’d still be gay. Or they could try to delude themselves into being straight and have straight sex. But they’d still be gay.

  • http://www.jt10000.com John Forrest Tomlinson

    The guys who write about it are afraid of their own homosexual tendencies (not that there’s anything wrong with such feelings). And the ones who write about it a lot are probably closeted, or even self-deluding.  It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. 

  • http://www.jt10000.com John Forrest Tomlinson

    W T F are you talking about?  Seriously? You think the media is covering up graphic stories of homosexual sex?  But you’re the sort of bigot who would object if the media actual wrote about homosexual sex. So you’re working it from both directions. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5ADI4A4U2JD6CBIRR3G7JF4JGQ Todd T

    Race may not be “the same” as sexual orientation, but it is certainly analogous.

    As far as your “unfairness” assertion is concerned, I believe most “sincere thinking people” would maintain that it is far more unfair to stigmatize a family based on your bigoted view that the family is somehow defective because the parents happen to be gay.

    Your view, by the way, is incorrect based on several studies published at the American Psychological Association website. They found that:

    “Results revealed no significant differences between the 2 groups of children, who also compared favorably with the standardization samples for the instruments used. In addition, no significant differences were found between dyadic adjustment of lesbian and heterosexual couples. Only in the area of parenting did the 2 groups of couples differ; lesbian couples exhibited more parenting awareness skills than did heterosexual couples.”

    So perhaps instead of denigrating gay families, you should be taking notes?

  • http://www.jt10000.com John Forrest Tomlinson

    I don’t argue with bigots – I just mock them.

  • Anonymous

     Is that supposed to be an argument?

  • http://www.jt10000.com John Forrest Tomlinson

    Yeah!  Lesbian “couples” and their children will face all sorts of discrimination from bigots.  It’s not right that kids should grow up facing such bigotry! It undermines the stability of their families! So we’ve got to continue to discriminate against lesbians so as to prevent that! Yeah!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=6721 Ted Gideonse

    The problem is that what you claim is the “truth” about homosexuality is not remotely true. Your story suggestions are each fabulous nonsense based on stories fed to you by proven liars like Tony Perkins and the anti-gay propaganda army. Homosexuality is defined by a sexual attraction to person of the same gender, not by anal sex. There is no correlation between sexual abuse as a child and whether someone is or states that they are homosexual. And the reason no one writes stories about objects being pulled out of anuses of gay men is because weird ER  stories aren’t news stories, especially since weird things are pulled out of straight men and women just as often. Those journalists with any ethics don’t report the sort of hooey that you believe is true because most of them have BS detectors that work and do a tad of research before they print things.

  • Anonymous

     Nice try to characiture someone so you don’t have to argue the merits.Sorry, I don’t hate homosexuals, in fact I support civil unions. I do not support people of either sex, gay or not,choosing voluntarily to raise a child without a mother and father. I don’t want to legislate it,obviously. I want to use moral persuasion and to call out lefties and liberals when they deny the obvious. It’s the totalitarian left who wants to pass laws forcing religious adoption charities to have to consider same sex couples on equal footing as male female couples, even though it is against their beliefs.

  • Anonymous

     Some did and some didn’t as much. But all of them can choose whether they’ll be responsible and raise a child with a mother and father.

  • Anonymous

     Sorry, your knee jerk hatred of conservatives and religion is just plain laughable. Liberals pass all the so called “Hate crime”  and want “Hate speech laws. I want to be heard and change minds, which according to the first amendment, I have a right to do. You totalitarian lefties pass all the laws to restrict speech.

  • Anonymous

    “readers want to read: feel good stories about people who reflect their values”?  Perhaps they do. But if Annapolis Capital editor and publisher Tom Marquardt thinks a newspaper’s mission is to deliver such pap he’s in the wrong job. I hope this story follows him the length of what should be a very short career in the news business.  I hear they are still hiring at PR firms, and maybe he should be looking there.

  • http://wadeonbirmingham.com Wade Kwon

    This just shows that newsroom folks are bad at math and marketing …

    –> Our Mother’s Day front-page story had 100 PERCENT MORE mothers than our typical Mother’s Day front-page story.

  • http://wadeonbirmingham.com Wade Kwon

    This just shows that newsroom folks are bad at math and marketing …

    –> Our Mother’s Day front-page story had 100 PERCENT MORE mothers than our typical Mother’s Day front-page story.

  • Anonymous

     You just can’t leave the conservative christian bogey man alone…you made up statistics are pretty entertaining.

  • Anonymous

    Silly focus on pedophilia. One of many things you can find on the other side about harm and stability of same sex parents.  Anyway recite your statistics to the Man-Boy-Love-Association.  Fact of the matter  is you and “Yah” reject all studies  as not “reputable” unless they confirm your bias.

    Back to the subject at hand, same sex couples raising children is 1) Not believed to be a “normal” family an overwhelming majority of people 2) Denies children a parent of both sexes, which has been a fundamentally sound foundation for centuries 3) Probably harmful to children as no real evidence except recent (past 30 years) biased advocacy studies to suggest otherwise 4) rejected by common sense by american people without a dog in the race

  • Chicago Bureau (On Strike)

    “Unfortunately for us, we lost sight of what the readers want to read: feel good stories about people who reflect their values. Newspapers need to mirror its readers — all of them perhaps, but inclusion not at the exception of the majority.”

    The first sentence reads as being sarcastic, almost disdainful.  The second sentence reads as a capitulation to those subjected to the disdain.

    Yeah.  Not running this in the paper was a pretty smart idea.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZW6YLR3JWD43G6W3BFDF5VU26Y Rob

    I can’t speak for conservative christians, because i am not one.
    However, one is a homosexual male because one has anal sex with another male. I know if one watches television or movies (or reads newspapers) they may be confused about what being a homosexual male means, perhaps believing being a homosexual male means being a teacher of life lessons and otherwise the personification of well dressed goodness and insightfulness. We have not got to the point biologically (although there is nothing stopping a progressive judge from declaring it the law or a “study” declaring it so) that a man can pop another man’s baby out of his anus. 
    Regardless, I do believe while we should have an open and honest discussion about homosexuality, the sensitivities of conservative christians be damned.

  • Anonymous

     Clearly your probable lack of employment allows you to major in the minors.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZW6YLR3JWD43G6W3BFDF5VU26Y Rob

    This editor was gutless for not running his followup.
    Then again, he would have had a 100% full scale revolt on his hands had he run it in his newsroom. I am sure there are writers in that newsroom who differ (even given the typical “liberal” persuasion of newsroooms) on any give political issue. Some probably are against wars/for wars, against taxes/ for taxes, pro-labor/anti-labor, etc. etc. But the one issue that is a requirement to get a journalism degree is full scale support for the homosexual agenda. There is zero diversity of opinion on that issue in newsroom, just full throated support. 

  • Anonymous

    Why do “straight” people think so much about gay men having anal sex? Much more so than gay men. It’s really weird.

    Also, the group that has by far the most anal sex are heterosexuals. Ironically, it’s pretty prevalent among conservative Christians who think oral and anal sex don’t count as losing one’s virginity

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZW6YLR3JWD43G6W3BFDF5VU26Y Rob

    The media is so cruel to the homosexual population. All of those emergency room stories about what is pulled out of homosexual men’s anuses, all of those graphic stories about the sex lives of homosexuals. All of those stories about the correlations between sexual abuse as a child and substances abuse as an adult leading to one defining themselves as a “homosexual”. Oh wait, the media dares not run such stories. Better for the agenda to present homosexuals as teachers of important life lessons and otherwise the personification of stability and goodness. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZW6YLR3JWD43G6W3BFDF5VU26Y Rob

    It is one thing when either the Father or the Mother is not around due to the judicial system (incarceration, custody disputes) or worse when one parent tragically dies. It is quite another for adults to selfishly deny a child of not just a “traditional” but a biological fact that a child has a father and a mother.

    Yes, it makes for great entertainment propoganda to promote the homosexual marketing campaign and yes their are homosexual funded or tenure protecting studies that claim there are no differences between being raised by a father and mother vs. otherwise. In reality, their is no study that can change the fact that a child is meant to have a mother and father, unfortunately circumstances may intervene to prevent that from occurring, but that is a tragedy, not something to shrug off and say their are alternatives that are “just as good”. Fortunately, children can adapt and make the best of bad and even worse situations. But celebrating purposeful and selfish denying of children of a mother and father is not in the best interest of children, but rather in the best interest of a social agenda of a very very powerful group.

  • http://a-hermit.myopenid.com/ A Hermit

    “my objection is not the story, but the story running on Mother’s Day.”

    What the hell difference does that make? This kind of bigotry has no place in a newsroom. Plain and simple.

  • Anonymous

    95+% of pedophiles are straight. Pedophilia has very little to do with gender in the first place. Per definition, pedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children. The main reason why priests tend to go more for boys is because they have easier access to them. Traditionally, altar boys tended to be…boys. And even today most of them are. But you’ll also find a sizable amount of abuse targeted at girls.

    The pedophilia “argument” really shows you where he is coming from. Next he will be talking about bestiality and polygamy

  • Anonymous

    I am guessing from your puerile user name that you find sophisticated and nuanced concepts hard to follow. Nevertheless, some time in the future, I hope you will re-read your reply and realize that you have just shown Sarah Wheeler to be correct. 

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    There are no reputable studies showing that gay people are any more or less likely to be pedophiles than straight people.  None.  Not one.  In fact, the most highly respected medical and psychological professional organizations have stated unequivocally that pedophilia is not associated with homosexuality any more often than it is associated with heterosexuality.  Even the most cursory web search on the topic will show this, as long as one limits one’s search to professional, peer-reviewed literature.

    Of course, if what you’re looking for are studies that support your existing bigoted beliefs, then I’m sure you’ll find them.

  • http://twitter.com/RizzRustbolt Rizz Rustbolt

    Or in other words, “Be boring.” 

  • Anonymous

    Insisting that two mommy or two daddy families ar just as normal as millionaires, working families couples with doctorates, or any other thing is just silly. You lefties always want to expand the definition of  normal into absurdities. Again, most americans with common sense, and even those 20 of you who are outraged on this site know deep down it is not “normal.”

    Studies – either, you I or anyone here can google studies on either side of this issue. Foolish for you to say its been “summarily disproved.” There is evidience that show children don’t do as well. There is eveidence that homosexuals are 10 times as likely to be pedophiles, and a zillion others. Again, common sense tells one whether they think they are denying a kid something fundamental in not giving them a parent of both sexes.

    I know you lefties like to throw around the “racist” accusations, but I remain in support of interracial marriage between a man and a woman and of course thier raising children. I also support civil unions, but not marriage or adoption rights for same sex couples because there is no collective right as such and it infringes on the moral right of the child being born.

  • James Snyder

     Hahaha, yeah, this guy sounds like he’s probably a paragon of healthy, loving, rational parenting.

  • http://twitter.com/RizzRustbolt Rizz Rustbolt

    Wow… What is wrong with you? Is it a glandular thing? 

  • Anonymous

     Unless the editor was faced with literally thousands of subscription cancellations — notice no numbers are mentioned — he had no reason to cave. 

    Grow a spine. 

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    Clearly your job doesn’t require the ability to spell simple words correctly. 

  • Anonymous

    Prick a homophobe and a misogynist will bleed. The underlying causes are pretty similar and religion of course fosters and nurtures these people and that whole line of thinking. Homophobia is usually targeted against gay men – precisely because the stereotype they are effeminate and not manly enough.

    And as you correctly pointed out, organized religion has always been about the subjugation of women and other undesirable people. Anti-abortionists don’t care one iota about babies. Otherwise they would do more to take care of them and support families once they are born. They just want to control women.

  • Anonymous

     Of course, I said RAISED by a mother and father.which you willfully ignore.

    I won’t shut up, sorry. Affirmative action is a form of Political Correctness that has hurt blacks, by unfairly stigmatizing them,  discriminated against Whites and Asians and generally increased incompetance. You can find spend your time looking for left wing funded studies and me for right wing ones, but I have a job, I assume you do to. Common sense should be your guide

  • Anonymous

     And please don’t trot out studies that compare same-sex parents with single parents. That’s the favorite tactic of anti-gay groups because they have nothing else to go on.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=68101510 Ben Canty

    I think it’s sad to think someone would find it a hinderance to be raised in a same-sex-parented household. I don’t see the issue here– What about children raised in abusive households, or by parents going through, or already divorced, widowed, or ill.

    The point of the story is that two LOVING parents care very much about their children, and I think it’s fabulous that we highlight this.

    I’d much rather read about love, than war. Our news is filled with information regarding so many depressing situations; let’s start looking for something positive to focus on!

    Besides– My parents have a man-woman relationship, and I turned out gay and fine. Perhaps we look at it from that angle.

  • Anonymous

     I give you credit with at least responding with an argument. Certainly you are correct, there is no legal right of a child to be born to a mother and father. But most people before the radical ruinous 60s, felt there was a moral right. Certainly there is a moral responsibility. People can agree or disagree.I think most Americans agree.

    Biased studies that are only 30 years old are no way conclusive as to what the effects are of being raised by twm mommies or two daddies. What is your measurement of “doing just fine” People with common sense look at that skeptically. Most studies are agenda driven and funded.

    Religion teaches people self control in sexual matters as well as being the ultimate source of morals on which civilized society is based on. I think i it is child abuse to raise your children without that.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    Beautifully stated. 

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    I hope your children forgive you for what is clearly a psychologically abusive upbringing. 

  • Anonymous

    What is a “dysfunctional heterosexual household” ?  Now who is the one who is alienating innocent children?  In your limited liberal/atheist view a child who is hit by one or both parents should grow up to hate and reject those “dysfunctional heterosexuals”  But that child has the right to forgive and love those parents just as you have forgiven and love your ”parents” who psychologically abused you, whether you know they abused you or not. 

    And hey, forgiveness is a wonderful thing.  But instead of being like the typical abused child and perpetuating the cycle by spewing this soul-killing garbage, you should stop the cycle of abuse and recognize that biology and thousands of years of society are correct, not the sexual perverts who “raised” you.  You are suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

    You could have been kidnapped at birth and raised by goat-lovers, and just because you feel an emotional bond to those goat-lovers is not proof that their lifestyle is healthy or equivelent to a traditional upbringing.  It is simply proof that you A) Acknowledge the abuse and forgive or B) are in denial of the abuse.  In your case, I’m going to say the latter is correct.

  • Anonymous

    What is a “dysfunctional heterosexual household” ?  Now who is the one who is alienating innocent children?  In your limited liberal/atheist view a child who is hit by one or both parents should grow up to hate and reject those “dysfunctional heterosexuals”  But that child has the right to forgive and love those parents just as you have forgiven and love your ”parents” who psychologically abused you, whether you know they abused you or not. 

    And hey, forgiveness is a wonderful thing.  But instead of being like the typical abused child and perpetuating the cycle by spewing this soul-killing garbage, you should stop the cycle of abuse and recognize that biology and thousands of years of society are correct, not the sexual perverts who “raised” you.  You are suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

    You could have been kidnapped at birth and raised by goat-lovers, and just because you feel an emotional bond to those goat-lovers is not proof that their lifestyle is healthy or equivelent to a traditional upbringing.  It is simply proof that you A) Acknowledge the abuse and forgive or B) are in denial of the abuse.  In your case, I’m going to say the latter is correct.

  • MBAYER3009

    “But what about the children?”  What about the children? You cannot control procreation. You cant control a woman from getting pregnant if she choses. There is no clause to marriage that you must procreate and you can procreate without being married. The whole marriage debate is about controling women as much as the abortion debate is about. If a man and a woman get married and are equals in the relationship, then the same can be said for a man and a man or a woman and a woman. A partnership of equals…that is unless a man and a woman are not equals. Society wants to keep women as subserviant to men. Conservatives want to keep people thinking that women are too stupid to make life decisions. The fact is women are better at making rational decisions. The couple featured are mothers. Marriage does not change that. In fact the news paper show that motherhood is difficult, especially when some people want to contol you and your personal life decisions. Gay people are increasingly moving forward and living their lives. The goal is happiness. Gay people have to plan to have a family. They dont get drunk and procreate…or abort unwanted children. Indeed gay people love their children, they chose their children. Society as a whole will catch up, until then bigots will keep stomping their feet and screaming.

  • MBAYER3009

    “But what about the children?”  What about the children? You cannot control procreation. You cant control a woman from getting pregnant if she choses. There is no clause to marriage that you must procreate and you can procreate without being married. The whole marriage debate is about controling women as much as the abortion debate is about. If a man and a woman get married and are equals in the relationship, then the same can be said for a man and a man or a woman and a woman. A partnership of equals…that is unless a man and a woman are not equals. Society wants to keep women as subserviant to men. Conservatives want to keep people thinking that women are too stupid to make life decisions. The fact is women are better at making rational decisions. The couple featured are mothers. Marriage does not change that. In fact the news paper show that motherhood is difficult, especially when some people want to contol you and your personal life decisions. Gay people are increasingly moving forward and living their lives. The goal is happiness. Gay people have to plan to have a family. They dont get drunk and procreate…or abort unwanted children. Indeed gay people love their children, they chose their children. Society as a whole will catch up, until then bigots will keep stomping their feet and screaming.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RK5MAF2VNT32ULNYFIXDANTEC4 Terence

    It’s because your argument is inherently flawed.  You premise this all on an assumption that one-father, one-mother family structure is inherently the best, an assumption that has been summarily disproved with regard to same-sex parent families by numerous children’s welfare and family organizations.

    Your argument about “denying a child of X” is a straw man that is used to bias your normative perceptions as a standard when they aren’t.  It could likewise be used to invalidate any familial structure for any reason.  For example:

    “It is selfish of working-class families to have children, since they’re denying them the benefit of ensured financial stability throughout their upbringing.  Only millionaires who can guarantee that they can absolutely provide everything necessary for their child should have children.

    It is selfish of couples who don’t have doctorate degrees to have children, since they’re denying them the benefit of being raised by parents with exception educational background and intellect.  Only people with sufficient intelligence and education should be allowed to have children.

    It is selfish of couples who have no world experience to have children, since they’re denying them the benefit of world experience and exposure.  People who have never left their country should not be allowed to have children.”

    Your assertion below that the race argument is phony is false.  For a racist using the model of your argument, it becomes the exact same concept of “denial” of some normative abstract principle.  It reveals how your argument is invalid, functioning only to promote a preexisting normative belief that the user has.  The only difference between the race argument and your argument is that you claim not have prejudice against mixed race couples while having prejudice against same-sex couples.  But in the face of evidence that shows that the children of same-sex couples do just as well if not better than their opposite-sex parented counterparts, your framework is revealed to be dubious.You can call it “political correctness” and you can call what you say “truth” all you want, but what it really is here is “fact” whereas what you have is “opinion.”  It’s proven fact that children do fine in loving single-parent, same-sex parent, or mixed-race families as they do in opposite-sex and cis-race families.

    There is no “truth” to your assertions, just a clearly fervent belief.  And the last time I checked, belief was not the same as “truth”.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RK5MAF2VNT32ULNYFIXDANTEC4 Terence

    It’s because your argument is inherently flawed.  You premise this all on an assumption that one-father, one-mother family structure is inherently the best, an assumption that has been summarily disproved with regard to same-sex parent families by numerous children’s welfare and family organizations.

    Your argument about “denying a child of X” is a straw man that is used to bias your normative perceptions as a standard when they aren’t.  It could likewise be used to invalidate any familial structure for any reason.  For example:

    “It is selfish of working-class families to have children, since they’re denying them the benefit of ensured financial stability throughout their upbringing.  Only millionaires who can guarantee that they can absolutely provide everything necessary for their child should have children.

    It is selfish of couples who don’t have doctorate degrees to have children, since they’re denying them the benefit of being raised by parents with exception educational background and intellect.  Only people with sufficient intelligence and education should be allowed to have children.

    It is selfish of couples who have no world experience to have children, since they’re denying them the benefit of world experience and exposure.  People who have never left their country should not be allowed to have children.”

    Your assertion below that the race argument is phony is false.  For a racist using the model of your argument, it becomes the exact same concept of “denial” of some normative abstract principle.  It reveals how your argument is invalid, functioning only to promote a preexisting normative belief that the user has.  The only difference between the race argument and your argument is that you claim not have prejudice against mixed race couples while having prejudice against same-sex couples.  But in the face of evidence that shows that the children of same-sex couples do just as well if not better than their opposite-sex parented counterparts, your framework is revealed to be dubious.You can call it “political correctness” and you can call what you say “truth” all you want, but what it really is here is “fact” whereas what you have is “opinion.”  It’s proven fact that children do fine in loving single-parent, same-sex parent, or mixed-race families as they do in opposite-sex and cis-race families.

    There is no “truth” to your assertions, just a clearly fervent belief.  And the last time I checked, belief was not the same as “truth”.

  • Anonymous

     No one is forcing to raise a child with someone of the same gender. You on the hand want to force your “values” and way of life on everyone else and preferably make laws against anything that doesn’t agree with you. That’s the definition of totalitarianism. The biggest threat to freedom in the US is the religious right. And they are threat for everyone, including moderate Christians.

  • Anonymous

     No one is forcing to raise a child with someone of the same gender. You on the hand want to force your “values” and way of life on everyone else and preferably make laws against anything that doesn’t agree with you. That’s the definition of totalitarianism. The biggest threat to freedom in the US is the religious right. And they are threat for everyone, including moderate Christians.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

     Gays and lesbians didn’t choose their situation either. 

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

     Gays and lesbians didn’t choose their situation either. 

  • Anonymous

     I think “AbsolutelyRight” is really Shirley Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church/God Hates F*gs cult cuz her talking points are almost identical to what Shirley has said in the past. And why are you making this a right or left issue? It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with being a decent human being, something you obviously know nothing about.

  • Anonymous

     I think “AbsolutelyRight” is really Shirley Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church/God Hates F*gs cult cuz her talking points are almost identical to what Shirley has said in the past. And why are you making this a right or left issue? It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with being a decent human being, something you obviously know nothing about.

  • Anonymous

    The so-called “traditional family” ceased to exist some time in the 60s and 70s. The divorce rate is like 40% these days (and ironically it’s highest in the most religious states. Massachusetts actually has the lowest). Families are constantly breaking apart and children are either raised by single or step parents. Others are not wanted at all end up in foster care.

    Children born into a same-sex household (as opposed to coming from a previous straight relationship) have one huge advantage: they are always wanted
    No accidental pregnancies and then putting up with the children out of some sense of obligation

  • Anonymous

    The so-called “traditional family” ceased to exist some time in the 60s and 70s. The divorce rate is like 40% these days (and ironically it’s highest in the most religious states. Massachusetts actually has the lowest). Families are constantly breaking apart and children are either raised by single or step parents. Others are not wanted at all end up in foster care.

    Children born into a same-sex household (as opposed to coming from a previous straight relationship) have one huge advantage: they are always wanted
    No accidental pregnancies and then putting up with the children out of some sense of obligation

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    “You’re”, not “your”.

     

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    “You’re”, not “your”.

     

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    You don’t have a coherent argument to address. 

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    You don’t have a coherent argument to address. 

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    All children have a mother and a father, unless they’re clones.  The fact that you don’t like how other people are living their lives post-conception is no reason to denigrate other people.

    And please show evidence proving that ”political correctness” (whatever that means) is hurtful to society.  Peer-reviewed evidence, please.  Otherwise, you can shut your pie hole and leave other people’s families alone. 

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    All children have a mother and a father, unless they’re clones.  The fact that you don’t like how other people are living their lives post-conception is no reason to denigrate other people.

    And please show evidence proving that ”political correctness” (whatever that means) is hurtful to society.  Peer-reviewed evidence, please.  Otherwise, you can shut your pie hole and leave other people’s families alone. 

  • http://www.suburbansweetheart.com/ Suburban Sweetheart

    Did you address the widower question? Because I don’t see that anyplace…

  • http://www.suburbansweetheart.com/ Suburban Sweetheart

    Did you address the widower question? Because I don’t see that anyplace…

  • http://www.suburbansweetheart.com/ Suburban Sweetheart

    In other words, be magazines.

  • http://www.suburbansweetheart.com/ Suburban Sweetheart

    In other words, be magazines.

  • http://www.suburbansweetheart.com/ Suburban Sweetheart

    This isn’t a “right.” This is something YOU THINK IS CORRECT. Just because “correct” & “right” are sometimes synonymous doesn’t make this an ACTUAL right. 

  • http://www.suburbansweetheart.com/ Suburban Sweetheart

    This isn’t a “right.” This is something YOU THINK IS CORRECT. Just because “correct” & “right” are sometimes synonymous doesn’t make this an ACTUAL right. 

  • http://profiles.google.com/manawlf Sarah Wheeler

    A child has a right to a loving family.  Why does the plumbing of their parents matter?  …silence.

  • http://profiles.google.com/manawlf Sarah Wheeler

    A child has a right to a loving family.  Why does the plumbing of their parents matter?  …silence.

  • Anonymous

     Widows didn’t choose their situation, A big distinction. They have my respect and sympathy. Even you, although you are rather uncivil and excitable.

    Sorry, but politically incorrect truths must be spoken. Unfortunately, for the totalitarian left, there is freedom of speech in this country and you can’t shut me up, not can I you. But only rational and moral arguments are going to persuade those in the middle, not your silly name calling…the world is my backyard.

  • Anonymous

     Widows didn’t choose their situation, A big distinction. They have my respect and sympathy. Even you, although you are rather uncivil and excitable.

    Sorry, but politically incorrect truths must be spoken. Unfortunately, for the totalitarian left, there is freedom of speech in this country and you can’t shut me up, not can I you. But only rational and moral arguments are going to persuade those in the middle, not your silly name calling…the world is my backyard.

  • http://www.suburbansweetheart.com/ Suburban Sweetheart

    This makes me sick. The community is entitled to their bigoted, homophobic opinions, but for the editor to backtrack & apologize for not running a “feel-good” Mother’s Day story? Is rubbish. Better to make people feel uncomfortable & force them to face their homophobia & small-minded views. he should be ashamed of himself for apologizing for this story.

  • http://www.suburbansweetheart.com/ Suburban Sweetheart

    This makes me sick. The community is entitled to their bigoted, homophobic opinions, but for the editor to backtrack & apologize for not running a “feel-good” Mother’s Day story? Is rubbish. Better to make people feel uncomfortable & force them to face their homophobia & small-minded views. he should be ashamed of himself for apologizing for this story.

  • http://profiles.google.com/manawlf Sarah Wheeler

    You know what I think of when I hear “traditional family?”
     
    I hear “not YOUR family.”  It is not a cultural touchstone.  It does not reflect my values or my family.  That phrase, to me, evokes alienation, a reminder that I was not raised like most others and that many people consider the loving family I grew up in to be against nature.  Like some commenters here…
     
    Unlike the kids in the story, I am in my early 30s.  I was raised during the 80s-90s in an “unnatural,” “untraditional” family.  I’m not maladjusted somehow – except in the fact that *society* is constantly reminding me that I’m not fully accepted.  It hurts that a newspaper feels the need to apologize for highlighting a family with two mothers.
     
    You all complaining about the kids somehow being disserved by this lovely family – YOU are the ones responsible for *any* suffering they experience that is related to their family structure.  Stop telling these kids that their family is wrong. Because I’m here to tell you that they will grow up just fine, just like I did, and just like many more will.  You are hurting those children far more than their parents ever will.

    Chances are they will grow up better than many in dysfunctional heterosexual households.  The sexuality doesn’t make a household, nor will the presence of an opposite-gendered couple for a role model benefit a child more than the example of ANY couple who loves and respects each other.  The presence of male reproductive organs is not necessary to a child’s upbringing, or to examples of healthy human relationships, and vice-versa.  
     
    The kids are all right.  This grown-up kid is here to prove it.

  • http://profiles.google.com/manawlf Sarah Wheeler

    You know what I think of when I hear “traditional family?”
     
    I hear “not YOUR family.”  It is not a cultural touchstone.  It does not reflect my values or my family.  That phrase, to me, evokes alienation, a reminder that I was not raised like most others and that many people consider the loving family I grew up in to be against nature.  Like some commenters here…
     
    Unlike the kids in the story, I am in my early 30s.  I was raised during the 80s-90s in an “unnatural,” “untraditional” family.  I’m not maladjusted somehow – except in the fact that *society* is constantly reminding me that I’m not fully accepted.  It hurts that a newspaper feels the need to apologize for highlighting a family with two mothers.
     
    You all complaining about the kids somehow being disserved by this lovely family – YOU are the ones responsible for *any* suffering they experience that is related to their family structure.  Stop telling these kids that their family is wrong. Because I’m here to tell you that they will grow up just fine, just like I did, and just like many more will.  You are hurting those children far more than their parents ever will.

    Chances are they will grow up better than many in dysfunctional heterosexual households.  The sexuality doesn’t make a household, nor will the presence of an opposite-gendered couple for a role model benefit a child more than the example of ANY couple who loves and respects each other.  The presence of male reproductive organs is not necessary to a child’s upbringing, or to examples of healthy human relationships, and vice-versa.  
     
    The kids are all right.  This grown-up kid is here to prove it.

  • Anonymous

    Because there is no such right. End of story.

    And it’s nonsense from a scientific point of view. Children do best with two parents (not that single parents are bad per se, but they face additional challenges). The gender is irrelevant. Lesbians have been raising planned children for about 30 years now. That’s how far back the studies go. Back then it was a revolutionary idea. Today it’s so common that it’s downright mundane. Every study has shown that such children are doing just as well, if not better in some areas like social awareness, than in mother/father households. Many of these children are adults now and are having their own children. They turned out fine.

    The worst is that much this self-righteous indignation is coming from Christian parents who raise their children to be ashamed of themselves, their bodies and their feelings, while teaching them that they will be eternally tortured, and in some cases withholding a scientific education from them. That’s infinitely worse and some of it borders on child abuse.

  • Anonymous

    Because there is no such right. End of story.

    And it’s nonsense from a scientific point of view. Children do best with two parents (not that single parents are bad per se, but they face additional challenges). The gender is irrelevant. Lesbians have been raising planned children for about 30 years now. That’s how far back the studies go. Back then it was a revolutionary idea. Today it’s so common that it’s downright mundane. Every study has shown that such children are doing just as well, if not better in some areas like social awareness, than in mother/father households. Many of these children are adults now and are having their own children. They turned out fine.

    The worst is that much this self-righteous indignation is coming from Christian parents who raise their children to be ashamed of themselves, their bodies and their feelings, while teaching them that they will be eternally tortured, and in some cases withholding a scientific education from them. That’s infinitely worse and some of it borders on child abuse.

  • Anonymous

     excellent argument. I can see now why the left is so superior in critical thinking to us rubes on the right

  • Anonymous

     excellent argument. I can see now why the left is so superior in critical thinking to us rubes on the right

  • Anonymous

     Great critical thinking? Have you thought of becoming a lawyer?

  • Anonymous

     Great critical thinking? Have you thought of becoming a lawyer?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christine-Spencer/100001800593168 Christine Spencer

    Your name should be absolutelywrong.  

  • Anonymous

     Calling it blather, is not an argument. why doesn’t a child have a right to start life with a mother and father?….silence.

    My life is quite happy. Political correctness is much more hurtful to society, and in this case children, than me or any other blogger telling truths you don’t want to hear.

  • Anonymous

    go stuff your buybull where the sun dont shine yuou hillbilly toothless wonder 

  • Anonymous

     One of the phoniest arguments ever. Race is not the same as sexual orientation. I am quite in favor of interracial marriage of a man and a woman. I, and most sincere thinking people, however, are not in favor of being unfair to a child by denying that child a mother and father right out of the gate.Pretty simple common sense stuff when you strip all the lefty BS out of the way. But the “compassionate” left is. Maybe your the hater?

  • http://www.facebook.com/michichan Michi Eyre

     In other words, pander to their advertisers. 

  • Anonymous

     Just name calling..doesn’t address any arguments..rather pathetic

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509213380 Maria Kintner

     I wonder how you’re able to explain away widowed single mothers? As a widowed mom, I can’t provide a “loving father” to assist in my parenting. As a matter of fact, it makes it even harder provide anything on one income. According to your ridiculous, archaic propaganda, I am the worst type of narcissistic* parent there is.

    Do us all a favor. STAY in your house. STAY in your own backyard. Wither there – while the rest of the world’s mothers take care of their children, SAFE from your out-dated idealism and moronic “politically incorrect truth.”

    *Oh – and your weak spelling skills. 

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    What argument?  You’ve posted nothing but bogus christianist blather.  And if you want to talk about things that hurt, try talking about how hurtful it is to have your family vilified by right wing christian supremacist bigots simply because you were featured in a mother’s day story. 

    Your life must be very sad indeed if the only way you can feel better about yourself is to post hurtful commentary about someone else’s family. 

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/33GJLUPZ3MZNLV3GYQECMYGKMY Yah

    No, I think your hateful commentary is an excellent example of how to be an awful mother and a reprehensible human being.  Narcissism?  Really?  If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black…  

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5GCKPSISSGV3BX62AO3IM4NGU4 Francis

    Even though the horrible “apology” was not run in the newspapers, the fact that on first instinct Mr. Marquardt wanted to essentially run away and hide says so much about his LACK of journalistic and personal integrity.

  • Anonymous

    Interesting as someoone WHO GREW UP In the 60′s and 70′s…I heard it all deary………the Ol’ “Its NOT fair to the children BS, from WHITES who just couldn’t bare the fact of Inter-racial Marriages/cpls”  ..same Hate, Ignorance and Bigotry…different Century?????  

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5GCKPSISSGV3BX62AO3IM4NGU4 Francis

    SOOOOO weak.

  • Anonymous

     Just name calling and non-address of arguments. I guess the politically incorrect truth hurts

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dean-Cameron/1078088294 Dean Cameron

     Talk about narcissism! Bigots like you are giving both Christians and Conservatives a bad name!

  • http://ravcasleygera.com/ Rav Casley Gera

     ”Newspapers need to mirror its readers.” Hmm.

  • Anonymous

     Single mothers who really chose to bring children into the world without fathers..yes they just as selfish as gay couples. Every child deserves to start life with a mother and father inspite of the fact their are narcististic people who want to be parents.

    poor couples, handicapped couples are all bogus examples… at least those children have mothers and fathers the way God intended

    If this was the lead Mother’s day story, it serves as an example of how to be a bad mother

  • Elaine Povich

    One line stands out in the spiked column: “We lost sight of what the readers wanted to read.” Since when is it a newspaper’s job to print only what the readers want to read????? For pete’s sake, our job is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable!”  (Finley Peter Dunne). It may have been uncomfortable for some readers to read about a lesbian couple on mother’s day, but the fact is, there they are. It’s actually not that unusual any more, even in Annapolis, MD, so it’s probably about time the paper caught up. And, as they said, they have done stories on all kinds of other Mother’s Day issues, so this one is just another in a series.

  • Sarah Palmer

    “There is an old saying in journalism that, adjusted for modern times, goes something like this: Architects cover up their mistakes with vines, attorneys send theirs to jail, businesses write them off, and doctors put them 6 feet under. But a newspaper publishes its mistakes for all to see.” 

    Is this guy serious? This article did a great job at getting people to talk about a controversial topic and face their feelings about what is happening in the world, which is exactly what journalism ought to do. Comparing this “mistake” to a doctor losing a patient or an attorney losing a case, putting an innocent man in jail, is deeply disturbing.

    My note to the editor: Don’t hide behind the publicity of your profession as an excuse for having vertebrae made of spaghetti. Maybe another old saying is more apt for you, ”If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ITB2LR5QMXQX3ZLTCDPMSHBA3A Kelly Kendall

    Great point. Like all those other types of moms the editor says have been featured in past years …
    Single moms? They should have run an opposing story on the lack of fairness to the child and selfishness of the parents for not bringing a child into the world with a loving father and mother.Poor moms? They need an opposing story on the selfishness of the parents for bringing a child into the world when they couldn’t afford to give it everything its friends have.Foster moms? Where’s the opposing story on the many problems with the adoption and foster system and all the children have had bad experiences in those environments?
    Handicapped moms? Opposing story about how their selfishness in having children they aren’t physically fit to raise.

    That’s how it should work, right?

  • http://www.facebook.com/morgan.meneses.sheets Morgan Meneses-Sheets

    Journalism should be about raising consciousness not pandering to ignorance.  The story was about two loving parents just trying to raise happy and healthy children like every other parent.  Gay and lesbian families live in communities throughout our state.    Our lives are not salacious political statements.  They are simply our lives – going to work, going to church, paying our taxes and providing loving homes for our children.  They are moms.  It was a story on Mother’s Day.  It is very disappointing that the editor is so spineless. 

  • Anonymous

     The Capital led its readers instead of following them and the publisher decided this was wrong. The story violated Mother’s Day, at best a Hallmark holiday. The job of a newspaper is to lead its readers, to tell them things they don’t want to hear becaus they need to hear them. The job of newspaper is not to provide feel-good stories that reflect their narrow values.

  • Anonymous

    The community is entitled to their opinion — however bigoted and small-minded I may find it. But the editor is not entitled to backpedal just because people took out their torches and pitchforks. I agree that media outlets should own up to their mistakes, but this isn’t one of ‘em. Stand behind what you publish. Don’t recede into this view-from-nowhere nonsense just because you’re afraid people will accuse you of promoting the “gay agenda,” whatever that is.

  • Anonymous

    Good  for the people of Annapolis making their displeasure of this propoganda known. That’s how it should work. If the editor ran that story, he should have ran an opposing story on the lack of fairness to the child and selfishness of the parents for not bringing a child into the world with a loving father and mother.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rebecca-Schoenkopf/741700374 Rebecca Schoenkopf

     I expect that reaction from the community, but from the editor? Gross.