Gay
conservatives
and
a
media
watchdog
group
harshly
criticized
a
New
York
Times
story
published
Sunday,
Dec.
21,
claiming
the
article
distorted
President
Bush’s
stance
on
a
constitutional
amendment
banning
gay
marriage
and
sensationalized
the
already
“complex”
and
“sensitive”
issue
of
gay
marriage.
The
article,
which
appeared
as
the
lead
story
on
the
front-page,
also
used
a
disproportionate
amount
of
“anti-gay”
quotes,
activists
said.
“I
thought
I
was
reading
the
Washington
Times
when
I
read
this
article,”
said
Cathy
Renna,
news
media
director
for
the
Gay
&
Lesbian
Alliance
Against
Defamation.
The
New
York
Times
has
“an
enormous
amount
of
influence
and
when
they
run
a
story
on
their
front
page
on
Sunday
it
has
a
ripple
effect.
This
story
ran
in
other
newspapers.”
Renna
said
that
the
article
was
already
having
a
negative
impact.
Later
that
day
on
CNN,
Winnie
Stachelberg,
political
director
for
the
Human
Rights
Campaign,
debated
the
Traditional
Values
Coalition’s
Lou
Sheldon
who
called
homosexuality
a
“social
disorder”
and
declared
that
a
marriage
is
“where
the
body
parts
fit.”
“The
story
basically
gave
Lou
Sheldon
another
platform
to
repeat
things
he’s
already
said
on
CNN,”
Renna
said.
“I’m
shocked
at
the
New
York
Times,
a
paper
who
has
had
a
good
track
record
of
covering
our
issues.”
The
Times
story,
written
by
Katharine
Q.
Seelye
and
Janet
Elder,
did
not
fully
report
President
Bush’s
comments
made
during
an
ABC
News
interview
last
week
in
which
he
said,
“If
necessary,
I
will
support
a
constitutional
amendment
which
would
honor
marriage
between
a
man
and
a
woman,
codify
that.”
The
Times
article
left
off
the
portion
of
Bush’s
comment
that
said
“if
necessary,”
reporting
only
that
“last
week
Mr.
Bush
for
the
first
time
voiced
his
support,
saying,
‘I
will
support
a
constitutional
amendment
which
would
honor
marriage
between
a
man
and
a
woman,
codify
that.’”
Bush
went
on
to
say,
“The
position
of
this
administration
is
that
whatever
legal
arrangements
people
want
to
make,
they’re
allowed
to
make,
so
long
as
it’s
embraced
by
the
state.”
Gay
conservative
writer
Andrew
Sullivan,
a
frequent
critic
of
the
Times,
took
the
paper
to
task
for
editing
Bush’s
comment
and
wrote
on
his
blog,
“Someone,
somewhere
at
the
Times
looked
at
the
original
statement
and
consciously
truncated
it
to
alter
its
meaning
—
in
the
lead
story
on
the
front
page
of
the
Sunday
New
York
Times.
Then
they
spun
and
distorted
the
rest
of
the
piece
to
fit.
Who
will
be
held
accountable?”
New
York
Times
ombudsman
Dan
Okrent
did
not
return
Blade
phone
calls
by
press
time.
Stephen
Miller,
editor
of
the
Independent
Gay
Forum,
called
the
piece
“suspiciously
sloppy
journalism.”
“The
New
York
Times
holds
standards
very
high
when
it
comes
to
quotes
and
by
chopping
this
off,
it
gave
a
misleading
picture
of
a
very
sensitive
issue,”
Miller
said.
“Nuances
are
important,
especially
on
a
politically
charged
issue
like
this.”
Renna
said
that
the
headline
of
the
article,
“Strong
Support
is
Found
for
Ban
on
Gay
Marriage”
contradicted
the
paper’s
own
poll
done
in
conjunction
with
CBS
News.
The
poll
found
that
55
percent
support
a
constitutional
amendment
defining
marriage
as
between
a
man
and
a
woman,
but
GLAAD
said
that
number
was
not
indicative
of
“strong
support.”
Sullivan
noted
on
his
Web
site
that
the
“flag-burning
amendment
was
supported
by
around
80
percent
of
the
public,
and
the
balanced
budget
amendment
by
around
85
percent
—
and
yet
both
failed.”
He
said
that
55
percent
was
an
anemic
level
of
support
for
an
amendment
to
the
U.S.
Constitution.
“Historically,
that’s
not
nearly
enough
to
pass
an
amendment,”
Miller
said.
“You
need
an
overwhelming
consensus
to
pass
a
constitutional
amendment.”
Renna
also
expressed
frustration
with
the
amount
of
“anti-gay”
quotes
used
in
the
article,
none
of
which
were
challenged,
she
argued.
“If
you
look
at
the
number
of
vicious,
anti-gay
quotes
in
the
article,
none
of
them
were
really
challenged
by
voices
from
the
community,”
Renna
said.
The
Times
quoted
Theresa
Eaton,
49,
a
financial
analyst
in
Corona,
Calif.,
and
a
Republican,
as
saying
that
she
believes
“marriage
should
be
between
a
man
and
woman”
and
that
if
she
had
a
gay
neighbor,
“I
would
not
let
my
nieces
and
nephews
go
close
by
there.
I
don’t
want
to
accept
their
lifestyle.
It
can
be
acquired
and
it
is
not
right.”
Renna
and
Sullivan
encouraged
readers
to
contact
the
paper
to
demand
answers.
“Nobody
benefits
from
a
sensationalized
story,”
Renna
said.
The
Times
poll
also
indicated
that
54
percent
of
respondents
oppose
civil
union
laws
while
40
percent
support
such
measures.
Sixty-one
percent
opposed
gay
marriage
and
34
percent
favored
it.
The
New
York
Times/CBS
News
telephone
poll
was
conducted
from
Dec.
10
through
Dec.
13
and
involved
interviews
with
1,057
people.
