Some confirmation greater than a facebook page would be nice.
What Urgutha said. Maybe someone like the editor of a GLBT-friendly alt-weekly should give the OWH a call? There seems to be a bit of personal axe-grinding going on with that FB post as well. Having said that, sweet Christ am I ever thankful my parents moved us away from there in the 80s.
Hey, cool! This is one of my former students. She told me about it several days ago, but I never thought it would end up getting national exposure via SLOG. Thanks Dan.
Skeptics - call yourself and ask. It has been reiterated time and time again by this calling In. Dan - thanks for sharing this. We know we cam create change.
Did you all read the various comments on the Facebook page? We, who are living here in Omaha have spent the day trying to get responses from the Omaha World Herald Editor.
His responses have been documented in various posts on the page throughout the day!

I don't know who laterite is above....but your comment about "axe-grinding" is totally and completely ignorant!

The brides parents have started this Facebook page to bring to light the ugly discrimination that the Omaha World Herald is doing "as a business decision" according to the words of the editor.

I can also vouch that in the summer of 2005, my husband and I were also denied placing our PAID Wedding Announcement in the Celebration section because we were gay. We were married in Toronto in June 2005.

So before anyone on here starts claiming that the facts are not just....maybe you should take the time to actually read the posts on the Facebook page.

The group had 150 members at 11 am on about 12 hours it is ready to go over 1000 members. Equality in the Heartland is something we believe in!
Is this even legal? I mean, a store can't randomly refuse someone service -- can a newspaper?
Having lived in Omaha and seen the paper, I don't doubt this for a second. I know it's a matter of principle, but really, I don't think I would even want to contribute to that right-wing rag's coffers.
The Omaha World-Herald has a wonderful track record of fairness. In 125 years they have NEVER endorsed a Democrat for president. Yes, they have every "right" under current law to do what they are doing. But it doesn't make it right. Their HQ building is less than one mile from the Iowa border, where marriage is legal between same sex partners. This is one paper that puts bigotry before buck$!
Glad you were able to come up to Canada to get married, Troy, hope all is going well for you!

In related news, check out the picture on the CNN page describing Glenn Beck's rally "Restoring Honor" in DC
(…) Is it my imagination, or are the only two people who are looking at the camera and standing in front of the "I have a dream" words that are carved into the floor two gay men who are waiting for same-sex marriage approval? Maybe CNN is trying to help subliminally!
For the record, a store usually can refuse service to whomever it wants, even based on racist grounds. In a few outlier cases, states have been allowed to deny licenses to organizations that do so, or the federal government may get involved if the business impacts interstate commerce (a very low hurdle). But in general people may do business or refuse to do so with whomever they wish, even for dumb or offensive reasons.
I'm very much saddened by the OMH refusal to publish the notice. I lived there for a long while & although quite red(neck), would think they would be beyond this petty attempt to deny folks their day.
Facebook is for fags.
Ironically, the OWH is doing terribly. I'm from Omaha, and my parents recently stopped paying the bill after 23 years of subscribing. But the World-Herald keeps delivering papers, months after the last check was sent, because if they lose any more subscribers, they'll lose ad revenue. They have to give away their POS paper.
As the co-owner of a (very) small town newspaper, I personally would have been absolutely proud to put something like that in our paper.

Thanks for your support. Just out of curiosity, how common is it for newspapers to refuse to publish factual information/advertisements that they object to? If an organization that you found offensive wanted to advertise that they were having a meeting, would you refuse because you object or would you publish whatever came your way? I am *not* trying to defend the newspaper, I'm just curious whether its common for them to pick and choose their advertisers or out of left field.

Sad, but not surprising. What do you expect from, as a friend likes to call it, "Nebra-fucking-ska"?
Thanks for the link. I didn't want to jump to conclusions based only on semi-anonymous comments on a facebook page.

That said, it definitely is sad but not exactly surprising. I hope that paper goes bankrupt asap.
The Omaha World Herald... That rag is so uptight and conservative that they still use up-style headlines, like they're the fucking Wall Street Journal or something. (Oh, wait--The Stranger still does that shit?)
Hello everyone, I am one of the brides who started the facebook page in dispute here. You can all guess my stance, but I would just like to share this in your discussion of this issue. Here is the official statement from the executive editor of the Omaha World Herald, via their facebook page:

"From Executive Editor Mike Reilly on the subject of gay wedding announcements:

Regardless of whether you personally are a supporter or opponent of gay marriage, you have to acknowledge that gay marriage is a divisive issue in our society.

Public opinion is split sharply. Gay marriage is illegal in most states, including Nebraska.

We respect the rights of all individuals to celebrate milestones important to them.

But our Celebrations advertisement feature, a century old tradition at The World-Herald, is not intended to showcase or debate divisive public issues.

All of our editorial and advertising policies and practices strive to be fair-minded and respectful.

I consider our even-handed news coverage of gay issues a good case in point.

Same goes for our editorial-page positions on gay issues, which consistently include a plea for civility from both sides.

I think it is reasonable to ask for that in this matter today as well.

At The World-Herald, we try our best to treat people on both sides of this divisive public issue with respect and dignity.

Going forward, any change in our policies and practices will be done carefully with that aim squarely in mind."
So in other words, "Until we get dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century and have to acknowledge that gay marriage is a basic human right, we will do everything in our power to make sure gays are treated as second-class citizens, even if it is to the detriment of our business model. And we will do so with a polite smile on our face."
Hmmm--I wonder if OMH reports on the marriage between first cousins, which is also illegal in half the states in America.
Hasn't anyone figured out that the minute you discriminate against gays, they mobilize and fuck your shit up on a national level and make you look like a bigot ass-monkey PR-wise?

Discriminate all you want - you'll pay the price. Just ask Itawamba County.
@10: And since sexual gender-preference isn't an explicitly protected category (though I make the argument that it is protected because sex is a protected category), it's still possible to explicitly discriminate against people based on sexuality without violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (although Title VII does prevent most employers from discriminating against an employee engaged in a same-sex relationship, by extension of the same reasoning that protects persons involved in different-race relationships).

Anyway, it's a shitty thing for the newspaper to do, but if their readership is overwhelmingly anti-gay-people, it may make sense from a business standpoint as long as it's not explicitly illegal (they DEFINITELY engage in interstate commerce; we'll see how the Prop 8 and DOMA cases play out, as they could establish precedent for persons expressing sexualities that are not heteronormative as a "suspect class", depending upon how they're argued and decided). If they reasonably expect readers to drop subscriptions because of running this (and potentially other) same-sex marriage announcement(s), then the problem isn't the paper's bigotry so much as it's the paper's materialism: they're more interested in profits than social responsibility. If you want to change that, you're gonna have to work to end capitalism, and/or change the minds of everyone who thinks both that homosexuality is wrong and that it's their job to somehow banish it form the earth, and/or make sure that they're not a concentrated constituency (and economic force).

@20: Again, I'm not convinced it IS to the determent of their business model; it depends on the attitudes of their readership, and how many subscriptions they expect to lose if they start running announcements for gay marriages vs. the increased revenue. It's pretty hypocritical to criticize the paper for something that is likely a market-driven decision if one also thinks market-capitalism is good (not that anyone here is necessarily a fan of market-capitalism).

To recap: I agree that they're assholes, but more in the way I think all capitalists are assholes, and less in the way that I think all the anti-homosexuality theocrats are assholes.
I normally find it upsetting when newspapers and magazines go out of business. However, I will open a bottle of Champagne when the Omaha World-Herald files for bankruptcy.
@6 -- well, yeah. It's the right of any business to refuse service to whomever they feel like.
Guess what? The newspaper bowed to the torrent of criticism it encountered over the weekend, and has officially changed its policy! Power to the People!…

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.