Reply #7: She must have sent out a blanket reply to all her emails. [View All]

Here's part of her email reply:
For better or worse, I try to keep my personal views and biases out of any article I write. But since I've gotten several emails from people accusing me of attempting to carry out a homophobic agenda, you may or may not find this useful: My current partner is a man. Before him, my partner of two years was a woman, with whom I discussed health insurance, kids, houses, and marriage. You can bet that I found the fact that our marriage wouldn't have been legal to be wrong. That doesn't mean that what NOM is trying to do and how they are trying to do it are not important to hear about.

Part of my reply follows:
This is article is not journalism. It is dictation with some "artistic license" thrown in for good measure. Your first clue to the fact that your article is biased is the fact that you didn't get the response you thought you would from the "anti-gay" conservatives. You present his view as fact and never question his interpretation of history.

"He takes nothing personally. He means nothing personal. He is never accusatory or belittling. His arguments are based on his understandings of history, not on messages from God that gays caused Hurricane Katrina."
"In short: The institution of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Yes, there have been homosexual relationships. But no society that he knows of, in the history of the world, has ever condoned same-sex marriage."

These are your words and I gather your opinion. Whether a society condones something is not a guage of it's merit and in fact society's condoning and eventual condemnation of slavery is proof.

I am not so inclined to accept the fact of my second class citizenship as "wrong". In fact I don't accept the fact at all.
It may or may not be useful for you to know that my spouse and I were married in Iowa this July. We do not accept that Mr. Brown has the right to codify his religious beliefs. The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees our citizenship and as citizens we have the right to equality. The Constitution also protects us from the tyranny of Mr. Brown's and his church's demands to give up our liberty and equality in the name of their god. I have not and would not try to force my beliefs on Mr. Brown. What makes him think he has the right to do so to me and mine?

If you would have included the comments from your email in your article, you may have been able to say that it's possible to come away with the idea that you wrote this from an unbiased position. It's possible but very unlikely. Just reading those unquoted statements, your statements, makes that eminently clear.

What get me about the WaPo "apology" is this from Karger :
The lesson is to always, in some way, represent the other side," she said.

WRONG!
The lesson should be that some who represent the other side should not be given the venue of WaPo to spew their hate.
This is the way the repugs get away with this crap. They demand that the media allow every side of an issue to have a voice. Whether that voice is speaking the truth is inconsequential. One side is the truth and the other side is a lie. What ever happened to reporting FACTS?