Newspaper no longer accepting opinion pieces opposing gay marriage

A Pennsylvania newspaper has just announced that it will no longer accept op-eds and letters to the editor that are critical of gay marriage. Here’s what the editors say in their statement:

And this news organization now crosses another threshold.

As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage. 

These unions are now the law of the land. And we would not entertain such criticisms that these unions are morally wrong or unnatural any more than we would entertain criticisms of interracial marriage or those claiming that women are less equal than men in the eyes of the law.

Did you get that? The Supreme Court has spoken, and that settles it. This means that the editors will not even entertain the possibility that the Supreme Court could be wrong. It’s a good thing they weren’t around when Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v. Ferguson were decided. On their current principles, the editors would not have tolerated any dissent to slavery and segregation.

I agree with Albert Mohler that this kind of silliness represents the closing of the American mind. It’s not a serious argument but a bald attempt to silence and marginalize people who believe in traditional marriage. If you can’t win an argument, you shout down your opponents—or at least turn off their mic. And that’s what is happening here.

Expect to see more of it in days to come. You can also expect the American mind to be closing at the exact same pace as public forums begin to exclude opposing voices. So it begins.

UPDATE 6/27/15: I’m glad to see that the editor has walked this back. Read it here.

9 Responses to Newspaper no longer accepting opinion pieces opposing gay marriage

  1. Sandy Bowman June 26, 2015 at 4:05 pm #

    Teaching, preaching, and living the Word of God just became more challenging in the USA. I am focusing on the eastern sky. I expect to hear a trumpet and see the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, bursting through the clouds at any moment. Perhaps, Christians and Jews should coin another word that can be defined as “the union of one man and one woman in the sight of God until death do they part.” Let the secular world have the words marry and marriage and let God give us another word, so when we hear it, we will all be on the same page, His page! Just a thought…

  2. John Columbus June 26, 2015 at 5:59 pm #

    I guess this means that the newspaper won’t allow 4 of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court to explain why they voted against this ruling.

  3. Matt Martin June 26, 2015 at 6:51 pm #

    Just like how you delete certain comments on your site?

    James Bradshaw, you nailed it.

    • Gus Nelson June 26, 2015 at 9:47 pm #

      Matt: I read James’ comment before it was removed. Honest debate is one thing. Snarky is another.

      • James Stanton June 26, 2015 at 10:55 pm #

        I didn’t read his comment. I’ve used snark in the past and think its fairly common to employ it in dialogue when things get so ridiculous there’s nothing else to do but joke about it. I think this site has “lost” quite a few of my comments over the last few years but its Denny’s blog and he’s free to weed the garden as he sees fit. Sometimes I’m surprised he lets some of my comments stand so I’m good with how the garden is tended, overall.

    • Denny Burk June 27, 2015 at 2:13 pm #

      Thanks! I just added an update to the post.

  4. dr. james willingham June 27, 2015 at 4:55 pm #

    Some years ago a book was published bearing the title, “The Closing of The American Mind;” it was by a noted author named Bloom, whose first name escapes me for the nonce. In any case, the growing end of religious liberty seems to coincide with the end of freedom of speech and the end of freedom of the press. Too bad, few people ever read H.G. Wells, “The Open Conspiracy,” in which he spoke of ships flying around and of people whose duty it was to exterminate “useless eaters’, the expression I believe he used (it was many years ago, when I read his work. Wished I could have read his, “Mind at The End of its Tether.” The recent posting in the New York Times of an article by a constitutional law expert, Eugene Volokh is certainly not encouraging to believe that things are going to get better and time soon: He stated: “If I were a conservative Christian (which I most certainly am not), I would be very reasonably fearful…that within a generation or so, my religious beliefs would be treated the same way as racist religious beliefs are.”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Backlash to Supreme Court’s Decision Comes Fast and Furious | Wichita Observer - June 29, 2015

    […] Denny Burke writes about the initial response by PennLive/The Patriot-New: “This means that the editors will not even entertain the possibility that the Supreme Court could be wrong. It’s a good thing they weren’t around when Dred Scott v. Sandford [1857] or Plessy v. Ferguson [1896] were decided. On their current principles, the editors would not have tolerated any dissent to slavery and segregation.” […]

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes