10/31/98
I was humored by the lead editorial in Thursday's newspaper
entitled "A Hate Publication fouls South Portland." As
the paper smiles and bows in the direction of free speech and the
right to vote, you can see its club poking up behind its back. On
the issue of homosexual rights the Portland Press Herald is
anything but interested in promoting understanding. It is
interested in pounding on Christians who dare to disagree with
them. I would call many of the efforts of this newspaper in
recent years on this issue propagandizing, not reporting.
On numerous occasions I have been attacked by the paper. Not by a
member of the public, or an advocate for a political position
that is different from the ministry that I represent. I have been
attacked in print by a member of the Portland Press Herald's
staff, one of his more colorful descriptions of me being
"Saint Michael the dark angel." It appears that the use
of interesting polemic is not reserved for just conservatives.
On three separate occasions in 1995 I was denied the opportunity
to publish guest columns on this issue. I was told that I did not
have standing on the issue of homosexual rights. At the time I
was, as I am now, the executive director of the Christian Civic
League of Maine. The Christian Civic League of Maine doesn't have
standing to speak on homosexual rights? This position cannot be
seriously and honestly offered as a reason for censorship. The
truth is that the Portland Press Herald is biased against the
League's position, and they have demonstrated a willingness to
act on it.
Over the years, the Portland Press Herald has demonstrated
extraordinary bias on the issue of homosexual rights. The
editorial in question alludes to that bias when it says,
"...we have strongly backed the South Portland ordinance
editorially." The clause just in front of this admission
reads, "The newspaper accepted the insert as paid political
advertising in an honest effort to be fair to every side..."
I've talked with the person responsible for placing the 16 page
tabloid for distribution in the Portland Press Herald. He
deliberately included a political advertisement from a
congressional candidate, Eric Greiner, so that the Portland Press
Herald could NOT censor him as it has me in years past. According
to FEC regulations the Portland Press Herald could not refuse
distribution because the tabloid contained an advertisement for a
federal candidate. I don't know whether or not the paper would
have distributed the tabloid "in an honest effort to be fair
to every side..." without the candidate advertisement, but I
seriously doubt it.
The editorial offers an apology for distributing the tabloid
referring to it as a "hate publication" that contains
"every slur, stereotype and untruth they could think
of..." The editorial, however, doesn't cite one specific
from the publication itself. The editorial is a slur, stereotype
and untruth for sure. I think the detail of the tabloid deserves
consideration.
Which tabloid content, by the way, has been referred to as
offensive and unfair by any source? It seems that the most
egregious ideas concern descriptions of homosexual sex acts. The
graphic descriptions ARE offensive and some of the conclusions
that are based on the descriptions may be speculative. It would
have been helpful to have footnotes, documenting some of the more
troubling statements. For example, "Although the homosexuals
represent 2-4% of the U.S. population they carry over 44% of the
nations syphilis, 51% of gonorrhea of the throat, 53% of
intestinal infections and 80% of the AIDS disease." I
believe that this statement is true. It would, however, be
helpful to have the source documented.
The failure to document sources should not be a reason to dismiss
the assertions. The failure to document sources should be a
reason to get more information, not refer to the publication as
"hate." The publisher has offered to retract any
statements in the publication that are not true.
I sympathize with the publishers of this tabloid. It can be very
frustrating to lead a good and legitimate cause without adequate
resources, and against virtually all substantial institutions in
the culture. A significant segment of Maine's media, government,
business and religious community all support the idea of legally
legitimizing sexual promiscuity (fornication, homosexuality,
bisexuality etc.) That makes the efforts of
pro-common-sense-forces, to inform and influence citizens, all
the more difficult. Hence you have the publication of a 16 page
tabloid in a short period of time with almost no money.
When you take this into consideration, and you take the time to
read and think about the ideas contained in the tabloid, you may
not agree with everything contained therein, but you will
conclude that free speech is emotional, interesting and worth it.
Unfortunately, the Portland Press Herald doesn't agree with you.
In closing let me quote from the excellent letter published on
the back page of the tabloid. Jim Longley, no "religious
right hate-filled bigot" by any stretch of the imagination,
wrote "As an American, I believe that we are all equal under
God and should be treated equally under the law. From my
perspective, one's sexual orientation or private behavior is
one's own business. No one has the right to force someone else to
agree with them on something that is personal or private. Since
we as citizens do not have that right, government does not have
it either."