Kansas City Star refuses to publish marriage announcement of same-sex couple

[Telly Savalas]

A same-sex couple in the KC suburb of Independence recently got married in Iowa. They wanted to place a marriage announcement in the Kansas City Star, but the newspaper rejected it claiming to follow Missouri law which doesn't recognize same-sex marriages. This is a rather stupid position because the law may have the state not recognize such marriages, but it doesn't prohibit a newspaper from recognizing the marriage.

Here's a video from a local news station carrying the story:

http://www.kmbc.com/video/19640490/index.html


Here's a link to the "Contact Us" section of the Star's website: http://www.kansascity.com/contact_us/

I'd probably use the "celebrations" email to contact them.

[votingupstart]

1. another news paper i wont be buying -

i want to hear the facts / news / information - if i wanted you to tell me what i can or cant read i would move to North Korea

[northzax]

2. don't give them the hits

seriously. aren't most wedding announcements paid? what kind of newspaper is making enough money these days to turn down advertising dollars?

[Telly Savalas]

5. The KC Star is doing horribly financially.

They've been laying off staff, slashing content, and jacking up the rate of the print edition.

What was once a mediocre paper is now downright awful.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Actually it was a great paper for many years

It started going down hill maybe 20 years ago.

[Telly Savalas]

12. I lived outside the metro area that long ago, so I didn't get to witness it.

They've got a few pretty good sports columnists now if you follow the Royals or Chiefs. (and I'm not talking about Jason Whitlock). Other than that they don't have a lot going for them.

It's pretty bad when a blog which features half-nude pictures of women is a much better source for local news than the newspaper.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. I know what you mean

I hate Tony's KC because of those pictures of half-nude women. But damn, he does get the news tips.

I prefer The Pitch. But they don't move the stories as fast as Tony does.

[Blue_Tires]

28. i hadn't heard of tony's KC so i looked it up

sooner or later, he'll have to decide if he wants his site to be legit news or straight softcore...

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. He really does break lots of stories

But I can barely stand reading his site for all the soft porn.

[KamaAina]

3. Do they publish notices of "opposite marriages" in other states?

Like, oh, I don't know, Kansas maybe, a sizable portion of which is within their circulation area??

:grr: :banghead: :argh: :dunce:

[HopeHoops]

4. What a SHOCK!

Who would have thought a thunk?

[closeupready]

32. Thought a thunk? Don't you mean thinked a thought?

:rofl:

[HopeHoops]

33. Oh no. A "thunk" is noun representing a thought that has already happened.

That is distinct from a thought in that a thought is a noun for something that is happening. A "thunk" can roughly be translated into "had a thought".

Dr. Seuss made this VERY clear.

[KansDem]

6. A friend was passing through KC once on a cross-country trip...

...and asked me what the best road was.

I told him, "The one that takes you out of it."

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. LOL that wasn't very nice

[KansDem]

11. Sorry, proud2BlibKansan!

But I'm afraid my time here in NE Kansas is drawing to a close. After 30 years, I'm heading for greener pastures.

Don't know just when, but hope before next summer...

Don't think it wasn't fun! :D

Besides, did the KC Star ever publish the Downing Street Minutes? Just curious...

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Find me a paper that DID publish the DSM

here in the US, that is :)

[Ms. Toad]

7. I got the same line from an insurance company

"It is against the law in Ohio to provide domestic partner coverage."

I told her that was nonsense and asked her to put someone on the line who had a clue about insurance law. She didn't, but she did call me back later, apologize, and admit she was wrong (they still wouldn't provide coverage - but at least she was no longer pretending it was illegal to do so).

[dsc]

14. actually it might well be

Ohio's referendum on this was very broad and I don't know if that has been litigated yet or not. The referendum forbade both the government and private industry from giving benefits of married people to unmarried ones.

[Ms. Toad]

15. Nope - only the state.

Private industry is free to do what it wants. Private industry can choose not to recognize my marriage, but the law does not prohibit them from recognizing it.

Here's the text of the marriage discrimination amendment:

"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

A contract between private entities is legal - the only gray area is whether a contract between private parties that recognizes marriage is enforceable in court.

For example, if I have an employment contract that provides health insurance to any member of my family as an employment benefit and defines family as including a marriage that is legally valid where formed, my spouse would be entitled to health insurance because we were legally married in Canada.

If they later decided not to give her that insurance, one option would be for me to go to court to force the company to live up to its contractual obligations. The question would be whether taking (or deciding) the breach of contract case would constitute the court (a state entity) recognizing the marriage or a legal status equivalent to marriage.

Unrelated to this particular example - individuals creating wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. in states like Ohio and Virginia (with an equivalent amendment) should carefully draft them so that enforcement of them does not require that the court take a position on whether a marriage exists. Contracts (or grants of rights) between members of a same gender couple are not prohibited (contrary to what has been asserted with regard to Virginia) as long as those same contracts (or grants of rights) would be legally valid between unmarried persons - but because of the question of enforceability the governing documents should not mention marriage, spouse, etc. If it doesn't have to take a position on the relationship between the parties, the documents are just as enforceable as they would be between any other two people.

[dsc]

17. I am glad to hear that because I am from Ohio

and go up there a few times a year. I would hate to be worried about enforcement of contracts between me and a future husband.

[Bill McBlueState]

26. at the university in Ohio where I work,

same-sex couples have access to the same health plan as married opposite-sex couples, but the benefits are taxed. I thought that was dumb, but I guess it's the university's attempt to offer as much as it can under the law.

[Ms. Toad]

29. If it is a state university,

even the offering the benefits might end up being challenged (as a state entity) - but I am glad so many state universities have chosen to push the matter.

As to the taxation - only medical benefits for legally recognized families are excludable from income anything else is taxable income. (Even if the employer fails to withhold taxes on the benefits, the IRS or Ohio Department of taxation could come after your for failure to report and pay taxes on the income.) Stinks, but until our families are legally recognized that's where we're at.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. But they put the news of Jolie Justus's marriage on the front page!!

So a gay state senator gets a front page spot when she gets married but a gay couple can't get an announcement?!

[kevinbgoode]

23. Do you have a link to that story?

I'm thinking this is something to bring to the attention of Editor and Publisher, the newspaper industry publication.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. Here is the item that was on their blog

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/18320

I did a search on the Star's website and the article they had did not come up. But I am sure I saw it and it was on the front page.

But this blog entry should work for you.

[kevinbgoode]

27. Thank you very much....:-)

I'm putting a few pieces of the puzzle together now.

[Orangepeel]

13. another dinosaur that will soon become extinct

a newspaper turning down revenue? like a starving man turning down a gourmet dinner because the chef is gay

[Toasterlad]

16. Sweet Darwin.

I can't even imagine living in such an oppressive shithole. Sorry, Kansans. If it makes you feel better, the middle of my state* is just as fucked up.

*Pennsylvania

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. You at least have some pretty mountains

LOL

[Telly Savalas]

21. The Kansas City Star is published in Missouri, not Kansas.

And the state senator for my district in this oppressive shithole is openly gay.

[Toasterlad]

22. D'oh!

So much for my geography degree.

You have to understand...it's like Pavlov's dog. I hear anti-gay and Kansas...

Sorry, Missorians! (is that the right term?)

[kevinbgoode]

24. Actually, this raises a rather important issue about the newspaper

If they are claiming that they ONLY publish wedding announcements which are recognized by state law, then they need to show that: a) they either never publish out-of-state wedding announcements of residents; b)they always wait to publish any out-of-state wedding announcement until a staff member can verify that Missouri will recognize the marriage; and c)the newspaper verifies the legality of every wedding announcement no matter where it takes place.

Someone needs to remind the Kansas City Star that if they are using state law as an EXCUSE for refusing to publish this same-sex couple's wedding announcement, they can certainly show where they always screen out-of-state wedding announcements for verification of Missouri-accepted AGE requirements, Missouri-defined gender identification of the parties, and previous divorce status of the participants as acceptable under Missouri law.

While heterosexual marriages are generally transportable from state-to-state, I think there are a few exceptions. For example, in Georgia up until a couple of years ago, a minor could legally marry an adult without parental permission as long as one party was pregnant. While that law has been changed (after, of course, the state moaned about the need for a constitutional amendment against the evil gays), I don't think Missouri would have accepted that marriage, since a minor could be below the legal marriage age in the state. Although those situations might be rare and unusual, they DO happen - and I'd wager the Star doesn't even ask the ages of the wedding participants in an announcement.

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. They changed their policy!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5784100

[Telly Savalas]

34. I saw that on BlogKC. Good news!

Now the only rationale for my "I'll never buy that damn paper again in my life" ruling is that they had the audacity to jack up the price on the Sunday edition to two bucks while axing content.