I wonder if we’re seeing the next step in a civil rights movement.

This weekend:

Proposition 8 rally in Kansas City

Join the Impact in Saint Louis

Proposition 8 rally in Kansas City – more photos

A year ago:

Much ado – an announcement in the Warrensburg newspaper, part 11

Yesterday:

One of the individuals who was the subject of all those letter to the editor wrote a letter which was published in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal (in print and online) on November 19th:

…I am just writing you all to say if you thought you all could scare us off it did not work. We still live in Warrensburg, Mo., area so if you have a problem with gay people in your town get over it because there are a lot more gay people living in Warrensburg than have the guts to come out and let everyone know…

I don’t think as many people are going to be silent anymore.

After a brief respite, the letters to the editor have started up again.

I have previously written about the commitment announcement of two males published in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal and the reactions in letters to the editor in the paper here [original diary], here [part 2], here [part 3], here [part 4], here [part 5], here [part 6], here [part 7], here [part 8], here [part 9], and here [part 10].

Two letters were published in today’s edition of the paper. One complained about the subject, the other was a lengthy diatribe.

The headers for the letters were provided by the paper.

The first letter:

Get Priorities In Order

“I have held off writing this letter, but enough is enough…

[a description of coverage of the story in the Kansas City media market]

…I am concerned that so many people in the community think this is such a major issue that they’re still writing and voicing opinions about it two months later…

…Please, people of Warrensburg, let’s prioritize things. Let it go.”

Gee, intolerance isn’t pleasant and doesn’t reflect well on the community when such sees the light of day in the local newspaper and beyond. Do you think maybe people should speak out against intolerance? “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Sometimes a satirist is presented with something that is too good to be true – one might refer to it as “a target rich environment.” I usually refer to writing about something like this (satirically, of course) as the discursive equivalent of “clubbing baby harp seals.”

The second letter was quite lengthy and criticized the paper along with all those too tolerant elements in society:

Gay Unions Are Aberrant

“If you can stand it, one more letter on your engagement picture. I have known and worked with a number of gay people and generally found them to be good workers and decent people as long as they don’t talk about their other activities. Nevertheless I would not trust them in certain professions…

…In addition, such unions have no possibility of ever being fruitful. Hence, an aberration…

…Your story-picture about a gay union does two things, neither of which helps the community. First, it appears to give legitimacy to such unions and this advances the gay political agenda. Second, it tends to encourage young people still in their formative years, to believe that it is okay to experiment with homosexuality.

No doubt I will be castigated for this letter, but that too is part of the gay agenda…

…love the sinner, hate the sin.”

“…I have known and worked with a number of gay people and generally found them to be good workers and decent people…” That ‘s code for “some of my best friends are gay, but…” or “They’re nice enough, but I wouldn’t want one of them marrying my son/daughter…”

Priceless. “…as long as they don’t talk about their other activities…” My goodness, they might talk about going to a professional sporting event, or having dinner at a restaurant, or attending a church social event. I wonder if gay people put their pants on one leg at a time. Oh, the humanity…

“…Nevertheless I would not trust them in certain professions…” I guess that means king, or soldier, or scientist, or diplomat is out. Oh, I get it. It’s about teachers. There’s that fear that all the innocent children could catch being gay. Or maybe they’d catch tolerance? There’s a thought.

“…In addition, such unions have no possibility of ever being fruitful. Hence, an aberration…” I suppose that a loving couple who can’t conceive children for whatever reason would really appreciate being called “an aberration.”

“…Your story-picture about a gay union does two things, neither of which helps the community. First, it appears to give legitimacy to such unions and this advances the gay political agenda. Second, it tends to encourage young people still in their formative years, to believe that it is okay to experiment with homosexuality…” Actually, the story did a third thing. It brought a lot of intolerant people “out of the closet.” The irony is quite delicious, don’t you think?

It might be just me, but I figure the gay political agenda is to throw politicians out of office who cynically exploit a minority of narrow minded individuals’ fear of all things gay as a wedge issue for base political purposes. That sounds like a worthy enterprise.

“…No doubt I will be castigated for this letter, but that too is part of the gay agenda…” You think?  I figured the gay agenda was to promote tolerance for others, but I guess it really revolves around targeting isolated people who don’t cotton to their agenda.  It’s amazing what you can learn just by reading the local newspaper.

“…love the sinner, hate the sin”
Hate the bigotry and intolerance, pity the bigoted and intolerant.

And, while we’re at it, there ought to be a law against using too many paranoid clichés in letters to the editor.

Ebb and flow. Just when I think that things are finally getting down to a trickle, the floodgates open. It’s the nature of this subject in our polarized society.

I have previously written about the commitment announcement of two males published in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal and the reactions in letters to the editor in the paper here [original diary], here [part 2], here [part 3], here [part 4], here [part 5], here [part 6], here [part 7], here [part 8], and here [part 9].

One short supportive letter was published in the Wednesday, November 14th edition of the paper. Three lengthy letters were published in the Thursday, November 15th edition.

The headers for the letters were provided by the paper.

The lone letter from someone in St. Louis on November 14th:

Supporting Decision

“…I want to say THANK YOU for making me proud of my state.

I commend you for being patriots and supporting ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ for ALL Americans.”

The November 15th edition had two letters criticizing the announcement and one supportive letter:

Be Tolerant Of Others

“All these letters have become is a way to sling hateful remarks at one another. It’s time to stop. Just because Christians do not support this union by no way makes them uncaring…

…it’s a disagreement of what defines traditional marriage. This community needs to restore itself by being tolerant of each opinion….

Okay, I think there’s a truth in advertising problem in there somewhere.

“All these letters have become is a way to sling hateful remarks at one another…” I recall reading somewhere something about “not casting the second stone”, though I could be in error. Apparently, casting the first stone is always an option for many people.

“…Just because Christians do not support this union…” I guess someone took a poll. The good news is that some other belief systems in our community kind of like the idea. But, we all know that no right thinking, all knowing, and truly righteous Christian would disagree with the letter writer.

That settles it.

“…This community needs to restore itself by being tolerant of each opinion…” Chutzpah and delicious irony for the irony impaired. Yes, let’s “tolerate” intolerance.

It’s enough to make one weep.

Hate Sin, Love The Sinner

“Most Americans, citizens of the United States, a country once known as a Christian nation, have been desensitized to sin…

Wow. Just wow.

“… a country once known as a Christian nation, have been desensitized to sin…”  Where to begin? I could write a dissertation length piece on ignorance, asking: “Why can’t Johnny retain critical thinking skills in a culture devoid of ‘knowledge’, you know, based on actual facts?” – but I’m pretty sure that’s already been done.

“…once known as a Christian nation…”

Well, at least not since 1796.

Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary

…Art. 11. As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility, of Musselmen;  and, as the said States never entered into war, or act of hostility against any Mohametan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption in the harmony existing between the two countries…”

Or, a little earlier:

United States Constitution
Article VI

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Hate self-righteous ignorance, pity the self-righteously ignorant.

And finally, a lengthy supportive letter.

Play Nicely With Others

“Recently while at the local hospital, I wandered into the chapel. I began reading a pie chart of approximately thirty different religions and each of their beliefs. The foundation of all was the same. Simply put, ‘Treat others like you want to be treated’….

I am disillusioned that in some churches ‘treat others like you want to be treated’ is a totally lost concept. The foundation forgotten. Don’t call names. Don’t throw stones. Don’t hate. Don’t judge. Don’t cheat. Don’t lie. Respect others and yourself. Play nice….

…And shame on you (you know who you are), whose Christian outreach only reaches as far as your own denomination.

So please profess a bit less, reflect a bit more, put down your rocks, stretch out your arms…

Now go play nice…”

I had a conversation about all this at an unrelated event last night [by most accounts this is the subject for discussion in Warrensburg]. An individual mentioned the letter which pointed out the 1967 swimming pool vote. He told me, “That opened up some painful issues. There’s a lot of stuff we all need to get out in the open and discuss around here.”

“…Don’t call names. Don’t throw stones. Don’t hate. Don’t judge. Don’t cheat. Don’t lie. Respect others and yourself. Play nice…” I’m trying. God is not finished with me yet. And boy, is she pissed.

The letters to the editor about the commitment announcement of two males previously published in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal continue.

This subject has obviously struck some nerves. It is also truly indicative of some level of polarization in our culture and, I suppose, the reluctance of anyone to cede ground anymore. That is an observation, not a paean to useless and/or unprincipled compromise.

People are speaking out. The conversation is no longer one sided. Why should I be surprised? The last six and a half years have certainly taught us all very important lessons about not speaking up when we should. That in itself is a very good thing.

I have previously written about the announcement and the reactions in letters to the editor in the paper here [original diary], here [part 2], here [part 3], here [part 4], here [part 5], here [part 6], here [part 7], and here [part 8].

One letter in support of publishing the announcement was printed in today’s edition of the paper. This same letter reopened a painful chapter in the city’s history from 40 years ago.

The header for the letter was provided by the paper.

Issue Is All About Fear

“Please accept my sturdy support for publishing an announcement of the sacred commitment of two people…It’s unfortunate, but it still takes courage to stand tall while you’re tip-toeing into the 21st century…

…As I recall, the good citizens of the Burg voted down the opportunity for a swimming pool about 1967 for fear that whites would have to swim with ‘coloreds.’ It was their loss, of course, but it also said something about people’s fears. The current situation…is about fear, too…”

History certainly speaks for itself.

Our society’s current inability to get over fear is troubling. We’ll give up the Bill of Rights because someone else will exploit our fears in support of their own misguided belief that our freedoms leave us too vulnerable. They are afraid. Ironic, isn’t it?

As a culture we fear any changes in society because, well, something different can’t be any good. That might work out for a three year old, but it’s no way for a mature and diverse society to function.

Some fear others because they appear to be different in some way, blind to the obvious fact that we are all really the same. There’s the rub.

For the longest time too many people on have been afraid to speak out because they were afraid of being labeled “un” this or “un” that.

February 25, 2003

…The final audience member who spoke was the most eloquent [paraphrased from memory]:  “I am not from this country. I am a naturalized citizen.  I would like to thank those who spoke out against this [war].  It is a difficult thing to do [in this environment].  What is this un?  Nowhere else in the world do you hear un-French, or un-Spanish…  But, when people speak out here they are called un-American.  This is my home.  It is a very strange thing to be made to feel uncomfortable in your own home…”

It should be a very strange thing indeed to be made to feel uncomfortable in your own community…

When it comes to letters to the editor in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal it seems that exhaustion and the cult of victimhood have settled in.

I have previously written about the commitment announcement of two males and the reactions in letters to the editor in the paper here [original diary], here [part 2], here [part 3], here [part 4], here [part 5], here [part 6], and here [part 7].

One letter to the editor was printed in last Friday’s edition of the paper. One letter was printed in today’s edition of the paper.

The headers for each letter were provided by the paper.

From Friday, November 9th:

Tired Of The Issue

“To all the people that would like to FORCE me and my family to read over and over again about the “commitment”. I am tired of seeing it in the paper…

…I wouldn’t care about what two men want to do with their lives, but quit ramming it down our throats about the paper being “right” to run the announcement…”

There’s an easy solution – don’t read the entire paper. I hear that there’s some really juicy stuff about music pop stars on tabloid cable shows.

By the same token, this letter writer wasn’t too concerned about the people who were writing that the paper was “wrong”.

The letter, taken as a whole, is somewhat hard to decipher. It’s as if all that recent “unpleasantness” is, well, recently unpleasant. Gee, thanks for the update.

From today’s edition:

Looking For Warrensburg Pastors To Speak Up

“Where, oh where, are all the Warrensburg Pastors in this time of dialogue? Where are you when one of your own is being attacked? Why are you tardy in your defense? You know the truth and yet you sit on the sidelines and look from a distance. Are you fearful of losing your flock…?

Where to start?

What might a pastor [hypothetically, of course] be thinking?

Answer to the first question: “Sometimes it’s a sign of mercy and intelligence to not step into a mine field and let the fool who’s blundering around experience the full consequences of his ill thought out actions.”

Answer to the second question: “What do you mean ‘one of your own’? I’m not claiming him.”

Answer to the third question: “What gives you the mistaken impression that I’d defend bigotry and intolerance?”

Answer to the fourth question: “If my flock would desert me for failure to defend bigotry and intolerance I know a place where they can go to feel more comfortable.”

A curious mix of victimhood and a plaintive hope that there’s safety in approval numbers when it comes wearing our narrow minds on our sleeves.

No thanks.

This has got to be the longest continuous stretch of letters to the editor on any subject that I’ve seen in the seventeen years I’ve lived in the community.

It’s like watching a prize fight where the untalented challenger continues to doggedly walk into the punches of the seasoned champion. You’d expect the former would figure out that it just might be time to take a dive. But, no.

The church strikes back.

I have previously written about the commitment announcement of two males and the reactions in letters to the editor in the paper here [original diary], here [part 2], here [part 3], here [part 4], here [part 5], and here [part 6].

Four more letters to the editor were printed in today’s edition of the paper. Three of the letters in defense of the church and pastor. One letter was in support of the paper.

Excerpts from the November 8th edition follow. The headers for each letter were provided by the paper. The paper’s circulation figures must be going through the roof.

The cult of victimization doesn’t wear well on anybody, least of all bullies and self-righteous fools. “Who, me?” they ask.

Church Does Help Needy

“…As I have read the various letters concerning the same sex union announcements in the paper, one of my concerns has been that some would seek to attack and vilify those with differing viewpoints…”

Like the newspaper? Or the two individuals in the announcement? What did the latter do to anyone?

I wonder if this letter is referring to language like “…This decision indicates a lack of respect for family values and a lack of concern for the unnatural lifestyle…” or maybe “…Your bold decision to promote this lifestyle is a flagrant attack on the traditional family God has instituted for us…” The language in these certainly appear to be calls to confrontation, eh?

Yeah, the cult of the put upon bully as victim doesn’t wear well at all.

In Support of Pastor

Dear Warrensburg and Columbia and New England and Florida, etc…..

I think “etc.” stands for San Francisco. You know, code for “those people”.

Church Does Offer Help

“The topic of homosexuality is a relational issue that all too quickly becomes a charged political issue. The recent same sex engagement announcement photo has set this in motion in our town. My church all of a sudden is labeled bigoted, hateful etc. because individuals voiced disapproval of the engagement announcement…

…I have some background in helping individuals who struggle with same-sex attraction…”

Tell me again who set what “in motion….” “…because individuals voiced disapproval…” Now, that’s an understatement if I’ve ever read one.

I do believe this individual letter writer offered “the cure.”

Stupidity may be inherited, but ignorance is a personal choice.

And, a final letter from the reality based community:

Issue Is An Opportunity

“…Then I got it!

This is about some people’s inability to accept others different from themselves. It is about ignorance, intolerance and hatred. (That’s the obvious part.) More important it is about the urgent need for sensible, tolerant, loving people around the world to stand together and speak out for a different way of thinking. It is about promoting peace and making a better world for all….”

Amen.

I heard a rumor that the paper is printing every letter it gets on the subject.

It just keeps getting better.

I have previously written about the commitment announcement of two males and the reactions in letters to the editor in the paper here [original diary], here [part 2], here [part 3], here [part 4], and here [part 5].

The letters policy of the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal, as published periodically in a prominent box on its opinion pages, states in part:

…Letters which appear to be a personal vendetta against an individual or a business cannot be published. Nor can those that are vindictive, sarcastic, derisive or libelous…

That doesn’t leave much, does it? Then again, a newspaper can choose what they want to print, policy or no policy.

Four more letters to the editor in support of the publication of the announcement were printed in today’s edition.

Excerpts from the November 7th edition follow. The headers for each letter were provided by the paper.

The first letter:

Stand On Side Of Equality

“…The announcement made in your paper represents love, acceptance, compassion and equality. Anyone who stands against those virtues most surely represents hate. If the chance came for someone to gain understanding so that that they could then make peace with others, why wouldn’t they take that chance…?”

A letter from San Francisco, California:

In Defense Of Diversity

“…It often takes courage to stand up to discrimination, prejudice, and animosity – like which was recently expressed by some readers…

…I am ashamed, troubled, and saddened to read some of the letters you’ve received over this, and as offensive as they are, I believe they also serve a purpose…”

A letter from Columbus, Indiana:

In Line With Values

“…While I don’t feel that the main role of a newspaper is to promote values, I do find that recognizing the lifetime commitment of two people is in line with the traditional family values I learned every Sunday in church in Warrensburg…”

And finally, a letter from a Warrensburg resident:

Tired Of Narrow Minds

“…I am sick and tired of people writing in and saying the community this and the community that…I go to church every Sunday and have since I was very young and the God I was raised to know doesn’t teach us hate and prejudice, so it is hard for me to read articles from so called religious people expressing their hatred and prejudice…Threatening the newspaper, saying you will pull your subscription isn’t gonna get you nowhere, it just shows how immature and ignorant you are…”

It’s been a while since a letter to the editor criticizing the paper for the announcement has appeared. You know, the supportive counteraction of the rest of our community just might have something to do with that.

I didn’t expect to be that prophetic:

I don’t think this is going to end any time soon.

Those letters to the editor keep showing up in the paper.

I have previously written about the commitment announcement of two males and the reactions in letters to the editor in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal here [original diary], here [part 2], here [part 3], and here [part 4].

Five letters to the editor in support of the announcement were published in the Monday, November 5th edition of the paper. Four more letters expressing support appeared in today’s edition.

Excerpts from the November 5th edition follow. The headers for each letter were provided by the paper.

Abuse of pastoral power

“…The news report that I watched explained that a local pastor encouraged church members to write to the paper in opposition. How did our community become so misguided….?

…Encouraging a congregation to speak out against a private issue like this is an abuse of pastoral power…”

Ouch. That had to have left a mark.

There were two letters from Columbia (the city in Missouri). The first:

Stick to Your Guns

“….I hope that you stick to your guns over this issue and hopefully let people know that with all the hate, wars, and genocide going on in the world, there is nothing wrong with two people declaring their love and commitment to each other publicly…”

The second:

Shouldn’t Throw Stones

“…First of all, I’m a conservative and I see no wrong in publishing an announcement showing two people who are making such a commitment to each other…

…Shame on them for throwing stones when they should not…!”

Okay, that one definitely left a mark.

A letter from Florida (the state, but I haven’t checked if there’s a city by that name in Missouri):

Love is a Christian Concept

“…The commitment of these two men to each other in no way harms the family or other marriage relationships…”

A succinct letter:

It’s Time to Open Minds

“….I know this is a very conservative area we live in and it was a risky decision but it’s about time our community opens their eyes and minds…!”

In today’s paper:

Attitude is not Christian

“…My pastor, who is definitely NOT gay, has never said anything negative about gay people or their lifestyle. He believes that only God has the right to judge anyone. I can hardly believe that these people who have been writing to you [in opposition] or pulling their ads from your paper call themselves Christians…!”

Another letter:

Are We to Judge Others?

“…What a controversy we have just because two gentlemen want to share their celebration of love with us.

Are we to judge others?

We’re asked not to…

…’They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love.'”

A pastor from a nearby town weighs in:
<blockquoteLooking For A Scapegoat

“…The real causes of failure in relationships are mostly financial, lack of commitment, unfaithfulness, inappropriate exposure of children to our culture, and inadequate teaching by parents, teachers and pastors.

Instead of accepting responsibility for our many failures, it is much easier to look for a scapegoat to condemn which eases our guilty consciences…”

And, finally, a short letter from someone in Minneapolis, Minnesota:

Focus is on Wrong Thing

“…It’s sad that the fundamentalists get all bent out of shape over something so harmless yet say nothing about Bush ruining our country and destroying the Constitution.”

Remember that phrase: “…ink by the barrel.” I must admit after reading today’s paper, for one brief instant, the thought crossed mind that the paper might be piling on and that those folks who were so offended by the original announcement have probably had enough public chastisement. Nah.

Pass the popcorn.

I don’t think this is going to end any time soon.

I have previously written about the commitment announcement of two males and the reactions in letters to the editor in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal here [original diary], here [part 2], and here [part 3].

It really is true – one should never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. The ability of the Warrensburg paper to control the dialog (as long as they receive content in the form of submitted letters) bodes ill for the direction of public opinion in the views of those who chose to criticize the paper.

Maybe it’s the fact that finally there’s a critical mass of people who decided not to remain silent. That bodes well for everyone.

Today’s edition of the paper printed five letters to the editor – all in support of the paper publishing the announcement.

The Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal does not have an on-line edition. Excerpts from today’s edition follow. The headers for each letter were provided by the paper.

The first letter:

Kudos for Publication

“…your paper has still done the correct thing by having not discriminated against the purchaser based upon sexual orientation or sociological mores. The content itself is not prurient, and therefore equal protection demanded the publication of such an item…”

Another letter:

Not Everyone is Anti-Gay

“…I am motivated by the cowardice of three advertisers to pull their advertising from your newspaper. Please let the people and advertisers in the community know that not everybody is anti-gay/lesbian.”

Another letter, possibly from Columbia, Missouri:

Judgements Admonished

“…I am a happily married (straight) woman in my mid-forties…Your readers and advertisers who have taken offense to your actions should be ashamed of themselves for being so close-minded and judgemental of a lifestyle that is anything but ‘unnatural.’ Love is love and it deserves to be celebrated!”

Another letter, from a Warrensburg resident who has been nationally recognized for community service:

Renew My Subscription

“…I was brought up as a humanist, so I don’t understand this controversy. Human beings come in all shapes, sizes and styles, and I try to get to know them on person by person basis, without bias…

….Hmmm. Happy is good. I hope everybody will try to be happy.

Hold the good thought.  Oh, and renew my subscription please.”

The final letter, from a long time Warrensburg resident:

Fighting Hate, Bigotry

“My great uncle…was editor of the Star-Journal 80 years ago and he was threatened by the voice of ignorance and intolerance.  It was then the resurrected Ku Klux Klan, including a few of the local clergy.

He fought the forces of hate and bigotry then, as I trust the present editor will today…”

The letters say what should be said. And speak well for a view of tolerance in a community.

I have previously written about the commitment announcement of two males and the reactions in letters to the editor in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal here and here.

The supreme ironies in today’s Warrensburg paper (wasted on those who are irony impaired): a lead editorial (reprinted from a letter in the Kansas City Star) pleading for less divisiveness and an article on the front page announcing that the News Press & Gazette Co. of St. Joseph has bought the Warrensburg paper from publisher Avis Tucker.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported today that “[t]hree advertisers are pulling their business from a Warrensburg, Mo., newspaper and several readers are threatening to cancel their subscriptions after the publication of a same-sex engagement announcement….” [hat tip to WillyK] 

The letters to the editor today include two (one lengthy) which chastise the Warrensburg paper and eight which support the paper. Though, one of the letters taking umbrage, while relatively concise, is signed by 14 individuals (that must have been some pearl clutching, hand over mouth gasping, and vaporous committee meeting – my word!).

The first letter in today’s paper comes from the “committee”:

“…I [I guess that’s the “committee” name] would hope to think that our small Mid-western town is not becoming tolerant of such matters…”

Yeah, those small town values, like intolerance, just add so much to the cachet around here.

Another, much lengthier letter:

“…Prior to the 1970s the American Psychological Association defined this as a “deviant” behavior. What changed the APA definition[?] Possibly political correctness, an acceptance of any and all beliefs as being equally valid, and a homosexual movement that has gained acceptance in the media, political arena, and the boards of many major business are the culprits…”

Yep, the “science never makes any decision based on science and global warming is a myth” crowd.

Just for the record, I don’t consider that stupidity and bigotry are equally valid beliefs when compared to reason and tolerance.

Another letter:

“…I’ve noticed from reading the viewpoint of a few others, the Bible is used to defend their position. Perhaps, quotes should be taken from the entire book rather than select parts that can be manipulated to prove a narrow-minded view correct….Who is anyone else to cast stones?”

Another letter – from a friend of the couple:

“…I don’t think it’s anyone’s business to say what they are doing is right or wrong…”

Another letter for tolerance – with a dash of sarcasm:

“…Did I miss something [in the photo]? Were they naked or engaged in some act unsuitable for innocent eyes? The picture must have been dreadful to cause so many people to be disgusted, saddened, disappointed, disturbed and grieved at the Star-Journal’s lack of respect and concern and it’s flagrant, blatant attack on the traditional family…”

I bow down before a great master of snark. We are not worthy.

Another letter – very short and to the point:

“I want to commend you for posting the wedding announcement…It shows great courage and forward thinking.”

Okay, it wasn’t a wedding announcement. It was a commitment announcement.

Another letter – in favor of editorial independence:

“I thank you and support your endeavor to offer an unbiased perspective to the people of Warrensburg. I fully support your recent decision to include the announcement of…[the] commitment ceremony in the paper…”

A letter of support from Maryland [The state, I presume. Knowing Missouri I suppose there could be a town by that name, but I didn’t bother to check.]:

“…I cried when I read this.

…because I finally felt like I was one of the normal people…”

Another letter of support:

“…I wanted to let you know how happy I was to hear the news and how much I support your decision to print the announcement…it’s little things like this that keep pushing our society further and further towards making change…”

Ah, there’s the rub with some folks.

And finally, a brief letter from someone in Columbia [It could be the country, but I’m fairly certain it’s the city in Missouri]:

“Thank you for your paper’s respect for equality and human rights by printing all engagement announcements without discrimination.

Thank you for doing the right thing.”

As for those businesses who pulled their ads from the Warrensburg paper over this? I figure I’ll just frequent the local businesses which continue to advertise in the paper, and avoid those which don’t. Now, if I could only get a letter to the editor into the paper to that effect…