Julian Sanchez header image 2

photos by Lara Shipley

House Style

March 22nd, 2005 · 9 Comments

With apologies to some perfectly lovely people I know who work there, I’ve decided that so long as the Washington Times preposterously insists upon referring to gay “marriage” in scare quotes, I’ll adopt a parallel practice with respect to that “newspaper” and the “journalists” it employs.

Tags: Journalism & the Media



9 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Kevin B. O'Reilly // Mar 22, 2005 at 2:58 pm

    Don’t blame the reporters for a decision that’s out of their hands.

  • 2 Jon // Mar 22, 2005 at 6:17 pm

    The perpetually “offended” Tony “Blankley” had better “take notice”. But he won’t, because he’s “sort of a buffoon.”

  • 3 Brian Hawkins // Mar 22, 2005 at 6:49 pm

    Well, the Times is owned by a guy who “thinks he’s God”…

  • 4 Nathan Freeman // Mar 23, 2005 at 4:53 am

    Maybe I do “eat my own dandruff.” Maybe I do “pop my whiteheads with a compass I used in high school.” Maybe I am NOT your “typical buff-bodied, blow-dried department-store-mannequin TV newsperson”

  • 5 Kriston Capps // Mar 23, 2005 at 10:40 am

    Don’t blame the reporters for a decision that’s out of their hands.

    No one’s making them “work” there.

  • 6 ajmac // Mar 25, 2005 at 3:01 pm

    I hate gratuitous quotation marks. Pet peeve of mine, actually. I always wonder, when I see the sticker on the gas station pumps that reads, “Drive-offs will be prosecuted,” all in quotation marks, who said it and why the station owner refrains from endorsing the sentiment as a promise.

    That said, I am sure the Wash Times does not use the quotation marks to scare anyone. For many of us, the phrase “gay marriage” begs the question. I understand that some perceive redefining marriage to include homosexual couples as a civil rights issue. But from others’ perspective, “marriage” is, by natural essence, the joining of two unlike persons — man and woman.

    If we are prepared to say that it is ontologically possible for a homosexual couple to be married, then we must be prepared to say that gender doesn’t matter; one or the other gender (take your pick) is not represented in a homosexual union. I, for one, am not prepared to say that.

  • 7 Avedon // Mar 25, 2005 at 6:56 pm

    ajmac, you make marriage sound awfully exciting. But I gotta tell ya, most of the time sex has nothing to do with it as all.

  • 8 David T // Mar 26, 2005 at 1:17 am

    “But from others’ perspective, ‘marriage’ is, by natural essence, the joining of two unlike persons — man and woman.”

    The point is, though, that marriage is a legal institution. A man and a woman may be “joined” but if they are not legally married, they are not married–period. Converesely, in Massachusetts, whether wisely or unwisely, courts have ruled that persons of the same sex can get married. Unless and until that decision is overturned by a federal or state constitutional amendment (or by the court overruling itself) persons of the same sex in Massachussetts may marry–without quotation amrks. Whatever you or I or anyone else think of “natural essence” is irrelevant–it is what the law thinks that counts.

    It is perfectly proper to describe marriage ceremonies *in states where same-sex marriage is not allowed by law* as “weddings” or “marriage” ceremonies–in quotes. Where people are legally married, however, such quotes are inappropriate.

  • 9 Julian Sanchez // Mar 26, 2005 at 12:53 pm

    “scare quotes” is a term of art; it doesn’t mean the quotes are actually supposed to scare anyone. And as David notes, whether marriage in some broader religious context has a “natural essence” is another point altogether. Civil marriage is a specific legal relationship constituted by a set of legal rights and obligations; there’s no question that a gay couple is capable of being in *that* kind of relationship, whether or not they can be “married” in some broader, theologically charged sense.