Counter-statement.
Counter-counter-statement.
Let me tell you about the mess here. A young couple, both of whom happen to be male, announced via a community newspaper that they intended to wed in the near future. A little while later, that newspaper's editor announced that, due to the reactions of "a group of rabbis" whose number and identities remain unpublished, its first same-sex wedding announcement would also be its last. Once the reaction of the broader community made it clear what a boneheaded move this had been, they issued yet another statement that acknowledges their poor management of the situation without committing them to anything in particular.
Now let's examine the fallout:
- A couple about to begin their life together have, regardless of their wishes, had their wedding transmuted into another border skirmish in the American culture wars.
- A generally respected publication has been made, as one commenter to the final statement put it, "the laughingstock of the entire Internet for a day." They can reverse their editorial decision, but they are unlikely to regain the good faith of their constituents.
- An oppressed minority group lately noted for its spectacular teenage suicide rate has been told once again, in a loud and clear voice, that the stories of their lives violate the basic standards of decency for public discourse.
- Another minority group, extremely diverse and widely misunderstood, have been branded in the public square as a bunch of bigoted, hypersensitive would-be theocrats.
The publisher says that we should "take a step back and reflect on what this series of events has taught us about the community we care so much about, and about the steps we must take to move forward together." I'm not sure what it's taught us about the community. The only lesson I would expect anyone to carry away from this mess is that the best damage control is not the kind where you pick up the pieces afterwards, but the kind that involves thinking a day into the future.
