So, what’s so great about that? The man’s fiancé is also a man.

Of course, even that should be no big deal, since such matters are now legal in Iowa, but to a certain segment of the population, printing the engagement announcement of a gay couple was like inciting everyone in Indiana to fuck their cows and sheep and to sell their children into white slavery.

You think I am joking.

The backlash from groups who oppose marriage equality began 48 hours later. At first the announcement became fodder for local radio station, then the American Family Association of Indiana, according to Indiana reporter Bil Browning, e-mailed an action alert to its membership, suggesting that the paper would also soon print “anniversary announcements for polygamous marriages” and “incestuous birth announcements.” Conservative Indiana blogger Brian Sikma, citing the fact that Indiana law does not recognize same-sex marriages, encouraged readers to contact the The Elkhart Truth’s parent company, Federation Media, to launch a complaint.

Rightwingers responded to the call to action in droves. The reaction of the newspaper was at once professional and sharply critical of the rightwing fear-mongering. It represents what journalism should be. I’ve highlighted the best parts.


We had no idea that people in Fort Wayne, Lafayette, Warsaw, Kokomo, Indianapolis, Fishers, LaGrange, Muncie, South Bend and Syracuse cared so passionately about The Elkhart Truth. Not to mention our burgeoning fan base in Lawton, Okla.

Nonetheless, we appreciate the interest.

We published an announcement Sunday that two men, one a former Elkhart resident, plan to marry this month in Iowa. For more than 48 hours, readers barely uttered a word. We received four e-mails -- two against, one for and one that misspelled "disgusting" -- two phone calls, and no letters to the editor and roughly 10 comments on eTruth.com.

Readers either didn't notice the announcement among the other engagements Sunday or they made their peace with it. No big deal. That is, until a pair of family advocacy groups, abetted by a local AM radio station, organized a protest against The Truth.

People wrote and called from throughout Indiana. Many expressed their sincere belief that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is between a man and a woman. Others quoted straight from the Fred Phelps playbook, excoriating "fags" and "perverts."

Most asked the same questions -- why did you publish a same-sex engagement announcement when it's illegal in Indiana and why are you promoting the gay marriage?

Same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa, where the couple lives and plans to marry. Since one of the young men is originally from Elkhart and his family still lives here, we did the same thing we'd do for any other local family with a child getting married -- we published the couple's engagement announcement.

We fulfilled our role as a paper of record. We documented an engagement, something we do hundreds of times each year.

Protesters asked why we would publish a story about something illegal in Indiana. Basically, it's because an informed citizenry, a citizenry capable of thinking for itself, needs uncensored news from a variety of sources. That includes states and nations where the law does not conform to Indiana's.

Because after all, how would Hoosiers who oppose gay rights even know about Iowa's same-sex marriage ruling in April if news outlets hadn't reported it in Indiana -- where same-sex marriage is illegal?

Now, to address the accusation that we're promoting gay rights.

Protesters believe that every news story amounts to an official endorsement of its content. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We publish announcements every week about babies born to unwed mothers. Does that mean we approve of births out of wedlock?

It doesn't mean that we approve or disapprove. It's news.

If we ever decide to endorse gay marriage -- or to oppose it -- we will argue our case on this page in a clearly labeled editorial. This is where we state our opinions.

But our personal beliefs about homosexuality did not influence the decision to publish Sunday's announcement. They didn't even enter into the conversation.

We received an engagement announcement, and we decided to treat it like every other engagement announcement. We treated it as news.

Imagine, a newspaper staff that knows the difference between opinion and news, and the requirement that a news source be unbiased, regardless of the staff’s personal opinions.

News is news. Facts are facts. A newspaper is supposed to print them for the public to be informed, to form its own opinions. That’s really what, “we report, you decide,” should mean.

Dobson’s FOTF Political Action Group released a fictional letter today “from the future,” alleging that four years of an Obama administration will pack the Supreme Court with far-left liberals, restrict religious freedoms, raise taxes, collude with Communists, and practically invite terrorists to bomb the USA. The usual FOTF hot buttons are there, too: homosexuality, abortions and pornography. They will all reach epidemic proportions if Obama is elected, the letter says.

It closes with an accusation that the evangelicals who voted for Obama in 2008, abandoning John McCain, were basically backsliders. Yep, nothing like adding good old Christian guilt to a dishful of fear.

Many people thought he sounded so thoughtful, so reasonable. And during the campaign,
after he had won the Democratic nomination, he seemed to be moving to the center in his
speeches, moving away from his far-Left record. No one thought he would enact such a far-Left,
extreme liberal agenda.

But the record was all there for anyone to see. The agenda of the ACLU, the agenda of
liberal activist judges in their dissenting opinions, the agenda of the homosexual activists, the
agenda of the environmental activists, the agenda of the National Education Association, the
agenda of the global-warming activists, the agenda of the abortion-rights activists, the agenda of
the gun-control activists, the agenda of the euthanasia supporters, the agenda of the one-world
government pacifists, the agenda of far-Left groups in Canada and Europe – all of these agendas
were there in plain sight, and all of these groups provided huge support for Senator Obama. The
liberal agenda was all there. But too many people just didn’t want to see it.

Christians didn’t take time to find out who Barack Obama was when they voted for him.

The only accusation the letter leaves out is that Obama is the Anti-Christ. Maybe that will be in a follow-up missive.

It’s the work of a desperate, sick group of people, who appear to have no faith at all in their God or the American system of government. It’s an attempt to stanch the flow of evangelicals who really are leaving the McCain camp to vote for Obama, seeing in the Democratic candidate a calmer, more focused president than McCain might be. Guilting them into staying, Dobson appears to believe, will enable McCain to win Nov. 4.

As if.

We have heard Obama’s enemies accuse him of being a Muslim, a terrorist, a far-left (they would also say, “commie pinko,” if those terms weren’t 40 years old) radical, an un-American wolf in sheep’s clothing. McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, has divided the USA into pro-American areas and un-American areas. Pro-America people support McCain; un-American people are atheists and liberals who support Obama.

Hey, guys! It ain’t workin’. Obama is still ahead in the polls. Evangelicals, senior citizens, prominent Republicans, big time conservative newspapers — they’re all running away from McCain faster than rats on a sinking ship.

To say I dislike James Dobson would be an understatement. His version of Christianity — in fact, let’s skip religion and consider his ethics and morality — is so far from Jesus’ message of love, patience and understanding (that whole Sermon on the Mount thing) that I cannot fathom why any believer with half a brain would bother listening to the man.

Of course, I have just answered my own question. Only very stupid people would fall for this “letter from the future.” Fortunately, they seem to be a very tiny minority right now.