Well I guess that's the paper's right to do that.

Then again, I find it ironic that a paper named "Spectrum" would deny it.

That's the thing about America. Being within your rights doesn't always mean you're right.

The tall one is kinda cute...what a waste. Why are all the cute, well dressed, sensitive ones always gay?

I'm not.

I am married though...

gay or married... It's all the same

You're a lesbian trapped in a man's body... or perhaps a gay man trapped in a woman's body. Whichever.

Newspapers need to be sensitive to their audience. I've worked at newspapers before which refused to run ads for numerous reasons. One was an ad for a sale at Walmart, in a community which was very anti-walmart. Had they run it, the other businesses which were getting pushed out by the big box would not have been happy with their advertising dollars going to the newspaper.

Another one was an ad for a 'russian dating' service. It was a family newspaper and the newspaper had to turn down the ad because it didn't fit hte lifestyle they wanted to foster.

A newspaper in Utah which doesn't want to print a gay wedding announcement sounds like they're making a business decision like the ones above. In the end, it IS a business and the publisher doesn't have the luxury to jeopardize the livelihood of the writers, salespeople, printers, suppliers and so-forth because of 'The rights of two individuals to put something in a paper they don't own.'

Every business in a free society has the right to heap as much ridicule upon its own face as the law will allow. And you're right in that personal rights don't necessarily play into it. But that doesn't mean the actors in the drama don't need to be criticized for what they've done, in an open discussion.

Alright, but let's criticize ALL the ones at fault.

Couple: "We'd like to put in a wedding announcement."

Paper: "Ok."

Couple: "And we're gay."

Paper: "Ok. But we can't run the photo."

Couple agrees, and then later decides that having a wedding announcement isn't enough, they MUST have the photo so they appeal to the publisher.

Publisher now says "Your appeal is heard, you won't get any announcement now."

So they run off to ANOTHER newspaper to get a story in about how the first newspaper refused to run their announcement after they demanded that a picture was included.

These two are out for media exposure. These two are pushing for a cause. They seem to be... pardon the pun... exposure seekers. They want their 15 minutes of fame.

And now GLAAD is targetting the newspapers advertisers. And rival newspapers are informing THEIR readers that THEY don't discriminate like the other paper did. "Oh and you can see their announcement if you buy our upcoming issue..." Yeah, nothing self-serving in THAT line.

This isn't about two guys who simply wanted an announcement. This is about two guys who weren't happy with their announcement and wanted a bigger one.

Good luck to them. When this 'fame' runs out, they'll most likely seek some other way to get into the news. I doubt this is the last we've heard of them.

or it could be about 2 guys that want to help other people in the same situation sometime down the road.

"I've thought a lot about the gay and lesbian kids who are surely all over the place in southern Utah, and maybe it's gratuitous on my part, but they need to see this announcement in the paper," he said. "When I was a kid ... I would have loved to have seen a picture of two guys having their life together celebrated in the paper."

I think of it this way: The paper, as a company, reserves the right not to run announcements and ads which it deems harmful to its business model. The couple, on the other hand, have reserved their right to criticize the company's decision through other media outlets. Guessing at their motivation based on the article written by someone else is pure speculation.

Also, charging the couple with attention-whoring is ironic, considering that anyone, including straight couples, taking out a wedding announcement is, in fact, seeking attention.

That's the whole point of announcement sections.

To me it's a case where a newspaper's internal policies only reflecting local politics, and getting called out on it nationally. If 300 other papers dogpile on them about it, then there's your free market in action.