reuters article pisses me off

This is what the Reuters article on the Emmy's said:

Playwright Kushner made an unusual acceptance speech by thanking his "husband" Mark saying, "One of these days we can get a legal marriage license and you can make an honest homosexual out of me."


The comment, referring to the debate over same-sex marriage, was a rare political comment during an evening in which the entertainment industry celebrated its finest rather than choosing sides on controversial issues.

HUSBAND IS QUOTES??? RATHER THAN CHOOSING SIDES ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES??? HOW IS THIS WRITER ALLOWED TO WRITE FOR REUTERS???

I WANT TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE REUTERS EDITOR ABOUT THIS TRASHY WRITER: NAMED Arthur Spiegelman.

Let's all write letters letting them know this kind of article is not welcome.

---

Not really since they could have gone out and had it legalized in about 10 minutes.

---

Come on. He's not legally his husband. He can't be referred to as such in an article. Let's get some perspective. This isn't about what we WISH to be true, it's what it is right now.

---

In a newspaper article, a journalist cannot refer to someone as someone's spouse unless they are legally married. They are not supposed to "choose sides on a controversial issue."

---

No he hasn't. You're looking at it backwards. He is a journalist. He cannot refer to two people as spouses when they legally are not, whether he personally agrees or not.

---

Balance what you said with how he made a binary of honoring HOllywood's greatest and political stances. Then, you'll see he has clearly chosen a side of the debate. That point was not even part of the point of the article. But, he chose that reality for us to view. And, by doing so, he is highlighting one side of a political debate.

---

I guess he could have called him Kushner's partner instead of "husband," but then you'd probably be accusing him of making light of their relationship. There's a limited amount of terminology that can be used here; the reporter did his or her best.

I think that focusing on nothing but the quotes around "husband" is too narrow- the tone of the article didn't seem insulting at all.

technically, by putting the word in quotes he's possibly just denoting that it was kushner's word for mark, not the reporter's. but it's a classic reuters attempt to avoid offending anyone at all, and probably in doing so actually causing more hurt feelings than they would have had they merely quoted him. but come on, touch, that was about the only "controversial" moment of the night so they had to find some way to work it into the story. just mentioning that it was said doesn't sell papers, baby!

---

Once again (I'm so shocked), I disagree with Rath--the writer clearly had a bad taste in his mouth when he wrote that.

---

Don't just look at the quotes. Look at how he makes an issue of any political statement in an awards show. It is clear with that context, that the quotes were meant as a slam.

---

Then he should have quoted Kushner.

---

Then why would he continue with saying Kushner moved the discussion from honoring people to political debate. Isn't that sort of a comment absolutely editorial? I don't think there is any doubt that it is.

---

perhaps. if they are, they are gay fleas, and have no rights to marry.

---