LIBEL by New York Times

by J. Edward Pawlick

Reserve Yours Now!

Have you seen today's column by the Globe's Ombudsman?

It's a riot!

She says that those who oppose gay marriage are not necessarily bigots. It's possible they are sincere in their intolerance. Those who are truly tolerant will change when they begin to understand.

But, people who are opposed not only to marriage, but also to civil unions as found in Vermont . . . well, she can't even bring herself to talk about them. Everyone at the Globe knows by now that those who are against both gay marriage and civil unions are extremists of the worst sort.

The ombudsman, Christine Chinlund, comes very close to implying that the dissenters at the SJC are bigots too. She doesn't appear to even realize that there were dissenting Justices to Marshall's opinion. (She only reads the Globe.)

In fact, the SJC split evenly 3-3 with Marshall casting the tie-breaking vote in the Goodridge case.

"It's not just bigots or haters who are unsettled by the decision," says Chinlund, but she doesn't bother to mention that Justice Martha Sosman, Justice Robert Cordy and Justice Francis Spina are in that group. We have to wonder whether Christine even knows that it was a 3-3 tie with the smartest and brightest in the dissent. The only judges voting with Marshall were John Greaney; Roderick Ireland, who is easily pushed around by anyone in power; and Judith Cowin, the Wellesley College graduate who was a big disappointment to us all, particularly to my wife, Sally, who was six years ahead of her at Wellesley.

Normal People Do Not Oppose Civil Unions

The article's headline was: "A bias in favor of gay marriage?" After that, Christine got right to it. What bothered her was, the "suggestion" that Pinch's newspaper was "piling on in support of the ruling," and was "failing to reflect the honest ambivalence of people who may support equal rights and civil unions but stop short of backing same-sex marriage."

Christine just assumes that as long as you support civil unions, such as found in Vermont, you may possibly be able to redeem yourself and come around to supporting marriage. She couldn't conceive of a normal person not supporting them. She couldn't even agree that that possibility should be discussed among decent people.

She informs us that the Metro editor has a series of stories in mind for February to "capture the texture and complexity" of views on gay marriage. I'm sure she does, and we all know exactly what they will say.

Chinlund's article begins and ends with quotes from the head of journalism at Northeastern, Steven Burgard, who is concerned with the Globe's coverage, but we don't know exactly why he is concerned. Her ending quotes Burgard as follows: "Other than from its two 'go to' conservative communists, Jeff Jacoby and Cathy Young, I have seen no opinion writing in the city's leading newspaper to the effect that reasonable people can believe on religious grounds that marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman."

Then Chinlund wrote: "'Responsible people,' he noted, may say yes to civil unions but no to marriage." Notice where she stopped quoting Burgard. The end of that sentence is all her words, not his. What did he really say? Perhaps it was an accurate summary, but we who have to watch the Globe, and are quoted in it, would not be surprised if it were not.

In her last paragraph, Christine set the terms of the debate exactly where Pinch Sulzberger wants it. What a propaganda outlet.

"That is precisely," she wrote, "where the next chapter of the debate takes us, as the state Senate asks the high court whether a civil unions bill -- offering benefits and obligations of marriage without the name -- will suffice. It is the complexity behind that question that full reporting must capture."

So there you have it, all you bigots.

It's too bad that the Globe hides the background of its reporters. Why are they so ashamed of them? All we know about Chinlund is that she became the Ombudsman in April 2002, after the post had been vacant for eight months. Before that, she had been a staff reporter since 1987. But what biases and prejudices does she bring to her job? The Globe does not want us to know.

Well, thanks a lot, Christine, for bringing a little laughter to a gloomy day.