Huff Post Critical of the Advocate on First Fam Stance on Gay Marriage

In a cats' fight the best thing to do is just to filmed it or just voice recorded it. Don't have a film or voice recorded for this issue but have the story from the Huff as it appeared today:
This below story written by

Richard Grenell

"Once again, The Advocate magazine has hidden a Democrat's anti-gay views. This time, The Advocateprotects First Lady Michelle Obama. In an article today on TheAdvocate.com, writer Lucas Grindley reports on former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey's appearance on CNN Monday but fails to mention McGreevey's on-air suggestion that the First Lady and the President do not share the same views on same-sex marriage. Grindley fails to report what first looks like an "evolving" First Family position because hours later Michelle Obama's office quickly issued a statement saying that McGreevey is wrong and that she does not support gay marriage. In unsurprising coverage, The Advocate doesn't even mention the Democratic First Lady's reported stance and then official correction -- choosing to avoid the issue altogether. In his TV appearance, McGreevey suggested that President Obama and the First Lady don't share the same views and then said, "If he (the President) could only listen to Michelle more often" when it comes to his stance on same-sex marriage. The White House quickly shot down the suggestion and made clear that Michelle supports her husband's position against gay marriage. See Politico story here.

Grindley's Advocate.com story on McGreevey's appearance, however, calls out "Republican governor, Chris Christie" for not supporting gay marriage. Grindley, of course, uses the political label "Republican" because the politician with an anti-marriage view is not a Democrat. Grindley also fails to mention that Christie has the same views on the issue as Barack and Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton and Jon Huntsman, the former Utah Governor who is running for president as a Republican. Fred Karger, a gay Republican, also running for President isn't mentioned.

The selective political labeling isn't new for The Advocate. Hillary Clinton has the same stance on gay marriage as her predecessor Condi Rice and former Vice President Dick Cheney but reporter Kerry Eleveld,writing in the magazine earlier this year, brushes over Clinton's stance in a glowing front page article. In one passing reference, Eleveld says of Clinton, "wasn't taking any political bait" to talk about the issue or maybe was trying not to cross her boss.

In another Advocate story earlier this year, the powerful anti-gay Democratic State Senator from New York, Carl Kruger, was outed by the New York Post but his political affiliation was not mentioned by The Advocate. Democrat Kruger was accused of allegedly taking bribes that were used to partially pay for his gay lover's water front mansion. The Advocate magazine, the supposed promoter of gay rights and reason, dropped Kruger's political affiliation from its story's headline and lead paragraph when it reported the influential Democrat's troubles. In fact, the editors of The Advocate only alluded to Kruger's political affiliation in the last sentence of the last paragraph of their story by saying Kruger was "one of eight New York Democrats to vote against the state's marriage equality bill, which failed to pass the senate."

But earlier this year on January 3, The Advocate writer Julie Bolcer wrote an article titled: "Iowa Republican Obsessed With Marriage Issue?" Note the partisan affiliation announced in the title. The lead sentence in Bolcer's story also messaged the anti-gay candidate's political relationship, "A friend and former campaign adviser to Iowa gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats says the Republican who led the recall effort against three state supreme court justices, is "obsessed with the gay-marriage issue."" The word "Republican" is used consecutively throughout Bolcer's piece and in gratuitous ways.

The double standards used by The Advocate to truthfully report which politicians are supportive/opposed to gay issues and which ones are playing politics with the issues make it easier for politicians to take gays and lesbians for granted. After two years of total control of Congress and The White House, you would think that the editors at The Advocate would have learned that the Democrats are playing politics with the issues they cover. Obama should be allowed to take gay money but not support gay issues all he wants - but the largest gay and lesbian magazine in the country shouldn't be a part of that sham".

Update: After the Politico story was published, The Advocate ran a separate story questioning the First Lady's position on gay marriage. In their separate story, reporter Lucas Grindley "leans forward" by quoting the Politico story referenced in the above piece and leads with the speculation, "If Michelle Obama supports gay marriage, she's not saying so publicly." Grindley also implies there may be a split on the Obama's gay marriage views by highlighting the split in the views of George W. Bush and his wife Laura, who supports gay marriage. A call to the First Lady's office produced nothing further. A staffer named Aaron said that she hasn't issued any more statements other than the one given to Politico.

I don't use stories from the Huff but this one was too good to let it pass.

The story was posted at huffingtonpost.com