Note: because they can't be bothered to provide online versions of all of their stories for handy linking, I'm reprinting a screen capture of their entire article.
So, when did the Metro suddenly turn homophobic? Really, the slant of this article shocks me, given that the Metro often prints really respectful portrayals of same-sex couples and their children. I know, I know, I shouldn't expect that the content editors actually know what goes on on other pages or in other issues. Actually, do they even have editors? Or are they the print version of those deejayless radio stations?
So, seemingly benign feature about this weekend's parade. I was actually hoping the article would mention the discriminatory aspect of the parade. I kind of got my wish when this lovely sentence appeared in the article without any attribution: "Also, efforts by anti-war veterans and gay and lesbian advocates to march in the parade have caused controversy."
Technically, I suppose that controversy has to be two-sided. In fact, that's exactly what it is: two sides. Contra verse. But the language here doesn't say that controversy arose when a group of Irish Americans were told they could not march in an allegedly Irish-American parade. No, it says that the victims themselves caused the controversy by having such an outrageous idea as assuming that they, as Irish Americans, were included in the category of, uh, Irish Americans.
It gets even better. This sentence also appears without attribution: "[The ruling that GLBT Irish groups can be kept out of the parade] was a victory for the First Amendment and was in keeping with the parade's Irish-Catholic foundation."
Wow, that's big of you, Tony Lee, whoever the hell you are, to speak for all Irish Catholics. And Americans, for that matter, since you brought the Constitution into this. Of course, I don't recall the First Amendment saying anything about "the right to use public land and police details and city resources to hold events that blatently discriminate against certain demographics," but then again, I also apparently live in some strange alternate universe where pretty much all the Irish Catholics I encounter are inclusive and accepting people.
Another great non-attributed line: "All of Boston heads to Southie for the parade." The line is under a photo of kilted marchers, but clearly isn't a caption of said photo. Apparently "all of Boston" doesn't include queer people. Or people who don't march in kilts, if we want to try and take the Metro at face value, but that's really never a good idea.
This line is at least a direct quote (from John "I-sure-am-Wacko" Hurley, of course), but the author and the publication did choose to run it without disclaiming it in any way: "We've had problems in the past, but we solved that by telling them to stay home." I'm assuming "them" is queers and anti-war veterans.
Nope, not even any rhetoric about how they made the tough decision to choose groups whose displays promoted a particular aspect of the culture, or even the usual phobic bullshit that he'd welcome us as long as we aren't "flaunting" it. No, he flat-out would like us to "stay home." Why hasn't that line been plastered all over the front pages of every publication in the city? It seems that most people have at least heard of the "controversy" regarding the discrimination, but I wonder how many people are aware that he is telling queers "to stay home." While there are certainly people who would continue to attend regardless, I imagine there are quite a lot of fence-sitters who would be ashamed to support the event if they were aware he had said that.