I’m pretty embarrased to use up any more of the universe’s time and energy on the subject of me and George Rekers, but (sigh) here goes. For those of you just tuning in, you can catch up on the exciting episodes you may have missed by reading this.

This week, I was contacted by the letters editor of the New York Times, who’d read the above-linked blog post. (I AM pleased that Times editors notice our blog!)  She invited me to write a “brief” letter of correction to be published in the paper.  Which I did, and which said:

In a letter published on May 24 in the Times, I incorrectly stated that I
have never read anything written by George Rekers.  In fact, in preparing
for my report and deposition in the California Prop 8 trial, I read one
report to the court on a previous California marriage case written by Mr.
Rekers, as well as a report to the same court taking a position opposed to
Mr. Rekers’.  The fact that I did not recall even having read Mr. Rekers’
report reinforces my main point, which is that there is no substantive
link between Mr. Rekers’ views and anything that I either wrote in my
expert report to the court or discussed in two days of testimony on the
stand.

But after her edits, here is what remained, which appears in this morning’s paper:

In a letter published on May 25 (“Testimony on Gay Marriage”), I incorrectly stated that I have never read anything written by the conservative minister George Rekers. In fact, in preparing for my report and deposition in the California Proposition 8 trial, I read one report to the court on a previous California marriage case written by Mr. Rekers, as well as a report to the same court taking a position opposed to Mr. Rekers’s.

I strenuously (to speak with moderation) objected to her cutting my last sentence.  I argued that the letter, as shortened by her, could encourage, or at least permit, Frank Rich and others in the media with questionable journalistic ethics to yell “gotcha” and to say yet again, falsely, that what I wrote or said somehow owes something to Mr. Rekers, or in some way endorses Mr. Rekers’ views. 

But she was adamant.  And so it goes. And so, perhaps, it will continue.  One thing I’ve learned from this little tempest in an esspresso cup concerns the New York Times.   They have strict standards, especially when those standards suit them.  If you want to criticize, say, Frank Rich, for blatantly and falsely sliming you, the Times holds you to very high standards indeed.  You cannot criticize the Times writer directly at all  — in my previous, original, go-round with the letters editor, she did not permit me to use the word “false” in my letter — and even indirect criticism must pass the most exacting standards of accuracy.  Fair enough.  Meanwhile, ninnies like Frank Rich can say pretty much anything they want, with little if any regard for those same standards. 

I really, really hope that these are my final words on this subject. 

And if you just can’t get enough opinionating about my relationship, sort of, with Mr. Rekers, there was a piece this week in Slate, and some (pretty interesting) posts on the Equality Loudon blog – the basic point in both of these cases seeming to be that, if I don’t want to be called a bigot, I should change my views on gay marriage. Which of course is a point of view.

Categories: Marriage

Both comments and pings are currently closed.