»» Columnists

Washington Post’s Dave Weigel Apologizes for ‘Bigots’ Remark

by Tommy Christopher | 4:48 pm, May 4th, 2010

» 8 comments

Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel, who writes the paper’s Right Now blog, ignited a firestorm of criticism when he described opponents of gay marriage as “bigots” on his Twitter account Saturday. Now, amid accusations of bias, Weigel has apologized for his word choice.

Now that he has apologized, conservatives would be well served not to pile on, and those who think he shouldn’t have apologized should hear Weigel out.

I’m a fan of Weigel’s column, and of his refreshing presence on MSNBC’s Countdown, but my initial reaction was that he should not have caved in. I found it ironic, as well, that in criticizing people who are biased against gay people, he ended up copping to a bias of his own:

First, I apologize for calling same-sex-marriage opponents “bigots.” I was specifically referring to people who spend their working hours opposing gay marriage, not just people who vote to ban it. But those people aren’t bigots, either…..

…But who’s threatened by legal same-sex marriage? Whose life is made worse? If there was science suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents are worse off than children raised by traditional families, that would be one thing, but I haven’t seen it. We’ve watched legal same-sex marriage in several European countries and several states, and it hasn’t ushered in some decline in the quality of life, or marriage, for those who don’t participate in it.

That’s what I don’t understand. That’s my bias, for now. I’ll happily entertain arguments for the contrary.

To my mind, that’s a bias he can be proud of. I asked Weigel if he found the accusation of being biased against bias ironic.

I really do regret saying “bigots.” I like to follow a policy of calling people what they want to be called — or at least don’t object to being called. This is why you don’t see me call people “teabaggers.” I’m a Methodist, and I am friends with plenty of people who disagree with me on this issue, and understand how it’s not really comparable to, say, anti-black racism. Many opponents of gay marriage take that stance because they believe that gays are misled, and they can lead another lifestyle. I disagree, but believing so is not “bigoted.”

I like what he had to say about calling people what they want to be called. “Teabagger” outlived its usefulness a long time ago. It was funny and edgy for about 5 minutes, but now, like most name-calling, it’s just an obstacle to understanding.

As for whether the gay marriage opponents whom Weigel describes are “bigoted,” I suppose you could argue that the element of hatred isn’t there, and amend that to “ignorant.”

In any case, I hope there’s no movement to oust Weigel from WaPo. His reporting on the conservative movement is far more useful to the right than a raft of cheerleading blogs. He’s in a position to offer fair, tough-love analysis to the GOP that they won’t get somewhere else. Besides, better the devil you know. Would conservatives like Matt Lewis prefer someone like Markos Moulitsas to cover them?

Dave Weigel, Gay Marriage, LGBT, Markos Moulitsas, Tommy Christopher, twitter, Washington Post

hanniballa

A journalist saying bias is alright as long as it supports a liberal view point. I was outraged then noticed it was Tommy Christopher, no surprise here.
Thelonious Funk

Is that Charlie Sheen?
Grammie

I’m surprised that you didn’t include this example from Weigel:

“Fairly late in the evening, Weigel wrote this on his Twitter account: “I hear there’s video out there of Matt Drudge diddling an 8-year-old boy. Shocking.”

http://daveweigel.com/?p=2330

He probably just has a totally understandable and justified bias against Druge.
the visionary

a night after I complimented you on a fair article you’re back to your old antics, tommy… disappointing…
http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Kelly/720731075 Chris Kelly

That tweet is pretty insignificant to all the other bad things he’s written: 24ahead.com/s/dave-weigel

P.S. Why can’t this site do anything about that obvious Chinese spam? It’s not like they get thousands of comments per day.
akrimediaite

The whole same-sex marriage issue is about semantics. Gay activists want “marriage”; religious groups who do not believe that homosexuality is determined by nature but is a question of ‘nurture’ don’t want the government (how’s that for separation of church and state) to allow it. Depending on your framework, ‘marriage’ is a religious sacrament (for Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, for example) or a social contract (for historians for example). The easiest solution would be for a ‘marriage’ license for anyone to be renamed a ‘civil union’ license. The government’s involvement in marriage (supposedly, according to a wikipedia article . . . I know, I know, can’t trust that source!), was John Calvin in Switzerland. Aside from inbreeding issues, the government’s only legitimate role is to put a seal of approval on a union which is recognized by law as entailing certain rights, privileges and responsibilities (which are usually recogized by the IRS and a family court). Given that that is the government’s role, all it should be required to do is issue a certificate of union, not ‘marriage’. A marriage, by custom, takes place in a religious institution (whether a church or Buddhist temple) or under the guidance of a Justice of the Peace or sea captain. So, if the state issues a ‘union’ license rather than a ‘marriage’ license to all citizens, people can call it whatever they want – the Unitarian church here has ‘marriage’ ceremonies for same sex couples; the Catholic church can ignore a state’s ‘union’ without interfering in a gay couple’s legal rights while the couple can call it a marriage; meanwhile, those devout Catholics who get a ‘union’ license can have a ‘marriage’ ceremony in a Catholic church. Basically, the whole problem is the government’s use of the term ‘marriage’ for a piece of paper which can be given to another government official . . .
writer

Depends on who’s commenting. If Obama says he’s against gay marriage, ignore it. If Carrie Prejean says it, spend a month blasting her as a bigot.
philmon

*akrimediaite* — exactly what I’ve been saying for quite some time now. It is historically understandable why the government adopted the word “marriage” from the social institution it sought to legally enforce. The solution is not to force society to use the word “marriage” to describe things many believe constitute no such thing … but to have the government change the name it uses to describe contracts of civil union. Individuals who participate in various forms of these unions would remain free to call them whatever they want to, without forcing people who do don’t believe that all such unions are interchangably to use the same word to refer to them.

Also, while “ignorant” is less offensive than “bigot”, it’s really no closer to the truth and reflects the idea that anyone who doesn’t agree with his opionion on the matter is ill-informed rather than posessors of a different opinion. It exposes a bit of arrogance. If we were talking about something concrete such as the chemical formula for superglue … that would be one thing. But we are not talking about physics. We’re talking about relationships.

*writer* makes an excellent point as well. The double-standard is glaring.