The Washington Post, Delano Hunter and Guilt By Anti-Gay Association

The Washington Post editorial board astonished readers yesterday, when they endorsed Delano Hunter for the City Council.

Hunter, a Democratic contender in Ward 5, has some positive qualities, such as his crusade against truancy and for grassroots organizing, but those attributes come with a huge pitfall: Hunter has aligned himself with the anti-gay marriage National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which wants to overturn the District's LGBT inclusive marriage laws.

Hunter's cooperation with that group puts a cloud over the typically progressive Post: are they guilty by association? That question presents the paper with a problem. But that problem may also be the solution.

The Post's editorial team was well aware that their Hunter endorsement ahead of the September 14th primaries would cause a stir, especially among gay readers. And they made a noble attempt to preemptively address the matter, starting with their dismissal of incumbent council man Henry Thomas Jr.

"With the notable exception of the courage he showed in voting for marriage equality, Mr. Thomas has been a major disappointment," they write of the Democrat, before listing his faults, such as his work with unions to "thwart needed reforms in the schools and government workforce."

The board then gets to Hunter. After lauding his work in the Justice Department and local community, the editors turn their attention to his gay politics. "Mr. Hunter is not a supporter of marriage equality," write the editors, who have espoused equality in the past. "But he is not the homophobe his critics make him out to be, but rather someone who thinks there is a way to provide equality for gays while respecting the beliefs of religious groups. He said he would not seek to change the law." LGBT activists and readers are not amused.

Jeffrey Richardson, President of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, first questioned whether or not the Post has the right to define "homophobe." "The Washington Post has the right to endorse whomever they desire based on whatever criteria they establish," he wrote. "However you don't get the right to tell the LGBT community what is and what isn't homophobic." Though a valid point, and one with which I would agree, the meat of the matter is whether Hunter, and in turn the Post, should he held accountable for NOM's actions.

In addition to attending a NOM rally against gay marriage, Hunter stood by while NOM sent out a flier defending Hunter against "gay activists [who] don't care about our right to home rule and right to vote on gay marriage. They only care about their agenda to redefine marriage. Don't let them target Delano Hunter."

Hunter's silence in the face of this inflammatory rhetoric makes him just as culpable as NOM itself. He can't benefit from their rabble-rousing and not be held responsible. Nor should he receive the backing from an otherwise LGBT-supportive paper.

Newspapers have always had huge political influence. Ever since their inception, the dailies have vied for one candidate or another; even today, as the industry fades, newspaper endorsements carry a lot of weight in electoral politics. By backing a candidate, a paper backs that candidate's policies and practices.

Though papers can disagree with a candidate on specific issues, gay marriage is no small matter: it cannot and should not be ignored. The Washington Post cannot whitewash Hunter's political cowardice, nor can they reward it. They have a duty to press Hunter on same-sex equality. They have the power, and they should use it wisely.

Luckily the problem, the paper's influence, provides an easy solution: the Post can write another editorial demanding that Hunter denounce NOM and its crusade against gay marriage in DC. If Hunter wants the Post's editorial love, the paper should make him work for it.

Photo credit: Evoque's Flickr