Was that photo really necessary? Choosing the most outrageous photo to symbolize their “gay” coverage is something the American press (other than Fox News) stopped doing a good decade ago. And in this case, the story is about marriage, not men who feel the need to walk half-naked in public. It’s hard to believe a magazine like the Economist (which I once wrote for as a stringer) would have the poor taste to publish that photo with this story.
As an aside, I think guy in the photo is a moron for dressing like that in public. It seriously doesn’t help the cause of marriage, not to mention, who needs to see you in your thong anyway? But there’s no excuse for the Economist choosing a sensational photo of a half-naked faux gay married couple to basically diminish the seriousness of its own story, and worse, our desire to be treated equally by the state.
UPDATE: A twitterer noted that the Economist has long supported gay marriage, and even did a cover story on it. And that’s great. I’m not trying to say that they’re a bunch of homophobes, but the choice of this photo for this story was homophobic. It’s a problem we had to deal with all the time in the states during the 1990s, and before. It needs to never happen again.