Most American newspapers do not run same-sex "wedding" announcements. Only around 100 papers out of 1,500 nationwide publish reports of gay and lesbian unions, wedding announcements or commitment ceremonies, according to

"Things are beginning to change, but this is a very slow process,'' said John Sonego, a GLAAD spokesman.

New York City Leads the Way on Two Fronts

As a barometer of what's happening - and what may be a sea change in policy for papers around the country - none other than the venerable New York Times announced last week that "all the news that's fit to print" would include same-sex union announcements. The announcements will begin next month in the paper's Sunday Styles section.

"In making this change, we acknowledge the newsworthiness of a growing and visible trend in society toward public celebrations of commitment by gay and lesbian couples - celebrations important to many of our readers, their families and their friends," said Howell Raines, executive editor of the Times.

Echoing the inclusive change in society, this week New York City's mayor Michael Bloomberg signed a bill extending the city's domestic-partner benefits to same-sex couples visiting the city who are joined together in a legally recognized relationship.

The law covers gay men and lesbians from cities and states that have domestic-partnership laws or recognize same-sex unions as well as nations that legally recognize gay relationships.

To receive the city's domestic-partner benefits--which include hospital visitation rights and health benefits--visitors must show a certificate indicating they have legally registered their relationship back home.

Announcements of Civil Unions Making Headway

The move by a newspaper as prominent and tradition-steeped as the Times may motivate many smaller newspapers to follow suit and include same-sex commitment announcements.

Conservative groups perhaps predictably criticize the trend, saying it elevates same-sex weddings to the same status as heterosexual marriage and legitimizes a sexual orientation they claim most Americans still don't approve of.

But media experts disagree with the conservatives who base their criticism of gay unions on biblical teachings and not on polls that show a preponderance of Americans are in favor of equal treatment for lesbians and gay men.

Kevin Noonan, a gay sociologist who follows gay trends, says the shift in the newspapers editorial policies reflects the societal shift, which is becoming more accepting of homosexuality as same-sex couples gain legal protections and job benefits - benefits many Americans see as fair.

"As more Americans have come to realize that that their neighbors and co-workers who happen to be gay don't have equal access to basic American rights, it sets the ground for change - and our newspapers are beginning to reflect that shift in attitude," says Los Angeles-based Noonan.

Some small papers would seem to agree in theory, if not in practice.

Dennis Brunner, publisher of the weekly Southern Utah News in Kanab, Utah, told The New York Times, "I'd just say it's a fairness issue. If a man and woman wanted one, I don't know why we wouldn't allow a gay couple.''

The Dallas Morning News is another paper beginning to form a policy on gay unions. "We will have people who will say, 'The New York Times' is doing this, will you do it?''' said the paper's executive vice president Fritzi Pikes.

Larger newspapers, like The Washington Post, which runs wedding announcements as paid advertising, has offered gay couples the option of announcements in a "Celebrations" section for three years. So far, though, no such announcements have run.

The section, which features birthdays, retirements and similar events, publishes on a different day than the wedding page.

Commitment ceremonies do not run on the wedding page because in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, same-sex ceremonies are not recognized as legal ceremonies,'' according to Post spokeswoman Lisa Jaczko.

"It's an interesting argument, but a bit fulsome," says Noonan. "People typically invoke legalities as a way of justifying all kinds of behavior. In all likelihood they're wary of offending conservative readers in Washington. I don't blame them for being concerned but they should at least be honest about it."