It also struck me as unfair to make negative assumptions about someone because they didn't put any survived-by info in a newsletter. That's why I didn't think it appropriate to make inferences in a public manner. No one knows what is in her heart or why or why not Craig's partner was not mentioned.
All I have to say to the above comment is that it doesn't matter what is "in her heart". What difference does that make? Is it not the objective of any news reporter to remain unbiased in the news they present to the public? And even though this is a fan magazine, it is still a form of new media, am I wrong? Thusly, the producers of said news media should remain unbiased. If they hate gays, wonderful! That's them. That's not everyone else. And truth be told, it's not like we need someone else pushing their views on us, whether consciously or subconsciously or unconsciously. (Please do not confuse the former statement with providing opinions. Everything said here is an opinion. This is not pushing views on other people. Just thought I'd clear that up so that holes could not be made of my argument).
Furthermore, I do think that people should speak out about this injustice, misprint, on-purpose misprint, or oversight, or whatever you want to call it. If no one spoke out about things like these throughout history--why, women still may not be able to vote, blacks might still be working the white mans field, and stupid laws might still be in place. Speaking out or speaking up in front of something that is incorrect or wrong is what our country is about. Simple as that. And anyone who doesn't like those who freely open their mouth (sometimes inserting foot as I often do, but not at this point in time) can simply not read what is written or turn their iPod on.
I didn't know Craig, but knowing quite a few gay people myself, I know that it is a community that is totally for one another and who will stand up for their rights. And who shouldn't? Women did, black people did. Why not gays? It may take time but I believe acceptance will happen.
I'll admit--I did not know Craig personally, aside from meeting and speaking with him for a few minutes at the fest. I believe those who say that Craig would support this. As for me, I'm up for any good argument. But this is not what this is, in my opinion. No, this is something that everyone should pay attention to. This is something that's happening nationwide, not just within our own fandom. And I think that it speaks volumes that certian people can't even correctly print what someone died of. So what if they died of AIDS, or AIDS complications, or what-have-you. The fact is that they DIED, and lying about what they died from not only is a disservice to getting word out about this deadly disease, but it also desecrates the memory of the person. They may have fought courageously against this dease, and omitting the fact that they died from it undercuts all the effort they put in to circumventing the outcome.
As was mentioned by many, ShadowGram is a public magazine (or whatever you call it), and as such, it's duty as a form of news media is to report the facts correctly, whether or not agreed with by the ACTUAL PUBLIC. For who are we but a bunch of people with opinions anyway? If you don't like what you read, hear, see, or think (hopefully not the latter) then you must be living in the wrong area of the world.
