Newsweek Strikes Back With 'Gay President' Cover
Tina Brown tries to one-up Time's breastfeeding cover
By Neal Colgrass, Newser Staff
Posted May 13, 2012 2:00 PM CDT
Newsweek tries to one-up Time with a controversial cover.   (Newsweek)

(Newser) – Take that, Time magazine. A week after Time's controversial breastfeeding cover, Newsweek has fired back with a cover article on President Obama's support for gay marriage—with the headline, "The First Gay President," and a rainbow-colored halo over Obama's head, Politico reports. Apparently Newsweek editor Tina Brown meant it when she saw Time's cover, laughed, and said, "Let the games begin."

Newsweek has revealed an excerpt of Andrew Sullivan's cover piece, which argues that Obama's support for gay nuptials is "not an aberration. It was an inevitable culmination of three years of work." Sullivan was more effusive on NPR the other day, saying that when he saw Obama's ABC interview, "the tears flooded. There is something about hearing your president affirm your humanity that you don't know what effect it has until you hear it." Also on the gay rights front, he blogged on Daily Beast about a GOP memo that said Republicans should support gay marriage from a "family values," conservative point of view.

Next on Newser: Inside Iran's Nuclear Site
More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Newsweek Strikes Back With 'Gay President' Cover is...
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 113 comments
May 14, 2012 10:49 AM CDT
Unfortunately Americans live in a culture where the religious values of the founders and their negatively toward human sexuality (it is evil) is still quite prevalent. The Time magazine should not upset anyone..maybe the conservatives and those that avoid such pictures since it would have them deal with impulses and feelings they repress in a society such as ours..The Obama cover is misleading and shows that they desire to sell copy or bring in readers with potential misleading headlines. about 65% of Americans believe civil unions between same sex partners are acceptable and correct..get over yourselves..and your religion..own ur own arguments and be able to use data not a book or religious belief to make blanket statements..Remember when if you were Gay it was impossible to win an election?? well now the new gay is to say ur an atheist..I think I'll run as a bisexual atheist LOL
May 14, 2012 9:37 AM CDT
The whole point of the story was the battle of the covers. In that case, Time wins. That image will be an iconic one that offered genuine shock. I wouldn't have thought twice about Newsweek's if you didn't say anything about it, Newser.
May 14, 2012 7:52 AM CDT
Cut to the chase.. The real debate about Gay Marriages is not religious at all. It’s adversary is actually Big Business and Insurance. It is the Governmental Granted Contractual agreement that is in debate.. Not the Religions aspect. It is Marriage’s Dual Definition is the real problem. It could be separated.. Like Church and State.. Redefine or ReNane the Contractual agreement to something like “Copartner Licensed” Of course it would be pronounced in the Latin Lawyer Lingo. And force big business and their Insurance Company to accept the agreement. No it will Never Happen becaues Politics loves the confusion.. It is fueling a Political Religious war similar to Ireland’s Protestant/Catholic war. Just as political diversion and waste of time and people energy. After all the debate.. Again little will be done to solve the matter.