Yesterday, the editorial board of PennLive/Patriot-News declared that the Supreme Court had closed off discussion of same-sex marriage permanently on their pages. Announcing that “these unions are now the law of the land” after the Obergefell decision, any written opposition to SSM would be morally equivalent to “publish[ing] those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic.” After insulting a large portion of his readership by calling them bigots, editor John Micek attempts to hit reverse this morning with an apology.

Only first, Micek wants to say how truly wonderful he felt about Obergefell by describing its impact on one of his colleagues:

A smile lit up her face and there were tears in her eyes. Up until about 10 a.m. on Friday, my gay colleague sat on pins and needles, waiting to see if nine lawyers were about to throw the life and her and her partner into absolute upheaval.

We embraced and I offered my congratulations. And then I sat down and thought about what had just happened and what it meant to my other gay and lesbian colleagues who were rightfully celebrating Friday’s ruling as a victory for both love and equal protection under the law.

However, PennLive readers weren’t as enthusiastic, so Micek wanted to express “in the strongest possible terms” what kind of feedback and discussion he was willing to tolerate from the “racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic” readership Micek apparently believes he attracted. Oddly, Micek was surprised by the “unintended consequences” of assuming those who disagreed with him are nothing more than hateful bigots. One of those “unintended consequences” was being called a “fascist,” an accusation that seemingly surprised Micek, even though he was telling everyone that only his opinion would be tolerated in his newspaper.

After getting deluged with criticism, Micek decided to rethink his approach — but not before making himself the victim for a little while longer. Micek offers three points, and only the last even approaches an apology:

First: No one at PennLive and The Patriot-News is an opponent of the First Amendment. It’s a right that’s foundational to us as a people. And it’s a right for which many brave and noble men and women have given their lives. And I would never trample on that legacy or dishonor their sacrifice by limiting our readers’ right to express themselves in a civil way.

This is a dodge. The First Amendment wasn’t at issue with PennLive’s editorial (although it is in Obergefell), as the right to free speech does not include the right to publication. The issue was PennLive’s editorial practice and its contempt for dissent in any form, and its insult to people who oppose the Supreme Court’s ruling and its establishment of SSM by judicial fiat. The fact that this position was informed by an emotional moment in the newsroom makes PennLive appear even more puerile and shallow than Micek’s original declaration managed.

Next up, Micek apologizes for being a big victim of his meanie readers:

Second: And I cannot stress this one enough — that’s in a civil way. More than once yesterday I was referred to as “f****t-lover,” among other slurs. And that’s the point that I was trying to make with our statement: We will not publish such slurs any more than we would publish racist, sexist or anti-Semitic speech. There are ways to intelligently discuss an issue. The use of playground insults is not among them. And they are not welcome at PennLive/The Patriot-News.

Well, duh. No one at any newspaper publishes those kind of letters in the first place, unless they want to make the point that their readers are idiots. Micek acts as if he’s the first person in media to ever be called a bad name. Perhaps the Boss Emeritus can loan Micek one of her balls, and then they’d each have one. Let’s recall, though, what Micek wrote in the original editorial:

As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will very strictly limit op-Eds [sic] and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.

These unions are now the law of the land. And we will not publish such letters and op-Eds [sic] any more than we would publish those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic.

We have some major-league goalpost-moving from Micek in his second point. The original editorial didn’t state that PennLive was banning slurs, but any opposition to same-sex marriage. It was the opposition that Micek considered on par with “racist, sexist or anti-Semitic speech,” not just the slurs. Micek is misrepresenting the position he had taken less than 24 hours earlier in order to falsely position himself as a victim. He’s basically rewriting history.

Finally, Micek gets around to the point of his essay, which is to back away from his previous position:

Third: I fully recognize that there are people of good conscience and of goodwill who will disagree with Friday’s high court ruling. They include philosophers and men and women of the cloth whose objections come from deeply held religious and moral convictions that are protected by the very same First Amendment that allowed me to stick my foot in my mouth on Friday. They are, and always will be, welcome in these pages, along with all others of goodwill, who seek to have an intelligent and reasoned debate on the issues of the day.

Again, this wasn’t a First Amendment issue, but at least Micek finally allows that he erred in some fashion, rather than being victimized first by the “law of unintended consequences,” and then by readers. It was quite clear to anyone who reads English that “people of conscience and goodwill who disagree with Friday’s high court ruling” were not only not going to be considered for columns or letters entries, but that Micek and PennLive considered them on par with — I quote again — “racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic” people. These were the exact same people Micek was smearing less than 24 hours earlier, but suddenly they’re worthy of engagement. I wonder why.

So … where was the apology? It comes at the end, via Washington DC and every other politician who’s ever had to grudgingly retreat from their own stupidity:

But for those of you who were offended by what was intended as a very genuine attempt at fostering a civil discussion, I apologize.

Ah yes, the standard “sorry if you were offended by my brilliance” non-apology. How exactly is telling people to shut up “fostering a civil discussion”? How does offering a blanket smear of all critics of Obergefell as bigots qualify as “a very genuine attempt” at any kind of discussion? For that matter, how did Micek envision a “discussion” coming from his all-out ban on any opposing view in his newspaper? At the end of all this, Micek then offers an apology — not for his actions, not for all of his mean-spirited and sanctimonious posing, but because we turned out to be not quite as stupid as Micek believed we were.

Maybe Micek should stick with Play-Doh.

Update: Made two minor grammatical corrections.