Arkansas Times-Record's dismissive reference to the Spider-marriage scrapping

The Fort Smith Times-Record in Arizona published a sugary column about Batman's recent proposal to Catwoman in the Batbooks. And at the beginning, they dish out quite a letdown:

Whether the Bat-Cat union will actually happen is anybody’s guess — hey, it’s comics, after all. Marriage used to be every superhero’s kryptonite, but things have gotten less predictable on that front in recent decades. Superman is currently married (with a 12-year-old son), and Aquaman’s engaged. On the other hand, “Fantastic Four” — where Mr. and Mrs. Reed Richards are the beating heart of the series — isn’t being published currently. And Spider-Man used to be married, but a devil named Mephisto erased his marriage from reality.

Like I said: comics.

But not talented writing. First, look how this cruddy piece of fluff has the gall to talk about the Spider-marriage's erasure in such cynical, dismissive terms, ignoring all the poor taste that went into Joe Quesada's blatant, utterly contemptuous retcon, to say nothing of his defense, at one point, that "it was MJ's decision". As if she were a real person. DC editors like Kevin Dooley tried the same earlier with Green Lantern, using "Hal was unimaginative" as a defense for turning him evil. If I were in the audience at the conventions these statements were made at, it'd take a lot to keep from falling out of my chair laughing at these ostriches with their heads in the sand.

As for the new proposal Batman makes to Catwoman, it might've once had potential, except that this new story's written by the same scribe responsible for turning the Omega Men into an atrocity:

...Batman may have popped the question, but it’s “Batman” writer Tom King who has the most difficult task ahead, beating the ghost of one of the most beloved Bat-stories ever.

Indeed, because there's bound to be others out there who found his take on the Omega Men degrading in the extreme. Why should we expect his story in Batman to be appealing, when his leftist politics could possibly be stuffed into anything he's written? In any case, Dan DiDio's the main reason why people should continue to avoid DC's output.

Update: when I first wrote this, I accidentally referred to the paper as Arizona-based. It's actually Arkansas-based. I'll try to remember that in the future.