Last Sunday, I hopped the subway down to Greenwich Village, walked to Christopher Street and perched myself at a corner to watch New York’s Gay Pride parade. Parade watchers packed the streets and fire escapes of nearby apartment buildings. The mood was high-energy and festive, complete with floats full of shirtless dancing men and drag queens in wild outfits.

It felt good to be part of such a larger-than-life celebration. Despite the gay marriage issue, the don’t-ask-don’t-tell debate, and the everyday fight our community wages for equal rights under the law, the general vibe was incredibly lighthearted.

And Monday’s New York Times’ coverage reflected it. The paper ran a photo and caption – no story – on page five of the Metro section, featuring Tiffany E., a drag queen with a feathered headdress who, upon closer inspection, wore a troubled look that foreshadowed my feelings when I opened up the paper and asked: Where’s the rest of the Gay Pride coverage?

The caption, entitled “Pride on the Sunny Side,” a reference to the weather that day, touched on one main theme – religion. “Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum, who heads the world’s largest predominantly gay synagogue… and who was a grand marshal of the parade, said she believed that those who use religion to advocate an anti-gay agenda ‘are blaspheming God’s name,’” the paper wrote.

I appreciate the point-of-view the Times conveyed. Certainly the role and reach of religion is a contentious one today in the U.S. on myriad topics, including the LGBT community. But isn’t there a bigger story to write?

And isn’t the irony cruel: Two weeks ago I wrote about the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association’s Pride Primer, a guide for journalists that calls on them to cover more than a photo-op, only to find that my hometown paper – my beloved New York Times! – only dedicated a photo and 88 words to Pride.

Then again, the Times does an outstanding job covering LGBT issues throughout the year. Perhaps the Times felt, at this stage of the gay rights movement, a parade is just a parade? Or perhaps they went to Pride in search of a story – and didn’t really find one?

In a recent Out Front posting my colleague Eddy Evans called on Gay Pride to tell a story. “In a world where people, gay and straight, are bombarded with competing causes and campaigns,” he wrote, “Pride needs to be clearer about what it stands for and define their messaging more carefully, and then communicate this through a whole raft of online and offline tools.”

Perhaps the story we told in New York on Sunday was that despite the struggles, despite the issues, we can come together on a beautiful summer day and have a great time. It may not be worthy of a 2,000 word feature story, but is that such a bad thing?

In my post a fortnight ago I urged the Pride movement to go out there and tell a story, to transform the thousands of passive onlookers into active engagers who can feel part of something.

For this to happen it organizers need to start a conversation, and have an open debate about what, if anything, Pride means to people – young and old, gay and straight, business executive and drag queen – in 2007, 2008, and beyond.

I think when the community, and I mean this in the loose sense of every gay, lesbian and bisexual person, has a better idea of what Pride stands for and what its message is it will make it a more meaningful event for everyone and will allow more people to feel part of it. I also think this will encourage more sponsors and organizations looking to reach this audience to become more actively involved, beyond an advert in the Pride guide or banner on a float.

This weekend is of course New York Pride. Despite my reservations and uneasy feelings I expressed about its relevance, I enjoyed DC Pride and felt it was an event where people felt part of something rather than just being there for the cheap alcohol. However I have to confess that one Pride this year was enough for me, and I have decided to go to New York another weekend instead.

The reason I mention it is because of an article I noticed from this week’s New York Observer titled “Goodbye Mr. Chaps” which takes an honest and frank look at the state of New York Pride, and whether has a role in a city where people can often be very open about their sexuality every day of the year.

It features voices from a whole range of perspectives, a 22-year old in the East Village, the co-founder of Heritage of Pride, a journalist, a State Senator, a publisher drinking cocktails at G Lounge, a graduate student, an editor at NBC, and a bartender.

Some of the things they say may not be comfortable for everyone, but it is just the sort of frank debate that needs to be had in the media and elsewhere if Pride is ever to stand for something that everyone can identify with 37 years after it all began.

I would be interested to hear reader’s views on the creative ways in which Pride can generate this debate, using both online and offline forums, and how it can create a message that resonates with activists, sponsors, and many of those who feel that the event has become irrelevant or was never relevant in the first place.