RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Voices from our pro-equality future (present?) » Anti-gay orgs continue to offend children of single parents, gay parents, more » Apple CEO gives 'substantial' sum to HRC's southern state project; may or may not have used ApplePay » Conservative proposes new way for vendors to tell gay customers they don't care for them » NOM versus David Koch » Anti-equality baseball player calls reporter 'a prick' for asking about his anti-equality advocacy » Audio: Josh Duggar defends discrimination, invalidates own point » Audio: AFA's Fischer names 'homosexual agenda' as 'greatest threat to liberty' in American history » Audio: AFA Radio caller calls for executing gays; FRC-employed host doesn't even challenge him, much less condemn » NOM president's other organization is 'in trouble' (his words) too  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

02/02/2009

Are 'One News Now' readers starting to see that they're being duped?

by Jeremy Hooper

On a One News Now story regarding plans in Washington state to pass a bill expanding domestic partnership protections for same-sex couples, a "pro-family" reader has left this honest and telling comment:

Picture 9-114

So why do we say the comment's honest and telling? Well, it's honest because the commenter is right -- the ONN writers, as per their wont, have failed to give their readers any reason to believe that a state DP bill would directly affect people of faith. And it's telling because it shows that even the "pro-family" side is starting to catch on to the constant stream of propaganda that these folks pass off as "news."

The truth, of course, is that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Washington DP expansion affects anyone's religion. In fact, there isn't one mention of the word religion, faith, or anything similar in the entire bill. Here, read the Senate version's 193 pages if you don't believe us. It is a straightforward bill that deals solely with CIVIL liberties. But One News Now and the faith-based dissenter that they quote in their article, the Family Policy Institute of Washington's Joseph Backholm, cannot argue within civil confines. So as this commenter points out, they simply tell their readers that a particular bill, vote, or ruling is going to affect their religion, whether they have any proof not. And for so long, so many people have swallowed the religious right's fearmongery straw men hook, like, and stinker, that they've seen no reason to cough up any sort of proof to back their claims.

We sincerely hope that this ONN commenter is representative of a changing tide. A new wave where everyone, regardless of ideology, will start swimming in the waters of fact rather than baseless prediction. A new world where those who identify as "pro-family" realize that asking questions does not make you any less Godly. A time where religious people will see that not every bit of civil progress is in some way detrimental to them. An America where folks are free to have their staunch anti-gay religious beliefs, but will want to know how, exactly, something affects those views before they use their personal scripture against others' constitutional freedoms.

But don't worry -- we're too pro-life to hold our breath that this one comment denotes any sort of change. We will, however, cross a finger.

*One News Now's story and comment: Pro-homosexual bill 'everything but marriage' [ONN]

*A credible report from the AP: Lawmakers announce 'everything but marriage' bill [AP via Seattle Times]

*Senate bill: 5688

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Good grief. It seems like ever since election night, most of the country got a sudden boost to their IQ's. Of course some others dropped.

Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Feb 2, 2009 5:17:22 PM

What, ONN (or WND or any other such "news" outlet) actually show their work? That would allow people to see that they're exaggerating, leaving stuff out and/or outright lying. They simply can't have that. Silly you.

Posted by: Buffy | Feb 2, 2009 5:26:58 PM

I clicked throught the AP link to the Seattle Times. It is well worth it to read the comments to the article. There are some tremendously inteligent and wonderful people up there. The statements in support of the bill are well thought out and well informed. There are even several of the writers that call out commenters that oppose the bill who use the usual arguments (no procreation, hurt traditional marriage, etc.) asking them to back up their arguments with facts, not just rhetoric.
I even thought some of the writers must read G-A-Y, sounded just like what I read here. Hmmmm, Jeremey clones in the Northwest???

Posted by: Bob Miller | Feb 2, 2009 5:30:29 PM

Funny you should say that Bob, because I actually do have a big Pacific Northwest readership. Always have.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 2, 2009 5:33:50 PM

What do you think about this scenario?

Religious leaders have been taking their lead from faux news outlets like ONN, and then going off and spearheading efforts to invigorate their followers. Those followers have been confronted by other voices which do question the lies coming from the lying liars. When faced with reasoned decent, those religious leaders had no retort (resulting in egg face). So, now, rather than just buy into ONN's trumped up cause du jour, they're now demanding substantiated claims. That old "You fool me once, shame on you... Fool me- can't get fooled again," (dubya-ism) in action.

I could be wrong, and maybe that scenario is tooooooooo much to hope for, but maybe.....

Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 2, 2009 5:51:26 PM

Thanks JH...That was funny! Now they want specifically to be told how to protest... After all they couldn't be bothered to read the Bill.

Posted by: LOrion | Feb 2, 2009 9:31:20 PM

Seems to me we need to gather all the politician/anti-gay activist quotes saying "they can have all those rights but don't call it marriage." I recall there was a flurry of such statements, ranging from lukewarm "we want people to be able to visit each other in hospitals" sort of stuff to "everything except the word" - and we need to send a list of them around like an amusing YouTube or a snarky Savage column. Get it everywhere, and saturate what media we can get access to.

Posted by: Laura | Feb 3, 2009 9:02:18 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails