RECENT  POSTS:  » Read: NOM's guide to pressuring lawmakers to ban marriages (while pretending you're doing something good and positive instead) » Full trailer: 'The Normal Heart' » Vintage Clinton era oppo memo perhaps even more relevant today » Concerned Women For America advises churches to lockdown exclusionary marriage views » Video: What does conservative columnist Cal Thomas see as America's biggest threat? Take a guess. » Correcting NOM's fallacious fear graphic » Gee, Bryan, can't understand why federal courts are rejecting you gay = incest view » Former NOM sr. associate admits shift: Moving away from intellectual arguments, focusing on spiritual » Prop 8 defense attorney now planning lesbian daughter's wedding » If you can't afford your event, NOM, perhaps you should just cancel  

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

02/05/2009

Unscrupulous anti-gay organization (no question mark needed)

by Jeremy Hooper

The astounding arrogance of groups like Focus on the Family simply knows no bounds. For but one of ten billion examples, check this out. This is a photo and caption that's running in the latest issue of FOF's Citizen magazine:

Picture 12-76
Picture 11-110

Note the hostile question mark after "family." Now, does FOF have any reason to question the happiness of this family? Does FOF have any insight into the family's welfare? Has this family citizenbeen involved in any sort of scandal or wrongdoing that should raise anyone's eyebrows? Is unprovoked questioning of a family's well-being something that a supposedly "pro-family" group should be doing?

The answer to all of those is of course a big fat "Noey no, no!" In fact, this Iowa family is not even discussed or detailed in the attached article. Yet by the sole virtue of being gay, these two mothers and underage daughter have earned a hostile "Happy family?" label from this self-appointed crew of family focusers. By simply living their lives, these three ladies are fair game for the "pro-family" magnifying glass.

It is the sort of unscrupulous meddling and unfair demonization that should make ANY family uncomfortable, regardless of sexual orientation, faith, or ideology!

Citizen Magazine Feb. 2009 [FOF]

**SEE ALSO: This is Dawn and Jen BarbouRoske's bio, courtesy of Lambda Legal:

Dawn and Jen BarbouRoske, 40 and 38 respectively, of Iowa City, have been together for more than 18 years and have two children, McKinley, 10, and Breeanna, 6. Together, they formed a playgroup for gay and lesbian families called Proud Families. After Jen delivered McKinley eight weeks early, they realized that Dawn could be prevented from being with their daughter in the hospital because she was not legally related to either Jen or the baby — making an already stressful time more traumatic. Because they were not married, they had to leave their daughter in the neonatal intensive care unit at the hospital to seek the help of an attorney to draw up documents to protect Dawn’s rights. This experience highlighted just how important it is to be able to marry.
Plaintiff Couples in Lambda Legal's Iowa Marriage Lawsuit: Varnum v. Brien [LL]

Does that sound like an unhappy family to you?

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


Your thoughts

I do hope that the magazine got the parents' permission to use a minor's photograph in their article. Otherwise, they might be in violation of the law. I'm not sure how many states have laws prohibiting the use of a minor's picture without written consent from the parent or guardian, but I do know that many states have that law. They better watch out using pictures like this.

Posted by: Fiona | Feb 5, 2009 10:03:19 AM

I think it's despicable that a religious organization would publicly abuse a family in that way.

Posted by: fannie | Feb 5, 2009 1:36:04 PM

I am 100% positive that both the picture and the mentioning of the child's name is in breach of Iowa law, I just need to find which one it was under...

. . . Yes, I'm 17 and read up on laws for fun.
. . . Shuddup. T.T

Posted by: Clicky the Fox | Feb 5, 2009 4:51:06 PM

All: The appropriate people have been contacted. Nothing would thrill me more than seeing FOF have to run an apology in their next issue.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 5, 2009 5:50:18 PM

Dude, I'd go out and BUY the issue, cut out the apology, and FRAME it if that were to happen.
And I will to.

Posted by: Clicky the Fox | Feb 5, 2009 9:10:01 PM

They need to focus on their own bleeping families.

Posted by: Buffy | Feb 6, 2009 7:18:03 AM

I think the "happy" is a thinly veiled substitution to their using the scare quotes around "gay". Just another way they are denying our very existence. "Happy Family?" both denies our truths and calls into question whether gays can form families. Rhetorically a sophisticated phrase. Morally: offensive.

Posted by: JT | Feb 6, 2009 7:57:42 PM

Any further news on this one? I'd be over the moon if FotF got sued.

TRiG.

Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | Feb 7, 2009 4:35:32 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails