RECENT  POSTS:  » Where art thou, Jeremy? » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall'  

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


We got their photo pulled. Now on to their hurtful measure.

by Jeremy Hooper

Remember when we told you about StandForMarriageMaine using a stock photo that was seemingly in violation of's contractual agreement? Yea, well -- this happened: Front page as of this weekend:
Picture 2-279 Front page as of now:

Picture 3-242

Is it a big victory? Of course not. They're still exploiting (very lily white) family imagery for the sake of discrimination, just not in a way that so fully looks like a direct endorsement. And as best we can tell, they're not using for the pics.

But we did accomplish our goal. Because what we wanted them to know is that we are taking stock of their every last maneuver. And be it a terms-violating stock photo or a rights-violating referendum, we will not -- WILL NOT! -- rest until the arcs, both big and small, bend toward what's just.

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

Your thoughts

Very Good. We, the internet blogger, must keep them responsible and challenge them at every turn.

Posted by: Alex Cheney | Aug 19, 2009 5:33:06 PM

They may not be istockphoto, but they do look to be stock photographs.

Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | Aug 19, 2009 6:01:33 PM

Yea, I'm trying to place them, TK.

But I actually think this new batch might be acceptable. Whereas the first was nothing more than a family of four seemingly lending their name to the campaign, this new batch is more benign family imagery. I think they might be able to justify it a little more.

Or, of course, they can find a stock photo company that doesn't have such a policy.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Aug 19, 2009 6:50:15 PM

They look like the pictures that pop up on the Kaiser Permanente computers when you are waiting for the doctor to come back in the room.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Aug 19, 2009 7:01:59 PM

Good work. But they really should change their name to "Stand for White Opposite (Preferably Christian) Marriage". It would be more honest.

Posted by: Buffy | Aug 19, 2009 7:52:00 PM

Good work, Jeremy! Small victory, but rich in symbolism.

"Yes on 1" folks, we don't hate you, we just hate your sinful disregard of contractual obligations!

Posted by: Steven | Aug 19, 2009 11:33:33 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails