RECENT  POSTS:  » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win. » By the time you read this headline, we'll be ten more seconds beyond stagnant anti-gay 'culture wars' » Video: America cannot wait—to purchase American Family Association radio equipment? Huh?! » Huckabee 2016: 'cause church and state aint gonna marry themselves » EEOC does wonky, under-radar thing that could lay groundwork for definitive nondiscrimination protections » Maggie Gallagher, now that you've lost on marriage, might you lose these deceptive ways as well? » Crowdfunding discriminatory business owners: Perfect statement on anti-gay movement's current affairs » The religious anti-gay crowd: They never understood the marriage fight; now they don't understand their loss  

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

09/01/2009

Here they 'Stand' all un-gay-hearted, with bias so rank you'll ask 'who farted?'

by Jeremy Hooper

-Stock photos of smiling families.

-False victimization

-Testaments about the "broad range of organizations and individuals" that supposedly opposes equality.

-Denunciations of the "wealthy gays" who are supposedly fueling fairness (while overlooking the wealthy anti-gay orgs who toss around cash as freely as they toss around gay-insulting rhetoric)

-Copy that has been carefully workshopped by the National Organization For Marriage.


Another anti-gay "Stand4Marriage" site has polished itself up, this time focusing on DC and that area's restored attempt to undermine principled progress:

Screen Shot 2009-09-01 At 12.15.17 Pm-1
Stand4MarriageDC

This recharged District coalition, led by notorious 'mo foe Harry Jackson, is hoping to get approval for an initiative that would let locals "vote on preserving traditional marriage in either November 2010 or as part of a special election." Here's sincerely hoping that this Beltway will be loose enough to let gays easily breathe.

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


Your thoughts

I like this line, "[in] May, a small group of political appointees voted to deny the citizens a right to vote on whether homosexual "marriages" performed elsewhere would be recognized in the District of Columbia."

me: "13 out of 13 votes... 100%.... is a small group?"

hypothetical SFMDC member: "well that was the first vote. Marion Barry was confused and unwittingly voted in favor of a law he opposed."

me: "OK, so once the council voted a second time, it was 12 out of 13 votes... 92%... is that a small group?"

Here's where I run out of ideas for how the hypothetical SFMDC member would answer. How on Earth could 92% be considered small?

Posted by: DN | Sep 1, 2009 1:10:20 PM

Oh and a second thought - "political appointees?" Appointed by whom? The voters, you dimwits! Usually those are called "elected representatives," but that term doesn't serve your transparent anti-gay agenda.

Posted by: DN | Sep 1, 2009 1:16:57 PM

Please note how this ad is implying racial code words. "Wealthy gay activists" is code word for "rich white gay men."

Posted by: a. mcewen | Sep 1, 2009 6:49:01 PM

*Totally*, Alvin! As you well know, they have been working the race angle hardcore ever since this DC effort began.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Sep 1, 2009 8:41:11 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails