RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM president: Marriage ruling is 'Dred Scott decision of our time' » Episcopalians approve ceremonies for all legally-qualified couples » NOM's wishful (and disrespectful) thinking: SCOTUS ruling is 'illegitimate' » Focus on the Family creates itemized price list for 'saving' marriage » Fox News pays this person for his opinions » Pat Buchanan doubles down on 1983 column claiming AIDS is nature's punishment » Is NOM really going to push for a constitutional convention on marriage? » Video: Great piece from 'CBS Sunday Morning' highlights sweet success » Yes, the American marriage equality fight is over—the rest is just bluster » Goodnight from the White House to your house  

« 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