RECENT  POSTS:  » 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' » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters  

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


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

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