RECENT  POSTS:  » Scott Lively equates accurately noting his public record with inciting murder » Audio: Mark Regnerus doesn't think marriage equality has 'a lot of gas left' » Friday: NOM president shares the bill with 'ex-gay' activists » Today in 'um, yeah, obviously': Stunt marriages not confined to opposite-sex partnerships » Video: Brian Brown's fellow panelist gives insight into Moscow panel's extreme views on homosexuality, marriage » Video: TN man condemns gays with Leviticus billboards; oddly allows local Red Lobsters to remain open » Video: 'Ex-gay' speaker at upcoming ERLC summit equates talking to gay people with talking to cancer patients » GLAAD: Mainstream media is catching on to NOM's broader agenda » FRC's Values Voter Summit puts anti-gay bakers on a marriage panel; so we won, basically » GOP front group NOM raising money for a GOP US Senate  

« 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