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 »


Exclusive: Minnesota For Marriage comes out for transgender children (*or at least the clipart version thereof)

by Jeremy Hooper

Over the weekend, the coalition that's trying to mark Minnesota's constitution with crude bias abruptly changed its identifying imagery from this…


…to this:

Screen Shot 2011-10-10 At 1.26.35 Pm

New kid, softer colors -- but same hostility towards either of those kids, should he or she grow up to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual, or support those who are. Sadly.

Though here's where it gets really funny. The source graphic, via istockphoto, is actually of two different families. The full graphic looks like this:


So in order to make one complete portrait, Minnesota For Marriage took the first three outlines, lengthened the first mom's jacket for some odd reason (modesty or MN cold weather?), and then just up and borrowed a kid from the second set of parents in order to make one intact family of four. But they not only borrowed and blended: They actually took the one child..


…flipped the outline of what appears to be a young boy…


…and then added a ponytail to the flipped image, seemingly to transition a him into a her:


Which you know, is actually refreshing. Sincerely. I'm more than glad to see the Minnesota getting T inclusive with their clip art, even if they continue to shun the LGB!

Though I do have to wonder: Why are they trying to destroy this second couple's family portrait? What, did the second couple express support for the Equal Protection Clause or something?

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

Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails