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 »

10/10/2011

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…

6A00D8341C503453Ef014E8Bd4Cfe2970D

…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:

201110101346-1
[iStockPhoto]

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..

201110101345-2

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

201110101346

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

201110101351

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