RECENT  POSTS:  » GLAAD: Are some anti-LGBT activists missing a self-awareness gene? » FRC faults Dems for broken, obstructionist Congress while advocating for broken, obstructionist Congress » FRC senior staffer: 'Ex-Gays: The Best Kept Secret in Your Child’s School' » Video: In inclusive ad, AZ Sec. of State hopeful makes discrimination his rival » That discriminatory OR baker is really overthinking reason why she's national news » Robert Oscar Lopez confirms belief that gay parents are like slave owners » Video: Values Voter Summit marriage panel was particularly boring, bad, ineffective this year » Conservative Catholic professor: Gay activists like segregationists in 'single-minded heedlessness' » Stop claiming Biden, Obama, Clinton, et al. supported marriage amendments—they did not. » Audio: Peter LaBarbera attempts to deny 'hate' by repeating his extremely hateful quote  

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

08/29/2012

One FRC headline says so much

by Jeremy Hooper

The story itself is just whatever, a rundown of a procedural move that has little bearing on the November ballot fight. But check out the heterosexist headline the Family Research Council chose to run:

Screen Shot 2012-08-29 At 7.30.37 Am [FRC]

Look, I love me some wordplay. Everyone knows that. So I'm not knocking the FRC writer for the punny-ness.

But consider the facts. In November, Minnesota voters will be asked whether or not they wish to alter the state's governing documents so they expressly ban same-sex couples from the institution of marriage. Regardless of how you view the equality fight, the undeniable fact is that same-gender couples and their allies will feel more constrained if the measure is approved than we would've had the self-appointed "protect marriage" crowd not chosen to wage this "culture war." That's an objective truth.

So that the FRC writer's mind thinks that this, something they see as a win and a rebuking of the pro-equality Sec. of State, is fit to be topped off with wording that implies exclusion via a straights-only view? As I said in my own headline: it says so much!

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