RECENT  POSTS:  » Considering vast (and frankly odd) amount of time he spends talking about us, no wonder Tony Perkins thinks we're 'special' » FRC keeps lying about where majority of Americans stand on marriage equality » Audio: Indiana restaurant owner openly discriminates against gays, glad to have added protection to do so » Indiana legislature, Gov. Pence awaken a fierce, powerful, anti-discrimination giant » Eleven Republican US Sens. give anti-gay conservatives a taste of a near and less divisive future » NOM proudly touts #March4Marriage backers who believe homosexuality 'should be treated by society as immoral, dangerous perversion' » Video: Gee, with compelling videos like this one, I just can't imagine why the anti-gay right is losing in court » #TBT: Even after legal equality, Americans—and particularly religious Americans—struggle to accept certain marriages » Indiana threatens its commerce, tourism dollars, reputation, general welfare of its citizenry » Video: AFA prez expounds on organization's movement-destructive ad by adding even more religious fervor  

« 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