RECENT  POSTS:  » What most people aren't getting about the fake non-troversies of the anti-gay right » 'Weekly Standard' asst. editor equates Tim Cook with man who pits God against him » Michigan pastors make unfortunate lifestyle choice; say they'll go to jail rather than not discriminate » PFOX's Quinlan says SBC leader's opposition to 'reparative therapy' is cruel » That Idaho wedding venue posts new 'rules and regulations'; will still perform non-Christian weddings » Another deceptive thing about NOM's duplicitous anti-Hagan ad » NOM trying to shape Arkansas politics without even learning state's abbreviation » Video: Focus on the Family staffer who calls homosexuality 'particularly evil lie of Satan' hangs out in Chicago's Boystown » Video: Another new NOM ad targets Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR); uses James O'Keefe video as source » What the heck is 'NOM Victory Fund'?  

« 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