RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« 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