RECENT  POSTS:  » 'WaPo' conservative columnist: 'Strident' marriage equality opponents have lost » If John Eastman's allowed to intervene in Oregon, I submit his endorsement of this very anti-gay book » I apparently can fly; cool, I've always wanted to! » Starving selves to stop others' happiness: Virginia edition » NOM-aligned organization claims God will soon punish us for pro-equality rulings » GLAAD: The rise of toxic terminology: Losing anti-LGBT movement turns to corrosive labeling » Founder of anti-gay Boy Scouts alternative links sexual orientation, adultery; earns merit badge in ill-intended comparisons » 'Playbill' to let the two previously unaware playgoers in on Broadway's love for gays » New record: Anti-gay activist Ralph Reed contradicts self in less than minute » Read: NOM's guide to pressuring lawmakers to ban marriages (while pretending you're doing something good and positive instead)  

« 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