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 »

08/07/2013

At least the IFI admits it wants to ban us

by Jeremy Hooper

The other side hates when we use the word "ban." For years, the National Organization For Marriage even ran a directive that told supporters to stay away from the "ban" word because they know it helps our side.

But I have to give the IFI points here. The group that always follows its own drummer in terms of rhetoric (read: they routinely say truly vitriolic things without regard for pragmatic political messaging) is now coming right and admitting that theirs is a ban:

201308071426
[SOURCE]

The arguments in the argument, which come from the far-right Thomas More Society, are of course silly. Legal precedents support equality, and full civil rights are in our inevitable future. Because, well—duh.

But if they want to help us make the "ban" point, then I certainly won't stand in their way. Bans never win in the end.

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