RECENT  POSTS:  » Audio: Bored on an apparently too factual weekday, Richard Land pushes 'gays are sexually abused' lie » It seems when you equate gay folk with those who sleep with animals, it sticks; funny how that works » Video: A new low for Robert Oscar Lopez; anti-gay 'bisexual' peddles offensive claims on Bryan Fischer's show » Southern Baptist's ERLC dedicating national conference to gay people, discrimination; better luck next year, homeless » Photo: NOM thinks its discriminatory cause is young and hip; adorable » An inside look at POTUS's evolution circa 2011–2012 » More animus from Texas' key 'protect marriage' guy » GLAAD: Why would we silence unwittingly helpful voices like yours, Peter LaBarbera? » Photo: NOM fully (and finally) owning its wholly faith-driven root » Our winning movement wins another one: Judge says Ohio must recognize out-of-state marriages  

« 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