RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Man who's directly compared homosexuality to pedophilia will now lecture you on extremism » The 'why can't they take their business elsewhere?' line: Not only offensive but legally meaningless » FRC's ridiculously bunk new poll (*from partisan polling firm) » Video: 'Vice' covers the sad, dangerous, discredited world of 'conversion therapy' » Buzzfeed: Jeb Bush's nascent team is teeming with gay Republicans » FRC prays against gay acceptance to 'avoid the wrath of God' » Video: Mark Cuban supports religious biz owners that 'just say no' to serving same-sex weddings » We're not driven by animus, say groups that are known for showing animus toward gay couples » Video: Onetime LGBT community foe delivers crushing blow to 'religious freedom' (a.k.a. license to discriminate) bills » Q. How does Mark Regnerus 'prove' he's not an anti-gay activist?  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

03/31/2014

FRC's 'National Campaign In Defense of Natural Marriage' was a laughable disaster; so let's laugh: ha, ha, ha, ha...

by Jeremy Hooper

Last night, right after 8PM ET, the ever-deceptive Family Research Council sent out a last minute e-blast in support of its rabidly anti-LGBT "National Campaign in Defense of Marriage." In that last-ditch blast, FRC claimed it needed 83,000+ signatures before midnight in order to make its goal of 250,000:

(red arrow is mine)
201403310831
[FRC email]

Only thing? When FRC staff (email is attributed to president Tony Perkins) said they needed "more than 83,000," it seems that the operative words there were "more than." Because if you go to the actual petition, that count, per FRC's own admission, stands at only 4,766 responses:

(red arrow is mine; count recorded at 8:36 AM ET)
201403310835
[FRC.org]

That would mean that here, more than eight hours after the midnight deadline, FRC still needs 245,000+ signatures to meet its (already-missed) goal. Yes, that's technically "more than 83,000," as FRC's Sunday night pitch letter demanded. But just because it's technically true, it doesn't make the sleight of hand any less egregious.

Clearly this is major FRC failure that they wanted to hide behind artful language. FRC will surely be doing a lot of that kind of hiding and masking and twisting in the days and years to come, as more and more people catch on to the years of animus with which this terrible special interest group chose to define itself.

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