RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall' » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters  

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


How have other companies used NOM's sad stock photo child? #March4Marriage

by Jeremy Hooper

AS you might have already seen, the National Organization For Marriage is running a truly disgusting print ad in today's Washington Times supplement that implies same-sex couples are imposing "moral confusion" on our kids. The stock photo model could not look any more distraught:


I thought it might be interesting to Google around and see how other companies have felt compelled to use this same stock photo. The sad answers are exactly what I expected: they've used this pic as a stand-in for hungry kids, abused kids, kids of divorce, kids whose parents are in foreclosure, and more:


But for NOM, this little girl is deeply sad and afraid, even, not because her parents are apart or unloving—but because they are in love and desperately want to be together. And the girl isn't upset because of hunger or abuse—she's troubled simply because her parents have matching genitalia.

NOM is repugnant.

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