« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
05/21/2009
You know that part of 'The Boxer' that goes 'lie, lie, lie.'? Yea, well...
In the daily column that they attribute to president Tony Perkins, the Family Research Council has repeated the ridiculous lie that New Hampshire's Cornerstone Policy Research managed to survey every last household in the state in two days. The very same lie that FRC's sister organization, Focus on the Family, admitted to be bogus:
In a survey of sampling households in New Hampshire--all 432,398 of them--64% agreed that the union of a man and a woman should be the only legal definition of marriage in their state.
Two Votes Equal One Big Victory on Marriage [FRC -- Tony Perkins' Washington Update]
Oh, Tony Perkins. Have you not watched our video?
Perhaps you kids need to spend a little less time researching families, and a little more time researching actuality!
Oh and Tony: You guys don't actually believe New Hampshire was a "big victory," right? I mean you'll say it no matter what, because that's the way you all roll. But when all is quiet in the world, you seriously don't see this two vote temporary setback as a "victory," correct? Even a cursory examination shows there are many variables (no-show Dems, lawmakers who were uncomfortable with the unneeded new language, etc) that make this much less a triumph for your team and much more a minor failure for everyone who is frickin' ready for the state to pass this and move on!
But whatevs. We now need everyone to hush up so we can satisfy the "song stuck in da' head" god:
**RELATED: Focus on the Family is also still suing the data, but, to their credit, are not making the "ever household" claim: Focus Trots out Debunked NH Survey Again [Tips Q]
Your thoughts
The Boston Globe has an article that quotes the Republicans that changed to "no". They all seem determined to pass the marriage bill but want to use their own language rather than the governor's.
The money quote:
/// Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, a Manchester Republican who also switched, argued Lynch's proposed language provides churches broader ability to discriminate than do laws in Connecticut and Vermont.
"I need something that does not send a signal to the rest of the country that New Hampshire has gone farther than any other state," said Vaillancourt. ///
Posted by: Timothy | May 21, 2009 9:17:30 PM
Yea, it's very interesting Timothy. There are the no-show "aye" votes and the Republican marriage supporters who rejected the bill on principle. A change in either area would've passed Lynch's new language -- but then the question for those of us who are unsure about (or against) the religious protections is whether or not we would have *wanted* this version as opposed to either the original or a new compromise.
Not sure if you saw the comment Vaillancourt gave us: http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/05/pro-gay-republican-gov-lynch-allowing-wound-to-fester.html
Posted by: G-A-Y | May 21, 2009 9:40:49 PM
Ya know, it's easy enough to understand, if not excuse, the anti-gay activists' misrepresentation of LGBT motives. The Tony Perkins and Peter LaBarbaras of the world make a living of some sort by conflating our threat to their way of life...and to them, the threat is very real. As society becomes more free and gay people less stigmatized, the anti-gay activists lose money and power. And how easy is it to question someone's motives - who can say you're wrong?
But how can they justify to themselves these blantant lies about facts that any eight year old can prove with a netbook and dialup? The idea that these men, who aren't stupid, repeat these distortions and outright falsehoods on their websites - written and recorded for all posterity! - can only show their disdain for their readers. If I made my family's living in that house of cards - built on an even shakier foundataion of theocratic dreams - I would be pretty dang nervous about putting ANYTHING out that wasn't easily proved.
Not to give them any ideas, but guys, maybe you should cut your losses now and be anti-something else where you might have a future, like, I don't know, hunger or poverty.
Posted by: Sykler | May 22, 2009 9:01:36 AM
comments powered by Disqus
