A step-by-step guide to the latest Coalition for Marriage pamphlet

You know what cheered me up this evening? This leaflet from the Coalition For Marriage about the upcoming European elections. Not because I liked it, but because it was one of the most hilarious(ly awful) things to arrive in my post box for a very long time. I thought I’d take you on a step-by-step guide through the amazing language and words used. If you click on the two photos below, you can see bigger photos of both sides:

"Vote for Marriage" front
“Vote for Marriage” front
"Vote for Marriage" back
“Vote for Marriage” back
  1. The title – “Vote for Marriage”. Wow, what a bold statement that is. And one that’s completely untrue. Might come as a shocker to some but…the European elections is about more than one thing! I know! Amazing, right?
  2. The underlining of “European” in the sub-heading. That basically implies that Europeans aren’t one of us and that they shouldn’t be trusted. Why should we trust the Italians and their suspicious love for pasta? Why should we trust the French and their creepy admiration of fine dining? Why should we trust the Finnish and their terrifying happiness about one of the best education systems in the world. Just…why?
  3. It defines David Cameron’s decision to redefine marriage (aka, allowing  same-sex weddings in the UK) as “controversial”. That’s odd, since most people in the UK seem to be in favour of same-sex marriage and would quite happily go to a wedding. Who wouldn’t? IT’S A WEDDING FOR PETE’S SAKE.
  4. “Many people continue to believe that true marriage can only be the union of one man and one union.” That’s odd considering that, in the article that I linked to just a point above, 26% of people opposed same-sex marriage. I would define the word “many” to mean “more than half”.
  5. “The European Union is pushing for a powerful new law which threatens your freedom to talk about marriage.” It’s a law so powerful that they can’t be bothered to give me more details of what that law actually might be in great detail – they haven’t provided the name of said law, so I could Google it myself.
  6. They refer to an “Equal Treatment Directive” without really explaining it, nor do they explain the “dangerous ‘harassment’ law”. Maybe this is me being extremely thick, but if I am, they could tell me what it is they’re actually referring to. It’s like they want me to get me angry over something I know nothing about it. That’s never worked for anyone…oh, wait.
  7. All of their “Freedom of Speech” points – hypothetical scenarios – are labelled as things that “could” happen. Because, you know, “B&B owners could be fined not just for upholding traditional values in their own home, but simply for expressing their beliefs,” even though that’s a thing that already happened without the need for the supposed law that they’re so clearly against.
  8. “Schools could be sued for harassment if they allow teachers or pupils to explain why they believe in traditional marriage.” Obviously, that’s a make-believe issue that pales to the less serious issue of 55% of lesbian, gay and bisexual children being bullying at school (source: this Stonewall report from 2012).
  9. “The UK Government says churches and religious premises won’t be forced to host same-sex weddings. But what will happen if European judges get involved?” Because who knows what those CRAZY European judges might think!
  10. Perhaps most amazingly of all, the sheer absence of the term “homosexuals” or “same-sex” or anything else in that semantic field. Presumably because, once those words are mentioned, it makes all of the above look very dodgy.

I’m getting married next year and I don’t believe a single word on this piece of printed literature, hence why I gave it a worthy home.

Bin

Advertisements