Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

ProtectMarriage.com issues Cease and Desist for Prop 8 Trial Tracker logo depicting family of two mothers with two kids

Cease and Desist Right-wing

By Julia Rosen

Earlier this week we received a Cease and Desist letter from ProtectMarriage.com, demanding that we immediately take down the logo for this site. (Well actually, they demanded we take it down from the Courage Campaign site, but it was clear that they were ticked off about the Trial Tracker logo.)

They are upset that we are parodying them and are making themselves out to be victims again. It’s just ridiculous. It’s very clear that the our logo is a parody, and they are just freaking out about an image depicting a family of two mothers with two kids. The ProtectMarriage.com logo was originally used as the pro-Prop 8 logo, you know the proposition this trial is about… that little thing.

All these guys want to do is stop everything from being public. They can’t stand the fact that they are on trial, that everything from their motivations to their intent are being scrutinized by a federal judge. After successfully crying wolf to the Supreme Court about the witnesses being shown on TV, they have turned their lawyers on us, or at least a lawyer way out in Ohio.

No, we aren’t going to take it down. We will not let them bully us, or let them turn themselves into victims. And our letter back makes that clear (scroll down to see it).

Here is their letter to us in all its glory:

[scribd id=25266926 key=key-gj77tqgh7uto479w696]

They are clearly thin-skinned and are determined to press this issue legally, even though they really have no basis for pursuing this. Our lawyer had a nice little chat with their lawyer yesterday, which is referenced in our shall we say, inspired, spirited letter back to them.

January 14, 2010

Via E-Mail

John M. Skeriotis
Brouse McDowell LPA
388 S. Main St., Suite 500
Akron, OH 44308

Re: Alleged Copyright and Trademark Infringement

Dear Mr. Skeriotis:

As you know, Morrison & Foerster LLP represents Courage Campaign in connection with the intellectual property matters raised in your letter of January 12, 2010. Your letter threatening legal action and demanding a response in two days is a clear attempt to abuse intellectual property laws to stifle our client’s freedom of speech, particularly as no one is likely to confuse Courage Campaign with ProtectMarriage.com merely because of our client’s parody of your client’s logo. Courts in the United States have universally rejected attempts to use trademark and copyright infringement claims to obstruct free speech and shut down parody. Should your client attempt to press the arguments raised in your letter, it will
undoubtedly see the same result.

In this case, Courage Campaign is using a parody of the ProtectMarriage.com logo to provide commentary on the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial and the viewpoint of ProtectMarriage.com, which Courage Campaign diametrically opposes. While our client does appreciate the irony of the suggestion in your letter that a logo of a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is “substantially indistinguishable” from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children, your assertion is incorrect. This difference between our client’s parodic logo and your client’s logo is a graphical representation of the core difference between Courage Campaign’s views and ProtectMarriage.com’s views, presented in a sassy way that will not be lost on the public. You conceded over the phone that bloggers and online commentators noted the changes from man to woman and are making fun of your client, demonstrating that the public notices the difference and gets the joke. Creative works that are designed to poke fun at another group or communicate a message by modifying the other group’s own work or style in a key respect are the very essence of parody.

A parody is a literary or artistic work that imitates the work of another for comic effect or ridicule. Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mt. Prods., 353 F.3d 792, 801 (9th Cir. 2003). Parody is a form of criticism with socially significant value as free speech under the First Amendment. Id. at 801. Thus, when an artist released a series of photographs parodying Barbie in a way that was “ripe for social comment,” the artist “created the sort of social criticism and parodic speech protected by the First Amendment.” Id. at 803. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment against Mattel on all claims, including copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement and dilution, and state law claims. Id. at 816. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that a groundless or unreasonable trademark infringement claim against expression protected by policy interests in free speech may be an “exceptional case” justifying an award of fees and remanded the case to the district court for a determination of attorney’s fees. Id. On remand, the district court agreed that it was unreasonable of Mattel to make a claim against the defendant’s parodic work under both the Copyright Act and the Lanham Act, and awarded the defendant its attorney’s fees and costs. Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mt. Prods., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12469, at *3-11 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2004).

This state of the law is echoed by courts throughout the country. For example, GTFM, LLC, a clothing company, sold clothing under the “FUBU (For Us By Us)” mark, meant to promote youth empowerment and leadership. It filed suit against Universal Studios, Inc. after Universal released the movie How High, in which a character wears clothing bearing the mark “BUFU,” explained as standing for “By Us F*** You.” Universal’s motion for summary judgment was granted as to all counts of the Complaint, “pursuant to the substantial body of case law establishing ‘safe harbors’ for this form of comical expression. Parodies of trademarks necessarily incorporate the original mark’s likeness in order for consumers to get the joke.” GTFM, LLC v. Universal Studios, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30192, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2006).

Similarly, when the World Wrestling Federation (“WWF”) filed suit against Big Dog Holdings, Inc. for the latter’s use of phrases such as “Open up a Can of Woof-A**,” take-offs of WWF trademarks such as “Open up a Can of Whoop A**,” the court held that this “obvious joke” was parody protected by the First Amendment, and there was no likelihood of confusion. Judgment was entered against WWF. World Wrestling Fed’n Entm’t Inc. v. Big Dog Holdings, Inc., 280 F. Supp. 2d 413, 435-36, 446-47 (W.D. Pa. 2003). Furthermore, it is not necessary for a parody to “state the obvious” – it is only necessary for a parodic element to “reasonably be perceived.” Mastercard Int’l Inc. v. Nader 2000 Primary Comm., Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3644, at *40 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2004) (granting motion for summary judgment against claims of trademark and copyright infringement in their entirety).

When viewed in context, even beyond the parodic difference between the logos, there is absolutely no likelihood of confusion, which must be shown to carry a trademark infringement claim. See Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana, 505 U.S. 763, 769 (1992) (it is undisputed that trademark liability for unregistered marks requires proof of likelihood of confusion). As your letter notes, our clients are completely opposed in viewpoints. Visitors to both our clients’ websites are well aware of this fact. You even suggested on the phone that you are not taking the position that anyone is going to mistakenly donate to our client. Your client uses its logo on a website that prominently displays “ProtectMarriage.com” and other key statements of its position opposing gay marriage. Our client uses its parodic logo only in the banner of a website that displays, “Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Holding the right-wing accountable” and “A Project of Courage Campaign Institute.” There is no risk that existing or prospective supporters of our clients’ respective campaigns will be confused about Courage Campaign’s views, nor is there any likelihood that prospective supporters of your client’s campaign will accidentally visit our client’s website and believe that it is somehow affiliated with ProtectMarriage.com.

We are confident, for the reasons outlined above, that the allegations in your letter are without merit and an attempt on your client’s part to seek legal remedies would be easily defeated, likely with an award to our client of attorney’s fees and costs.

This letter is not intended to be a recitation of all of the facts or law pertaining to this matter or all of our client’s possible defenses. As you are aware, we were retained only yesterday, and you insisted today upon an immediate response. Accordingly, we have not yet had an opportunity to address every allegation in your letter. We are sending this letter now as
requested to prevent the filing of a precipitous and meritless legal action. Nothing in this letter should be construed as a waiver of any rights by Courage Campaign, all of which are expressly reserved.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Nathan B. Sabri

Nathan B. Sabri

cc:

Courage Campaign

Who knew lawyer letters could be so damn entertaining? Stay tuned as we await their next move.

To see the logos side-by-side, read this follow-up post.

Tags:

255 Comments

  • 1. Patrick Regan  |  January 15, 2010 at 1:57 am

    I'm ashamed to be from Ohio where the offending Lawyer is from. We have a ban on gay marriage here too. :( Hopefully this case will pave the way to changing that here too.

  • 2. Lymis  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:00 am

    Speaking of opening cans of whoop-ass!

  • 3. sarah  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:03 am

    Does this fall under fair use?

  • 4. Robert  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:03 am

    God bless you guys! Good for you standing up against them. I love the logo. I'm following your post several times a day. Don't give up.

  • 5. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:05 am

    While our client does appreciate the irony of the suggestion in your letter that a logo of a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is “substantially indistinguishable” from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children, your assertion is incorrect.

    Win!

  • 6. Rick DeLano  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:05 am

    I came to your site by a google search, and started reading it precisely *because* I saw the logo and assumed I was at the Prop 8 site.

    I read for twenty minutes, with increasing puzzlement, until I finally realized I had been spoofed.

    I saw no humorous take on the logo.

    I saw a counterfeit of the logo..

    Thanks for the address of the attorney who sent you the cease and desist.

    I intend to forward him a copy of this post right away.

    If I were you I'd stop using their logo to mislead people like me onto thinking you were the Prop 8 siote, so that you can falsely induce them to misconstrue your coverage with theirs.

  • 7. fiona64  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:06 am

    It does indeed fall under the Fair Use Doctrine. (I'm a former newspaper editor, and I had to know that stuff.)

    That said, why am I reminded of the blackmail letters that the Prop 8 campaign (now in the guise of ProtectMarriage) sent to the major donors to their opposition?

  • 8. evenevan  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:06 am

    Wow! Gold stars to Nathan!! Nothing like legal work with style!

  • 9. Sheryl Carver  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:06 am

    This legal exchange is as interesting as the trial. We sure got us a whole bunch of tip-top legal people. Way to go!

  • 10. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:06 am

    While our client does appreciate the irony of the suggestion in your letter that a logo of a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is “substantially indistinguishable” from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children

    Priceless.

  • 11. Madjoy  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:06 am

    I was about to post that. Definitely my favorite line.

  • 12. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:07 am

    So Rick… you are saying you are a moron in a hurry?

  • 13. fiona64  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:08 am

    When you write to them, Mr. DeLano, I am *confident* that you will refer to the Fair Use Doctrine, which clearly applies here. In case you do not have it handy for your reference, I am delighted to help you: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

    Have a splendid day.

  • 14. evenevan  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:08 am

    I don't think I'd be pointing out how gullible I was if I was you, Mr. Delano. I'm just saying.

  • 15. Patrick Regan  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:08 am

    troll?

  • 16. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:08 am

    Bless your soul for incorporating "How High" into your argument, that made my day heheh. It's great when lesser-known movies (prior to Comedy Central's release anyway) which still end up being funny as hell wind up coming back and being used as effective tools

  • 17. evenevan  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:09 am

    whoops! Make that

    "…if I were you…"

  • 18. Clift  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:09 am

    When will the T-shirts be available?

  • 19. Doug  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:09 am

    I just referenced this in my Facebook status. If that is a problem please let me know and I will take it down. I had to share it though. :)

  • 20. Jane  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:09 am

    The Courage Campaign parody logo is now my Facebook picture. Yay!

  • 21. Sheryl Carver  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:10 am

    Rick, if it took you 20 minutes to realize you were not at the pro-Prop 8 site, you clearly hadn't had your first cup of coffee.

    Have a good day. Bye.

  • 22. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:10 am

    Haha yeah. Although for a while I thought that was the real lettering of the apparel, just an alternative meaning of the acronym. Of course I don't wear FUBU nor would care to.

  • 23. fiona64  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:10 am

    For those who are unclear, the word "confident" is sarcastic … because what I am really confident of is this: Rick is a troll, and he's not going to do *anything.*

  • 24. Kelly  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:10 am

    Maybe it goes to show that the difference between a same sex family and a hetero family is indistinguishable?

  • 25. Doug  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:11 am

    Uh, they aren't using "their" logo Rick. Look more closely!

  • 26. draNgNon  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:12 am

    who knew lawyer letters could be so entertaining?

    adversarial lawyer letters are awesome.

  • 27. Jane  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Seriously. A T-shirt would be epic. I want one!

  • 28. Doug  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Agreed!

  • 29. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:13 am

    Who knew lawyer letters could be so damn entertaining?

    Not to insult the excellent job your lawyer has done, but this is nothing. If you want to read a really humorous legal filing, check this one out:
    http://gb1990.net/legal/response/D2009-1182%20Res

    Classic.

  • 30. James  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:13 am

    Heaven forbid Prop 8 supporters accidentally read another point of view

  • 31. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:13 am

    Might wanna point out all those songs by Fred Phelps which "clearly" fall under "Parody" and aren't offensive at all.

    Can't have it both ways, Ricky!

    But do have a good day now, and don't forget to put a stamp on the envelope. I realize Email has made life simpler, but here on Earth, letters get sent with stamps on them, I know, right?

  • 32. James  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:14 am

    GOOD IDEA. Done :)

  • 33. Rebecca  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Very nice reply to the Attorney for the Protect Marriage bigots.

    It was a nice read. Very Enjoyable.

  • 34. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Heaven forbid I have to read the tripe on the protectmarriage.com site. With no place to comment on the obviousness of their misrepresentation, I was about to explode!

  • 35. Anna  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Oh please. Can you not read the logo text that says "Prop 8 Trial Tracker" and thus deduce that this site is solely about *tracking* the Prop 8 trial, not about Prop 8 in general? And did the prominent banner picture of a family consisting of 2 men and a child not give you a clue that this site was highly unlikely to be pro-prop 8? I fail to see how this could be construed as attempting to mislead anyone.

  • 36. Ron Currie  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:17 am

    Just because your stupid

  • 37. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:19 am

    There's such a thing as another point of view? My word, I REALLY must get out more! According to my new arrivals, we're all riding a speeding sinbullet straight to the firey testicles of the whory underworld! And something about how I should stop fantasizing about an orgy with Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, (possibly homosexual) Zac Efron and the (possibly homophobic) Chace Crawford.

    Forgive me, when I'm up all night I tend to respond like this.

  • 38. Jake  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Thank you. this was the finest both uplifting and hilarious thing I have read in days!

  • 39. Laurel  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:21 am

    Hmmm… If a logo of 2 women and 2 kids is "substantially indistinguishable" from a logo of a man, a woman, and 2 kids, is a living, breathing family of 2 women and 2 kids "substantially indistinguishable" from a living, breathing family of a man, a woman, and 2 kids?

  • 40. Marc  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:22 am

    Let's give a big welcome to all the Protect Marriage supporters who have decided to join the conversation by using our site. I guess after being disabled for 4 days at ProtectMarriage.com they were feeling starved for attention.

  • 41. Ray  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:22 am

    Rick, how long have you been employed by Protect Marriage?

  • 42. Mohammad  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:22 am

    Ha ha ah, I hope they take you guys to court and your legal fees are VERY high!

    Your respose letter is classic. Keep it up.

  • 43. Marlene Bomer  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:22 am

    Same here, Patrick!

    I live just south of Toledo, and the college town I live in is gearing up for a ballot challenge to a non-discrimination ordinance similar to what Kalamazoo went through last November.

  • 44. Matt  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:23 am

    There may be no way to comment, but there is a "Contact Us" form….

    I contacted them regarding my concern that there was no way to comment, unlike other websites about the court case.

    Needless to say, I've not heard anything back.

  • 45. Michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:24 am

    Give them hell they will stop at nothing. thank you for your invaluable coverage of this case. I hope it will be available in a pdf version so this can be spread far and wide.

  • 46. Michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:24 am

    how'd ya do it? i was thinking the same thing, but can't save the image .

  • 47. s  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:25 am

    It took you 20 minutes to realize its a spoof??? LOL Either you are a REALLY slow reader or a dimwit…..or both perhaps

  • 48. Ryan  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:25 am

    Funny you found this site through Google. One would think you'd have noticed the pages upon pages of links that come up before this site when you search "prop 8" or "prop 8 trial". What were your search terms? I only found this site through links from other human rights activist organizations.

    It seems kind of far fetched that you would've chosen this site from a random search, unless you happened to be somewhat associated with this attorney and were trying to generate evidence to prove his claim, which naturally will be and has been overwhelmed with evidence to the contrary provided by other users. That makes a lot more sense.

  • 49. Mali  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:25 am

    "I read for twenty minutes, with increasing puzzlement, until I finally realized I had been spoofed".. It took you 20 min to realize this was not the prop 8 site?..wow!

    "While our client does appreciate the irony of the suggestion in your letter that a logo of a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is “substantially indistinguishable” from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children, your assertion is incorrect".. this was just perfect! =)

  • 50. Beth  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:26 am

    How can we get Rachel Maddow to put this "controversy" on her show?

  • 51. n c  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:26 am

    How can it be their logo when one is a MAN and a WOMAN and says YES on PROP 8 and the other is two women and PROP 8 Trial tracker…? so its the same color and similar lay out, but very different in the message. These people are willing to go to any lengths…

  • 52. Mr Mxyzptlk  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:27 am

    No, Fair Use is a copyright term, and this is a trademark issue.

    Trademark law is intended to protect the producers of goods and services from competition that plays on their mark causing confusion as to the source of the goods or services (including intellectual content).

    Parody is protected because a good parody will not confuse the consumer as to the source of the parody trademark and is generally not an attempt to compete with the product being parodied by leveraging the competitor's trademark.

  • 53. Terri  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:27 am

    Is anyone on the other side going to cite any law? You know you must do that to make your case.. right?

    When I read the letter from John the lawyer I thought it must be a fake, then I thought it must be a joke. How can a lawyer ask such a thing and not cite any law at all. Where is the precedence for such a request. Good grief, someone needs to go back to law school.

  • 54. Mike  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:27 am

    That is so sexy. Great job! I laughed the entire time

  • 55. ET  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:28 am

    I never thought I'd see the day that 'Open up a can of whoop-a**' is actually quoted in a lawyer's response. Is that awesome or what? I am in awe. :)

  • 56. Beth  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:32 am

    Hmm. Brouse McDowell doesn't appear over-anxious to put protectmarriage.com in their client list:
    http://www.brouse.com/OurFirm/Clients/tabid/64/De

  • 57. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:32 am

    http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab326/alanecke

  • 58. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:33 am

    This is just a rough copied/cropped image from the banner. Free for all to use!

  • 59. Kevin  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:35 am

    You read this website for twenty minutes and never saw the giant "project of courage campaign" graphic on the banner? This site and its logo are very clearly identified; good luck with your claim. I am sure their counsel will enjoy wasting valuable time listening to how this site has harmed you.

  • 60. ET  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:36 am

    Troll poster is trolling.

  • 61. Kevin  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:36 am

    Yes fiona, i believe i still have a pdf of these somewhere on my computer … i should post them somehow

  • 62. Dwane Porter  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Oh common Rick DeLano – You are on the NOM site on face book you are an avid supporter of Prop 8 as you state in many of your posts.
    http://www.facebook.com/Nation4Marriage

    This link was supplied by Maggie G on one of her recent posts this week posts, which you have supplied ample comments on.

    You know clear and well that this site did not mis-lead you.

    Talk about bearing false witness.

  • 63. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:39 am

    The bigots' lawyer is implicitly citing law when he uses phrases like "substantially indistinguishable" and "had access to ProtectMarriage's mark".

    This kind of thing is not unusual, and the cease and desist is relatively boilerplate. In some cases, it is defensible for a trademark holder to aggressively pursue even the silliest cases, lest they lose their trademark (there's a reason that Xerox is still a trademark and Escalator isn't…)

    This one is just silly though. It has no chance of success, mostly because US law is extremely satire-friendly. There's also the problem that the text and images to the right of the logo make it clear there was no intent to deceive, and also that ProtectMarriage would have difficulty showing damages. Moreover, the fact that both parties are non-profit political advocacy groups makes it even more challenging — the courts have consistently interpreted the First Amendment in the broadest possible manner when it comes to political speech.

    (e.g. if somebody were instead selling T-shirts with the satire logo, a trademark infringement case would be much easier to bring, because then it would be commercial speech rather than political speech, and because then ProtectMarriage could show damages. The case would probably still fail because of the satire aspect, but there would be much more wiggle room in that case)

  • 64. gskrptr  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:41 am

    priceless!!!

  • 65. Terri  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:46 am

    I meant cite law as in cases to prove your point. The lawyer from MOFO (haha their email address makes me smile) did indeed cite law as in cases – three of them. It is always weak to make assertions without cases to back them up.

  • 66. Sunny  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:47 am

    Ah that made me so happy…..that was a great response!!

  • 67. Juliette  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Brilliant response! That part of their original letter stuck out like a sore thumb! How did their lawyers not catch what they were implying? Oh wait… they work for Protect Marriage. Never mind, I take my question back.

  • 68. Juliet  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:54 am

    Love the response. For people so opposed to being seen in a court of law, Protect Marriage sure is sue-happy.

  • 69. Nakhone  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:56 am

    You can send her an alert. Great job standing your ground Rick. Do not budge. If they sue our community can afford it. Heck, we could afford a $50 million campaign in 2008. Much love!

  • 70. Peggy  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:03 am

    Thanks for keeping me posted on the daily events. Can't find any reference to the trial in our paper here in Richmond, VA lum to my sons :)

  • 71. Audrey Smith  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:05 am

    HAHAHAHA! Rick Delano didn't think anyone here would be savvy enough to check Facebook — shout out to Dwayne who exposed this idiot troll!

  • 72. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:07 am

    Did I mention that I love you guys?

    you're great!! I immediately grasped the joke of this logo and If I was a pro8 guy I would NEVER accidentially donate to this site instead of theirs like it could NEVER EVER happen that I ACCIDENTIALLY donate to theirs site. One glance and I can totally see the purpose of this website as well as of theirs. confusion is simply not possible!

  • 73. Daniel Loftus  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:08 am

    If this is costing Courage Campaign alot of legal fees, take it down. I don't want my money going to support a playground squabble.

  • 74. Roberta K  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:11 am

    Thanks Alan — just grabbed it to use for my Twitter avatar (I ditched my Facebook because I was getting bored with it).

  • 75. Polkageist  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:12 am

    Oh, you put too much work into that. A reply letter only needed to say "Stuff it"

    Or perhaps a rude little emoticon: t(^.^)t

  • 76. Roberta K  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Might be a little tough with the Haiti earthquake coverage, but she might be able to get to it by Monday if relief efforts settle into less than chaos.

  • 77. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:17 am

    haha hi mom!

  • 78. David from Sandy  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:20 am

    LOLZ. . . when will the stooopidity end?

  • 79. Eric  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:31 am

    Um, the ProtectMarriage attorney is admitting that male and female logo's are interchangeable in a family.

  • 80. Doug K.  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:31 am

    I love how with each attempt by the Proponents of Prop 8 to push their position, they shed even more light on their laughable ignorance.

  • 81. Shannon  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:32 am

    "While our client does appreciate the irony of the suggestion in your letter that a logo of a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is “substantially indistinguishable” from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children, your assertion is incorrect."

    MOST AMAZING SENTENCE EVER.

    OH MY GOD – keep up the excellent, excellent work!!!

    Aaaaahahahahahahahahaha. I will be laughing for DAYS.

  • 82. Kendall  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:33 am

    How are the prop 8 lawyers so sure it's not a male figure in a dress? Or maybe the male figure transitioned to female. Just sayin'.

    The response: "While our client does appreciate the irony of the suggestion in your letter that a logo of a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is 'substantially indistinguishable' from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children, your assertion is incorrect." Love it.

  • 83. Barry  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:37 am

    I just called John M. Skeriotis and spoke to him about this. he was surprised that the letter is online and said they plan to press action.

  • 84. Mary Hayes  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:37 am

    But…. But…. Rick, Prop 8 supporters invariably put quotes around words like marriage and family when referring to gays. Are you saying that families look alike, whether headed by a gay or straight couple?

    Well, slap my ass and call me Fanny.

  • 85. Margaret Toigo  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:38 am

    “While our client does appreciate the irony of the suggestion in your letter that a logo of a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is ’substantially indistinguishable’ from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children, your assertion is incorrect.”

    Indeed, best sentence ever!

    And thanks to all of you for your hard work in live blogging!

  • 86. Jason  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Has the temporary restraining order been filed yet?

  • 87. GT  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:47 am

    Owned!

  • 88. Mary Hayes  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:47 am

    This just gets better and better! When is Mr. Skeriotis going to give a press conference? That might make up for the scardy-cats' squelching of YouTube coverage.

  • 89. Rachel Hockett  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:49 am

    Take THAT, ProtectMarriage.com!

  • 90. Morrigoon  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:51 am

    “While our client does appreciate the irony of the suggestion in your letter that a logo of a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is ’substantially indistinguishable’ from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children, your assertion is incorrect.”

    The Prop 8 campaign feels that a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is ’substantially indistinguishable’ from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children – can their attorney's letter be submitted as evidence in the current trial?

  • 91. Paulo  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:55 am

    I am a direct action type. Anything you wish us to do? Picketing, e-mail, phone banking their offices? Law is only one way to show displeasure. I would suggest some people on our side in Ohio do a bit of tracking on this Homophobic law firm. Always nice to shine a light on such organizations before they become too menacing.

  • 92. Theresa Hernandez  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:59 am

    AWESOME! I can't believe they're spending their hard-fought donations on something so trivial. They are clearly acting like a cornered animal.

    Why is parody only okay when the right does it? They really are the kings of hypocrisy. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

  • 93. GT  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:00 am

    That would be right. The play-the-victim-at-any-cost-even-if-you're-wrong tactic.

  • 94. jamie  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:00 am

    this is amazing!!!

    "While our client does appreciate the irony of the suggestion in your letter that a logo of a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is “substantially indistinguishable” from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children, your assertion is incorrect."

    hahaha.. too good!!

  • 95. Morrigoon  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Don't give them another thing to whine about in their "victimization" claim. Picketing would be far more effective in drawing attention to the squelching of video coverage

  • 96. Mark Barnes  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:10 am

    Do not be intimidated in the least by their attorney. They will be fooling with the wrong law firm, especially on a matter involving this area of the law, if they take on Morrison & Foerster – I can assure you.

  • 97. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:13 am

    Why is he surprised? That we are open about our actions and intentions?

  • 98. JimB  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:15 am

    LMFAO!

    beautiful…just beautiful

  • 99. Nicole A  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:18 am

    As Jon Stewart would say "OH, SNAP!"

  • 100. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:20 am

    No, I think what Rick is saying is that he is a closet homosexual and due to the inability to "man up" and live his life as dog intended, he is too weak and has been pressured by society to live a lie – as an 'alleged heterosexual' (making life miserable for his wife and kids, which he most likely beats) all the while bashing gay people so he can justify looking at gay-oriented websites, usually for pornography.

    And he calls it 'research'.

  • 101. diditweetthat  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:21 am

    I can't believe they would make such assumptions as this.

    "…changing the male figure on the left to that of a female, wearing a dress."

    I mean really, I actually thought they altered 3 of the figures to be Cross Dressing males, wearing dresses, to show the obvious generational influence of non-traditional family… It is a well known fact that ALL gay men like to wear women's clothes.

    (comedy intended, I don't wish to offend, merely point out the idiocy of ANY and ALL arguments that come from their side)

    I loved this part of the response as well.

    "While our client does appreciate the irony of the suggestion in your letter that a logo of a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is “substantially indistinguishable” from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children, your assertion is incorrect."

  • 102. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:30 am

    FWIW, I think the "most homophobes are closet cases" argument is counter-productive.

    First of all, I honestly do not believe it to be the case. I'm sure many self-hating closet homosexuals deal with it via homophobia, but it seems dubious to me that the majority of homophobes are gay… the numbers just don't add up. And in any case, it seems more plausible to me that it's more often the result of religious indoctrination combined with an authoritarian attitude (I mean, we don't go around saying Creationists are "closet evolutionary biologists" or "closet dinosaurs", do we?)

    Second of all, if it is indeed not true — as I suspect is the case — then this makes it harder for our arguments to get through. If you tell a homophobe that he only feels that way because he is himself gay, and the homophobe in question really is legitimately heterosexual, then it will be easier to dismiss the rest of the arguments. Hell, it even plays into the hateful "recruitment" myth when our side goes around calling people gay who really aren't.

    Not to rain on anybody's parade :) I just don't think that trope is very helpful.

  • 103. John Ozed  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:35 am

    Oh aren't they so put upon…

  • 104. Mikey  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:36 am

    This isn't "Fair Use", it's "Parody". They're different. The case law on the use of "Parody" is well-established. If they choose to pursue, they will lose.

    My suggestion is that Nathan go ahead and charge A Million Dollars in attorney's fees. :)

  • 105. Adam Sanford  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:37 am

    When we protested Prop 8, my daughter drew a parody of their logo very similar to this one except it was two men and two girl children (our family). The lawyers from ProtectMarriage don't have a legal leg to stand on, and they know it. Fair use, folks – fair use!

  • 106. Christine Beatty  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:38 am

    Cockroaches always run from the light.

  • 107. Pete  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:41 am

    I trawled around through the Protect Marriage site, and I don't actually find a trademark notice anywhere. Their logo would have to be protected by a trademark notice, rather than a copyright notice, since trademark coverage is specifically for logos, brands, etc., while copyright is for non-logo writings, compositions, and the like. So Speriotis is basically waving a cardboard sword as far as I can tell.

  • 108. Callie  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:41 am

    Me thinks our lawyers opened up a can of whooa** on their lawyers.

    I LOVE THIS!!!! And I'm so putting the logo up as my facebook pic!

  • 109. A Mom  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:41 am

    Have to admit … I found the site by google search as well and did a double-take when first seeing the logo – thinking I somehow ended up at the WRONG place. In just a few seconds (not 20 minutes) I read the banner, saw photo of 2 dads with little girl & Courage Campaign moniker and knew I had to be at the right place! Eyes wandered back to the logo … which elicited a smile at the clever artista's parody. Bravo.

    Poor Mr. DeLano … humorless individual. He's just mad that he got spoofed by a header and is afraid some of his 20-minute read might create an open space of potential undersanding in his mind.

  • 110. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:42 am

    But James, you are trying to apply logic to someone that defies logic.

    How else can we explain someone that spends their lives, their careers trying to deny other people equality?

    This entire concept of "defending marriage" and "saving the children" is ludicrous.

    But for some reason, it keeps people like Maggie Gallagher, Peter LaBarbera, Matt Barber, et. al. employed.

    Would YOU spend all your time searching the internet for heterosexual websites, specifically pornography all in the name of 'research'?

    The behavior of the right defies logic. (Sorry, by my very nature I have to question. It's my need to understand – a fault of mine. Just was never the type to accept the status quo.)

    And WHO spends all their time thinking about someone's personal life (much less making a career out of it), especially someone's sex life? Because we know that's 99.99% of what they think about when they think of homosexuality. They are obsessed with sex. Perhaps its because they are so bad at it; I don't really know as psychology hasn't really addressed this bizarre behavior pattern of the extreme right.

  • 111. James  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:42 am

    Poor Rick, he's never quite been able to come out of the closet.

  • 112. Callie  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:42 am

    In case I haven't told you guys lately, I LOVE YOU!!!!

    This letter totally rocks my socks! ROFLMAO

  • 113. Rich Givens  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:44 am

    I couldn't help but notice the similarity of the Protect Marriage logo to that of Nestle's Pure Life products. I wonder if anyone at Nestle is watching what the bigots have done to their corporate logo? Check it out. http://www.nestle-purelife.us/flavors/images/Eco_

  • 114. Daniel L  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:47 am

    James,

    I never heard of moron in a hurry before. Love the phrase

    Rick,

    I think the attorney probably has hit refresh on this site already. You're snail mail is going arrive late.

    Also humor isn't some universal or absolute trait. So I don't know why your'e saying you didn't find the logo humorous…

  • 115. Tia Shanita  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:50 am

    Mr. DeLano – I am glad to hear that it took you 20 minutes before you could see the difference between a family with two female parents and a family with male/female parents. I hope your heart takes heed, maybe we're making some progress!

  • 116. Shane Z.  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:50 am

    For twenty whole minutes? I wouldn't be so open about your lack of ability to read and comprehend.

  • 117. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:57 am

    Would YOU spend all your time searching the internet for heterosexual websites, specifically pornography all in the name of ‘research’?

    Heh, that doesn't actually sound so bad, since I am heterosexual 😉 I'm not sure my wife would buy the "research" angle though ;p

    I get what you are saying though. If Rick DeLano is doing that, then yeah, you've got a pretty good argument (I thought you were merely speculating that he did that type of "research", I haven't been to his FB page).

    As far as spending 99% of their time messing with someone else's personal life, I think this is (usually) better explained by a highly authoritarian personality than by repressed homosexual feelings. I'm not just whistling dixie here — there is evidence tying homophobia to both an authoritarian mindset and to religiosity (religiosity is also correlated with authoritarian personality, but there is still a correlation with religiosity even after adjusting for this confounding factor). While this data is merely correlative, rather than proving a causal relationship, what it suggests to me is that homophobia is more a result of a) religious dogma and b) a personality which thrives on telling other people what to do and/or being told what to do by authority figures.

    Obviously there are high profile cases of anti-gay activists turning out to be gay themselves (*cough*Haggard), and I agree with you that people who do extensive "research" seem likely to fit this mold… but I doubt that it is the norm.

  • 118. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Argh, HTML fail. That mangled sentence in my above comment should have looked like this:

    I’m not just whistling dixie here — there is evidence tying homophobia to both an authoritarian mindset and to religiosity

  • 119. diditweetthat  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:00 am

    PEOPLE, please do remember when writing directly to the lawyer whose address is at the top of the letter, (hint, hint) to be civil, and non-threatening.

    Even non-emotional, although, I know, what would be the point of writing a non-emotional letter?

    You know these right wing crazies, get all bent out of shape if you don't agree with them. No reason for them to take the one extreme example and twisting it to show that everyone that opposes them feels this way. NOT THAT THEY WOULD EVER DO THAT, RIGHT?

  • 120. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:05 am

    Because we know that’s 99.99% of what they think about when they think of homosexuality. They are obsessed with sex.

    Oh, and btw, I have theory about this. I think that many people who manifest homophobic feelings do so partially because they compulsively associate any mention of homosexual identification with the actual sexual act.

    Imagine if every time you saw a straight couple walking down the street holding hands, you compulsively pictured them having hot dirty sex. Regardless of how unattractive they are. That would be pretty unpleasant, no? I suspect that this is what is going on when people say, "I have no problem with gay people, as long as they don't shove it in my face." Due to these folks peculiar mental issues, seeing two men holding hands really does cause them to experience the same sensation as if they saw those same men having vigorous sex.

    Now, of course, that's a mental problem on the part of the bigot… but in the short term, one way to combat this is to try to get people to disassociate the sexuality aspect from same-sex partnership. The No on 1 folks did a brilliant job of this in their TV ad by having the son of the lesbian couple always seated between them. Anything to get these people to stop associating the idea of being gay with a graphic image of gay sex.

    In the long term, hopefully people can just, you know, not be so pissy about it, of course… But I think it's worth it to keep in mind this aspect of the other side's mentality.

  • 121. Linda  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:05 am

    I think we should tell them its not 2 women- its 2 men wearing dresses!

  • 122. Jack  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:08 am

    My opinion is that you are infringing because the logos are way too similar.
    That is also why it is not a very good parody.

    At first glance they seem like the same logo. There is no "joke" unless we can distinguish them easily. That is also why you are infringing. They rae certainly so close that they would cause confusion. I suggest a simple color change of the parents to draw our eye to their genders..

  • 123. Chris  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:12 am

    The rule, at least for consumer products, is that you need to be 20% different than the other logo. You may be now — but if you changed some of the colors you certainly would be.

  • 124. M S  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:24 am

    Precisely, Kendall! I was going to say the same thing– who says it's a woman under that dress? Maybe it's two men wearing aprons… sheesh!

  • 125. M S  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:32 am

    And while we're at it, could it be pointed out for sanity's sake that we're literally retaining lawyers over virtual stick figures and paper dolls? Threatening lawsuits in outrage over gingerbread people that are neither ginger nor bread nor actual people? I mean, really. I'm all for the power of art to inspire and challenge, but these are the moments for which the word 'frivolous' was invented.

  • 126. Andrew  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:37 am

    This is why my partner and I donate monthly to Courage Campaign. Best investment we've ever made!

  • 127. Jeff  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:55 am

    BEYOND brilliant! You guys are amazing!

  • 128. JonT  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:01 am

    JS: I think you are correct in that many bigots view being gay as just a sexual kink or perversion. For them, there is no relationship, love, or anything else like that. It's just a 'kink'.

    Oh, and Rick. Really? So you knew the protectmarriage logo, but couldn't figure out their address? Really? Smells a little fishy (no pun intended) to me.

  • 129. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:11 am

    Well, another observation I have had is that for a group of people that believe in limited government, etc., it strikes me as odd and very unusual that they want to dictate to other people how they should live their lives.

    Why would they want to deny another group of people the same benefits and rights that they enjoy? That just seems like government intervention to me – and we know how they HATE that concept.

    Compare to anti-abortionists. They are all about denying a woman's right to choose, regardless of the reasons, but once that child is born, they want NO part in providing welfare, healthcare, etc for that unwanted child.

    Nor are their interested in finding a solution, such as birth control or offering to adopt the unwanted children and take care of them for 18 years. It's all about denying something of another human being. Maybe it all comes down to power over another individual.

    I guess hypocrisy is the best word I can think to describe them. Speaking of which, Ted is starting up another church and I presume will accept any donations you wish to send him. 😉

    Perhaps we'll never understand the intricacies of human behavior but it gives us something to discuss when the topic of weather gets boring.

  • 130. Jen Mussari  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:20 am

    Fbulous. It's obvious that the intelligence of your lawyer, Nathan Sabri is much stronger than the attempts to "scare" you away from using a logo that obviously has a stronger impact than the original (which makes this an extremely successful parody!). I do think that you should avoid any legal actions, though, because the money you guys have is VALUABLE and should be spent very carefully, not on stupid court fees for a redundant case like this. So if they do come back at you threatening legal action, I suggest you alter the look of the logo so that it is still obviously the same thing, but has a different surface. Theirs is really shiny, blue, gradients, kind of tacky, yours could be more hand-drawn, trendier, more effective colors, etc.

    You guys are too smart. 😀 I'm really happy to be supporting the Courage Campaign!

  • 131. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:20 am

    That's irrelevant, though, because it's satire.

  • 132. Sara Golemon  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:41 am

    "While our client does appreciate the irony of the suggestion in your letter that a logo of a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is “substantially indistinguishable” from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children, your assertion is incorrect."

    Oh thank you so much for this sentence. I laughed till I cried. Good on ya, and God bless.

  • 133. Lynn Elwood  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:47 am

    You read for twenty minutes without noticing that the banner read "holding the right wing accountable?"

    Have you been tested for reading comprehension?

  • 134. Daniel DiNicola  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:53 am

    I love it! Our side ROCKS! Excellent job, Nathan!

  • 135. Christine  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:55 am

    How does one "falsely induce" another to misconstrue something? And who clicks on a Google link anymore without reading the synopsis? Finally, if Rick ended up here from a Google search, by his logic, he should be pissed at Google for "falsely induc[ing]" him to click on the link. Maybe ProtectMarriage should threaten to sue Google for trademark misappropriation.

  • 136. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:59 am

    Well, another observation I have had is that for a group of people that believe in limited government, etc., it strikes me as odd and very unusual that they want to dictate to other people how they should live their lives.

    Indeed. But the GOP abandoned all attempts at ideological consistency at least a decade ago. It's now an uneasy alliance of corporate interests, vacuous populism, and theocrats. To make the three compatible requires constantly lying to the populists ("ZOMG death panels!"), making mostly empty promises to the theocrats ("sure, we'll repeal Roe v. Wade, uh, as soon as we get around to it") while throwing them the occasional bone ("Teach the Controversy!"), and lamely trying to justify their constant corporate fellatio by the old "small government" canard.

    Perhaps I am being overly optimistic, but I do not think an alliance this wacky is sustainable in the long term. I am encouraged that every Republican whose opinion I respected has disavowed the Republican party sometime in the last ten years. Of course, that still leaves a lot of Republicans whose opinion I never respected to begin with… :/

  • 137. jg6544  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:12 am

    Unless I'm much mistaken, Judge Walker, when he was in private practice, represented the Olympics Committee in its suit to compel the Gay Olympics to cease using "Olympics" and won. Their letter may be directed more to pushing the judge's buttons than anything else.

  • 138. roger  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:33 am

    I'm laughing at Mr. Skeriotis's obvious inability to recognize that it is not two women, but actually two men in dresses in the parodied logo.

  • 139. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:37 am

    This is true. But 1) I doubt Judge Walker is aware of this letter, and 2) the Gay Olympics case was completely different because they were not trying to parody the IOC.

    In US intellectual property law, if you can make even a halfway-reasonable case that your "infringement" was clearly meant as satire, you are pretty much golden.

  • 140. Brad  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:50 am

    ProtectMarriage.com's Rick is infringing on the copyrighted name of Courage Campaign's Rick. We need to issue a cease and desist.

  • 141. Rachael Lamkin  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:09 am

    "You conceded over the phone that bloggers and online commentators noted the changes from man to woman and are making fun of your client, demonstrating that the public notices the difference and gets the joke."

    LMBO. I like that Nathan Sabri. And MoFo. Bravo. And way cool props to Dwayne (post no. 45) for busting the lying mole.

  • 142. Feyna  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:13 am

    I do not understand why people cannot see obvious distinguishing factors. I also do not understand how something cannot be a joke unless it is fired-in-your-face transparent.
    Hopefully you have migrated from potty humor and mustache-drawing pranks, as they leave nothing to the imagination, and require little brain power.
    As such, I do not think you quite grasp the concept of humor. Nor are you able to read, which is quite troubling news. I fear you lack the intelligence necessary for such cognizant material, as your feeble and naive mind is still stuck in early grade school…
    Talk to your kid, if you have any. s/he can show you how they differ. (Probably not the joke though. Children that age are not yet taking political Science…)

  • 143. A  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:17 am

    Making me laugh out loud!

  • 144. Bella  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:21 am

    While the fight regarding two stick figures wearing pants and/or a frock respectively, seems to have struck a kink in the straight line drawn by ProtectMarriage.com. I must draw their attention to a more pressuring matter.

    It appears that *Yale (research behind the series) and my favorite channel, PBS, are sporting a large purple dinosaur, who sings songs about all different kinds of families.

    "A family is people and a family is love
    That’s a family,
    They come in all different sizes and different kinds
    But mine’s just right for me".

    Children are smiling and appear to be happy during this song, however, I am concerned that this song may be teaching our children that they are able to be happy in a family that is just right for them, especially if that family is a bit too gay in the happiness field, because it contradicts ProtectMarriage.com.

    I understand that the research as indicated below shows a decrease in violence in said children, after watching the "jolly dino", and teaches them pro-social behavior, but that after all is what we are ardently trying to prevent? I know I appear confused as to the whole baloney, and hope that someone may be able to educate me on the proper protocol of acceptable behavior. Also, if it is not too much trouble, I was wondering what ProtectMarriage.com feels about the Teletubbies? My children may prefer the switch?

    Yours sincerely,

    Bella

    *http://www.pbs.org/part ents/barney/parents/philosophy.html

  • 145. Elaine  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:32 am

    OMG…Nathan Sibri's response letter made me laugh so hard I almost fell off my chair. First using the FUBU example, then moving on to 'Opening a Can of WhoopA**" Too too good. Mr. Sibri is my new hero. Hilarious.

  • 146. lindsey  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:42 am

    This was a brilliant job on Nathan's part, but could everyone PLEASE just appreciate that for what it is and DO NOT contact the attorney who sent the letter.

    The last thing the trial and the press coverage needs is some bizarre distraction next week where the attorney who drafted the cease and desist letter gets any number of arguably threatening or belligerent communications.

    Those opposed to marriage equality are already, absurdly, attempting to posture themselves and the victimized minority. Don't help.

  • 147. RA  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:46 am

    would you describe yourself as functionally illiterate? or just completely lacking a sense of humor?

  • 148. Alan Chan  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:52 am

    A Google search shows that Rick DeLano is a Marketing Director at Scholastic, Inc. (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/rick-delano/0/b8b/1a4). The same Scholastic, Inc. that tried to censor LGBT books (http://www.mombian.com/2009/10/28/scholastic-reverses-decision-will-include-lgbt-inclusive-book-in-book-fairs/).

    I imagine this is a developing tactic to act innocent, when in fact, they're the scheming kid who's tattle-taling to get what they want. It's childish and the bad karma is going to catch up to them eventually. I love that this is an example of what the case revolves around, that those opposed to same-sex marriage are only doing so out of vindictiveness. Additionally, I love the irony of NOM's argument that they prefer mob rule but yet, when it comes to things that aren't going their way, they're tattle-taling to the legal system. Wee!!!

  • 149. diditweetthat  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:52 am

    PLEASE IGNORE THE ABOVE – as well typed by:

    lindsey | January 15, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    This was a brilliant job on Nathan’s part, but could everyone PLEASE just appreciate that for what it is and DO NOT contact the attorney who sent the letter.

    The last thing the trial and the press coverage needs is some bizarre distraction next week where the attorney who drafted the cease and desist letter gets any number of arguably threatening or belligerent communications.

    Those opposed to marriage equality are already, absurdly, attempting to posture themselves and the victimized minority. Don’t help.

  • 150. RA  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:59 am

    JS if you teach a seminar in any of the aforementioned topics I would be delighted to attend. :)

  • 151. Kristen  |  January 15, 2010 at 9:16 am

    I went to their site and I really thought the photo of the couplle with the baby on the right hand side was a lesbian couple….. Cease and disist that!!!!!

  • 152. Nicki  |  January 15, 2010 at 9:38 am

    very very nice response. Thank you for going to the mat for us, this is hard ball. Our bench is deep.

  • 153. Doug Bearden  |  January 15, 2010 at 10:28 am

    This may have already been said here but next they, ProtectMarriage, are going to try and litigate what we are allowed to do in our own homes. Christ, no pun intended, will they stop at nothing?

  • 154. douglb1  |  January 15, 2010 at 10:34 am

    "While our client does appreciate the irony of the suggestion in your letter that a logo of a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is “substantially indistinguishable” from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children, your assertion is incorrect. This difference between our client’s parodic logo and your client’s logo is a graphical representation of the core difference between Courage Campaign’s views and ProtectMarriage.com’s views, presented in a sassy way that will not be lost on the public."

    I love the "irony" line but I have to include the "sassy" line.

  • 155. lesbianmother  |  January 15, 2010 at 11:29 am

    Rick.. Did it hurt to hear the truth? Is that why you are upset?

  • 156. Richard  |  January 15, 2010 at 11:33 am

    Jon Stewart would have a field day with this letter.
    The most entertainment I have had all week.

  • 157. douglb1  |  January 15, 2010 at 11:48 am

    Proving just how ignorant the pro prop. 8 folks are. Give me a break Rick!!! it took you 20 minutes. You didn't see two women in the logo? You must be a really slow reader because the first sentence on this page is "Earlier this week we received a Cease and Desist letter from ProtectMarriage.com, demanding that we immediately take down the logo for this site." The Cease and Desist letter came from ProtectMarriage.com. Are your critical reading skills just not there? The first sentence should have clued you in on that this is not the ProtectMarriage.com site. Hello, yet more lies from those pro prop 8 folks and lets not forget they are the victims here.

  • 158. Thomas  |  January 15, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    Tell them to go to Hell!

  • 159. douglb1  |  January 15, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    I have to weigh in one more time. Hey Rick, I did a google search on 'prop 8' and went through 13, lucky number, pages and protectmarriage.com came up twice and prop8trialtracker.com 0 times. I am very puzzled!!!

  • 160. nightshayde  |  January 15, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    The point is that there isn't a substantive difference between a family led by two women and a family led by a man and a woman. The logo is perfect as is.

  • 161. Irony Defined « Pro&hellip  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    […] everyone’s favorite line in our lawyer’s letter back to ProtectMarriage.com after they tried to bully the Courage Campaign into taking down our parody of Yes on 8’s logo used for this […]

  • 162. Jacob Randall  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Everybody please join this facebook group and also the prop8trialtracker facebook group – easily accessed through the search engine.

    This group I am linking you too is specifically for spreading the word about the trial. We can't watch it – but other people can read it ONLINE… So that's the best we can get right? Please join and invite your friends!

  • 163. Jacob Randall  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    Please join this facebook group! It has been created SPECIFICALLY to SPREAD THE WORD about the trial. People can still catch the testimony at places like this!
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=28444203558

    And don't forget the prop8trialtracker group!

    Invite your friends!!!

  • 164. Ryan  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    "This difference between our client’s parodic logo and your client’s logo is a graphical representation… presented in a sassy way that will not be lost on the public."
    Definitely the best line in that entire letter. I also appreciated the inclusion of a definition of parody.

  • 165. Janet  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    Sweet James, I think Rick is simply saying he's a moron. He wasn't in no hurry.

  • 166. B  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    As to Lynn's comment (No 52) about the guy who read for twenty minutes without noticing the banner, banners are often ignored because everyone "knows" that they usually contain advertising or other visual clutter. So I wouldn't blame him for that (but claiming to have noticed a Prop-8-like logo in the banner is a bit suspicious if the hypothesis is that he ignored the banner). The person who noted that his Facebook page indicated that he is a Prop 8 supporter pointed out a fact that is far more damaging due to an "appearance of impropriety" (a Prop 8 supporter has an incentive to lie).

  • 167. Michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    The large pro-homophobia advocacy group, "Protect" Marriage, is making another attempt to stifle free speech, religious beliefs and the freedom to pursue happiness. They take away the civil rights of law-abiding, taxpaying, gay Americans and then scream "intolerance" and play the victim whenever anyone disagrees with their bigotry. Rather than trying to intimidate pro-equality Americans, they should repent and walk away from their sin of homophobia.

  • 168. bonobo  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    I think you all have missed the point. One must read between the lines in order to survive. What they are actually saying is this:

    "Hey Fred, we don't seem to be getting the donations that we should be getting. I wonder why?"

    "Hmmm Sam, I'm not sure. After all, we're telling our followers what is going on with the trial, what with our winning on every point, the donations should be rolling in."

    "Hey Fred, I just noticed the simularity between their logo and ours. Perhaps that's where our missing donations are going."

    "Hmmm. You might be right, perhaps we should ask our loyal followers why they aren't donating."

    "How are you going to do that, Fred? Our site doesn't allow comments."

    "Oh yeah. Well then, let's have our lawyers send a letter."

    Yeah, I can see this happening. Can't you? And please forgive the typo's and mispellings, It's 3:30 am, and I'm going to bed. Night all, Bo

  • 169. Steven  |  January 16, 2010 at 12:28 am

    SO wait, their lawyers are saying switching the one-man one-woman for two-women is "substantially indistinguishable". Can we use that in our defense?

  • 170. Obscanity: You’ll k&hellip  |  January 16, 2010 at 12:36 am

    […] ProtectMarriage.com issues Cease and Desist for Prop 8 Trial Tracker logo depicting family of two mo…. […]

  • 171. Dan Hess  |  January 16, 2010 at 2:16 am

    I rather like the idea of a picket, myself. Have everyone come out dressed in all white (to show unity) except for a tie-dye or rainbow bandana (for diversity, equality, and support for the cause). Stand in rings around the courthouse. Don't bar entry to the courtroom or anything that would lend legitimacy to the defense's persecution complex. Just stand and make people take notice. They can't televise the trial, but they can at least televise the support of the pro-equality community. ^_^

  • 172. Bob  |  January 16, 2010 at 4:24 am

    Hey folks, please don't be fooled by Rick Delano' s little poor innocent me routine. Rick is a big contributor and support of protectmarriage.com The very ideal that he had to google for trial information is a farce, he knows very well where t o get the info, he's been posting trial information to the NOM site before posting here.

    He's the kicker, even his son is involved with protectmarriage.com and has spoken at PROP 8 rallies:

    Check these links out:

    Go to the bottom of this page: http://www.ccgaction.com/index.php?q=swc/casuprem

    and check this out: http://ja-jp.facebook.com/posted.php?id=334231238

  • 173. Christina A. DiEdoar  |  January 16, 2010 at 4:56 am

    The best part (at least to an incorrigible legal nerd like me) is that the attorney sending the cease and desist letter isn't even *admitted* to practice law in California, the forum where the purported infringement took place. In my view, this comes perilously close to the unauthorized practice of law by Mr. Skeriotis, which in California (as in most other states) is a crime in and of itself. Ideally, someone at MoFo will look into this and let the good people at the State Bar of California and the State Bar of Ohio know about Mr. Skeriotis's actions. :)

  • 174. Marc Caldwell  |  January 16, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Please. If you don't want to contribute then don't.

    I suspect that you aren't a supporter of the cause anyway.

  • 175. Marc Caldwell  |  January 16, 2010 at 5:02 am

    Point of fact, I never even bothered to look at the logo when I first came to the site. It's irrelevant to the arguments presented.

  • 176. A Heterosexual Femal  |  January 16, 2010 at 6:14 am

    wow this pisses me off.
    this website & your "cause."
    marriage is between a MAN & a WOMAN.
    nothing other than that.
    it*s sad that you don*t see that & keep fighting to change things…
    just let it be.
    i definitely don*t support you
    & i DEFINITELY voted YES on prop 8 =)

  • 177. A Heterosexual Femal  |  January 16, 2010 at 6:15 am

    o & p.s. i am not a "gay-hater"…
    i have gay friends & i love 'em!
    i just don*t support their decisions.
    that*s all.

  • 178. Marlene Bomer  |  January 16, 2010 at 6:25 am

    In a word? Bullsh;t!!

    You're a bigot pure and simple, darling! You're one of those "I have black friends but I don't want one marrying into my family!" types — pure and simple!

    I *certainly* didn't support your decision to deny civil rights to other citizens of your state. If were up to me, I'd *love* to send you to a place for a few years where straights like *you* are the minority and see what it's like to be *really* oppressed!

    BTW, sweetie… did you forget that women had NO rights for a long time? You didn't have the right to vote, to run an organization, to own and operate a business, and many more!

  • 179. Ryan  |  January 16, 2010 at 6:27 am

    Bam.

  • 180. Eastsidejim  |  January 16, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Ya know… if it took you reading for "twenty minutes, with increasing puzzlement, until I finally realized I had been spoofed." I would suggest that you are very representative of the stupidity of the ultra conservative right… Ya think?

  • 181. Alan Chan  |  January 16, 2010 at 6:37 am

    <blockquote cite="Richard">Jon Stewart would have a field day with this letter.
    The most entertainment I have had all week.

    Please send it to his writers! I'd love to see it.

  • 182. MHC  |  January 16, 2010 at 9:46 am

    You MUST be a Prop 8 supporter and a genuine dyed in the wool conservative to miss the humor in this. Go ahead, waste your money on trivia like this. Time is on OUR side, turnip!

  • 183. Adam Sanford  |  January 17, 2010 at 3:45 am

    What a shame for you that you're going to lose in the courts. I wonder how you'd feel if your right to practice your religion was taken away by a popular vote.

    By the way, my husband and I are legally married in California and there is NOTHING you can do about it. We're one of the 18,000 legally married gay couples that your lawyers couldn't eradicate. Live with that.

  • 184. Supreme Court FAIL «&hellip  |  January 17, 2010 at 7:43 am

    […] organization).  To see a side-by-side comparison of the two, go to the Courage Campaign’s blog post on the subject, which includes – as a bonus! – the complete Cease and Desist letter from […]

  • 185. Mike  |  January 17, 2010 at 7:58 pm

    A google search or two can tell you there's nothing to the letter. A perusal of it says their lawyer probably never passed the bar, let alone an english class.

  • 186. Mike  |  January 17, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    Also, props to your lawyer for totally, completely, utterly stomping them

  • 187. Bob  |  January 17, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    Oh and Rick Delano, we are aware that you had received Maggie and Brian's email blast, dated the 13th, with this site mentioned.
    http://nomblog.com/680/

  • 188. Karen Ocamb: Supreme Cour&hellip  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:53 am

    […] sexual behavior rather than real people. On Friday Julia Rosen over at the Courage Campaign wrote that ProtectMarriage.com issued a Cease and Desist for their Prop 8 Trial Tracker logo depicting family […]

  • 189. Lawsuits Abound « Q&hellip  |  January 18, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    […] happy about this – apparently it offends their heteronormative sensibilities – and sent Courage Campaign a cease and desist letter for what is clearly a fair use and derivative work. Oh copyright law, how you never cease to make […]

  • 190. Lawsuits Abound! « &hellip  |  January 18, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    […] happy about this – apparently it offends their heteronormative sensibilities – and sent Courage Campaign a cease and desist letter for what is clearly a fair use and derivative work. Oh copyright law, how you never cease to make […]

  • 191. Welcome to the Prop 8 Tri&hellip  |  January 19, 2010 at 12:52 am

    […] of a Courage Campaign email, you can read our response to Prop 8’s cease-and-desist letter here and Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision banning cameras […]

  • 192. Jeffrey Fisher  |  January 19, 2010 at 1:58 am

    Absolutely awesome response!. Woo hoo!

    Jeffrey Fisher

  • 193. William Grogan  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:13 am

    My first time on this site. Read through all the comments and lawyer letters. I'm not surprised. My honey and I have been together for 17 years despite all the "disapproval" from family, coworkers, neighbors, etc. You all know the drill. Keep fighting. It sometimes takes longer than we want but the rightness of our cause will prevail.
    To all the prop 8 supporters out there, I have a bit of advice, especially to Rick Delano and heterosexual female, better to keep your mouths shut and let people wonder if you're stupid than to open them and remove all doubt.

  • 194. ianam  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:16 am

    That's ridiculous, even vile; holding the entire state of Ohio responsible for the actions of one lawyer is like holding gays responsible for the actions of pederast priests. Let's abandon all forms of guilt by association.

    Also, the lawyer is just doing his job, and our legal system depends on lawyers who act in a professional manner in regard to their client's interests. Organizations have a right to protect their intellectual property right regardless of their political positions, and one cannot determine the views of lawyers based on the views of their clients.

  • 195. ianam  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Since it took him 20 minutes, he's just a moron.

    Really Rick, you are incredibly stupid, and all too typical of Prop 8 supporters.

  • 196. Laura  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:26 am

    ^ this dude is right.

    We have an impartial court system and such to allow for all views.

    The lawyer may be a hater, but he also might be someone just doing their job, trying to give an increasingly unacceptable mindset a fair and equal chance to be made legitimate.

    And of course, eventually they will lose, and that impartiality will be what validates gay marriage legally.

    But everyone deserves a fighting chance with some form of legal representation, no matter how evil or stupid they are.

    If only courts would actually be… you know… impartial. /sigh

  • 197. Jenny  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:27 am

    Redefining marriage to equal "whatever suits your tastes" does not alter reality. Marriage remains, fundamentally and inalienably, the permanent, faithful and fruitful union between a man and a woman. You might be able to nail the first two, but same sex partners are simply unable to bring forth new life as a result of their sexual union. Technically, there isn't a "sexual" union occurring at all where two same sex individuals of any species engage physically.

    Is it really worth the money/time/frustration? If individuals with homosexual tenancies were vying for simple "equality," as Prop 8 protesters claim to be doing, then the could cease and desist immediately. Contrary to impassioned public opinion, no human "rights" are being violated by protecting the definition of marriage.

    That is essentially equivalent to arguing that the rights of falling bricks are being violated by the principle of gravity. Or resenting the fact that respiration expels carbon dioxide. Crude analogies, perhaps, but really, what the anti prop 8 crowd are arguing for is nothing short of a radical redefinition and redesign of reality.

    Domestic partnership is perfectly available to whomever so chooses to pursue it and becoming rapidly more acceptable, for better or for worse. Just because two people live together, profess love for one another, and desire to share a life together does not make them "married." It's not an issue of discrimination, but of logic.

  • 198. ianam  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:34 am

    You're missing James's point, Terri. Cease and desist letters are big on bullying, threatening to defend rights with legal action; they rarely cite case law, which is usually found in a response, as here. The MOFO lawyer included stock phrases from basic IP law — anyone at all familiar with that law knows the meaning and significance of that language. The last thing they are going to do is cite specific case law in regard to parody, since they don't want to acknowledge that it *is* parody, and that case law goes against them.

  • 199. ianam  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:37 am

    Oops: "The MOFO lawyer" -> "the Brouse McDowell lawyer"

  • 200. ianam  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:41 am

    "This isn’t “Fair Use”, it’s “Parody”. They’re different."

    Parody is an instance of Fair Use — it's protected under Fair Use doctrine; there isn't a separate Parody doctrine in IP law.

  • 201. ianam  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Like all right wingers, Rick DeLano is a habitual liar.

  • 202. Christina A. DiEdoar  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:44 am

    Addendum–MoFo is attorney slang in California for the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, the very well regarded attorneys for the Courage Campaign. I probably should have been clearer about that reference, as I think some folks incorrectly thought "MoFo" referred to something…..rather unladylike (and illegal in most states! :) )

    Peace,

    Christina

  • 203. Zach  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:49 am

    These people disgust me. Why is everyone else's business all of a sudden their business? It doesn't affect them at all. Why can we not decide our own affairs and let everyone else be?

  • 204. ianam  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:56 am

    A foolish and cowardly comment, Daniel.

  • 205. ianam  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:05 am

    Blah blah blah. The last thing we need is pointless cowardice. Right wing crazies wake up bent out of shape; nothing is gained by being afraid to rile them up.

  • 206. ianam  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:05 am

    Your opinion is stupid and worthless.

  • 207. ianam  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:08 am

    "Their letter may be"

    It may be, but it almost certainly isn't.

  • 208. ianam  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:09 am

    Lawyer's abilities cannot be determined from their legal arguments.

  • 209. ianam  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:10 am

    Stop patronizing.

  • 210. ianam  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:12 am

    You're definitely a vile cretin.

  • 211. anachronauticon  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:13 am

    If tomorrow, someone decided to tell you that you are not allowed to marry the person you love more than anything in this world, or are no longer allowed to be married to the one person who makes you feel like you mean everything to them, I would feel sorry for you.

    What differentiates between sexual preference? The next woman you see on the street may be heterosexual, she may be homosexual. No matter what, she has the rights provided by your US constitution, and by decency. She has the right to breathe, to think for herself, to have opinions. She has the right to vote. She has the right to drive a car, own her own house, run her own business. She has the right to do everything… except one thing. if she happens to be gay. She cannot stand beside the person she loves at an altar and say "I want to spend the rest of my life with you'.

    Why?

    What is it about the way a homosexual woman or man that means they can't stand up and declare in front of everyone "this is the person I love"? Why can't they have the same benefits as you? the same freedom to express their choice in life?

    To continue to refuse the right of marriage to same sex couples is to deny them rights that are afforded to every other human in your country. Rights that were denied to other races in the past.

    America prides itself on being the land of the free, home of the brave? So let homosexual couples be free to marry – free to love one another publicly and openly without fear of reprisal, without being a second class citizen just because of who they sleep with in bed at night. Marriage may be between a man and a woman, but it's also supposed to be about love.

    Let them love one another.

  • 212. ianam  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:13 am

    You're a liar and an a**hole.

  • 213. ianam  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:15 am

    You're an intellectually dishonest bigot.

  • 214. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:27 am

    Redefining marriage to equal “whatever suits your tastes” does not alter reality.

    This is interesting. It seems here that Jenny is referring to marriage as if it has some physical referent in the material world ("does not alter reality", "equivalent to arguing that the rights of falling bricks are being violated by the principle of gravity").

    Perhaps this has roots in essentialism, which is a natural human tendency. Jenny assumes that because marriage exists as a concept, there must be some essential quality to marriage, some distillation of the concept — analogous to how many people view evil as having an essential quality, for example, that can be transferred to inanimate objects, e.g. like an item of clothing worn by a serial killer.

    I'm wondering how widespread this is. In other words, how many people who oppose gay marriage don't actually have a reason, but think that there exists some essential essence of "marriage" that requires it be between a man and a woman?

    Also, if expanding the definition of marriage is equivalent to changing the definition of gravity, then I just have one question: When are these liberal theoretical physicists going to get off their butts and develop a theory of quantum marriage???

  • 215. ianam  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:46 am

    "It’s not an issue of discrimination, but of logic."

    You show no grasp of the subject. You talk about "fundamentally and inalienably", but you don't seem to know what those words mean. If it were true,you wouldn't need constitutional amendments to "protect" the meaning of a word. Meanings aren't inalienable, else "gay" would still mean "happy" and "nice" would still mean "foolish". And your comments about sex are "nice" in that way — people don't have to have procreative sex to be married! (And "technically", non-procreative sex is still sex — another word whose meaning you seem not to understand.) Yes, lack of consummation was once grounds for annulment, but that requirement has been … alienated from the meaning of marriage. Can women with hysterectomies marry? If you allow that, then "logically" you must allow gays to marry by your arguments. The fact is that it isn't logic you are applying, but intellectually dishonest ad hoc arguments based on your prior biases — which, from your blog, are clearly drawn from bigotry promoted by your religious community. If you were true to the principles of your religion, rather than just using it as a self-serving justification — putting your opinions in God's mouth — then you would stop bearing false witness and stop casting stones and stop hating your neighbors.

  • 216. ianam  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:09 am

    Like a number of ideas, essentialism has intuitive appeal but falls part under scrutiny. But few people apply even the small amount of scrutiny required to see that the idea is incoherent, and this yields the benefit of being able to apply these ideas in a selective, ad hoc fashion in support of whatever claims they are making — as Jenny does here.

    If redefining marriage doesn't alter reality, then what's the harm? And if the *meaning* of "marriage" is fundamental and inalienable, then how can it be redefined? But Jenny seems to refer to marriage *itself* as being between a man and a woman — what you, James, refer to as essentialism, but it seems to me to be a use/mention error (http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/use&mention.htm).

    Of course redefining "marriage" does alter reality — it alters aspects of human culture.

  • 217. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:21 am

    Interesting. Thanks for the link, I had not heard the use/mention fallacy formally defined. Heh, actually, let me try again: I had not heard of the "use/mention fallacy", but I was well aware of the use/mention fallacy from past experience. 😀

    In any case, that is useful to know. And I think I see your point… Let me test my understanding: Jenny (correctly) believes that marriage is a loving committed relationship between two people, and she also (correctly) understands that "marriage" is currently between a man and a woman — and she is failing to distinguish between "marriage" and marriage. Is that more or less what you are getting at?

    I guess the question is whether she holds this opinion because she is as dumb as rock (in which case I like your hypothesis) or because she is a superstitious wackjob with no capacity for self-reflection (in which case I prefer my hypothesis) 😀

  • 218. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:24 am

    putting your opinions in God’s mouth

    Recent evidence suggests that's exactly what God is for…

  • 219. Linda  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:24 am

    in reference to James who said people cant help imagining the sexual acts of gays when they see them holding hands…. I started imagining the 2 female stick figures from the logo having sex—- thanks for the laugh.

  • 220. Eastsidejim  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:00 am

    You are wrong… Quoting the SCOTUS – "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival…. " Loving v. Virginia (1967)

  • 221. Beth Taurasi  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:01 am

    I'm not too happy with what's been going on with Prop 8. Amendment 2 in Florida is similar, and I'm from Florida. I do not believe in the Prop 8 or Amendment 2 principles and practices as it could also pave the way for prejudice against congenitally disabled people.

  • 222. E. Thor Carlson  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:15 am

    I read for twenty minutes, with increasing puzzlement, until I finally realized I had been spoofed.

    Let's look at two dictionary definitions of the word spoof:

    A mocking imitation of someone or something, usually light and good-humored; lampoon or parody.
    A gentle satirical imitation; a light parody.

    So Rick, I'll give you twenty minutes to figure out that, by your own admission, you were taken in by a parody.

  • 223. Doug Bearden  |  January 19, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Touché!

  • 224. Neal Hicks  |  January 19, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    "In evidence of that, Courage
    Campaign has altered the logo above, changing the male figure on the left to that of a female,
    wearing a dress. Such alteration is not readily viewed by the casual observer."

    Wow, casual observer must really face a dilemma picking which public restroom to enter. Conservatives have a really hard life, I never knew. [/sarcasm]

  • 225. Sheri  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:50 am

    In reading through this blog, with the Protect Marriage side being primarily represented by men, (I guess the women are hidden somewhere), I suggest that the real issue is that the men are being threatened, feeling demasculinized, through the male icon changed into a woman.

  • 226. ProtectMarriage.com sues &hellip  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:02 am

    […] on the cease-and-desist letter ProtectMarriage.com sent us last week, the Prop 8 attorneys filed late yesterday in U.S. District […]

  • 227. Restraining Order denied:&hellip  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    […] Judge Lawrence K. Karlton, a US District Judge just ruled against ProtectMarriage.org’s motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to take down our logo on the Trial Tracker. (background here and here) […]

  • 228. Judge Denies Restraining &hellip  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:28 pm

    […] cease-and-desist-letter was sent by the same attorneys of Prop 8 last week to the U.S district court, demanding Prop 8 […]

  • 229. Robert Kullman  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:21 am

    I am in hopes of this too Ryan!

    Robert
    Akron, OH

  • 230. John  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:42 am

    You know, your views remind me of Carrie Prejean–you know who she is (and my mouth will drop open if I found out that you're her)–and it was those views that led to her dismissal from the pageantry.

    Her successor had a much better view on this issue; and I say much better, because (unlike Ms. Prejean) she was against gay rights but neither supported Prop 8 nor bashed gays. (Whether Ms. Prejean bashed gays is another story, but I DO know she supported Prop 8)

  • 231. jose perez  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:32 am

    i think you all jotos, only can curse and bad mouth when somebody disagrees with you jotitos.

  • 232. Dan Rogers  |  January 22, 2010 at 6:21 am

    I'm even stupider than you — I've been reading this site for 4 hours, and I still think this is a Yes on Prop 8 site. The logo is just so damned confusing.

  • 233. RioDV  |  January 22, 2010 at 11:36 am

    ker – SLAM!!

    OMGoodness, this is all so entertaining. I'm gonna go get some popcorn….

    I'm not even gay and this is such an obvious travesty and infringement of humans rights. What the hell is the matter with people??? What year is this again? 1810??

  • 234. The High-touch Legal Serv&hellip  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    […] The story, including lawyers’ letters in their entirety, is told at ProtectMarriage.com issues Cease and Desist for Prop 8 Trial Tracker logo depicting family of two mo…. […]

  • 235. Chris Peterosn  |  January 22, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    I really hope you are right

    I have no intention of getting a domestic partnership. I want to get married to my partner and call him husband not life partner..

  • 236. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 8:43 am

    Vamanos, cabron!

  • 237. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 8:45 am

    That pretty much covers it, don't you think?

    I guess "Jenny" doesn't believe I'm married, since my husband and I do not want children and I've had a tubal ligation.

    'Cause it's all about "makin' babies."

    Honestly, I feel sorry for people who see their marriages as the equivalent of a good animal husbandry program …

  • 238. Logo design irony, Prop 8&hellip  |  February 4, 2010 at 12:03 am

    […] In a fit of copyright pique, seems the good folks at Protectmarriage.com have sent the good folks at Prop8trialtracker.com a strongly worded cease-and-desist letter. At issue is the Prop 8 Trial Tracker logo, which the anti-gay marriage organization claims is a blatant knock-off of their design. The Protect Marriage folks go on to claim that the family in the pro-gay marriage logo (featuring two women with two little kiddies) is “virtually indistinguishable” from the family in the anti-gay marriage design (featuring a man and a woman with two little kiddies). Yeah, replied the pro-gay marriage folks. That’s kinda the point. [Prop 8 Trial Tracker] […]

  • 239. CarpoolKathleen  |  February 15, 2010 at 5:55 am

    Let me guess… these are the same lawyers who represented the churches that were freaked out about the "gay community" misappropriating "their" rainbow image?

    It all sounds kind of familiar…

  • 240. sks  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:58 am

    I don’t think it’s a good idea to say that the prop8 logo is a parody of the yes on 8 logo. By saying such you are saying that same sex couples in this case two women together is a joke. Which I doubt you are trying to do but you are just giving them more fuel.

    Also they don’t have the logo trademarked. It takes longer then one year to get something trademarked and I highly doubt they have even filed the application for one let alone even filed one out. So don’t even sweat it, and please stop saying it’s a parody because it’s insulting to your cause.

    From a straight women for equal rights of all human beings.

  • 241. InTheKnow  |  September 20, 2010 at 11:39 am

    I heard that Rick Delano has a gay child, which is why he is so upset with all things gay.

  • 242. leapinleopard  |  November 12, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    'irony' is a mf, now, isn't?? touche' !!!

  • 243. http://Www.Blurty.com/users/primebet27  |  June 18, 2013 at 5:18 am

    I have read several just right stuff here. Definitely
    value bookmarking for revisiting. I wonder how much attempt you set to make this kind of magnificent informative web site.

  • 244. free cam chat program  |  August 13, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you penning
    this article plus the rest of the site is extremely good.

  • 245. coffee at home  |  September 2, 2013 at 3:39 am

    I go to see every day some web sites and blogs to read articles or reviews, except this webpage presents feature based posts.

    Feel free to visit my weblog coffee at home

  • 246. http://www.iamsport.org/pg/blog/former8  |  September 23, 2013 at 6:53 am

    My relatives every time say that I am killing my time here at web, however I know I am getting know-how all the time by reading such fastidious posts.

  • 247. solar panel  |  September 30, 2013 at 12:35 am

    Oh my goodness! Impressive article dude! Many thanks, However I am experiencing
    troubles with your RSS. I don’t know why I cannot subscribe to
    it. Is there anyone else getting the same RSS problems?
    Anyone who knows the answer will you kindly respond?

    Thanks!!

  • 248. sexual inadequacies  |  October 12, 2013 at 6:08 am

    I am in fact grateful to the owner of this website
    who has shared this enormous paragraph at here.

  • 249. best web hosting reviews u.s. beef  |  February 7, 2014 at 2:16 am

    I truly love your blog.. Very nice colors & theme. Did you create this site
    yourself? Please reply back as I’m wanting to create my own personal website and would like to learn where you got this from or what the theme
    is called. Thank you!

  • 250. ____________  |  March 17, 2014 at 11:45 am

    Hurrah, that’s what I was searching for, what a stuff!
    existing here at this website, thanks admin of this website.

  • 251. _______ __ __ 2014  |  March 29, 2014 at 7:26 pm

    I got this web page from my friend who shared with me
    concerning this site and at the moment this time I am browsing this web page
    and reading very informative content here.

  • 252. phone porn  |  April 5, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    Excellent blog post. I definitely love this site. Keep it up!

  • 253. Baldwin Park search engine optimization companies  |  April 7, 2014 at 7:54 pm

    Now I am going away to do my breakfast, once having
    my breakfast coming again to read additional news.

  • 254. seo rank test  |  May 3, 2014 at 6:26 pm

    Excellent post. Keep posting such kind of information on your blog.

    Im really impressed by it.
    Hey there, You have done an excellent job. I’ll definitely
    digg it and personally recommend to my friends.
    I’m sure they will be benefited from this site.

  • 255. ____ ______  |  May 24, 2014 at 11:29 pm

    What’s up to every one, the contents existing at this
    site are genuinely awesome for people knowledge, well, keep up the nice work fellows.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!