Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Parsing NOM’s polling chatter


Cross-posted at my home blog,

by Adam Bink

NOM is all a-Twitter (pun intended) about two polls (here and here) that they say shows nowhere near a majority of Americans support the freedom to marry. They point to one poll from FOX News showing 37% of Americans support the freedom to marry, and another from the Chicago Tribune of Chicago-area residents showing 42% support the freedom to marry.

A coupla things:

1. It’s FOX News. I wouldn’t even trust FOX to truthfully tell me if it was raining outside or not. Contrast this with the recent poll from CNN/Opinion Research recently showing a majority of Americans believe gays and lesbians should have the constitutional right to marry, or the respected Field Poll showing last month that a majority of Californians supports allowing same-sex couples to marry.

2. The broader point is the wording of the question. Notice that FOX’s question is not “do you support gay marriage or not”, or anything like it. It’s:

Do you believe gays and lesbians should be: SCALE: 1. Allowed to get legally married, 2. Allowed a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage, or 3. Should there be no legal recognition given to gay and lesbian relationships? 4. (Don’t know)

I’m no polling expert, but that is a much different question in terms of giving many people the way out they are looking for to demonstrate that they support equality, but “just don’t call it marriage”. You’ve probably encountered many of those people who, if pushed, support full marriage equality, but if given a way to show they support rights and all of that, just under a different name, they’ll do so. In fact, the Field Poll, in the same survey with the result of a majority of Californians supporting same-sex marriage, words the question a similar way and gets similar results:

In a statewide survey completed earlier this month, The Field Poll updated its trend measurements of how California viewed the issue of same-sex marriage. The results show that by a 51% to 42% margin, the overall California electorate supports allowing same-sex couples to marry and having regular marriage laws apply to them.

However, when voters are offered three alternatives – allowing same-sex couples to marry, allowing civil unions but not same-sex marriage or granting no legal recognition to same-sex relationships – slightly less than half of voters (44%) favor the marriage alternative. In this setting, a significant portion (34%) of California voters opt for allowing civil unions but not marriage for same-sex couples. Just 19% believe that there should be no legal recognition of gay couples.

And that’s also why I question the Tribune poll, which asks individuals if they support civil unions- if that question is asked first in the polling, that may skew the results of how many support full marriage equality- particularly given the latest buzz and how civil unions have, for some people, become forgotten. So it’s not surprising to me that FOX gets this result. I’m not saying FOX is necessarily doing this, but it’s a clever (and probably common) tactic in polling to word questions and responses to avoid certain aggregate responses you may not want. Polling that has the more simple up-or-down question has demonstrated that majorities of people both in California and in the country as a whole support the freedom to marry, and when NOM finds unbiased polling surveys with identical wording without questions on lesser forms of equality that show different results, then we’ll have something to talk about.



  • 1. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:32 am


  • 2. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:33 am

    Oh, please, more mail, by all means. Yes.

  • 3. JPM  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:41 am

    One of the questions the Tribune poll asked was a simple

    "Do you approve of legalizing same-sex marriage in Illinois."

    The results were 42-42-15.

    So no matter how you spin it, 50% of those with an opinion supported same-sex marriage.

  • 4. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:46 am

    Oh great Gods of email please fill my inbox to overflowing

  • 5. AndrewPDX  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:47 am

    <cite>Thank you sir, may I have another?</cite>

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 6. Heath  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:55 am

    Polling that has the more simple up-or-down question has demonstrated that majorities of people both in California and in the country as a whole support the freedom to marry…

    I hate to be the damper on an already dismal week, but I caution people not to read too much into the CNN poll, even if it does make for a good talking point.

    As Nate Silver pointed out last week, there appears to be a sort of Bradley Effect in polling on same-sex marriage. Person-to-person interviews elicit more favorable results than automated polls, suggesting that some of the respondents might say they favor equality to another human being, but in the anonymity of an automated poll, give more honest responses.

    In any case, polling shouldn't matter. The whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment is that fundamental rights aren't subject to the tyranny of the majority. If FOX News whipped up a poll (and they just might!) claiming that 99% of voters favored a return to slavery, that wouldn't make slavery *right*, it'd just make the sad and true point that FOX manages to reach a lot of bigots.

    Adam, our response to NOM shouldn't be to dissect their polls and quibble over details of wording, because doing so concedes the more important issue of them citing polls at all to justify their hate.

  • 7. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:56 am

    And while you're at it, mine too.

  • 8. BradK  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:57 am

    1.) Lies
    2.) Damned lies
    3.) Statistics
    4.) Fox "News"

  • 9. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Well, we all know that NOM is great at spin and tautology, so what else should we expect? They will only pull out surveys ans polls that have been written WESTAT style and give them the results they want. However, when a survey uses proper methodology, they cry about the results or dismiss it out of hand as being biased.

  • 10. Ronnie  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:00 am

    I am so sick of these polls…whether they show support for us or not or even a growing support for us (which a majority of them do show)..they are irrelevant…this is not High school & we are not vying for "Most Popular" or "Cutest Couple"…this is people's personal lives we are talking about ….ugggg…I'm over it….. > I …..Ronnie

  • 11. HunterR.  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:02 am

    And this is another example explanation of "Traditional Marriage" in case we need more information about the subject. Below just a section of the whole article. To read the whole article follow the link…

    "The Bible presents multiple views of marriage, and most actual marriages it depicts are terrible by modern standards. "Traditional marriages" in ancient biblical times were arranged as transfers of the ownership of daughters. The tenth commandment lists wives among properties like houses and slaves: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor" (Exodus 20:17, also found in Deuteronomy 5:21). Marriages occurred via deception, kidnapping, adulterous seductions, theft, rape, and murder, and were often in multiples so that the pater familias could amass land, flocks, and progeny and cement political alliances. Abraham, David, and Solomon had marriages that would be illegal today. The book of Hosea likens the mercy of God to a husband who has the right to beat or kill his adulterous wife, but spares her — for this, she was supposed to be grateful. When women seek marriages, such as Naomi arranged for Ruth, it was to avoid an even worse fate such as destitution."

  • 12. icapricorn  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:04 am

    Look, this thing is not going to be won by polls or popular vote. This is going to won in the courts by holding the law against the core values of the Constitution. We're not asking people to friend us on Facebook. Either we're citizens of this country or not. As citizen, we get full rights. There is no second-class on this ship of state.

  • 13. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:09 am

    Late to the Scribe Party again!

  • 14. HunterR.  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:10 am

    How interesting. I didn't know ancient Romans have compulsory marriage laws…..I get to learn something new this trail goes on….

    "Paul, a citizen of the Roman Empire, spent time in jail for opposing that Empire, and his negative view of marriage was probably another form or resistance. Other celibate religious movements of his time also saw avoidance of marriage and procreation as a form of resistance to the Empire and a sign of a new kind of religious society. Why was marriage such a huge political issue during Paul's time?

    During the two decades before Jesus was born, the Roman Empire passed a slew of marriage laws that forced marriage on all Roman citizens. To have enough tax revenues and soldiers for its military legions, the empire needed an expanding citizen population, but the population was shrinking. The situation was dire because average life expectancy was only 25 years, and two thirds of all infants died. Just to stay even, the state required a five-child birthrate per woman. Many elite Roman families resented military conscription of their sons and found the tax burdens excessive. Hence, refusing to marry was a way to resist imperial exploitation."

  • 15. BradK  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:13 am

    It's no wonder NOM is getting back to what they're best at — providing sound bites and weak excuses for those with hate in their hearts but can't acknowledge it. After the colossal FAIL of their lame "Out of the mainstream and into the Airstream" bus tour they need to reclaim some face. Nobody counts attendees when all you're doing is issuing press statements.

  • 16. Ed  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:18 am

    Not that I believe anything on FOx either, but even they can't help but see how rapidly public opinion is turning in our favor. From 19% to 37% in favor of equality in marriage is rapid change for such a socially charged issue… even if it is over a whopping 10 year period, it is HUGE considering that 20 years ago there would have probably been 2% in favor of, even if that high.

  • 17. PhillyKarl  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:37 am

    If you haven't seen Betty Bowers take on this, you've missed something extra super special…

  • 18. PamC  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:44 am

    I know that this has been said (somewhere) before, but I think the only value of polls is that they may be an indicator of how willing SCOTUS may be to rule in our favor. Traditionally, they haven't tended to overturn popular ideology, with only a few exceptions.

    That said, I hate polls. I think that they have a bandwagon effect that most Americans are unaware of–even if the results are skewed or falsely reported or the study was poorly designed with poor instrumentation, the very act of publishing the results impacts many Americans subconsciously: I'll vote with the majority (as represented by this poll's results).

    Insidious, but effective. At least until more of us grow up.

  • 19. PamC  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:45 am

    oops. subscribing. :)

  • 20. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:46 am

    I can never watch this without laughing uproariously. watching this video has come very close to requiring replacement of my laptop on more than one occasion, which is why I always make sure I swallow my coffee BEFORE I hit the play button.

  • 21. Sagesse  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:50 am


  • 22. HunterR.  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:58 am

    This case keep on giving. In a "what's first the chicken of the egg" situation, read the following article stating that if the original defendants didn't do their work (defending H8) there is a chance the whole trial might just be invalid….

    Peter Scheer
    If hard-won court victory against Prop 8 is tossed out, you can thank Jerry Brown

  • 23. Richard W. Fitch  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:04 am

    For those of you who may not already be aware, today is the 90th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment – the one that gave women the right to vote. Here is an article from the period(1884) leading up to this milestone.
    The specifics may have changed but its still the same arguments.

  • 24. Anna Bryan  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:08 am

    I LOVE this comment!

  • 25. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:14 am

    Note that this is yet another article that is relying on Amar's opinon. As far as I can tell, he's the only person who's posed this possible scenario. Are there any legal analysts out there besides Amar making this claim?

    From what I've read, the question of standing in a federal district court and federal appeals courts rely on different factors, so that it's possible to have standing in the former but not the latter.

    I'll preface once again, I know very little about these procedural questions and the issues of standing. That said, it seems to me that even it's determined that Proponents should not have been permitted to intervene, I don't see how that can lead to a conclusion that Prop 8 must stand. If no one who has standing is willing to defend the case, where does that leave plaintiffs, who have a legitimate claim for harm from the enforcement of Prop 8? While the law might seem irrational at times, it makes no sense to me that it would not have a mechanism for plaintiffs to seek redress for that harm through the courts.

    If the 9th determines that the Proponents should not have been permitted to intervene, I see the worst case scenario as the 9th vacating Walker's decision and either directing him to enter judgment for Plaintiffs or sending it back to him and, if no one defends, Walker entering summary judgment for plaintiffs.

    Is pgbach still around? I'd sure like to hear a discussion on this from someone who knows what they're talking about (which I don't)

  • 26. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:16 am

    I just commented on this article above, in response to HunterR's comment.

  • 27. JefferyK  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:19 am


  • 28. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:32 am

    Fascinating read! Thanks for posting that….funny how the arguments are always the same.
    "God says"…"The Bible tells us"…very very interesting.
    I also now need to do some research into one of the statements in the early part of the article refrencing the Roman Catholic Church being responsible for removal of the Bible from schools….can't wait to read up on that little tid bit of American history :-)

  • 29. Mike M  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Ok here's how the Tribune reported the poll results in their free daily "Red Eye" They asked 800 people in the city and 6 collar counties, equally balancing city, suburbs, and rural areas, with a 3.5% margin of error. The 42% to 42% only adds up to 84% add the 15% who either had no opinion or didn't understand the question that makes 99% so one percent on the people in my area were too stupid to say yes or no.

    The question was whether same-sex civil unions should be allowed in Illinois grant "many of" the same rights as married couples. It didn't take into account anyone, myself included who would have said anything less than equal marriage would be unacceptable.

    NOM can tout all they like and they can spin the truth all they like but the reality is the more hate they spread with half truths and flat out lies the more straight allies they push to our sided.

  • 30. JonT  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:46 am

    As Socrates once said: "I drank what?!"


  • 31. Mouse  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:53 am

    That is the most important point. It doesn't matter what bigots approve.

    What matters is that some rights are guaranteed by the constitution of the United States. For everybody – not just the people you approve of.

    Even people who irrationally hate gays and lesbians should be opposed to voting away the rights of any minority by a simple majority vote, especially one campaigned for with lies. That kind of craziness is dangerous. It's anti-American. It's anti-freedom. And yes, for those religious nut-jobs out there, it's anti-Christian, too. It's evil, pure and simple.

    Sitting by and allowing this to happen to your neighbors is the first step down the road to a holocaust.

  • 32. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:55 am

    And Mouse I would like to add that to vote away the rights of someone just because you don't like the group they are a part of also goes against Judaism.

  • 33. Don in Texas  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:01 am

    Not to worry.

    There are three requirements to determine if a party has standing to appeal the lower court's ruling:

    There are three standing requirements:

    1. Injury: The proponents (in this case) must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.

    2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.

    3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.

    The proponents also must show that there is a very good likelihood that they will prevail if the appeal is granted.

    In any case, the Defendant-Intervenors must show they have standing to appeal Judge Walker's ruling.

    If they cannot convince the 9th Circuit that they meet the requirements outlined above, the 9th Circuit will not accept the Proponents' appeal and Walker's ruling will stand, effective only in California.

    The Proponents can appeal the 9th Circuit's denial of their standing to the U. S. Supreme Court, which may or may not grant certiorari (accept their case.)

  • 34. Heather  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:03 am

    This comment is a little OT for this article but thought it needs to be out there. Just came across some doctrine from Mormon scriptures that say they shouldn't be doing this.

    D&C( Doctrine & Covenants) 134: 4&9.
    4: We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others… the civil magistrate should…never control conscience; should…never suppress the freedom of the soul.

    9: We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

    We need to use this at the Mormons. It is their doctrine. It hasn't been removed from their scriptures. I would love this to be asked on some media interview with a Mormon leader.

  • 35. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:04 am

    It ties in nicely with the historical revisionism of Christian fundamentalists in this country. They always opposed slavery. They always supported women's right to vote. They all supported the civil rights movement. And in the future, we will hear about how they were in favor of marriage equality right from the start.

  • 36. HunterR.  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:09 am

    Thank you for the explanation about this particular article. All things considered then isn't Brown obligated to defend the law, in this case proh8? Why he didn't? I know, probably this has been discussed many times but the nature of this beast keeps on changing. So, again, from the beginning. Why didn't he defend it? What about Arnold? they didn't, I get it. Weren't they supposed to do it even if they didn't like the law?

  • 37. Straight Grandmother  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:12 am

    That is a good find Heather.

  • 38. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Also, if I am understanding correctly, and remember folks, IANAL, if Judge Walker's ruling is allowed to stand, even if it is only effective for California, won't this also give a reference for future cases against other state-level DOMA's similar to Prop H8?
    And if Olson and Boies take on other cases, won't this case make it easier to compile the evidence and witnesses needed, since they will already have all of this on file, which would, in fact, shorten the length of time needed to prepare for court?

  • 39. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:14 am

    No shit! I'm not asking to be voted Prom King (Queen)..I want to fricken get married damn it!!!

  • 40. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Thanks Don. My question has to do with Vikram Amar's claim that a consequence of a ruling that Proponents don't have standing to appeal could be a ruling that Proponents should not have been allowed to intervene, and that the 9th Circuit could vacate Walker's decision and send it back to his court. From the Time magazine article referenced in the Huffington post article:

    "Amar says that if the Ninth Circuit agrees with Walker that the proponents don't have standing to appeal, the judges may well decide they shouldn't have been allowed to intervene in the case at all. If they do, he says, they could decide to vacate the trial entirely, sending it back to Walker to start over. The governor and attorney general would be unlikely to intervene — but on the other hand, come November, voters will choose new candidates for both of those offices."

    Read more:,8599,20

    What's your take on this?

  • 41. Owen  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Well said.

    This really encapsulates how I felt recently when I was reading a write-up on the failures of the "No on 8" campaign.

    There was something about how you have to avoid the word "gay" in the campaign to get equal rights because it negatively influences public opinion.

    I'm so sick of the indignity of this whole thing. It's dehumanizing. We shouldn't have to "win people over." We should have to hide who we are.

    It's enough of a testament to our commitment to this nation that we haven't just left this right-wing nuthouse for Western Europe. We're Americans too, and we deserve equal rights just as much as anyone else.

  • 42. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Thank you, Heather. I myself would like to see this brought up to our local bishop here in Fayetteville, NC. If you don't mind, I think I will send this to Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. Let us see what they do with this.

  • 43. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:17 am

    @HunterR, not if they believe the law to be unconstitutional. If they just "don't like it" they still should defend it.

  • 44. Jennifer Gail  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Hi, I've never commented here before, but I've been reading for a while now. This is a lovely, informative community, and I am so glad that this site exists with all of its resources and positive energy.

    I want to share this video (which will hopefully show up – in case it doesn't, the link is: Generation Equality Votes: Epic WIN or Epic FAIL? and the direct URL is: )

    [youtube =]

  • 45. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:19 am

    I've posted these on a debate board I'm on. First I'm asking that others confirm they are part of the D&C, then we'll see where it goes. Should be interesting. Thank you, Heather.

  • 46. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:20 am


  • 47. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:22 am

    That's gold!
    Thanks bunches!!!!

  • 48. Straight Grandmother  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:23 am

    Regarding standing. I think knew coming in to defend the original court case that they did not ahve standing in an appeal if they should loose. Everyone says Cooper is a great attorney so he knew this issue going in.

    They decided to intervene anyway. If Walker would have decided against us then we would have appealed. Their standing wouldn't matter at that point since we were the ones Appealing. Because of this I don't think if they loose standing that the case gets vacated (do over) as that would not be fair to our Plaintiffs. These are Constituitional lawyers they know Article 3 Rules, they just gambled and lsot adn I don't think the Courts will penalize us because has a gambling problem.

  • 49. HunterR.  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:25 am

    @Ann S 41. So if they, Brown and Arnold, believed the law was unconstitutional, why they didn't challenged it as the plaintiffs in this case did?

  • 50. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:28 am

    Excellent discovery, Heather!

    If I'm in a discussion with a conservative Baptist I always like to remind them that freedom of conscience is a core Baptist "distinctive", i.e. a doctrine which at the time of the denomination's founding distinguished them from other Christians. Baptists historically were all about the individual's right to interpret Scripture in his (yeah, it probably was his) own way, without interference from government or ruling church body. That's why the conversation between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Church is so important.

    The rise of the theocrats in Baptist organizations (especially the Southern Baptist Convention) is a relatively recent phenomenon. Any Baptist from a hundred years ago would be horrified at the way that modern Baptists try to insert themselves into government and run other people's lives.

  • 51. Heather  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Here it is on their own website.

    Spread the word please everyone.

  • 52. Straight Grandmother  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:30 am

    I wish pgbach would come back here and post also.

  • 53. Bolt  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:34 am

    According to this article, that wouldn't happen. IANAL. If Olson thought for a second that Walker's compilation of friendly facts would be tossed out because of this standing issue, wouldn't he motion to proceed with the appeals process, and allow the D-I to defend?

  • 54. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:39 am

    Thank you, Josiah. This backs up something my grandfather once told me. Prior to his retirement and diagnosis of leukemia, my grandfather worked at a local chemical factory through the week, and was an ordained Southern Baptist minister with a pastorate. He told me that some people came to ask him to enter a local political race. His reply to them was, "I became a preacher so that I would not have to associate with politicians."
    Needless to say, he was never asked to run for any office by anyone ever again.

  • 55. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:42 am

    Thank you, Heather. I have just printed it off to scan into my computer, since they did not provide a way to download it as a pdf. I will be sending this also to Keith and Rachel at MSNBC.

  • 56. HunterR.  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:46 am

    Go get them!!!!!!

    Lawyers may move to recover Prop. 8 court costs
    The Associated Press
    Posted: 08/18/2010 02:10:52 PM PDT

    SAN FRANCISCO—The lawyers who successfully sued to overturn California's gay marriage ban are indicating they plan to recover attorney's fees if the verdict is upheld on appeal.

    In papers filed Tuesday, attorneys for two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco asked the court to extend a deadline for seeking reimbursement from the losing side. In this case, that would be the groups that put the ban on the 2008 ballot.

    Sponsors of Proposition 8 defended the ban in court after California's governor and attorney general refused to.

    Lawyers familiar with scope of the case suggest the dollar amount would be in the millions.

    Plaintiffs lawyer Theodore Boutrous Jr. says it makes sense to wait until the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides on the Aug. 4 ruling that overturned the ban.

  • 57. Straight Grandmother  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:46 am

    Nice Video, were you involved in it's production in any way? Hey hang around :)

  • 58. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:48 am

    wouldn’t [Olson] motion to proceed with the appeals process, and allow the D-I to defend


    As Boutrous said in a public statement, if an attorney has a winning argument, s/he makes it. I will add that it is their professional responsibility to act in the best interest of their clients. Their clients are two couples who wish to be married in California. It is in their client's best interest to have Prop 8 struck down w/out risking that the decision could be overturned on appeal.

  • 59. Straight Grandmother  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:50 am

    This would be F'ing SWEET! I need to remember who all the defendent intervieners were. We all remember but maybe there were more. Could they directly go after Dr Tam??? Would that be sweet revenge. How about Pugno, could we garnish his bank account???

    Thanks Hunter!!!!

  • 60. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:52 am

    FYI, Kathleen posted all of the documents for that yesterday (and two more today) at her Scribd

    docs 729-735

  • 61. Bob  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:52 am

    I think that's what people were saying the other day, about doing a little scripture reading of our own, actually a little study of what is actually said, although we were referring more towards the bible, but the same for any holy book, rather than just ignore them, we could be delving into our own study of how a different reading will support us.

    I also wish there was a way to make it criminal for these religious nuts to actually lie to people about waht the holy book says, in order to get their sheeple to do what they want. Spiritual violence should be a crime. These are people of authority we put our trust in.

    Which just goes to show, we shouldn't be doing that, read for yourselves, and decide, it has to do more with the publics irresponisbility and taking the easier route in putting their faith in someone they place in a position of power to interpret the books for them.

    The Luthean church has a smilar doctrine to the baptist , regarding what they call bound conscience, which means that my interpetation of scripture and my relationship with the divine, may not be used to usurp anyone elses, and most importantly the reverse is also true, It is an individual exprience which must be regarded at all cost, this is not happening, and there is debate over this issue which has been made visible because of the struggle for SSM.

    Richard, you better tell BZ to get ready for a little old fashioned bible study.

  • 62. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:52 am

    They are elected officials. In the wake of 52% of the voters passing a proposition, it's political suicide to sue to challenge it.

  • 63. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:53 am

    Attorney General's Statement of non-opposition to Plaintiffs' and P-Is' Motions re timing of application for attorneys' fees and costs.

  • 64. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Defendant-Intervenors' Opposition to motion (Doc 732) to shorten time.

  • 65. Bolt  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Awesome news, but by gaging their behavior, they don't want to be responsible for anything they've done.

  • 66. Bob  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:00 am

    off topic, but I'm thinking about the DADT case, and how Obama is appealing, even though he is against it?

  • 67. Bob  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:01 am

    ad could that be the reason they were not able to get witnesses to testify????

  • 68. Christian  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:08 am

    The issue is not whether they are personally for it or against it, but whether it is constitutional. While Obama claims he is against DOMA (which I think what you meant to refer to), he/DOJ thinks the law is constitutional(?) therefore is required to defend it.

    Brown and the Calif Gov believe Prop 8 to be unconstitutional and cite that as the reason not to defend it.

  • 69. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:08 am

    UPDATE: NOTICE re move to nullify filed by Carlvin Justice. Filed 8/12/2010

    Folks, I'm in the middle of a household plumbing emergency. I'll get all these recent court filings uploaded, but others will have to answer questions.

  • 70. Trish  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:10 am

    From my Civil Procedure professor who posted on my former classmate's Facebook page:

    "The law on intervention itself is sketchy: courts sometimes require plaintiff-intervenors to have a cause of action, but not always; and what about defendant-intervenors if plaintiff isn't trying to recover from them? The law about appeals by intervenors is then constructed on top of that mess. "

    Sounds to me like "I don't know."

  • 71. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:13 am

    NOTICE re bill of review and motion to dismiss filed by Carlvin Justice

  • 72. Christian  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Heh… Carlvin is a funny guy.

    BTW, if you are the type to point out grammatical flaws in people's writing, don't read this brief. Otherwise, it will drive you insane.

  • 73. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:20 am

    I already showed him the other post about theological discussion, and he said Bring it on! Actually, I think that would be something that would be great to do. Possibly have a Skype channel set up for this, or possibly an additional blog site where we could link it to this one, and have a way for all of us to share in this. I will see about getting BZ to set that up. I will help him get it set up, and of course, I will have to help with spelling and punctuation so that we don't have folks looking for the wrong thing, but we both think that would be a great idea. And yes, especially with Hebrew, Aramaic, Chadean, and Koine Greek, spelling is VERY important. One letter difference and it is an entirely different word.

  • 74. Jennifer Gail  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:22 am

    I was not involved in it's making, no. I came across it on another list, and thought people here would appreciate and enjoy it.

    Thank you for the welcome!

  • 75. Chuck in Antioch  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:24 am

    There is an article in the San Francisco Chronicle today regarding Protect Marriage's legal standing for the appeal. I didn't realize that Judge Walker granted PM the right to defend Prop 8 when our Governor and Attorney General declined to do so (because they both felt it was unconstitutional). If the 9th District Court of Appeals declines PM's request for legal standing for the appeal, they may also question why Judge Walker allowed them to defend Prop 8 in the first place. In Judge Walker's final ruling he did say that he doubted that PM had any legal standing to appeal because they hadn't shown an actual stake in the case (the likelihood that the group will be directly harmed if same-sex couples are allowed to marry) during the trial. I just did a little checking and found that there were 17.3 million registered voters in California for the 2008 election. Only 12,119,369 voted for Prop 8 (6,322,732 Yes and 5,796,637 No). Over 5 million registered voters did not vote at all. Why should PM be allowed to defend Prop 8 for the ENTIRE state of California when the Yes votes equal only 36% of registered voters? The defense should represent the entire state of California, not just the 6,322,732 who voted Yes on Prop 8. There are over 45 million people in California. I don't think a group representing a small fraction of the people in California should be allowed to represent the entire state in an appeal. This is my opinion and I hope the 9th District Court of Appeals sees it that way also. If they do, the case will be dismissed and mostlikely dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court as well…and then Prop 8 will be overturned. Bottom line is that PM should NEVER have been allowed to represent the entire state of California to defend Prop 8 when they really only represent about 14% of the total California population.

  • 76. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Defendant Patrick O'Connell's Statement of non-opposition to Plaintiffs' and P-I's motion to shorten time to decide Plaintiffs' motion to extend deadline.

  • 77. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:26 am

    Sorry about the plumbing emergency. Good luck with that!

    To no one's surprise, Carlvin Justice is not admitted to the California bar (or, very likely, any bar at all other than the drinking kind).

    It's an amateurish (and amateur) attempt to defend Prop 8. Anyone who is willing to pay the filing fees can file any fool thing they want, I guess.

  • 78. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:27 am

    Defendant Patrick O’Connell’s Statement of non-opposition to Plaintiffs’ and P-I’s motion to extend deadline for motion for attorney's fees and expenses.

  • 79. Kate  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:27 am

    And the court has to put up with this garbage????

  • 80. jombi  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:29 am

    He is engaging in immoral conduct that should be illegal everywhere. Homosexuality is an abomination wether you believe it for religious reasons or not. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it is wrong to lay with a member of the same sex.
    Letting this judge decide this case is like letting a murderer decide what punishment should be given for murder. Would you want that? I wouldn't.

  • 81. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:30 am

    Probably not for long. A clerk will look at it and prepare the right order to get rid of it and a judge will sign it. Or that's my guess, anyway. I've seen some really ridiculous things recorded at the recorder's office, too. If you pay the filing fees, they file it.

  • 82. celdd  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:30 am

    Sounds like he may be a friend of Orly's.

  • 83. Kate  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:31 am

    But you could have used a rocket scientist to help you write something that actually made some sense. Want to try again?

  • 84. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Orly somehow actually is not only a member of the bar but a dentist (and used to be a licensed real estate broker, too). I don't know how that happened.

  • 85. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Gosh, you're funny. Tell us more.

  • 86. Ronnie  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:32 am

    excuse you? …… >I …Ronnie

  • 87. aaron  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:33 am

    i reposted this comment on my facebook page. awesome.

  • 88. Trish  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:35 am

    Wow. Just wow. Now that you've said that I've realized the error of my ways. Where's the next man that I can jump on and "lay with" and make babies with? Woo.



  • 89. Bolt  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:40 am

    Does this mean you'll decline my wedding invitation?

  • 90. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:41 am

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that it is wrong to lay with a member of the same sex.

    -jombi, 2010

    Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.

    -Judge Leon M. Bazile, 1958

  • 91. nightshayde  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:41 am

    I'm a proofreader by trade. I made the mistake of reading it. I may need medication in order to get the twitching to cease.

  • 92. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:44 am

    Not my area of law, but a search on Google tells me that the federal rules of procedure did away with the Bill of Review. Carlvin must not have access to the internet, the way Tam does.

  • 93. Bolt  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:44 am

    Maybe the NOM can fork over some cash for the D-I? Hasn't Maggie been capitalizing on the failures of them?

    Pay up Maggie Pigot. Get off of the toilet!

  • 94. nightshayde  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:48 am

    Mary had a little lamb.
    Its fleece was white as snow.
    Everywhere that Mary went, the lamb was sure to go.

    What, do you ask, does this have to do with re-legalizing same-sex marriage in California?


    Just as religion has nothing to do with re-legalizing same-sex marriage in California.

  • 95. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:50 am

    There's someone named Carlvin Justice who would probably love to meet you. His address is on the legal pleadings he filed today in federal court for this case. Go by and say "hey", would you?

  • 96. nightshayde  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:52 am

    Damn liberals/homosexuals (same thing). We're involved in a conspiracy to keep him from teh interwebs!

  • 97. nightshayde  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Try not to slip him any tongue until at least the second date.

  • 98. Straight Grandmother  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:01 am

    What I would suggest you do is refrain from "laying" with anyone of your same sex. It's obviously not for you.

    Then I guess you should mind your own business and quit worring and trying to control what other people do that doesn't affect you.

    Then you should sell all your posesions and give all of your money to your church. I am sure they can find a bed in the basement for you.

  • 99. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:02 am

    LOL! Definitely no tongue on the first date.

  • 100. JonT  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:03 am

    No! Not plumbing! Heh, yeah love those.

    Never heard of this carlvin guy before, but his motions look like they were written by someone who barely knows how to wipe his own ass.

    Seems to be a kook as far as I can tell.

  • 101. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:04 am

    One has to wonder if there are really no gay rocket scientists. Odds are that there are some, yet jombi would have us think not. Is the study of rocket science really incompatible with being a gay or lesbian?

  • 102. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:06 am

    I don't think that witnesses would be subject to having to pay the attorneys' fees. They didn't bring the case or defend it.

  • 103. Straight Grandmother  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:06 am

    I think ther is something up with Maggie and Brian. Remember how she said she wasn't his keeper, and in DC she was supposed to show but didn't. Brian S Brown the Biggot Bigot in America, said she was on vacation but didn't knwo where.

    When I worked closely with anyone and we coordinated our work schedules we generally talked about our vacations and where we were going. Something is up with these two. Maggie has been looking so haggard lately and jsut really lethargic and tired I wouldn't be surprised if Brian is going off in directions she doesn't approve of but her Board of Directors isn't backing her up. I bet Maggie leaves NOM pretty soon.

  • 104. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:07 am

    I think she collects professional certifications the same way she collects contempt of court notices.

  • 105. JonT  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:10 am

    'Letting this judge decide this case is like letting a murderer decide what punishment should be given for murder.'

    Aww, how sweet. Hyperbole much?

    Bless your heart.

  • 106. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:13 am

    My gay, married friend who works for JPL probably knows some gay rocket scientists. Do you suppose that if he introduced jombi to one of them, it might open his eyes?

  • 107. nightshayde  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:13 am

    There's at least one. His name is Jack Dean, and he wrote a book called A Gay Alcoholic Rocket Scientist, available in paperback through Amazon dot com.

  • 108. Straight Grandmother  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:13 am

    I can come close. A rocket scientist whose daughter is a lesbian.

  • 109. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:14 am

    Worth a try! Jombi, come back, we have some more people we'd like you to meet!

    But mind what we said about tongue on the first date.

  • 110. Straight Grandmother  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:21 am

    hmmmm you might want to reconsider the use of the word "abomination" as we are very perceptive over here.

  • 111. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:27 am

    Actually, Chuck, it's a bit more complicated than that. It's possible that the Proponents of Prop 8 had a legal right to intervene at the district court level, but lack sufficient legal standing to appeal the case to higher courts.

    We won't know what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals thinks about it for several months. And, if they decide Proponents lack standing, Proponents will likely appeal that decision to the Supreme Court, who may or may not choose to weight in on the issue.

  • 112. nightshayde  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:27 am

    OK – this particular response has now made me laugh a whole bunch of times (every time I scroll past it).

    If he doesn't want it, may I have it instead? You don't even have to let me stay for the reception. I just want to be able to throw the rice or birdseed or whatever else you plan to use. =)

  • 113. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:30 am

    Oh, I'm sure that jombi doesn't have a clue about the irony of using the term "abomination" and following it up by "whether you believe it for religious reasons or not". To understand the meaning of toevah, he'd have to be able to think critically.

  • 114. Kate  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:35 am

    IANARS. But I do know the difference between "lay" and "lie."

  • 115. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:38 am

    It's not exactly brain surgery.

  • 116. Dpeck  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Oh yeah. There are gay rocket scientists. And they are really friggen hot. ; )

  • 117. nightshayde  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:43 am

    For that matter, it's not exactly rocket surgery. =D

  • 118. Alan E.  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:43 am

    100+ emails that won't make it to my inbox. Still catching up.

  • 119. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:57 am

    "I don't think the Courts will penalize us because ProtectMarriage has a gambling problem"

    LOL ! ! !

  • 120. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Then our little Doctor "I read it on the Internets" Tam might have to sell his house??

    I like the idea of a whole new Mormon fundraiser for this. "Last year, we asked you to pay for Prop 8. We must now ask you to dig deeper to pay the victors…"

  • 121. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 10:14 am

    My friend's first husband was a rocket scientist from MIT. She used to love when people would ask, "No…what does he REALLY do?"

  • 122. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 10:16 am

    Notice, his address is on there. Any proof readers here can send him marked-up, corrected copies of his briefs.

  • 123. BradK  |  August 18, 2010 at 11:03 am

    And *I'm* sure that this jombi character (Hi Louis!?) is enjoying bites of their ham sandwich and shrimp cocktail while hurling old testament condemnations at others…

  • 124. John B.  |  August 18, 2010 at 11:31 am

    In Washington, DC the NOM chant was "let the people vote" because… um… apparently we didn't already vote in the last election for the members of our DC Council, the legislative body that represents and governs us and passed marriage equality legislation in DC, or our mayor, who signed it into law?

    Well, okay… setting aside from the whole problem of a majority voting on the civil rights of a minority, does this mean that if a majority of the residents of a state are in favor of same-sex marriage (e.g., see recent polls from Rhode Island, New York, and Washington, DC) then the will of the people should be heard??? Would Harry Jackson, Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher and their pals finally be okay with it? Somehow I don't think so…

  • 125. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    So the grammar police, such as I can be at times (although I am usually tougher on myself than on others) should leave this one alone?

  • 126. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    So, tell me, jombi, which of your human and civil rights would you like us to put up to a vote? Your right to attend the school of your choice? the right to build your house where you choose? Your right to attend the church, synagogue, or mosque of your choice? The right to change your name to something that you like better than the one you were given at birth? Your right to be willfully ignorant of the clauses governing separation of church and state, due process, and equal protection? Your right to an attorney to represent you in a court of law and to be present during questioning?
    And I guess that, LIke Maggie and Brian, you are willing to swallow speculation hook, line, and sinker just because it was published in the local newspaper? No one has ever heard Judge Walker discuss his sexual orientation ever, so the report in the newspaper is nothing but speculation. Here's one for you–how about you do some honest research, using true scientific principles of open-mindedness and investigation, along with the proper methodology for conducting research, and then come back to have an adult conversation. Or is that too much to ask of someone who obviously cannot think for himself, but can only parrot what he has been force fed his entire life, by someone who enjoys holding power over people. Are you, by any chance a member of the Phelps family?

  • 127. draNgNon  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
    That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

    – Genesis 6:1-2

  • 128. draNgNon  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    Rocket Science tends to be funded by the military. Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

  • 129. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    I was talking with one of the other P8TT'ers on the phone several days ago, and as we talked, Maggie's health came up. Look at Maggie's neck in the photographs from January to most recently. As was discussed on the phone, this could be signs of thyroid trouble for Maggie.

  • 130. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    Excellent command of Hebrew, Josiah.

  • 131. JonT  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Hmm Richard. I must confess to some desire to actually be able to vote to make it illegal for '[His] right to be willfully ignorant of the clauses governing separation of church and state, due process, and equal protection?'

    Sigh, shame on me.


  • 132. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    @ BradK: And probably wearing garments made with a mixture of wool and linen. Hope he isn't a member of the Levitical priesthood.

  • 133. JonT  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    @draNgNon: Also – I am not a bible guru by any stretch, but if the human race started with just one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve), doesn't that mean that incest must've been a requirement?

    Brothers doing sisters, parents doing their children and grandchildren, etc?

    Hmmm? What about it jombi?

    You should learn to think for yourself jombi.


  • 134. Bill  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    An interesting yet depressing development:

  • 135. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    Actually, I wish we did have a requirement for a graduated curriculum of Civics and Constitutional Interpretation in our school system. It is not unheard of to begin as early as kindergarten teaching children concepts such as those enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and to teach those concepts in differing ways based on the level of understanding each grade level has. In this way, we would actually be doing all of our children a very great service and preparing them to better handle the Maggies and Brians of the world, as well as the jombis.

  • 136. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:44 pm


  • 137. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    In science in general, people's sexual orientation is just not a big deal at all. People tend to come from diverse backgrounds, so bigotry is a huge disadvantage.

  • 138. Sheryl Carver  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    Not to mention the "violation of natural law." If I didn't know better, I'd swear these idiots have been using a word processor for decades, just replacing the previous minority label with the current minority label in their irrational rants.

  • 139. Sheryl Carver  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    Umm, jombi, you do know that "wether" refers to a neutered male goat, right?

  • 140. JefferyK  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    My best friend emigrated to Mexico a few years back, and he has more rights there as a gay male than I have here in friggin' San Francisco.

  • 141. PamC  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    lol, thanks, Trish. Biggest smile all night! Them's my feelings 'zactly.

  • 142. JefferyK  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    OMG! That clip made me laugh! I work for brain surgeons.

  • 143. AndrewPDX  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    I'm no historian, just a fan of trivia… but if I'm not mistaken, one of the reasons why masses and such were held in Latin for such a long time was explicitly to keep the 'lay people' from knowing too much.
    If they were to start understanding what was being preached, they'd actually start interpreting the Bible for themselves — heaven forbid! Since the lay person hadn't been trained by the Church to 'correctly' interpret the Scriptures, who knows what blasphemy they would come up with?

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 144. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    Yeah. How "opinion" became "news" over the past few years I really don't know. If I'm interested in voting based on amateur opinion I'll watch "American Idol."

  • 145. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    And Jesus actually said (paraphrasing), "DON'T get married, and if you are married leave your family and go preach on the road." So if you're really Christian, you're not supposed to marry at all according to JC. Then Paul came along with "it is better to marry than to burn" which is damning with faint praise if I ever heard it.

  • 146. AndrewPDX  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Thank you Kathleen for getting all these documents to us, and your great wisdom in helping us translate them into plain English.

    Hope you got the plumbing fixed without too much damage – or having to deal with 'plumber's crack' :)

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 147. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    As the Klingons might say, "Revenge is a dish best served cold….like cash."

  • 148. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    It would be good to take the profit out of hate campaigning, which I believe is a large part of why they continue their inflammatory rhetoric–brings in the bucks.

  • 149. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    I wouldn't know where to begin. Amusing blog entry:

    Justice: His Name, His Game by Kate Moser
    "Just like a writer with a good nom de plume, a random party jumping into a federal case should be able to get some mileage out of an onomatopoeic name.

    And so, Carlvin Justice.

    Justice has entered the Prop 8 fray, filing with the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals two documents that look to be typed on an Apple IIe computer, circa 1983, headlined as “interposition[s] on behalf of the State of California.”

  • 150. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    @draNgNon, if you think there are no gay men or lesbians in the military because of DADT, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.

  • 151. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    You're welcome, AndrewPDX.

    The plumbing is an ongoing nightmare that started last year and is still not fixed. Plumber back tomorrow with his camera, butt crack and all. We may have to dig out the whole sewer line.

  • 152. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    @Kathleen (both of you), LOL on the blog entry on Carlvin (aka "Mr. Justice") and the idea of proofing his nonsense and mailing it to him.

  • 153. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    "Let the People vote!…best two out of three??"

  • 154. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    Uh…a rocket scientist probably has better things to do than sniff around people's panties trying to determine who they've been "laying" with. And it's generally held to be closeted behavior, btw. Someone should introduce you to Ken Starr, jombi.

  • 155. Dpeck  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    … and when THAT doesn't work anymore, NOM will chant:

    "Rock! Paper! Scissors!"
    "Rock! Paper Scissors!"

  • 156. AndrewPDX  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    well, the 'cash' part is more of a Ferengi concept… sorry, couldn't resist. My mom was a real big Trekkie, and this apple didn't fall too far from the tree :)

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 157. PamC  |  August 18, 2010 at 11:05 pm

    …I just had an image flash in my poor brain of CJ pulling from a mailing envelope a copy of his brief, handwritten (with corrections) on a pair of boxers.

  • 158. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:16 am

    PamC, don't give me any ideas. I can go right over to WalMart and get the paper to make that very transfer, and I know I can find a pair of boxers large enough to hold the two pages.
    My one question is, should I go ahead and grade it after I make all the corrections, and list the grade right there at the top, like my English teachers did?

  • 159. PamC  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:18 am

    lol, Richard, only if you use an indelible red marker!!!

    I would triple-dog-dare you, but that wouldn't be fair. Follow your conscience!….;)

  • 160. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:40 am

    But gagh is best served live.


  • 161. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 19, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    @ PamC: Does a red Sharpie count as indelible? Or does it have to be one of those Stabilo Boss markers?

  • 162. Reformed  |  May 24, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    Oh let me! Let me! (answer this one :) )

    NOM is an anti-gay group tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center that attempts to influence elections by funding anti-gay propaganda. Hysterically orwellian, the acronym NOM stands for the group's officious sounding moniker, the National organization for Marriage, it is neither "national", nor "for marriage" except in as much as it might more aptly put – "for straight couples only".

    NOM functions as a front group for a few wealthy donors who seek to work against GLTB rights anonymously, a tactic which has brought it under investigation for election law violations in multiple state.

  • 163. Reformed  |  May 24, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    Oh yeah. In a bad way. :)

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