Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Hi Louis! “One Man, One Woman” stance on DADT exposes NOM’s duplicity and hypocrisy

DADT trial NOM Exposed Right-wing

(Cross-posted at Good As You)

By Jeremy Hooper

You know how we’ve told you a million times about that “One Man, One Woman” offshoot organization? The one run by National Organization For Marriage tour personality Louis Marinelli? The same OMOW group whose Facebook page NOM now claims as their own official site on both their own Twitter feed and their spinoff site?

Yea, well check this out: In a surprising move, someone writing for OMOW (presumably Louis) has come out in favor of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal:

Screen Shot 2010-09-11 At 11.30.09 Am

Screen Shot 2010-09-11 At 11.42.27 Am

Screen Shot 2010-09-11 At 11.30.21 Am

Also, presumably-Louis has even joined this site, Towleroad, and Americablog in asking the DOJ to not appeal the recent court decision:

Screen Shot 2010-09-11 At 11.42.59 Am

Uhm, okay. So now just to remind you: This Twitter account (which was once called NOMUpdates) is the same Twitter account that, over the past year, has tweeted all kinds of targeted hits not just against marriage equality, but also against gays in general. There was the time that Louis, or whoever was writing for the account, declared all gays to be single. There was the time that the Twitter-er said that Peter LaBarbera and his fringe “Americans For Truth” group merely “tell the truth about homosexuality.” There were times when he or she flat-out called us an abomination, citing Leviticus. There was this one: “Deviance” describes actions or behaviours that violate cultural norms – homosexuality is far from a cultural norm. Therefore, it is deviant.” And this: “Homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong and harmful to society.” And this: “#iaintafraidtosay that there shouldn’t be any recognition of homosexual relationships because that is saying that homosexuality is OK.” There was this next one, accompanied by a smile: “What they do is blantantly [sic] immoral. :)” There were times when Mr. Marinelli or his ally compared our unions to that which might exist between a sterile brother and sister. And other times when our very character was assaulted, like this one: “#nevertrust activists of the homosexual agenda – they are deceitful people who care only about themselves and not what’s best for society.And so on and so on.

Plus, as we’ve seen time and time again, the OMOW Facebook page (which, again, NOM claims as their own in multiple places) hosts some of the most incendiary, blanketed comments on the ‘net. Comments that often go well beyond marriage and right into gays’ mental health.

So to have this site now coming out in favor of repeal? It’s kind of — something. Sure, it might be a naked attempt to say, “See we don’t really hate gays — we support their right to fight and possibly die on the battlefield.” But regardless of motivation, it’s certainly not a position that will sit well with the vast majority of organized anti-equality activists, as most of the socially conservative personalities and groups see the LGBT community’s every gain as an interconnected step down a slippery slope. So if OMOW is sincere, then we celebrate the dual takeaway: (1) The further evidence that even some “pro-family” peeps are coming around on basic rights, and (2) the further dissension that this support for basic rights will cause among those whose anti-gay “culture war” is an all-out “us v. them” battle rather than a series of tiered skirmishes with varying shades of nuance.


**True to form, OMOW is making yet another attempt to distance from NOM:

Screen Shot 2010-09-11 At 12.00.23 Pm

But here’s the deal: It is 100% impossible for an organization to embed a Facebook page…

(NOM’s TwoMillion For Marriage site, with “OMOW” Facebook embedded within)


…and for that same organization to list that same Facebook page on their branded Twitter account…

(NOM’s official Twitter sidebar, with “OMOW” listed as official Facebook)


…and still claim separation. IT. DOES. NOT. WORK. THAT. WAY.

Tags: ,


  • 1. Kathleen  |  September 11, 2010 at 3:20 am

    Subscribing, while I have internet.

  • 2. AndrewPDX  |  September 11, 2010 at 3:22 am

    But… OMOW and NOM and 2MFM are all separate… just like how the church and state are separate.

    Anybody gonna buy that spin?

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 3. Kate  |  September 11, 2010 at 3:27 am

    Of course Louis is eager for gays to be cannon fodder. That's all we're good for, right?

  • 4. Kate  |  September 11, 2010 at 4:01 am

    Exactly, Dee. Whenever there's a war, gays are welcomed. It was the same during the Vietnam War. The draft was just fine with gay people dying. And now Louis and his ilk are eager to have gay bodies replace straight ones in the coffins of Iraq and Afghanistan.

  • 5. Anonygrl  |  September 11, 2010 at 4:15 am

    TECHNICALLY he (and here I assume OMOW is Louis, because, other than himself, WE are pretty much the only ones on his site) may NOT be "speaking for NOM." But they most certainly are affiliated, by any reasonable definition of the word "affiliated".

    Louis also seems to be not all that bright. I think he may have gotten some advice from someone that said "be nice to gays now, because you will be in trouble" or some such, and so he is playing these dippy games in tweets.

    Remember, mid NOM's Summer for Marriageanti-gay "we don't hate you… (did they see our fingers were crossed)" tour, Louis wrote that weird disclaimer, right before his blog went private for a bit? So honestly, who the heck KNOWS what passes for logic in that little head of his?

  • 6. Anonygrl  |  September 11, 2010 at 4:17 am

    Rachael Maddow made a good point about this. Soldiers who are being investigated under DADT have been shipped off to combat, and had those investigations PUT ON HOLD while they were in combat, then started up again when they return.

    Because a soldier you are kicking out of your army for spurious reasons cannot be cannon fodder if they are tied up in a stateside court martial.

  • 7. Sagesse  |  September 11, 2010 at 4:38 am

    Not sure if this has been posted already, but it contains info for various efforts to contact senators in advance of the DADT repeal vote.

    Court Overturns "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" — But We Still Need to Act

  • 8. Michelle Evans  |  September 11, 2010 at 4:38 am

    One other explanation that I have not seen with regard to this is that it is possible that the site has been hacked by someone who is pro-gay. Louis may have nothing to do with this at all. You'd just have to see over time if anything changes back to "normal."

  • 9. Sagesse  |  September 11, 2010 at 4:44 am

    For what it's worth, these Tweets are getting an extraordinary amount of coverage, usually in summaries of reaction favourable to the ruling, usually attributed to NOM. Another Alice in Wonderland moment.

  • 10. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:07 am

    I don't think it's contradictory in their heads at all. Remember, they're fixated on sex. No one in their bible said gays in uniform were an abomination, so it's perfectly okay. In fact, it's kinda hot. :)

  • 11. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:23 am

    Cannon Fodder…Been a long time since I have heard that phrase.
    One Man One Woman, Louis (and I knwo you are reading us) it is NOT good enough for me.

    My children are not second class citizens. Our GLBT children are not the human sacrafice so that you can enjoy your First Amendment Rights of Free Speech. When our service members, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard lay down their very lives and make the ULTIMATE sacrafice for YOUR freedom, the very least, the VERY least you can do for them is recognize them with the full rights and priviliges of American citizenship. They didn't die half way Louis.

    Louis, do you not feel a little dirty, a little covered in soot, knowing that they died for your freedom, yet you deny full freedom for them? Freedom to love who they want, freedom to marry who they want, and freedom to create and raise their families as they want, in a FREE country, the Home of the FREE and the land of the BRAVE.

    It is kind of like being pregnant, you either are or you aren't. GLBT people either have full rights and priviliges as every other hetrosexal American, or they don't. A little bit of "rights" is NOT enough. Saying "It is okay for them to openly serve in the armed forces to protect YOUR Freedom" is an abomonation of their sacrafice when you couple it with your condemnation of their right right to marry whom they want. They are NOT your cannon fodder.

    Get in the trenches with them Louis, I guarantee you when you are under enemy attack you will not give a rats ass that the guy or gal who is standing up in the fox hole providing you cover so that you can make it back behind the green line to safety is gay, lesbian, bi sexual or transgender. Do you not see the hypocracy that once you are in the safe zone, that you say to that very soldier, sailor, marine, fly boy or coastie that NOW, suddenly they are NOT GOOD ENOUGH! Hell they were good enough to save your sorry ass.

    Jeremy, one of the better pieces you have written, "Chapeau"

  • 12. StraightSupporter  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:30 am

    I was looking at the last photo in the post, the one with the man holding his woman who was holding some flowers. I'm thinking 'So what?'. How do any of their logos have anything at all to do with equal marriage? If a man marries another man or a woman marries another woman, is that man and woman in the photo going to be affected? Of course not, despite the lies they tell that it will.

    I find myself becoming increasingly intolerant of misinformation and those who willfully propagate it, yet that seems to be all they have to offer. No marriage between a man and woman is going to be nullified or in any way affected or reduced in status or rights should marriage equality pass. And, unless their marriage is incredibly shallow, the happiness or lack thereof of a marriage between a man and woman will not be affected by marriage equality either.

  • 13. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:30 am

    Right up front here I would sincerely like to invite those of you who are lurking here to come out of the closet and join in.

    Do you think that other people have said the same thing you want to say but you think maybe they are saying it even better than you can say it? Hogwash, every voice counts, your voice counts. We need that repetiton of many voices, even if it is the same thing. It gets even more interesting when you bring a different point of view, it makes us think about the topic. Join in and if nothing else, at least give an atta boy when you see a comment that you agree with.

    We regulars cannot carry this on our backs all the time. We need fresh insight, affirmations and YOUR point of view. This is NOT a closed club we WANTto hear from YOU, so please post a reply comment. Plus all new people get a cookie.

  • 14. BK  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:34 am

    Love ya, Granny! :)

  • 15. BK  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:34 am


  • 16. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:35 am

    ha! You are a skeptical gal aren't you? I had not even thought of that.

  • 17. PDD  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:39 am

    jumping a sinking ship perhaps, haha

  • 18. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:42 am

    StraightSupporter, you are damn right! GLBT people are a minority tTey need as many of us us straight supporters as they can get. Please stick around.

    I find myself becoming increasingly intolerant of misinformation and those who willfully propagate it, yet that seems to be all they have to offer.

    Me too, me too…. It is like the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy pulls back the curtin, that is it, there is no real wizard. It is simply a bucket full of discrimination and nothing more.

  • 19. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Can you please eloborate on that? I don't tweet so I don't have a handle on exactly what you are saying. Thank you.

  • 20. Franck  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Well StraightSupporter, I know of only one case where marriage equality would hurt a heterosexual marriage: sham marriages entered into in order to conceal the homosexuality of one or two parties.

    I bet they (NOM & Co. — the Chétins as I call them) think even that kind of deceitful marriage holds more sanctity than that of a loving same-gender couple…

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1177 days, as of today.

  • 21. Sagesse  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:52 am

    I agree, Michelle. Wouldn't surprise me in the least. But you'd think there would have been a denial or reaction by now… ?

  • 22. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:54 am

    Ronnie the work you do for Freedom Fighter For Eqality on the internet is soooo important. Thank YOU for doing that for all of us. I know it takes you away from us at times, that is okay, you always come back and we so need your dedication and enthusiam. It is always a treat when we see you are posting here.

  • 23. Sagesse  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:57 am

    Sure. It's a little surreal to see NOM being quoted in the same article alongside Joe Solmonese and Aaron Belkin and Alex Nicholson.

  • 24. Stats Girl  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:00 am

    That had occurred to me as well. I was surprised no one had mentioned the possibility…

  • 25. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:02 am

    Hope springs eternal…

  • 26. Bolt  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:34 am

    OMOW and NOM are so lame. Conceding to the annihilation of DADT doesn't relinquish them of their bigot attitudes. They're all bigots to the bone, and make a career raising anti-gay dollars.

    I would like to facilitate the destruction of their anti-gay careers.

  • 27. Bolt  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:37 am

    No internet? What would we do without you?

  • 28. Kate  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:38 am

    Hell they were good enough to save your sorry ass.


  • 29. Sagesse  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:41 am

    Summary of the state of LGBT equality before the courts. Good analysis.

    "There may be others that I’m not finding, but setting aside the California and Wisconsin cases as being about process, not substance, and adding the 5 pro-equality state rulings to the list of federal court rulings, equality has an 11-2 record in the courts since 1996."

    Federal Judge Strikes Down DADT

  • 30. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Off Topic. In another thread Sagesse posted a link (and you know if anyone takes the time to post a link I always go look at it) to a new website for current service memeber who are GLBT. I read a little bit on that website and poked around and found another link.
    The former Attorney General of New Hampshire is running for US Senate and has as her platform that GLBT's should NOT be able to adopt children.

    SEE I will NEVER get to be the legal grandmother to my twin 2 year old grandchildren. Stories like this terrify me, as you know this is MY issue, this is MY dog in the race. I am actually crying right now as I type this and I don't do that all that often. HOW HOW can this be happening today? Straight Granmother is a pudddle of tears right now, my grandchildren my little grandchildren. Our family isn't good enough… I hope she doens't get elected. Just sobbing. WHY oh why do they have to come after our children???????

  • 31. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:00 am

    Bolt, just a heads up, it is important to say Brian S Brown is a Bigot. Brian Brown President of NOM is a Bigot. Maggie Gallagher is a hater. When you google Brian+Brown+Bigot you get taken here P8tt :), so always always use his name and her name.

    Not only that they both make a point in almost every written piece and public comment that they do not like being refered to as a bigot or hater so we must keep it up and tellt he world the truth.
    Brian Brown is a Bigot and hater
    Maggie Gallagher is a bigot and a hater.

  • 32. Kate  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:11 am

    Which states, if any, do permit adoption?

  • 33. Sagesse  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:12 am

    Surgical deconstruction of the arguments against Judge Walker's decsion. Highly entertaining and oh so satisfyingly logical.

    No Good Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage, Take 3

  • 34. Kate  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Terrific article; thanks, Sagesse. A good one to keep handy for whenever rebuttal is needed. (Which seems to be quite often with "them"………)

  • 35. Alex  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:20 am

    If the CA Lt governor appeals prop 8 does he have legal authority to do that? If he does have legal authority can Arnold go and retract the appeal?

  • 36. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:25 am

    Only 14 states…
    Here is how it usually works. A single GLBT person can adopt, but adoption by 2 people who are not married is not permitted. That is why gay marriage is so important to me.

  • 37. Ann S.  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Subscribing, before the houseguests return home.

  • 38. Bob  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:36 am

    Straight Grandmother, told Louis, how it is , listen up Louis

    ya better get on the her side, cause we're coming for ya.

  • 39. Sagesse  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:56 am

    This from an email from Media Matters, describing the Religious Right's latest election organizing, the Black Robe Regiment". Note the NOM connection. Couldn't find a link, so I've posted the whole article.

    "Glenn Beck's Black Robe Republican Regiment

    Two weeks ago, Glenn Beck capped his shift into hyper-religiosity by unveiling the "Black Robe Regiment." The formation of the group and our culture's alleged "turn back to God" at his "Restoring Honor" rally were supposed to mark the "beginning of the end of darkness." While hyping the group, Beck has repeatedly stressed that they are non-political. Like most other things he says, this does not hold up to scrutiny. In fact, it's becoming increasingly clear that the Black Robe Regiment is simply a thinly-veiled get-out-the-vote push for the GOP.

    Beck announced last week that he was working with James Dobson to help form the Regiment. In the past, Dobson and his organizations have repeatedly used churches to attempt to influence elections. The Alliance Defense Fund, which Dobson co-founded, sought preachers who were willing to challenge the IRS over whether tax-exempt churches could explicitly endorse or oppose candidates. Last month, Beck promoted the ADF's "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" initiative. During the segment, David Barton – whom Beck has credited with helping hatch the idea of the Regiment — described the movement as "several hundred preachers" saying to the IRS, "come after me. I d are you." Additionally, as reported byThe Washington Post in 2006, Dobson's Focus on the Family group announced that it would "work with affiliated groups in eight battleground states to mobilize evangelical voters in the November elections."

    Speaking of mobilizing voters, Dr. Richard Lee, Black Robe Regiment member and pastor at First Redeemer Church in Atlanta, told Media Matters last week that part of the Regiment's mission is to return to their places of worship and boost voter involvement. Lee's words were echoed by fellow Black Rober Richard Land, who explained that the Regiment mission entails "Energizing all of our members to register to vote, to be informed as to where the country stands on issues and leave it to them to connect the dots."

    The Black Robe Regiment's connections to partisan politics run even deeper. At least two members of the group areclosely tied to former Speaker of the House and putative 2012 presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and his Renewing American Leadership group. Barton, who "spearheaded the Republican National Committee's rigorous outreach to pastors in 2004," is listed as a board member. Joining Barton is Black Rober Dr. Jim Garlow, who serves as the group's chairman.

    So what is the goal of Renewing American Leadership? As explained on their "Who We Are" page, the group is "dedicated to educating, organizing, training, and mobilizing people of faith to renew American self-government and America's role in the world." When the group launched last year, Founding Director Rick Tyler described the group toU.S. News in explicitly political terms, saying that they wanted to "prove" to Republican donors that "mobilizing evangelical voters leads to the best economic policies."

    As we documented this week, numerous members of the supposedly nonpolitical Black Robe Regiment share a fervent opposition to the "homosexual agenda" and are strident opponents of gay marriage. Included in this anti-gay army of God is Maggie Gallagher, whose association with the Black Robe Regiment further makes a mockery of the idea that this group is non-political. Gallagher, who confirmed her involvement with the group to Media Matters, is neither a pastor nor a religious figure; she's an anti-gay activist. Her organizations, National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, both revolve around "protecting marriage" – by which, of course, they mean denying gays t he right to marry.

    So if Beck is serious that his followers should "run from any pastor, priest or rabbi" advocating that "any one policy God says is the right thing," then he apparently thinks people need to flee from his Black Robe Regiment. "

  • 40. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 8:16 am

    Off the cuff I would say no. He was not a named defendent in the suit. The suite was brought against the Governor and the Attorney General. Their names are on the court case. BUT IANAL. Plus the deadline is Monday. You either file on Monday or you are out. I am pretty sure I am right about Monday being the deadline.

  • 41. Ronnie  |  September 11, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Thank you…SG…I can't take full credit for FF4E…Thanks to Ray F. & the rest of the admins, they built a strong community that I am very proud to be a part of & help them make it stronger….& by me being a part of this community (Tracker) I connected the two together…making both communities stronger….I still have quite a few threads to catch up on…but I'm trying to stay up to date with the recent ones….I'm also busy working on my line so that pulls me away from here & FF4E….I'm trying to balance everything….but you can always count on my to put my sparkle in here…. ; )


  • 42. Len Silvey  |  September 11, 2010 at 8:35 am

    So, Maggie, Brian, and especially Louis, if glbt people are ok to be open and in the military, this must also mean that they may also become qualified to be Federal Court Judges.

    I've always felt that once the likes of Louis figure out that glbt people are a quite normal part of the human fabric, then it is just a baby step to figuring out that they are also entitled to what other Americans claim as entitlements; say….marriage.

  • 43. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 8:41 am

    It seems like they have taken the California model that gave us Prop8 and are rolling it out nation wide. For a real eye opener, take a look at the website from First Redeemer Church

    Wait for a minute as their main page has pictures come in and out.

    Now you tell me if this looks like a church or not. Somebody needs to report this to the IRS. I took a screenshot. I wish I had a way of putting up the picture, it is truly frightning.

    Sagesse, no wonder you printed the full e-mail message here.

    Dobson must be itching to get back in the game as he just split with Focus on The Family because they would not bend their rules and let his son continue to work there after he got divorced. Dobson started a new outfit with his son. I think it was Kathleen who said it is simply a mulitheaded hydra..

    Yhey are taking the Prop8 model bring on board Maggie Gallagher who has the contacts with the Catholics and Mormons and they really truly are in your face taking this nationwide. I guess they dont' care that geln Beck says he is nto against gender neutral marraige. Or maybe he has had a change in heart, look who he is in bed with, Maggie Gallagher and James Dobson.

    We will never beat these people ont he ground, we can only beat them in Court. And they are the ones who are going to be picking our judges…

  • 44. Breaking the Silence  |  September 11, 2010 at 8:55 am

    There are no homophobes in foxholes. Hmm.

  • 45. Dpeck  |  September 11, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Hi Straight Supporter,

    I agree with you completely, except this line:

    "No marriage between a man and woman is going to be nullified or in any way affected or reduced in status or rights should marriage equality pass."

    Should really be "WHEN marriage equality passes".

    Although NOM and their folks seem to want to ignore this fact, marriage equality has already existed in several countries (including several states here in the U.S.) for several years. And this has already proven your point time and time again.

  • 46. Dpeck  |  September 11, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Yeah. So they don't like being called bigots.

    A very wise person once told me, "Darling, if you don't like the things people are saying about you… stop doing the things they are talking about."

    Brian Brown is a bigot.

    Maggie Gallagher is a bigot.

    Don't like that, Brian and Maggie?

    You know what to do about it.

  • 47. Sagesse  |  September 11, 2010 at 9:34 am

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe using pastors and churches for voter registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns goes back to the federal elections in 2004 and 2006 (the state marriage amendments) if not further.

  • 48. Straight Dave  |  September 11, 2010 at 9:49 am

    So a single parent is better than 2 parents? WTF?!?!?!?!?!
    Raising kids is hard enough for anyone. A little help goes a long ways. Why don't they think of the children, for crying out loud!! They prefer married couples because they're more stable, but then don't let them get married?

    I have really just had it with these morons. Everything they stand for is a….total….crock….of….shit. There! I'm just in a mood today. And I smell a brighter future for all of you, my dear friends.

  • 49. Kate  |  September 11, 2010 at 10:01 am

    This is what confuses me. I'm pretty sure I read about some women (at least one couple) who adopted each others' bio-children, but I sure don't remember where.

  • 50. Breaking the Silence  |  September 11, 2010 at 10:02 am

    "legalized, state-sanctioned bigotry is coming to an end!"
    Sounds so nice, have to post it twice.

  • 51. truthspew  |  September 11, 2010 at 10:06 am

    I'm almost wondering if it wasn't a pissed off I.T. geek like myself who hijacked their twitter account. It would be poetic justice.

  • 52. Phil L  |  September 11, 2010 at 10:21 am

    I loved that ending!


  • 53. Ronnie  |  September 11, 2010 at 10:30 am

    Bwaaaa….pwnd….HI LOUIS!!!!…..<3…Ronnie

  • 54. Dave in ME  |  September 11, 2010 at 10:30 am

    Twitter posts confuse me. I will have to read the whole post when I get back from town. In the meantime, let me SUBSCRIBE!!!

    Dave in Maine

  • 55. Ann S.  |  September 11, 2010 at 10:34 am

    I know people in Minnesota who have each adopted their children, girls from China.

    With a bio-child, unless the child is the product of sperm or egg donation, the other bio-parent has parental rights, and no one else can adopt the child unless that parent relinquishes parental rights.

  • 56. Sagesse  |  September 11, 2010 at 10:36 am

    The folks at NOM and Louis and his cohorts (if he has any) at One Man One Woman all need to get their medications checked…. and subscribing.

  • 57. Kate  |  September 11, 2010 at 10:41 am

    @ Ann S. —

    This sounds familiar. I think some of the women I read about each had bio-children by anonymous sperm donation and then adopted each other's bio-kid.

  • 58. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 11, 2010 at 10:42 am

    Not only that, but the question I have for Louis, Brian, Maggie et al is this: If serving in the military is a citizen’s right regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity, then how in the sam hill is marriage any different? In the case of Prop 8 and DADT, both judges found that these were unconstitutional due to violations of the Fifth Amendment. So between these two, they violate our rights under the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment.
    You folks at NOM, and all those like you, really need to wake up and smell the rainbow Skittles, honey, because legalized, state-sanctioned bigotry is coming to an end!

  • 59. Sagesse  |  September 11, 2010 at 10:47 am

    Kate, there are limitations, and it's hard to keep track. Some permit adoption if the child is the biological offspring of one partner. Some states permit only one person to legally adopt, even if the parents raising the child are a couple… in essence it's the same as a single parent adoption. Some states prohibit LGBT persons from adopting. Some prohibit single parent adoption to frustrate LGBT couples.

  • 60. Dee  |  September 11, 2010 at 10:58 am

    that’s what i was thinking Kate.

    why wouldnt they want us going to war and dying smh

  • 61. AndrewPDX  |  September 11, 2010 at 11:53 am

    @Dpeck… <cite>Darling, if you don’t like the things people are saying about you… stop doing the things they are talking about.</cite>

    Good quote!

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 62. Michael  |  September 11, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    "For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness. Their end will match their deeds." (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

  • 63. Anonygrl  |  September 11, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    I would think he would not have standing.

  • 64. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 11, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    I do know that not only does North Carolina permit gay and lesbian couples to adopt, we also have what is called second parent adoption so that both parents are legally recognized as the parents of the children in the relationship, even if neither parent is the bio parent. Sorry to be so late posting this, but we just got back from a sidewalk festival in St. Pauls, and I had my Stanley Home Products and Fuller Brush table there. Will be going back on the 9th of October and the 30th also.

  • 65. Anonygrl  |  September 11, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    Is that in response to the twitter hijacker or the Black Robes, Michael? Or both?

  • 66. Kathleen  |  September 11, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    It's going to be spotty for the next couple of weeks, Bolt. BTW, are you on facebook? or other way to connect by email?

  • 67. Kathleen  |  September 11, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    Lamda Legal has a good overview of state adoption laws:

  • 68. Sagesse  |  September 11, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    “Mario Benfield, the commander of San Francisco’s American Legion’s Alexander Hamilton Post 448, the only post in the country made up entirely of gay and lesbian military veterans, said part of this change comes from the fact that the United States is one of the last countries in NATO to forbid gays and lesbians from serving openly.”

    Bay Area Vets Cheer Ruling Against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

    For any vets on this board who live in the Bay Area.

  • 69. Ray in MA  |  September 11, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Well let's start the Black Bathrobe Regiment!!!

  • 70. Jenny  |  September 11, 2010 at 1:36 pm


  • 71. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 11, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    Cookies, MILK, Coffee, Challah, and the following creamers for the coffee, as well as Hershey's syrup to add to the milk and the coffee: French Vanilla, Vanilla Caramel, Hazelnut, Amaretto, and original creamer. And sugar. Can't have a coffee service without sugar, now can we?

  • 72. Ann S.  |  September 11, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    OT a bit, but an Australian court has just decided to allow a gay man to adopt, despite a state law prohibiting gay couples from adopting.

    <a href="; rel="nofollow">Australian Court Allows Gay Adoption

    A judge in Victoria, Australia's second most populous state, has allowed a gay man to adopt a child, despite a state law prohibiting gay couples from adopting.

    The unidentified man is in a relationship but adopted the child by himself to circumvent the law. The court ruling may be a first of its kind in Victoria.

  • 73. Demand Equality  |  September 11, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    I am @demandequality on Twitter

    If Lou doesn't think OMOW is connected to NOM, then how does he explain this?

    Protect Marriage: One Man, One Woman to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
    Donations Go To…

    A 501(c)(3) nonprofit

  • 74. Demand Equality  |  September 12, 2010 at 12:05 am

    Marinelli does not only target LGBT Americans. Last weekend he was threatening the lives of people who donated to Russ Feingold's campaign because Senator Feingold voted against the Discriminatory Offensive Marriage Attack (DOMA).

    Lou told people to visit or call these donors, including a high school teacher naming the school where she worked, or he thought she worked. I emailed the high school warning them about his threats and was told this teacher had not worked there for 10 years.

    He targeted a veterinarian and the animal hospital listed on the FEC form, but the doctor sold that business and does not work there either. Hopefully no one was targeted there.

    I also warned the executive director of an LGBT community center, members of Congress he targeted. She thanked me and will consider lodging a formal complaint to Twitter.

    I sent his list to the FBI (yes Lou that's what I did).

    I also notified Twitter but they claimed only individuals could complain, but I told them that if anyone was harmed by Lou's threats, Twitter would be liable.

    Lou complained about my RT, because I sent all his threats to @russfeingold and @twitter telling them that Lou was trying to get these people killed.

  • 75. Ann S.  |  September 12, 2010 at 12:43 am

    Good for you!

  • 76. Kathleen  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:12 am

    Following up on the Lambda Legal link, it's not the case in every state that one must be married to adopt the children of one's partner. In fact, second parent adoptions are possible in about half the states.

  • 77. Xandoz  |  September 12, 2010 at 4:55 am

    After following since the very beginning, I'm unlurking to claim my free cookie…..and perhaps to occasionally join in the conversation as well. (But that cookie was definitely the deciding factor!). Thanks for reaching out to the lurkers. It's sincerely nice to "meet" all you folks :)

  • 78. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 5:05 am

    Jenny & Xandoz So glad you came out and joined us 😀
    Usaully I think it is Anonygrl or Kate who gives out the cookies but I can try to help out. Hope you like Chocolate. And if you are an Equality Supporter you get MILK (pun intended) with them.
    Enjoy :)

    The next topic is a pretty good one as is this one. Hope to see you join in.

  • 79. AndrewPDX  |  September 12, 2010 at 5:54 am

    @Jenny & Xandoz… Welcome! grab a virtual chair and join in on the party!
    And if you don't like chocolate cookies, I just baked up some Oatmeal Raisin ones… mmm, fresh out of the oven… :)

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 80. queerfaithnews  |  September 12, 2010 at 7:39 am

    A great victory for GLBT Americans. A lot of faith leaders are supporting the repeal of DADT also:

  • 81. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 7:44 am

    You know I love the queers right? God bless the queers :)
    I think you should try reposting this on the next thread that starts with… Rachel maddow… Thare is a big discussion on DADT over there. I am sure people will be interested in your link.
    Would you like a cookie?

  • 82. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 12, 2010 at 7:46 am

    queerfaithnews, thank you for this comment. Can you also go to this thread and post this, so that even more of our P8TT family will see this? Here is the link to the new thread:

  • 83. Bob  |  September 12, 2010 at 7:56 am

    Brilliant, use the president's own faith based initiatives program, affirming faiths can definetly speak up there,

  • 84. Sheryl Carver  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:29 am

    I second that “good for you”, DE!

    In these days of easy online access, I’m trying to get it through my head that I can do a lot to help our cause by doing things like you just did.

    I cannot bring myself to go door-to-door, or call folks prior to an election, because I so dislike it when I’m on the receiving end of such things. However, letting the right people know about the misbehavior & shenanigans of the anti-equality folks, yeah!, I can do that!

  • 85. chris84wa (Spokane,  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    It just shows the lack of communication and differences between groups of "anti-gay rights." Think of it as this – churches are doing the same thing – tons of different messages, lack of communication and as it seems sometimes – chaos.

  • 86. fiona64  |  September 13, 2010 at 2:22 am

    @Straight Dave: Of course a single parent is better than two gay parents.


    At one point in the SF Bay Area, it was (sadly) kind of trendy for affluent, unmarried Caucasian ladies of "a certain age" to adopt female Chinese infants. Yet, this is perfectly acceptable to folks like NOM (Hi, Louis!) who maintain that gay couples would be "treating children as accessories."



  • 87. Rhie  |  September 13, 2010 at 8:04 am

    Nom…om…OW! I guess they bit off more then they could chew?

    Also, I am laughing at the reasoning in the gays are single post. I saw an e-harmony ad last night on TV…I guess that means all heterosexual people are single and heterosexual marriage doesn't exist?

    By the way does anyone know of any terms other than straight that are synonyms for heterosexual? I don't like using straight because, personally, I think it feeds into NOM etcs worldview: That heterosexual is the norm – the straight and narrow way – and that homosexuality is deviant.

    However, that is my person choice and I won't flinch or yell or anything if other people use straight. :)

  • 88. Rhie  |  September 13, 2010 at 8:05 am

    *waves to all the lurkers* Hi!

  • 89. Rhie  |  September 13, 2010 at 8:13 am

    Ding Ding Ding we have a winner.

    If the tweet is real. I don't know.

  • 90. Rhie  |  September 13, 2010 at 8:15 am

    I am with you on becoming more intolerant of misinformation. Sometimes I have to forcibly remind myself that the person I am talking hasn't had the benefit of non-biased coverage so as not to shout at them.

  • 91. Rhie  |  September 13, 2010 at 8:16 am

    …and that puts the lie to the old canard that all vets like DADT and don't want to see it repealed.

  • 92. Rhie  |  September 13, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Oh they don't like the truth told about their views? It hurts their poor wittle feelings? Well, too frakking bad. Their views ARE bigoted. If they don't want to be called that, then they should re-evaluate their position.

  • 93. AndrewPDX  |  September 13, 2010 at 8:25 am

    I know just one other synonym for heteros, but it's pretty derogatory, and I do not want to insult our wonderful allies by repeating it here.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 94. Rhie  |  September 13, 2010 at 8:42 am

    Oh Sagesse, even earlier than that. I was given pamphlets and cards about who to vote for as a teen in the 90s. They were really clever, now that I think about it. They simply compared candidates on their stances on various "family values" – which is not illegal to hand out in a church.

    HOWEVER, there was a STRONG implication as to which was the right one to vote for – large red Xs in the "wrong" view, bright green check marks in the "right" one. Keywords and phrases, etc.

  • 95. Rhie  |  September 13, 2010 at 8:45 am

    That reminds me…whenever people point to the verse in Romans about homosexuals, I just point out who else is in that list and sweetly as if they have ever been hateful to someone or had a bit too much to drink one day.

  • 96. Rhie  |  September 13, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Good for you. It doesn't matter if the teacher actually works there now – they still probably got calls and visits.

    After all, the right nearly killed the brother of a politician because they can't tell people apart.

  • 97. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 13, 2010 at 10:03 am

    What I also do is point to the verses where Saul of Tarsus declares that something is just his opinion, and not to be construed as church dogma. They like to conveniently forget that little bit also, unless it suits their purpose for something to be just Saul's opinion.

  • 98. Xandoz  |  September 13, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    Thanks for the warm welcome everybody! I'll definitely try to join in when I can.

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