Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Okay, far-right: You wanna talk about the Manhattan Declaration? Let’s go.

NOM Exposed Right-wing

Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

The social conservatives keep wanting to talk about the Manhattan Declaration and Apple’s decision to remove its associated, supposedly benign app from the iTunes store. For instance, check out this snippet from the National Organization For Marriage’s latest e-blast:

Screen Shot 2010-12-03 At 2.49.54 Pm

So okay, fine. We’ll play along. In fact: Let’s go ahead, take a moment, and remind them of a few things about their precious little document/app.

(A) The Manhattan Declaration publicly and proudly touts signatures from Scott “the gay movement is a nuclear bomb” Lively, someone who this year earned considerable attention for his belief that the Uganda “kill gays” bill is a “step in the right direction

(B) Two other people listed on the “Religious leader’s [sic] signatories” list are Peter Akinola, a man who says “homosexuality does violence to nature“, and Rev. Emmanuel Musaba Kolini, who has referred to homosexuality as “moral genocide.

(C) Major Declaration backer Tony Perkins has come right out and said the document represents “a struggle between good and evil”:




Or comparing Manhattan Declaration supporters’ mission as constituting “non-cooperation with evil,” for another:

“This kind of principled non-cooperation with evil won’t be easy—there are signs of a reduced tolerance for that most basic of American values, religious freedom. As we’ve discussed many times on BreakPoint, Christian organizations are losing tax-exempt status for refusing to buy in to homosexual “marriage.” Some are going out of business rather than cave into immoral demands—such as placing children for adoption with homosexual couples. Conscientious medical personnel are being sued or being fired for obeying their consciences.

I say, enough is enough. The Church must take a stand. And with the release of the Manhattan Declaration, that’s exactly what we are doing.”

The Manhattan Declaration

Or perhaps our favorite: The time when Chuckles admitted just how he sees the tens of thousands of soul-crushed people who took to the streets in the national, almost entirely peaceful protests against Proposition 8

When I watched the violence on television, memories came back of earlier generations of thugs: Bull Conner, who, with the help of brutal cops, used violence and intimidation to chase African Americans out of the public square. Or roving gangs of Nazi brownshirts who ruled the streets of Germany during Hitler’s rise to power. Do opponents of Proposition 8 who attacked Mormons and their churches think they’re any better than Bull Conner, or nicer than Nazi thugs? I don’t.” [SOURCE]

Civil, huh?

(F) The app in question was also offensive to “reasonable and civil debate” on a purely intellectual level, with the in-app survey pretending to query users on their support for marriage equality and reproductive choice, but then proceeding to tell them they were just plain incorrect if they fell out of evangelical lock-step.

(G) The Declaration repeats (as did the app) the oft-bastardized claims:

In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions.

The reality is that the church pavilion was receiving a SPECIAL tax benefit under the Green Acres tax-exemption. This tax break was always a bonus — a privilege bestowed upon eligible non-profits that open their private lands and/or accommodations up for public usage. Public, as in ALL of the public, not some. And since LGBT people are part of New Jersey’s public and civil unions are the law, A PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION MUST EITHER ACCOMMODATE THE PUBLIC OR STOP RECEIVING THESE KINDS OF PUBLIC HANDOUTS! A church can ABSOLUTELY keep gay couples from marrying in their own pavilion. However, they cannot receive special state, federal, and local tax breaks if they are going to pick and choose which kinds of couples are allowed to use the pavilion! In this NJ case, they still received the tax-exemption for the rest of their properties, which weren’t found to be in violation. But the pavilion in question was acting outside the rules for this particular state program.

(H) The Declaration refers to gays who are seeking civil fairness as really seeking “a right to engage in immoral sexual practices.

(I) need not say more. Apple pulled the app not because gays are out to shut down speech — but rather because gay activists gave attention to the offenses contained within the app and larger Declaration. The merits (or lack) thereof are what did the Declaration supporters in. But of course, yet again, they take no responsibility for what they have said and done, since the victim strategy makes the seem so much more sympathetic.


  • 1. Ronnie  |  December 4, 2010 at 12:52 am

    Hey NOM….GET OVER IT!…Lady complainer…. XP ….Ronnie

  • 2. Sagesse  |  December 4, 2010 at 1:00 am

    But BB, you still have Google.

    It's not like the Manhattan declaration was scrubbed from the interwebs.

    It's not discrimination against good vs evil, it's discrimination against people with iPhones.

    Need coffee.

  • 3. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 4, 2010 at 1:02 am

    Apple has integrity. They will not allow 1 million signatures to sway that integrity.

    Also, Mondays C-Span link to the live coverage and TV schedule:

  • 4. Joe  |  December 4, 2010 at 1:12 am

    I saw a lot of posts in other blogs about free speech being an issue. It strikes me as weird that people equate the right to have and speak their beliefs translates to having the right to be listened to.

    I have no issues whatsoever with the Manhattan Declaration's existence, though I don't agree with it. But Apple should have a final say on what views and opinions are expressed thorough their medium. While the Manhattan Dec. is written with as much civility as I've seen in such a document. It obviously hold a viewpoint that Apple doesn't want to be associated with.

  • 5. Carol  |  December 4, 2010 at 1:13 am

    Umm, can't you just buy it on the Internets?

    Also, an ex-con who pled guilty and served prison time for obstructing justice doesn't have a lot of moral authority except with people just like him.

  • 6. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 4, 2010 at 1:14 am

    This is only one more ploy by the radical, far right, psuedo-Christian, psuedo-American ignoramuses who do not want their sheeple to have any contact with the truth. They are operating under the principle that if they tell the lie often enough, and in a big enough way, that people will believe it in large numbers. After all, that is how they managed to pull the woool over the eyes of the voters of California and Maine when it came to marriage equality.

  • 7. Ronnie  |  December 4, 2010 at 1:16 am

    Now that I have a cup of coffee at my side….

    Given the evidence that the anti-Equality side does not allow opposition to post on their Blogs (i.e. letting it go through moderation & anything that doesn't praise them hardly ever gets posted) & the admins of their Facebook pages delete all opposition even if they are civil then ban them….do they really think they should be invoking the "free speech" card?……thats what I thought…..QUIT YOUR BITCHING!!!!….<3….Ronnie

  • 8. Breaking the Silence  |  December 4, 2010 at 1:21 am

    "…there are signs of a reduced tolerance for that most basic of American values, religious freedom. As we’ve discussed many times on BreakPoint, Christian organizations are losing tax-exempt status for refusing to buy in to homosexual “marriage.” Some are going out of business rather than cave into immoral demands—such as placing children for adoption with homosexual couples. Conscientious medical personnel are being sued or being fired for obeying their consciences."

    These people who assert that discrimination and inequality- based upon their fantasy of possessing a monopoly on morality and with complete disregard for real-world experience and evidence- are necessary features of "religious freedom" continue to make me want to hurl.

  • 9. Paul in Minneapolis  |  December 4, 2010 at 1:26 am

    Let me see if I understand this.

    NOM accuses Apple of "mak[ing] itself a political gatekeeper to protect customers from being exposed to 'offensive' ideas?"

    NOM claims the internet is a "bastion of free speech?"

    NOM berates Apple for "censoring thoughts with which they disagree?"

    NOM is concerned about "reasonable and civil debate?"

    NOM extols the internet as a "great tool of free expression?"

    Perhaps I'm confused. We got 8 inches of snow last night and it's a mere 18 degrees (above zero, thankfully) outside, so maybe my brain is too frozen to comprehend all of this. But doesn't NOM censor posts with which they disagree from their website? I gave up trying to post my "reasonable and civil debate" on their site months ago because my posts never saw the light of day.

    Obviously I'm befuddled. Yes, it must be the cold. I'm sure one of you will explain to me where my logic has gone so very far awry…

  • 10. Joe  |  December 4, 2010 at 1:31 am

    Also, watching the Colson video, it so funny to hear the misconception that marriage of any form has been an historical cornerstone, much less specifically man-woman marriage. Monogamy has not been an historically popular idea until fairly recently and many societies even today have nothing resembling marriage.

  • 11. truthspew  |  December 4, 2010 at 1:47 am

    I'm reading Wendell Potter's "Deadly Spin" right now. In the first part of the book he describes the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) Eight Propaganda Tricks.

    Reading through it the first organization that popped into my head was NOM. They use every one of the IPA tricks to try to deny us our rights. Their press releases become enormously more interesting when one puts the IPA template against it.

    Ive long know that the folks from NOM were telling lies. Now I have a way to categorize the lies and realize that everything they do and say is propaganda designed to deny us our legal rights.

  • 12. Sagesse  |  December 4, 2010 at 1:48 am

    These people do not understand that their freedom of religious speech does not require public 'broadcast' outlets (or Senate hearings, yea!) to give them a pulpit or a microphone.

  • 13. Ronnie  |  December 4, 2010 at 2:11 am

    One of NOM's buddies thinks that LGBT people are the only ones that should fund HIV/AIDS research…

    Bryan Fischer: Gay Rights Groups Should Pay For AIDS Research

    Bryan Fischer, the "Director of Issues Analysis" for the conservative Christian group the American Family Association, doesn't think that taxpayers should fund AIDS research anymore, since "we know what causes AIDS: homosexual sex and injection drug use," and "since we know the cause, we know the cure: stop engaging in homosexual sex and stop shooting up with drugs."

    (me) Actually, dipshite, you don't catch AIDS & AIDS is not caused by Homosexuality & shooting up….you are confusing that with HIV…& hint hint…Heterosexuals have it through sex….MORON!!!!!…..

    "Homosexual activist groups likewise are pushing a lifestyle that kills," Fischer wrote Wednesday, on World AIDS Day. "If anybody should be obligated to pony up funds to mitigate a health crisis, it ought to be the organizations that are responsible for advocating the very behavior that created and perpetuates the epidemic."

    (me) but how much do you wanna bet that if we were to find a cure using our money…that un-American & inhuman porcine would want to reap the benefits…..This guy is one of the most unpardonable human beings on the face of the Earth….shame…..& they wonder why they made the SPLC hate group list……. :-& ……Ronnie

  • 14. Mike  |  December 4, 2010 at 2:27 am

    My family is from Iran, where gays are hung or forced into transgender operations, and everytime I read about people like these,,, evangelicals in america who think gays should be executed, makes me sick to my stomach.

    It is like making a nazi app that says jews should be annihilated. What is wrong with these people! When is America going to recognize LGBT as a protected minority :(.

  • 15. JT1962  |  December 4, 2010 at 2:56 am

    Let's see, Apple is a private industry, is it not? Private industries have the ability to decide for themselves what to sell or not sell, do they not? Isn't that something that NOM has protested about? So it's a good thing when a private business does something they want and it's what NOM wants, too. But it's a bad thing when a private business does it and it's NOT what NOM wants? Talk about your double standard.

  • 16. Kathleen  |  December 4, 2010 at 3:11 am

    LLB, do you know if that is the link where C-SPAN will be streaming live, or is this just a place holder for the archive of video in its library? I've always found their live steams on their home page, but maybe they've set up a special page for this… do you know?

  • 17. Kathleen  |  December 4, 2010 at 3:17 am

    Apple is no more required to carry an app they don't like than NOM is required to broadcast a pro-marriage equality video on their website. Hell, NOM gets federal subsidies in the way of tax breaks and STILL doesn't have to air a video they don't like.

    Maybe we should start a signature drive to complain that NOM is stifling free speech by not including positive images of married same sex couples in their messaging.

    Get over it, NOM.

  • 18. Kathleen  |  December 4, 2010 at 3:18 am

    And I still like the fact that they have to explain what an app is.

  • 19. Breaking the Silence  |  December 4, 2010 at 3:22 am

    In a country where Philadelphia sells-out instead of stopping the Boy Scouts of America from discriminating in a city building but the Smithsonian is intimidated, by a faction of the federal government, into pulling part of an exhibit because is shows bugs on a cross… Sure, why not? :(

  • 20. Chris in Lathrop  |  December 4, 2010 at 3:25 am

    "Apple should have a final say on what views and opinions are expressed thorough their medium. "

    Exactly right. Somehow, people have gotten the idea that the phrase "Congress shall make no law…" means private citizens, corporations, and other non-governmental agencies may not engage in censorship.

    I know NOM has vehemently denied any connection between racism and heterosexism, but does anybody really think any reasonable organization would decry Apple if this had been a KKK app they nixed?

  • 21. Kate  |  December 4, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Yeah, that was my favorite part, too. :)

  • 22. Chris in Lathrop  |  December 4, 2010 at 3:36 am

    "but then proceeding to tell them they were just plain incorrect if they fell out of evangelical lock-step."

    Obviously this is a survey. And obviously, they phrase the questions as, "Do you believe/support…? Yes/No" How can you be incorrect about your own opinions? The logic#FAIL on the bigots' side is ever more astounding.

    It all reminds me of Landover Baptist Church (a lovely parody website of evangelical zealotry) and their quizzes which call you an "unsaved moron" should your answer '[fall] out of evangelical lock-step.'

  • 23. draNgNon  |  December 4, 2010 at 3:36 am

    oh good grief.

    "The time when Chuckles admitted…. Civil, huh?"

    if you want to accuse the other side of being un-civil, don't resort to name-calling. it really detracts from what would otherwise be a very well stated message.

  • 24. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 4, 2010 at 3:38 am

    That is the stream live page

  • 25. draNgNon  |  December 4, 2010 at 3:50 am

    But in a more general sense, Apple's behaviour wrt to the app store is reprehensible. They pull this all the time with far less controversial apps – they pulled one a couple weeks ago that was a European magazine that talked about Android. Their decision making is often arbitrary and unfair.

    Unpopular as this opinion might be, I think if bigots want that app on their iPhones or iPads they should be allowed to have it. (That's not to say, the crap NOM put in their email isn't, well, a bunch of misleading propaganda.) If you were to try to put something similar that was a pro-gay survey/declaration, Apple would deny it as inappropriate content.

    Some people commenting here have said it's the same as NOM having pro-gay-marriage statements on their website. It's not. If you don't want to look at NOM's website (I sure don't), you can point your browser elsewhere to find pro-gay-marriage statements. If you don't like the choices for apps on your iPhone, however, you have to break you contract with AT&T and spend several hundred dollars on a different phone and new provider. OR, you can break Apple's "Terms of Use" and "jailbreak" your iPhone. If this is for an iPad, you are SOL.

    that's a big difference.

  • 26. Steve  |  December 4, 2010 at 3:54 am

    Freedom of religion means they won't be burned at the stake or thrown in jail for what they believe.

    It simply doesn't give them to the right to force their nonsense on the public wherever they want.

  • 27. Mike  |  December 4, 2010 at 4:08 am

    I wanted to check out NOM's website, and just off the top of my head I guessed the URL would be "" so I went there and it turned out to be "Nation of Men, a place for men to be their best" which I thought was kind of funny 😡

  • 28. Kathleen  |  December 4, 2010 at 4:11 am

    I guess I should have clarified that what I am saying is, in terms of legal questions of freedom of speech, there is no difference between Apple deciding what apps it wants to sell and NOM deciding what messages it wants on its website. Neither decision reflects a governmental action.

  • 29. Breaking the Silence  |  December 4, 2010 at 4:18 am

    Precisely! And, though we shouldn't hold our breath for people like Colson, Perkins, Brown and company to ever acknowledge that fact, it needs to be held near the forefront of the public mind.

  • 30. Faldwin  |  December 4, 2010 at 4:18 am

    I'm with you. I have never been in favor of the authoritarian way apple controls their store. If we have a problem with what the Declaration App says (which I'm sure most people on this website do) the solution is not to have the app removed, but to create your own app which adds to the debate.

    I have never disagreed with an article on this website so fervently, and frankly, I'm disappointed.

  • 31. Don in Texas  |  December 4, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Get over yourself. There is such a thing as poetic license and calling "Chuck" Colson "Chuckles" falls within that concept.

  • 32. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 4, 2010 at 4:53 am

    I completely disagree. The application violated Apple Developer Guidelines. It is extremely offensive to a particular group of people.

    What if someone developed an app about the KKK Against African Americans Declaration? The Muslims against Christians Declaration? The All Gays Should Die Declaration?

    It's all still free speech…but it's offensive. But most importantly, Apple always has the last say what is approved for their products.

  • 33. Anonygrl  |  December 4, 2010 at 5:29 am

    The biggest problem we face is one of education.

    The thing is, the people who support NOM and their ilk are, sadly, almost completely uneducated when it comes to understanding how math, science, history and the laws and government of this country actually work.

    We see it time and again as they oust judges for doing their jobs, argue that the "will of the people" is preeminent, misunderstand how free speech and separation of church and state work, and completely disregard the concept of equal treatment under the law.

    Lack of education is evident when people oppressing the rights of others claim to be following in the footsteps of Martin Luther King Jr. It is apparent when claims about the religious nature of our country are put forth as founding truths. We see it when people claim that a man and a woman falling in love and deciding to marry is the traditional form of marriage as proved by the Bible, and claim that homosexuality was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire.

    It is demonstrated every time a creationist talks about evolution and asks it to explain abiogenesis and every time someone tries to claim that carbon dating being inaccurate proves the earth is only 6000. It shows up whenever Intelligent design proponents ask how eye could possibly have developed without a designer and then deny that a 97.5% DNA similarity with chimps means we are related.

    Lack of education rears its head when a senator complains that 28% response to a survey is too small. We find it in people who hear that 7 million people voted for something in California, and they think that must mean that EVERYONE in the state wanted it. It is painfully obvious where ever statistics about homosexuality and pedophilia are erroneously conflated.

    So, we keep plugging away at trying to educate, and we know that younger generations are, in this Age of Information, already better and more educated than their parents were.

    And for the sake of those kids, I will quote the bible, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

  • 34. Breaking the Silence  |  December 4, 2010 at 5:33 am

    Hear, hear Anonygirl!

  • 35. Anonygrl  |  December 4, 2010 at 5:35 am

    Apple has every right to do so. It is THEIR store. They are in no way required to host a forum for debate. They could, if they so chose, put up nothing BUT homophobic content.

    They are pretty clear up front about what they will and won't allow, I think. And, since they own the hall, they get to say who performs in it.

    And for anyone who wants it, the Manhattan Declaration is available elsewhere. And you can be fairly certain that where you find it, you will NOT find a lot of information that debates against it, because it works both ways.

    And THAT is what is wrong with NOM's argument. If they were so strong in their beliefs in free speech, they would allow it on THEIR website. The fact that they censor almost anyone who does not agree with them proves they do not believe in free speech, except where it benefits them.

  • 36. Breaking the Silence  |  December 4, 2010 at 5:36 am

    *Anonygrl* Sorry.

  • 37. Michelle Evans  |  December 4, 2010 at 5:36 am

    Wonderful commentary. You caught the full essence of the problem with NOM, FRC, and all the rest.

  • 38. Bob  |  December 4, 2010 at 5:42 am

    I totally agree. But you can't give an education away. Change to these folks is a long process, as with most intrenched believers, their M.O. Systems must repeatedly fail before they give them up.

  • 39. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 4, 2010 at 5:43 am

    It's very true Anonygrl…here is an opinion piece on one homophobic person's triumphant change once they got educated:

    Up from homophobia

    I used to be a homophobe. I didn't dislike gays a little; I disliked them a lot. Growing up in Texas, I didn't know anyone who admitted to being gay, and I found the whole idea sick and repulsive.

    On top of that, I was politically, religiously and socially conservative. So if you'd told me 40 years ago that in 2010, I'd be in favor of letting gays serve in the military and get married, I'd have thought you had dropped some bad acid.

    But one day of my junior year in college, I came back from class to find a note on my desk. It was from my roommate, a friend since my freshman year, informing me that he was gay.

    I was stunned and confused. It had never once crossed my mind that he wasn't a fellow heterosexual, and I didn't know what to do. Having a friend who was gay was disturbing enough, but a roommate?

    I discussed it with him. I discussed it with my pastor. I lay awake nights. I gave it a lot of thought. If I decided not to move out, would I be able to deal with being in close proximity with a homosexual? If I broke off the friendship, would I be doing him an injustice? I faced a dilemma, and I hated it.
    Chicago Shopping: Your home for personalized holiday shopping deals >>

    In the end, I was forced to conclude, not without apprehension, that the revelation didn't change anything. We were good friends before, and we would stay good friends. And 35 years later, we still are.

    I'm telling you this not to impress you with how broad-minded and tolerant I proved. I was neither. I just had to deal with reality.

    Before, my notions about gays were uninformed. Confronted with an actual gay person whom I liked, respected and trusted, I was forced to re-examine my prejudices, and they began to crumble.

    What happened to me, of course, has happened to millions of other Americans. It's easy to be homophobic if you don't know anyone who is openly gay. But that's true of fewer and fewer people. As gays have become forthright about their sexual orientation, the rest of us have had to assess them not as gays, but as whole human beings.

    So I've had gay friends and gay co-workers. I've had lesbian neighbors. I've had gay and lesbian relatives. When one gay relative back in Texas had a wedding — in all but the legal sense — my wife and I attended and found it eerily similar to the straight version. All these experiences have impressed on me the obvious fact that homosexuals are not an alien species.


  • 40. Anonygrl  |  December 4, 2010 at 5:44 am

    " If you don’t like the choices for apps on your iPhone…"

    Then don't get an iPhone. Apple is under no obligation to allow ANYONE other than themselves to create programs using their platform. That they do is nice, but they wrote the software, they created the hardware…

    If you were to modify your toaster oven to play CDs it would void the warranty, and that would be your problem. If you want to use Apple's products for purposes which they do not approve (as spelled out in the contract you agreed to when purchasing the equipment… the Terms of Use), you likewise do it at your own risk. Such is the way the world works.

    If you don't like it, buy a CD player instead of a toaster. Buy a different phone with different Terms of Use. You are as free to do that as people are to visit pro-gay marriage sites.

  • 41. Anonygrl  |  December 4, 2010 at 5:51 am

    YES!!! Yes yes yes!!! Not only that but yes!

    Thanks for sharing this.

  • 42. Anonygrl  |  December 4, 2010 at 5:53 am

    GSOQ (giggling sort of quietly, as opposed to LOL).

    No problem. I get Anongrl, Anonygrrl, Anongirl, Anonygal, Annonygrl, and so on all the time.

  • 43. Bob  |  December 4, 2010 at 6:10 am

    Sorry for the change of subjects…. But Maggie speaks.

    Ok same old tired crap as defense, yadda yadda mother, yadda yadda father, yadda yadda child needs…

  • 44. Bob  |  December 4, 2010 at 6:11 am

    Love this!

  • 45. Breaking the Silence  |  December 4, 2010 at 6:17 am

    LOL, I think "Anonygrrrl" has a nice ring to it.

  • 46. Ronnie  |  December 4, 2010 at 6:47 am

    & right here in her statement she makes her desires known…..

    "Do we as a society care enough about the need to bring mothers and fathers together for children to protect the public meaning of the one social institution we have which has always had this core mission?"

    What does that have to do with 2 men or 2 women getting married?…Gay men are still going to be Gay…Lesbians are still going to be Lesbians…..It is as if this fascist harridan actually thinks that if we can't marry the person we love that we are just going to turn to a sham marriage just for other people's selfish desires to have us live our lives how they demand we do…Reading between the lines, she is underhandedly implying that they should force us to be Heterosexual…as if we didn't already know that that was the anti-gay/Equality/freedom's desires to begin with……Dear Maggie, you need to mind your own business you churlish, un-American, miserly, peremptory, theocratic termagant….. <3…Ronnie

  • 47. Rhie  |  December 4, 2010 at 6:52 am


  • 48. Breaking the Silence  |  December 4, 2010 at 7:12 am

    Yes, nice pile of gobbeldeygook. It might appeal to some (chiefly her own demographic) as an impassioned reference to caring, meaning, institutions, children and mission… But in reality falls on its face, for as we all know; the quality of "always being" does not make something right, and indeed; look at the bang-up job this one social institution with its "core mission" has done historically. One might think she actually believes the environment for children in our society was perfected long ago and we simply can't afford to allow the across-the-board marvelous results we've experienced to be tampered with. Please.

  • 49. John  |  December 4, 2010 at 7:39 am

    NOM got their facts wrong about the Hillary 1984 ad. This was an ad someone made on the Internet, not something produced by the Obama campaign.

  • 50. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 4, 2010 at 7:41 am

    +1000. One of Nixon's crooked cronies is hardly a model of probity.

  • 51. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 4, 2010 at 7:42 am

    That settles it, I'm buying a new iPod. 😀

  • 52. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 4, 2010 at 7:43 am

    Rule of thumb: fact-check all claims made by the Religious Right.

  • 53. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 4, 2010 at 7:47 am

    Once someone ceases to be the shadowy, unknown "Other," it doesn't make sense to discriminate against him or her. The Religious Right knows this all too well, and they know the statistics that young people increasingly treat LGBT folk like everyone else – and they know their anti-gay cash cows are living on borrowed time.

  • 54. Michelle Evans  |  December 4, 2010 at 8:08 am

    This points out one of the great difficulties we face: Education. Often, the religious fanatics want to make sure their kids are home schooled so as not to expose them to anything but what they consider 'right.' They talk about supposed gay 'indoctrination,' and yet that is all they want to do with their own children. They do not want them educated. They do not want them to be aware of their surroundings. They want them all to think that one single book has every single fact available.

    I pity the poor children that have their world view so stunted. They are doing direct, and oftentimes irreparable harm to their own offspring, let alone anyone who is LGBT that they oppose. They talk so often of morality, yet have absolutely none themselves.

  • 55. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 4, 2010 at 9:16 am

    Paul, it is not YOUR logic that has gone awry, it is NOM's. And actually, it is the fact that NOM is very experienced in twisting logic to the point that it is unrecognizable as logic that has you befuddled, not the 8 inches of snow and the 18 degree temperature.

  • 56. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 4, 2010 at 9:50 am

    And he is probably pushing this crap in his organization's newsletter Inside Journal that goes to every prison, jail, and detention center in the United States, and several units outside the United States, as part of the mission of his group Prison Fellowship.

  • 57. the lone ranger  |  December 4, 2010 at 10:23 am

    not to be "that guy", but to comment on a post that laments American scientific literacy, I ought to point out that carbon dating gives absolutely no information about the age of the Earth (except that it's older than 6000 years… roughly one half-life of 13C). The half-life of 13C is too short, and so carbon dating only provides decent age information as far back as maybe 10 half-lives (a few tens of thousands of years)… good for studies about ancient civilizations, for example. However, carbon dating has a big muscular brother (woo hoo!): uranium-lead dating, which has a much longer half-life and provides the necessary robustness to date geologic events from millions to billion years in the past.

    the lone ranger (a.k.a. Tucson geologist)

  • 58. Tracy  |  December 4, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Agreed. NOM is not striving for logic – NOM says and does whatever is necessary to achieve their ends. Logic, when it occurs, is pure serendipity. Ironically, I believe this is characteristic of what one would call pursuing an "agenda" — i.e., the ends justify the means, no matter how depraved, false, or truly immoral they may be.

    The biggest irony of all is that NOM deliberately molds and shapes the views of less informed Americans through a carefully woven tapestry of statements (both true and false) to further their own agenda — a truly immoral and unethical use of propaganda — and then claim to take the moral high ground against the gays' own immoral agenda. It is the LGBT "activists" and their allies that are trying to being the truth to light — they clearly have the moral high ground.

  • 59. Tracy  |  December 4, 2010 at 10:41 am

    That is, trying to "bring" the truth to light….ugh

  • 60. Tracy  |  December 4, 2010 at 10:45 am

    Or perhaps Brian Brown actually believes that his own morality is so divinely inspired that he should not be held to the same principles that bind other mere mortals, such as Steve Jobs. Maybe he TRULY believes that God wants all views contrary to Brian Brown's to be censored — stricken from public consumption — and Brian's own views to be forceably piped into every home, business, computer, cell phone, etc. for all to see. If so, he needs to be locked up, because he is truly certifiable.

  • 61. Tracy  |  December 4, 2010 at 10:56 am

    Brian Brown is, unfortunately, no idiot. He has a diabolically keen mind for propaganda — not unlike Hitler, unfortunately. The only thing that got in Hitler's way was his own arrogance …

    He knows that some lies will be recognized as such by most common Americans –that's why he's distanced NOM from people like that Martinelli character, and others who take an obvious anti-gay stance. Brian very cleverly phrases his comments in such a way that he can spread anti-gay hate without ever coming out and spewing hate speech. Again, reminiscent of Hitler. His approach is insidious, in that the uninformed masses cannot recognize the true agenda and motivation behind his statements.

    The biggest enemy of people like Brian Brown is familiarity — the more LGBT people who come out to their friends and family, the more common Americans see that sexual orientation is a naturally varying human phenomenon — they'll realize more and more (as evidenced by generational differences of opinion) that LGBT people are not a threat. In fact, it is that variation that makes our society stronger.

  • 62. the lone ranger  |  December 4, 2010 at 11:57 am

    oops… I meant 14C… my bad

  • 63. Jaymax  |  December 4, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    Great summary anonygrl.

  • 64. Chris B  |  December 4, 2010 at 9:07 pm

    I believe one of the reasons Apple pulled the app was that it also advocated disobeying laws. The MD says that people should disobey laws that give rights to gays

    The whole "censorship by Apple" argument is silly. Yes, Apple refuses certain apps and doesn't allow porn, but you can still view the MD via the iPhone web browser and even look at porn or the KKK web site or whatever on you iPhone. A person can put a PDF version of the MD on their iPhone, if they wish.

    The MD people could build the same functionality they have in their app into a mobile web site and just send out the URL. Problem solved.

    I'm sure if I created an app that said interracial marriage was sinful and that people should not recognize mixed-raced couples as being married, and that people should counsel their children and family to not have interracial relationships, and that churches should not allow interracial marriages in their church buildings, that too would no be accepted by Apple.

    If these people really want to 'save' America, why are they focused on the 3% of the population that is gay instead of focusing on the real moral problems the have existed for decades in the US: divorce, out-of-wedlock births, porn, vulgarity in the entertainment industry, etc.

  • 65. Anonygrl  |  December 5, 2010 at 12:34 am

    Yes, I know that. That was actually part of my point, although perhaps not clearly articulated.


  • 66. Anonygrl  |  December 5, 2010 at 12:44 am

    "…you churlish, un-American, miserly, peremptory, theocratic termagant"

    Ronnie, I am a self professed linguaphile, and as such, I adore your erudite invective!

  • 67. Alan E.  |  December 5, 2010 at 3:33 am

    No matter how minute.

  • 68. Ronnie  |  December 5, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Thank you…. ; ) ……Ronnie

  • 69. Ronnie  |  December 5, 2010 at 5:38 am

    "If these people really want to ‘save’ America, why are they focused on the 3% of the population that is gay instead of focusing on the real moral problems the have existed for decades in the US: divorce, out-of-wedlock births, porn, vulgarity in the entertainment industry, etc."

    Easy…because those things are btw. a man & a woman (sarcasm)….
    – divorce = anti-marriage equality supporters: Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh (married 4 times), Newt Gingrich (married 3 times)…just to name a few
    – out-of-wedlock births = Maggie "Shoe Flinger" Gallagher
    – porn = NOM defended Carrie Prejean (Miss California) who not only did a not so "conservative" photo shoot on the beach but has a sex tape as well…. : O
    – vulgarity in the entertainment industry = depends on what they consider "vulgarity"…..I'm sure they have problems with shows contains openly Gay characters…as many of their public figures, including the Ruth Institute, as well as many of their followers on the anti-gay Facebook pages have voiced displeasure with shows such as "Modern Family", "Glee", "What Would You Do?", & "90210" just to name a few of the recent TV series….I've seen outrage over "RuPaul's Drag Race" as well as LOGO even existing….but if we were to get all huffy & puffy over the religious church shows…they would shout "Christian Persecution"….please…as if….I know what the 700 club is….that is why I do not watch it…It really is that simple…..


  • 70. Bill  |  December 6, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    The most interesting part of Perkin's comments is the appeal to his deity about "right and wrong". I can't imagine a Taoist or Wiccan agreeing with him, so this raises an interesting question: is banning same-sex marriages an attempt to get the state to establish a religion (which it can't do under the First Amendment)? Perkins et al. are in a double bind – their only real argument is an "argumentum ad Deum", but if they use that, they are admitting that they are trying to get the state to establish a religion, or at least some of their religious practices.

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