Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

NOM has questions? We have answers.

NOM Exposed Right-wing

Cross-posted at Waking Up Now.

by Rob Tisinai

NOM employee Jennifer Roback Morse has questions for Ted Olson and David Boies, the power attorneys fighting for marriage equality.

Sometimes questions are just a request for information.  Sometimes they invite us to think of new things.

And sometimes they’re a clumsy, dishonest rhetorical device.   Writers occasionally use them to avoid presenting evidence, to avoid careful reasoning, to avoid having their sloppy thought carefully dismantled.

For instance, simply asking Are you absolutely certain nothing bad will happen? is a lot easier than making a clear case that some specific bad thing is coming.

That’s Morse’s strategy with these questions.  The problem, though, is she’s not very good at it.  She’s made the mistake of asking questions that are easy to answer.  She’s merely shown us the limits of her own thinking.  So here are her questions, along with my answers.  Feel free to add your own in the comments.

Do you seriously believe it is a “myth” or mere “prejudice” that children need their mothers and fathers?

Research shows that children need their parents.  It shows that the gender of those parents matters very little compared to to the benefits of living in a stable, permanent home.  So we don’t understand why many on your side would rather keep children in foster care or institutions rather than with permanent same-sex parents.

Do you seriously believe that it is “beyond dispute” that redefining marriage will have no long term social consequences, except for making life better for same sex couples?

Nice framing of the question, Jennifer.  No prediction of the future is “beyond dispute.”  With criteria like that, we’d never allow change — we’d never have made it out of our ancestors’ caves.  I do see long-term benefits, though — more stable homes for children, fewer kids in foster care and institutions, and more hope for gay teens wondering about their future.  If you have negative consequences in mind, though, name them and persuade us instead of weaseling the issue with this question.

Do you really believe that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and that gender is irrelevant to parenting? If gender is really irrelevant, why do self-described “gays” insist on having a male sex partner? Why isn’t a really masculine woman just as acceptable as a male sex partner?


You’re equating the parenting relationship with a sexual/romantic relationship.  That’s creepy.  And based on a twisted notion of parenting and sex that few of your followers would endorse.  Ew.

If you believe the law should be that “love makes a family,” do you seriously propose to make “love” a legally defined term?

Oh, sure.  Just like I think “Home is where the heart is” means architects should be board-certified cardiologists.  Come on.  Some expressions have emotional meaning.  Legally-defined terms have legal meaning.  You can’t jump literally back and forth.  But really, you’re just being silly now.

Do children have any rights that adults are bound to respect? Not just the right to not be injured, but positive rights to care and relationship with particular adults, namely their parents?

Of course.  What on earth does this have to do with same-sex marriage?  Oh, wait, you’re doing that thing NOM loves to do — equating “parent” with “biological parent,” and excluding “adoptive parent.”   But it’s a surprise coming from you, Jennifer, because you’re an adoptive parent.  You’d never tell your adoptive child, “I’m not your Mom and don’t start thinking I am.”  No, your adopted child is in a relationship with his (her?) parent — you.

What do you think is the essential public purpose of marriage? We think the essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.

So many things wrong with this question.  I’ll have to number them:

  1. What do you mean by “public purpose”?  Also, what do you mean by “essential.”  Please define.
  2. If that’s your “essential public purpose,” then why do you permit the elderly to marry?
  3. What’s with “the essential public purpose”?  Are you saying there’s only one?  That marriage cannot have more than one purpose?
  4. If raising children is the essential public purpose of marriage, it’s odd that most traditional wedding vows don’t mention kids at all.
  5. More to the point, the goal of attaching mothers and fathers to their children and to one another does not exclude same-sex couples.  Marriage will still serve the purpose of uniting parents to each other and to their children, assuming you believe (unlike some of your colleagues) that mothers and fathers can view an adopted child as their child.

When you have reduced marriage to nothing but a government registry of friendships, how exactly do you think children will be attached to their mothers and fathers?

We’re not planning to reduce marriage to nothing but a government registry of friendships.  Stop pretending you’re asking these things to find out the answers — you’re just flinging accusations and ending them with question marks.

These are just my own answers, of course, and I’m a poor substitute for Olson and Boies.  But Jennifer, I’ll tell you this:  I’d loooove to get you in a room face-to-face with our attorneys and watch you ask them these questions directly.

I’d buy tickets.


  • 1. Sheryl Carver  |  December 11, 2010 at 1:49 am

    I'd buy tickets, too. & I am currently on a very tight budget.

  • 2. Gwen Anastasia York  |  December 11, 2010 at 1:58 am

    "I’d buy tickets. "
    Me too. I bet a lot of people would. There's money to be made here. How soon can we make this happen? 😀

  • 3. Kathleen  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:02 am

    Just subscribing. busy day

  • 4. elliom  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:04 am

    Slightly OT:

    Unsigned editorial in this mornings NY Times re: appeal.

    Civil Rights in California….

    I don't really buy the standing argument. I'm more inclined to agree that we have standing requirements for a reason, and the court shouldn't just toss them out because it really wants to rule on the merits.

    I do, however, believe that P8 should be tossed on it's ear!

  • 5. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:06 am

    I would like to have a showdown with not only this poor representation of womankind, but also with Maggie Gallagher. I have some rather pointed questions for both of them, as well as for Brian Brown and Louis J. Marinelli. Of course, there are others that I have rather pointed questions for also.

  • 6. Joe  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:09 am

    I love how that post has been up for a while, and still no comments are present. I've posted my response to them and nothing.

  • 7. Sagesse  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Readin' and scribin' to ponder while I rearrange the house to accomodate the Xmas tree and related decorations. Real live tree, purchased this morning.

  • 8. elliom  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:17 am

    Less Slightly OT:

    Editorial in this mornings NY Times re: internat'l survey on well-being of childeren.

    America’s Most Vulnerable….

    Note to NOM, et al: If you're REALLY concerned about the well-being of children, why aren't you focusing your time and money on THIS?

    (Sidebar: The bottom ranking for science literacy really explains a lot.)

  • 9. elliom  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:18 am

    Sorry for typos.

  • 10. Kathleen  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:21 am

    elliom, I agree that the question of standing is not a trivial one. In a legal sense, how are the proponents of this proposition situated any differently than an ardent supporter or a major financial contributor? Do they have any more at stake than a volunteer who gave up several months' of his/her life to advocate for the proposition's passage?

    In this country, we've chosen to restrict the federal courts to actions between parties who are directly affected by a law or court ruling. There is nothing in Walker's decision that compels or enjoins the Prop 8 proponents to do or from doing anything. Proponents were never in a position to issue or deny marriage licenses. Their lives go on with no fewer or greater restrictions than there ever were before Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional.

    I think it would be bad precedent to allow them standing.

  • 11. Ray in MA  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:22 am

    Just by your comment, your concept of love is quite odd and dismisses any further logical attention.

  • 12. Ronnie  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:24 am

    "Do you seriously believe it is a “myth” or mere “prejudice” that children need their mothers and fathers?"

    (me) My father is a woman abuser & child beater…so I believe that it is a myth that children need their mother & father….I am thankful everyday that my mother left him months after I was born…seeing the way he & his wife, my wicked step mother, treated my brothers up until the day I decided I didn't want him in my life at all (when I was 18yo) made me realize that my mother made the right decision to be a single mother rather then subject me to physical abuse at the hands of my biological father…..Children need at least one caring, loving & protective parent…whether that parent be biological, related (i.e. Grandparent, aunt, uncle, or other blood relative) or adoptive… having two parents that love you is just a plus….but their orientation/identity is irrelevant.

    "Do you seriously believe that it is “beyond dispute” that redefining marriage will have no long term social consequences, except for making life better for same sex couples?"

    (me) 1) Nobody is redefining marriage…2) Yes it is beyond dispute. The way I or any LGBT Human live our lives is non-debateable, simply because It is none of your business…3) There are NO negative social consequences to allowing 2 people who love each other to get married, but like Rob said there are positive consequences & that is making life better for people who are LGBT in general. Furthermore, quite frankly it is not my responsibility to marry someone just to make the rest of society "comfortable". The rest of society is not going to provide a roof over my head, food on my table, clothes on my back, pay my bills including medical, or have any say in the person I fall in love with & choose to spend the rest of my life with.

    "Do you really believe that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and that gender is irrelevant to parenting? If gender is really irrelevant, why do self-described “gays” insist on having a male sex partner? Why isn’t a really masculine woman just as acceptable as a male sex partner?"

    (me)Yes, to the first part of your question…..& the rest just proves how completely uneducated & ignorant you really are, so I am not even going to waste my time with it.

    "If you believe the law should be that “love makes a family,” do you seriously propose to make “love” a legally defined term?"

    (me) honestly, what kind of question is that?…I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer…pft!!!!

    "Do children have any rights that adults are bound to respect? Not just the right to not be injured, but positive rights to care and relationship with particular adults, namely their parents?"

    (me) yup..but the gender, orientation, identity , & genetic connection or lack there of of their parent, parents, or guardian(s) is irrelevant…..enough said

    "What do you think is the essential public purpose of marriage? We think the essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another."

    (me) There is no public purpose of marriage. Marriage is a private matter between the two individuals involved. Children have nothing to do with marriage since there are those who either cannot have children, opt out of never having children neither through procreation (do a shot) or adoption but they still get married anyway….you know because they love each other & they want to share their life together as husband & wife, husband & husband or wife & wife…..& again, quite frankly, their choice to make that commitment is none of your business.

    "When you have reduced marriage to nothing but a government registry of friendships, how exactly do you think children will be attached to their mothers and fathers?"

    (me) Last time I looked the majority of rationale thinking people don't love their friends the same way they love their boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife…..

    I agree with Rob…I want tickets….FRONT ROW!!!!…..<3…Ronnie

  • 13. Ray in MA  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:25 am

    Rob, I hereby confirm upon you a PhD in Logic and Reality.

  • 14. Ed  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:28 am

    If you believe the law should be that “love makes a family,” do you seriously propose to make “love” a legally defined term?

    Is Family a legally defined term?

  • 15. elliom  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:29 am


    My thoughts exactly. I didn't like how this author just brushed passed all that.

    I posted this because I thought it was good to get opinions from outside the LGBT press.

  • 16. Menergy  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:34 am

    It always strikes me as "peculiar" that these anti-GLBT organizations and "officials" seem to fixate on m/m relationships, and don't seem to mention (or maybe "mind') f/f relationships — not to mention LOVE. Really, they (NOM, Tony Perkins, et al.) seem to mind gay men most – or so it seems, or at least they bring males up more than females in their talking points and diatribes.

    Your thoughts?

  • 17. Menergy  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:38 am

    I was specifically referring to her comment:
    "If gender is really irrelevant, why do self-described “gays” insist on having a male sex partner? Why isn’t a really masculine woman just as acceptable as a male sex partner?”

    They never seem to really be able to understand the dynamics of a same-sex relationship, do they? How sad.

  • 18. Menergy  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:41 am

    Also, kudos as always to Ron for his outstanding rebuttals and comments!

  • 19. Cat  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:44 am

    It seems to me all these 'questions' (innuendo filled attacks phrased in such a way that they can end with a question mark) are based on refusing to accept two basic facts:

    1. Same-sex relationships are not different from opposite sex relationships. They can be just as loving, committed, stable, healthy and responsible.

    2. As Rob points out, children do best when they have two loving, committed, stable, healthy and responsible parents. They do not need to be the biological parents. Really.

    NOMmers can't see past the 'sex' part of same-sex relationships. How very childish. They shouldn't be meddling in grown-up issues such as marriage.

  • 20. Kathleen  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:56 am

    Here's a photo of the courtroom from Monday's hearing – one that gives you a sense of how small it is. Ann and I were sitting on a bench against the side wall, underneath the mural that's nearest the doors.

  • 21. Kathleen  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:56 am

    Oops forgot to link the photo!

  • 22. Ed  |  December 11, 2010 at 3:01 am

    Right Cat! They can't see past the "sex" part of being gay period. I knew I was gay when I was 3. And most of what I went through being gay as a child had absolutely nothing to do with sex. They want to frame the discussion of "gay" around "sex" only. A gay man is different from a straight man in many many ways. Lots of gay men including me like sports. But many don't. Very few straight men are drawn to interior design… most gay men are. I know these examples seem a little trite but you get my point. Being gay has more to do with our complete person than just sex. Why can't they see that? Or do they simply choose not to?

  • 23. Ann S.  |  December 11, 2010 at 3:02 am

    Tickets for me, too, please.

  • 24. Steven in Windsor  |  December 11, 2010 at 3:16 am

    I have a serious question for NOM, if bringing parents together for children is the essential purpose of marriage then WHY on earth do the following states have these laws:

    First cousin marriage is allowed in these states under the following circumstances:

    Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

    Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

    Indiana- if both are at least 65.

    Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

    Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

    Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

    Seems to me that these state laws would contradict what NOM is pushing is the purpose of marriage, I mean you have to PROVE THAT YOU CANT REPRODUCE in order to get married!!!

  • 25. elliom  |  December 11, 2010 at 3:29 am

    One more hole in their bucket of fallacies.

    (Sorry, but I just have to add: "It's pronounced BOUQUET!")

  • 26. Michelle Evans  |  December 11, 2010 at 3:53 am

    Ronnie, Thanks for your take on the questions. Always insightful. I want to comment on a couple of things you mentioned.

    You talk of having an abusive father, which your mother (rightly and very smartly) chose to leave. From the Nombies point of view they would latch on to something like that and say that this proves their point that anyone who is LGBT had to have been abused in some way as a child to "become" gay in the first place.

    They would miss the major points in that even if you grew up with a father who was abusive, how would that make you gay? You would think that according to their logic, if you had an abusive father that you would stand a better chance of being hetero because you wouldn't want another man–who might be like your father–around.

    Another example is the oft quoted "reason" for transgender people such as myself. The people like Ms. Morse say that for a male to "think" they are actually female, they must have had a very close relationship with their mother, and a distant one form their father. In other words the trans person wants to emulate the mother because that's supposedly where the child got all their love.

    In my case, I never really liked my mother, and my dad and I were always very close. When my parents divorced, I went to live with my dad, not my mom. After coming out as trans to both of them, my mother still doesn't want to accept it, but my dad has always been fantastic. By Morse's reasoning, I should have been happy to be a man since I had a great male role model. It just doesn't work out that way. We are who we are, as we were wired from conception and birth.

    That's why things like reparative therapy cannot and does not work. But they would rather force their decisions on us, than to just let us be who we are, and live our lives in peace, and with the person we love, not who they say we should love.

  • 27. Cat  |  December 11, 2010 at 3:55 am

    My theory is that they are uncomfortable with themselves, and need others to be as much like them as possible. In their mind that affirms they are OK. Seeing people who are different challenges their self-imposed boundaries, which makes them insecure, scared, defensive, and sometimes mean.

    I've seen time and time again that people who are accepting of who I am are fairly grounded people, and people who are not rely on other people's assurance that they are OK.

  • 28. Michelle Evans  |  December 11, 2010 at 3:57 am

    Why is it saying that my reply to Ronnie must be moderated? IS there some sort of problem?

  • 29. Cat  |  December 11, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Good point. That reduces their argument to: "marriage has been limited to opposite sex for a long time, and we must keep it that way". Why, you ask? "Because we say so."

    How very compelling.

  • 30. Bob Miller  |  December 11, 2010 at 4:12 am

    What a dumb way to start a question"do you SERIOUSLY believe…" If ones beliefs were not serious, would the just be silly?
    all it does is imply that your belifs are not important and of little value.
    They really are kind of dumb questions.
    I'd buy a ticket, too!

  • 31. Kathleen  |  December 11, 2010 at 4:13 am

    Or, as Boies says, their argument is a bumper sticker: "Marriage is between a man and a woman" That's it. The reason it is… is because that's what it is. :/

  • 32. Kathleen  |  December 11, 2010 at 4:15 am

    No idea. ???

  • 33. Michelle Evans  |  December 11, 2010 at 4:18 am

    The note about being moderated finally went away. Took about 20 minutes to do so. Very weird.

  • 34. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 11, 2010 at 4:29 am

    And Michelle, I truly believe that your father had friends around who were also fabulous role models for you, because you are such a wonderful, loving young lady, who is not only educated, but intelligent as well. And yes, I have gone to your site, and you and Cherie are both lovely. Which brings me to a question–How is Cherie doing today? I hope she is not feeling as much pain as yesterday.

  • 35. AndrewPDX  |  December 11, 2010 at 4:46 am

    To answer the question "Do children have any rights … to care and relationship with particular adults, namely their parents?"

    ABSOLUTELY!! which is EXACTLY why marriage equality is important, so that the child of a same-sex couple can have that care and relationship with both parents.

    Rob, thanks for the laugh about architectural cardiologists … Great way to play on the phrase :)

    Liberty, Fraternity, Equality

  • 36. Linda  |  December 11, 2010 at 4:46 am

    I'm still baffled by their claims that the only reason people get married is to provide stable, biological two-parent environments for their potential offspring.

    Now, that may sound noble and all…that whole 'think of the children' tactic; but really? Really? Ask any of those brides-to-be who are out blissfully shopping for their wedding dresses why they are marrying their chosen one, and tell me how many tell you, 'because my future children will need a stable, biological two-parent home.'

    Marriage is not about the children; marriage is about the adults! Any children who come along will only benefit from the commitment and bond their parents have made. But children do not validate a marriage, they are not a requirement of marriage, and the lack of children does not nullify a marriage.

  • 37. Michelle Evans  |  December 11, 2010 at 5:00 am

    Richard, Much appreciate your thoughts and well wishes for Cherie. Her foot is still very painful. We have a Christmas party in a couple of hours, so we'll see how she does then. Lots of pain killers and keeping it elevated as much as possible. I'll have to get an extra seat for her to put it up. :-)

    And thank you for your comments about me. I really wish I was "young" lady you mention. Guess that will always be a really major regret in my life, in that I was not able to transition until just a few years ago, so I missed so much as far as being able to enjoy being a young woman and all that entails. But, on the other hand, I wouldn't change one moment because of the fact that because of the path I followed, I ended up being with Cherie. I truly always thought I would be alone all my life, so finding her was the most beautiful and unexpected thing that could have ever happened!

  • 38. Paul in Minneapolis  |  December 11, 2010 at 5:17 am

    I have a somewhat different theory.

    My theory is that they have a need to feel in control — not only of themselves, but also of others and, indeed, the entire world.

    One of the ways they try to feel in control is to try to understand the world in very simplistic terms. "A place for everything and everything in its place." So they create little categories for everyone and place us all in one of them.

    When one of us doesn't fit into the little prejudicial box they've created for us, it makes them feel uncomfortable and out of control. Because they are incapable of shedding their rigid ideologies and prejudices (because doing so would be an admission that the world can neither be controlled nor neatly packaged and defined to fit their worldview), they cannot simply enjoy things as they are.

    For these people, enjoying the world as it is (instead of how they insist it is) would be an admission of failure and weakness. They believe they derive their inner strength from their rigidity, and are therefore loathe to surrender any of their perceived control to any logic or reason that rebuts their carefully constructed illusions of reality. In fact, they will go through any number of logical contortions to convince themselves that they are right.

    What they fail to realize, unfortunately for them, is that their rigidity is easily shattered, and that the higher they sit on it, the harder the fall. They sadly do not understand that strength does not come from control, but rather from acceptance.

  • 39. Ed Cortes  |  December 11, 2010 at 5:21 am

    Great obvservation, Linda!!

  • 40. bJason  |  December 11, 2010 at 5:54 am

    Interesting article.

    As much as I would love a SCOTUS ruling (and, first, one from the 9th Circuit) on the merits of THIS case, I can't see Federal (Article III) Standing for the Proponents – and IANAL. It seems to me that the Panel (9th) was searching for a way to grant standing when bringing up the whole "governor-veto" argument. To me, and I may be wrong, that is more a State issue with respect to the initiative process than a Federal Article III standing issue. I don't agree with Cooper that this is a groundbreaking case with respect to standing. The case law seems clear – proponents have no standing. Kathleen's commentary brings it even more into focus.

  • 41. Rhie  |  December 11, 2010 at 6:28 am


  • 42. Carpool Cookie  |  December 11, 2010 at 6:54 am

    "“Do you seriously believe it is a “myth” or mere “prejudice” that children need their mothers and fathers?”

    There was a really interesting opinion piece (I think it was in the Huffington Post…though for all I know for certain, it could have been here) that focused on living in the real, practical world.

    Even if it were "proven" somehow that children did "best" with their biological mother and a father (and that has NEVER been established, anyway…but just supose…), then how does one actually apply that to the millions of children that aren't in that situation?

    Obviously, our population is very varied, and not every family fits into a cookie cutter shape.

    What was brought up at trial was that if we are really invested in the well-being of a child's growth, and if it has been established that a family unit is strengthened by the social + emotional recognition of uniting the adult couple raising them (along with the financial benefits that come along with that formal recognition), the allowing a same sex couple that's raising a child to have civil marriage IS TO THE CHILD'S BENEFIT.

    Of course marriage equality is not all about children, but if someone insists on looking at it from that angle, they should concede that if marriage makes a stronger environment, then allow same sex couples raising or planning on having kids to marry, flourish, and move on.

  • 43. Carpool Cookie  |  December 11, 2010 at 6:59 am

    I imagine there are even straight couples out there who would confess, in the secret darkest of night, that having children even signaled the END of their marriage….

    (ducks from NOM's outrage)

  • 44. Chris B  |  December 11, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Linda: You are right, of course. Many people want to get married because they want children, but people fall in love with another person and I doubt many would cancel the marriage if they found out that their loved one was infertile.
    And of course, why would old people get married at all, since they can't have children–people don't marry just for love, right? And isn't marriage of old peoples just a state-sponsored friendship, as NOM would have us believe?

  • 45. Chris B  |  December 11, 2010 at 7:27 am

    My response would be:

    Most states allow gays to adopt children. That suggests that states views gays as being good parents. Whether or not gays can marry will not change the fact that gays can adopt. Therefore, questions of whether or not gays make good parents are not applicable to the discussion of gay marriage–since states have already decided that gays make good parents by allowing them to adopt.

    CA, specifically, allows legal domestic partnerships. This legal relationship is, on face value, equal to marriage, without the term "marriage". These legal relationships, including families with children, would not end if gay marriage were made illegal.

    Of course, NOM wants to distract everyone using the "what about the children" argument. And that seems to fool a lot of people, because they think that without marriage, gays wouldn't have kids, would suddenly give up on being gay , etc.

  • 46. Chris B  |  December 11, 2010 at 7:30 am

    I guess I would also ask: how would banning gay marriage keep gays from adopting and raising children?

  • 47. Sagesse  |  December 11, 2010 at 9:38 am

    3,000 Catholic Anti-Gay Marriage DVDs Returned to Archbishop

  • 48. Anonygrl  |  December 11, 2010 at 9:46 am

    And I wanted to say, "Jennifer, if that is the case, then you should be just fine with a really masculine woman too, if you think about it. Are you?"

  • 49. Tomato  |  December 11, 2010 at 10:04 am

    We've got a plastic one (our kid was quite upset at the idea that trees are killed for Solstice, so we went for fake) but we have the same pondering over how to re-arrange the house…

  • 50. Tomato  |  December 11, 2010 at 10:16 am

    Since so much of her personal world is taken up with obsession over same-sex relationships, I think she would be ecstatic with a masculine woman.

    She wants to be with a woman, that's why she can't stop thinking about it.

    (I am NOT volunteering! Besides, I'm a femme…)

    People who watch a lot of straight porn become numb to f/f relationships, as just about every hetero porn film has at least one scene of f/f.

    I think Jennifer Roback-Can't-Take-Husband's-Name-Whole-Heartedly-Morse has watched too much straight porn. Or maybe it's just that she wants an f/f relationship, so in her personality-disordered sociopathic world she doesn't see the distinction or the commonality.

  • 51. Tomato  |  December 11, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Oh, Hyacinth!

  • 52. Tomato  |  December 11, 2010 at 10:27 am

    Sagesse, you just made my day!

  • 53. new  |  December 11, 2010 at 10:32 am

    Mine too.

  • 54. JonT  |  December 11, 2010 at 11:13 am

  • 55. Sagesse  |  December 11, 2010 at 11:15 am

    Organized religion is the enemy, not individual people of faith. The Catholic Church hierarchy throws its considerable weight around, and legislators pay attention, because they allegedly represent 68 million American Catholics. In fact, many Catholics in the US do not personally agree with the Church's positions on homosexuality.

  • 56. Menergy  |  December 11, 2010 at 11:18 am

    An absolutely wonderfully written and rational letter from the Return the DVD group of Catholic couples and families!

    I doubt there's going to be any sense of remorse on the part of the Archbishop, but one can hope the Church's own savior's teachings could take hold and guide them to more kindly results n the future.

  • 57. peter  |  December 11, 2010 at 11:28 am

    It's a very sad time when we accept a behavior that's completely abnormal and we decide that from either ignorance, fear or pressure that it is normal. Our generation must know so much more than the whole world new for a lifetime before us. Your smooth talking lawyers and advocates know deep down as well as gays that they are messed up. What do you gays think about a father getting married to and having sex with his own daughter? Do you think we should accept that to or how about being able to have as many husbands or wives you want after all if you love them or why not just start having giant orgies in the street so all can see – yeah that would be great to. In your hearts you can't deny your wrong you just hope you can convince enough people to feel bad for you, so you don't feel soooo bad. Someday you will all be accountable for your actions and inactions. Gays think they can live in a land full of sunshine and lollipops but I'll tell you this world is not your Neverland. People can say all they want; They are born that way or they can't help it – the more cookies we keep feeding them (re:caving in to all their crying) the more tantrams they will just keep throwing until they get their own way. Imagine being born a male but changing your sex to a female, then imagine normal people saying there's nothing wrong with that! – wow that's something else.

    I hope America and the world wake up out of their trance and stop accepting this deviant behavior

  • 58. Menergy  |  December 11, 2010 at 11:36 am

    Getting my bowl of popcorn and a beverage and settling in for this one….!

  • 59. robtish  |  December 11, 2010 at 11:37 am

    I feel like the Scarecrow at the end of Wizard of Oz!

  • 60. Ronnie  |  December 11, 2010 at 11:45 am

    Nope…no "abnormal behavior" here…unless you count yourself…..Nope…..we are not the messed up ones…that would be you again…..Obviously a father marrying & having sex with his daughter is acceptable because that would be incest, although the creationists seem to be perfectly fine with incest…..& please get over yourself with the polygamy talking point brought to you by Homophobia for Dummies…..I don't deny that I am wrong because I am not wrong…that would be you again, peter…..Sure, there is a possibility that I would be held accountable for my actions but being is not one of them….too bad being a heartless, soulless homophobic Fascist is an action that is unacceptable by my higher power…so if i'm right…you, peter, are the one that will be held accountable for your repugnant actions….I like sunshine & lollipops & there is nothing wrong with that….but Neverland?….seriously?….Who are you?…Captain Hook?….tik-tok…tik-tok…hehehehehe….

    I was born Gay…get over it!!!!….I hope…nay I know….America and the world is waking up out of their trance and have beginning to stop accepting your "deviant" behavior, peter…time to pay the piper…..hahahahahahaha…FOOL!!!! …..<3….Ronnie

  • 61. Ronnie  |  December 11, 2010 at 11:46 am

    that was supposed to say…Sure, there is a possibility that I would be held accountable for my actions but being gay is not one of them……<3….Ronnie

  • 62. Ronnie  |  December 11, 2010 at 11:48 am

    uggg typos…..that was supposed to say….Obviously a father marrying & having sex with his daughter is unacceptable because that would be incest, although the creationists seem to be perfectly fine with incest…….we really do need an edit button….<3….Ronnie

  • 63. draNgNon  |  December 11, 2010 at 11:57 am

    wait wait wait, I'll take a stab at this. no I haven't read the comments thus far. reading this question puts me in autorant mode:

    What do you think is the essential public purpose of marriage? We think the essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.

    You say "public" and that can mean two things. Let's answer both.

    If by "public" you mean "civic", the essential civic purpose of marriage is to define the family unit for the purposes of asset ownership, especially wrt control, taxation, and transfer. That is why the concept of "community property" is so important. That is why couples who are not married go through massive legal hoops to define powers of attorney. That is why "domestic partnership" is really a crock of bullshit and will never be equivalent to marriage – a married couple has this ownership, control, taxation, and disposition of assets defined. A DP does not – the couple must live together, for example, cannot file state taxes as "married filing separate", and still has all kinds of federal taxes – including estate taxes – as if they are not married; the state assumes joint ownership of assets for a DP, which the federal government will then tax the enforced asset transfer as if they were gifts to each other; hospitals are not required to recognize the DP as granting medical power of attorney…

    If by "public" you mean "societal", it's acknowledging and affirming a commitment in public so that everyone knows and acknowledges in return that you are forming a family unit. Often this acknowledgement and affirmation is done in a religious context; that makes sense since religion is often what unites a community. This event includes and affects the children. This part is where the "two people who love each other" come in; where we have something that's "sanctified". This part really really shouldn't involve the government, which – in the US – is supposed to be separated from anything "sanctified."

    Civic marriage really is all about assets and taxes and health care. Thus the government has an interest in such things. I wish I wish I wish these two would stop getting conflated! …I was extremely disappointed that nobody challenged the notion that "DP = marriage except as a word" in the appellate hearing. Instead that was accepted and we talked about love and procreation.

    I don't think we should argue that civic marriage rights should be granted to LGBT people becuase homosexuals can't help their sexual orientation and therefore they should be able to be with whom they love becuase otherwise it's unfair. First of all, that basically concedes to the anti-equality people that they are *correct* and everyone who is bi can and should be with a member of the opposite sex, since bisexuals can help it and do have a choice. Second of all, Lawrence made it legal for everyone to be with who they love. Nothing is stopping that. The harms are all tangible; they are all about assets and legal recognition of the family unit. And TBH it's utterly ridiculous that we disallow consenting adults to agree to form a legally recognized family unit. It is in the state's interest to allow this to happen simply becuase it standardizes treatment of people who want to be in family units and their assets. As it is now, we have marriage, and then in addition, a massive amount of legal one-offs.

    …I grant that my rant above ignores the immigration effect, couples separated by immigration laws are harmed much more than wrt asset disposition and healthcare. but I'm ranting. ok I'm done now. well, not quite. I just sometimes get tired of the "it's all about love" and the "gay people can't help being gay" justification for marriage equality. what if they actually go with that argument? and we have two bisexual people of the same gender who want to get married? well, too bad for them, eh?

    omg I am so not done but I'll just leave off and post this now.

  • 64. peter  |  December 11, 2010 at 11:58 am

    Folks there you have, listen to how meeeean ronnie is. This is exctly what I said about throwing tamtrums…I can hear your voice now ronnie, just like a little kid whose parents won't buy him something he whoo. You don't think it's abnormal..take a look at the animal world and that should give you some indication as to what's normal or not. Did your doctor say you were born gay or is that self-diagnosed hmmm. If we're gonna self-diagnose I say your behavior stems from how you were brought up, maybe your father wasn't around or you were molested or something like that, it's not your fault but you have the "choice" to not be gay. A black person can't choose to be white…they are born that way…not you! Who's the FOOL?

  • 65. Ronnie  |  December 11, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    hahahahahahahha…."meeeeeeeeen"…says the homophobic troglodyte….pft…as if…..Nope…no tantrums…just a response to your Fascist diatribe…..It is not abnormal…get over it!!!…I have no choice to not be gay because that is how nature made me….Gay…Born Gay…Gay Gay Gay….I am a Homosexual….Homo say what?….Homo say nature made me this way….again…get over it….

    "Who’s the FOOL?"….that would still be you, FOOL!!!!…hahahaha…. ; ) ….Ronnie

  • 66. peter  |  December 11, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    Hi Ronnie…..I'm going to get you a pacifier to calm you down some…hold on I'll be right back!

  • 67. Ronnie  |  December 11, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    Hi peter….I'm going to get you a pickled pepper to calm you down….hold on I'll be right back!…. ROTFLMGAO…..<3…Ronnie

  • 68. Kathlene  |  December 11, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    That's because lesbians don't exist, silly.

  • 69. Kathlene  |  December 11, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    Go hump a bible or something. Why are "straight" people so obsessed with gay sex? Look at your life, look at your choices.

  • 70. Kathlene  |  December 11, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    "Take a look at the animal world and that should give you some indication as to what’s normal or not"

    Why don't you take your own goddamn advice? Google is your friend.
    <a href="; rel="nofollow">Biological exuberance: animal homosexuality and natural diversity
    <a href="; rel="nofollow">Evolution's rainbow: diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and people

  • 71. Kathlene  |  December 11, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    If this were Facebook I'd like this comment.

  • 72. Rhie  |  December 11, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    *singing* "There's a hole in the bucket…"

  • 73. peter  |  December 11, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    Oh Kathleen! just another crying liberal…who said anything about a bible…not me. This is just purely a logical thing, plain and simple! Oh yeah I forgot liberals don't believe in logic…just emotions…feeling. Go hump your girlfriends leg

  • 74. Ronnie  |  December 11, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    LOL….NOT!!!!….muade!!!!!….. XP …..Ronnie

  • 75. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 11, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    “If you believe the law should be that “love makes a family,” do you seriously propose to make “love” a legally defined term?”

    Yes, and we'll make sure you people can't have any, just like you're trying to keep the word "marriage" from us. Nyah.

  • 76. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 11, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    In California first cousins can get married, no other requirements need to be met. More proof of CA licentiousness to NOM's eyes, I'm sure.

    (common in many Latin cultures, FYI–CA was under Spanish control for a long time.)

  • 77. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 11, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    Ipse dixit!!!

  • 78. Rhie  |  December 11, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    25 states allow first cousins to marry. All states allow second cousins to marry. I wonder what NOM says about that.

  • 79. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 11, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    LOL, my hub is coincidentally making popcorn right now….good thing too, because I was going to have a TANTRAM.

  • 80. Michelle Evans  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    Cherie and I live in a small condo, so space for a tree has always been very limited. Many years ago she told me about something a relative of hers had once done, so I followed the idea, and we've used it ever since.

    I created a tree out of green felt, and mounted a series of lights along the back of the tree with cutouts so the bulbs pop through. This hangs on the wall in our living room, with the light string from the tree coming out the bottom and forming into a base, then outlines the wall and across the large glass patio door, and down the other side to plug in. On the way down to the plug, I have a series of shelves for models, which also include several plug-in ornaments. And beside that is my large telescope, which is wound with tinsel strands, where the Christmas presents reside beneath.

    At the end of the season, it all gets folded back up into a small box for storage in the closet until next year. No killing of trees, and no needles to vacuum up. :-)

  • 81. Jen  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    I actually left this comment on NOM's website but after I submitted it I realized it probably won't be posted since it was sent to a "moderator for approval". Yeah, we know what that means – sent for censorship. These were my answers:
    I'll answer your questions:

    1) Children need to be loved and taken care of, preferably by the same consistent caregiver throughout their childhood. Do you think that children that are raised by a single parent or by their grandparents or other relatives or guardians have a bad up-bringing or are somehow damaged by their up-bringing?

    2) Nothing is ever "beyond dispute", as any scientist knows. However, it is very likely that more than just same-sex couples will benefit from marriage equality – it will send a message of love, equality, and acceptance to the world which will benefit all walks of society and help lgbt youth realize they are worthy of the same options in life and love as everyone else. Hopefully this message would result in decreased bullying of lgbt youth and decreased number of suicides of lgbt youth.

    3)First, not all gays are males. You've missed out on half of us. Second, gender is not a qualification for whether or not you can be a good parent. How well you love and care for your child is.

    4) Are you suggesting that marriage is not about love? Do you really mean to go back to the original definition of marriage which was a legal contract where a man BOUGHT a woman from her family like a piece of property? IF so, you could define it that way and call it "Traditional Marriage".

    5) Yes, of course. But I think you probably have a very narrow definition of "parents". Refer to answer #1.

    6) Since when was that the "essential purpose" of marriage? Originally it was a business deal as described above (#4). And before that children were only attached to their mothers because you could only know for sure who their mother was. So you've made up that "essential purpose" for your own purposes.

    7) Nope, marriage equality is not about reducing marriage to "nothing but a government registry of friendships." On the contrary, the way Prop 8 has reduced it to just "a man and a woman" could easily pertain to friendships. In fact, many straight marriages become that, or even of enemies! Marriage equality is about granting the same recognition and dignity of a loving life-long commitment between two consenting adults (who may be of the same gender) that straight people have. Denying that is pure discrimination. This is not about religious marriages – religions have always had the right to marry or not whoever they want. This is about civil marriage – the same type of marriage to which divorced people have the right.

  • 82. grod  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    It takes a community to raise a child.

    Hi, Jennifer, each of your question shows a reasonably placed concern for the well being of children. And possibly show a lesser concern for adults. I think you might be putting the cart before the horse. The well-being of families, including kids, if present, is actually contingent upon the achievement of well-being of the couple, which itself is contingent on the resilient well-being of the adult individuals involved. So, in an economy that’s going south, helping people meet basic needs for employment and health care is the difference that makes a difference…
    In North American societies, we hold these things to be self evident: all men (and women) are created equal, endowed with unalienable rights. The Supremes on 14 occasions have said that marriage is an aspect of the unalienable individual rights to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. These rights then are the necessary ingredients to the achievement of well-being of individuals, couples and their children.
    Indeed, your might discover the answer to your six questions in the answer to my 'one' question: Do you believe that all are born equal [before and under the law], and are endowed with unalienable rights? If yes, then you, I and others can find solutions to all manor of day-to-day questions in living as communities. Not as advocacies but patient individuals with shared values of respect, tolerance, and openness to accepting/celebrating differences.
    Jennifer, five year ago thirty-three million in Canada one day awoke to SSM law. We easily moved on. If it were so alien, so harmful to kids, wouldn’t you think that it would be evident by now? Something? If it were so alien, so harmful, Jennifer wouldn't you think that it would be evident in Massachusetts by now, six years later?

  • 83. Jen  |  December 11, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    What I'm finding to be very revealing about NOM's questions is the part about "gays insist[ing] on having a male sex partner" – homophobes think of homosexuality solely in terms of the activity of sex. They don't understand that sex is only PART of it! That's also revealing – cause when someone actually knows a gay person or couple in their life, they tend to be less judgmental of them – and this ignorance on the part of NOM suggests that at least Jennifer (who posted these questions and unfortunately shares my name!) doesn't know anyone who is out about being LGBT.
    That's too bad. Gay people ROCK! OUT AND PROUD gay people rock just that much more, too!
    I know it's hard to be out sometimes (I basically have no choice as a very masculine woman) – but being OUT and PROUD is what's changing people's views – especially if you get to know someone naturally and maybe even subtly change their perspective on the issues – just cause they know you.
    Anyway, I just want Jennifer to know that I do not "insist on having a male sex partner" – I "insist" having a FEMALE LOVER!

  • 84. Joe  |  December 11, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    That's a brilliant way to put it. I notice a lot of argument about people believe a) being gay is a sin and b) God wouldn't make people that way and therefore c) being gay must be a choice. Of course that doesn't explain d) why would anyone choose to be gay? They have neat little categories about life and therefore these things must neatly fall into place. (The answer is that most people just ignore what doesn't fit neatly.)

    People don't like having to beliefs challenged. And indeed, the contortions to convince themselves that they are right are mind-numbing. I'm reminded of the models of the solar system when it was assumed that the sun revolved around the Earth. They had to come up with incredibly complex models to try and understand why planets tended to "wobble" around. It wasn't until the sun was put at the center that everything put into place, and the model suddenly became very neat and easy. But that took centuries to get over the fact that the Earth might just not be at the center of the universe. Mind you, it never says in the bible that it is, it was just always assumed to be.

  • 85. BK  |  December 11, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    Let's try to get it aired on C-SPAN. A major news network would be even better. 😉

  • 86. Chris B  |  December 11, 2010 at 5:22 pm


    A father marrying and having sex with his daughter is not normal at all. It has never been accepted in any culture. Please give historical examples where father/daughter or mother/son relationships have been normalized to support your theory.

    And although a brother and sister marrying has been practiced on occasion in some cultures a long time ago it was rare and mainly done to protect the royal line. Very few people are actually attracted to their siblings in a romantic way. People seem to have an innate desire to expand and diversify their genetic material. The problem with incestuous relationships is that the children may have genetic problems.

    Homosexuality, on the other hand, has been recognized and accepted on and off in many cultures for centuries. And, as Kathlene pointed out, it also occurs in nature. Please don't confuse rare with abnormal. Estimates say that 3% of the population is gay. Only 2% of the population has red hair. Would you also describe redheads as "abnormal" since they only comprise a small portion of the population? In the US, eating horse meat could be considered "abnormal" and disgusting. But it is eaten in several European countries today.

    Polygamy has been practiced for many centuries and is even practiced today in some Muslim countries. Islam teaches that polygamy is OK (up to 4 wives) and even some of the Christian Bible's greatest heroes (Moses, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc.) had multiple wives. Although polygamy isn't mentioned explicitly in the The New Testament of the Bible, 1 Timothy 3:2 says that "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife…" indicating that there were men with multiple wives, but only men with one wife were eligible to become bishop. Polygamy was practiced in the US by early Mormons (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc.) and is practiced today by several fundamentalist Mormon groups and by others in the US–although only one of their wives is recognized by US law.

    Could you please explain why you are opposed to polygamy?

  • 87. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 11, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    I've been having some trouble posting too…hmmmm.

  • 88. BK  |  December 11, 2010 at 6:23 pm



    We're obviously back into the legal stage. It's a good thing most of our posters know the lingo.

  • 89. BK  |  December 11, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    I'm confused. Was that sarcasm? Or an allusion?

  • 90. MY LIFE » Blog Arch&hellip  |  December 11, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    […] (h/t Prop 8 Trial Tracker) […]

  • 91. Taelyn  |  December 11, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    Surely we can counter this without name calling. It's far too easy…

    Now, evidence was already given, above, about the variety of sexual orientation and gender expression as given in nature, so I won't go there. You mention that you seem to think that "gays" think they live in a land of sunshine and lollipops. Who are the ones casting dark clouds over the happiness of LGBTs? Most often, people like this "peter" guy that are trying to tell us, in his own writing, that there is something wrong with us.

    Further down, you write, and I quote, "Imagine being born a male but changing your sex to a female, then imagine normal people saying there’s nothing wrong with that! – wow that’s something else."

    I guess you have no idea what the "T" in LGBT n means, do you? Transgender? In fact, most "normal" people are beginning, slowly, to realize that there are people out there who are not the same gender that they were born as. Their brains are wired differently, which they express freely through their presentation of gender.

    Example: I'm a lesbian MtF: born with a male body, but a female in heart. This occurs in the natural world as well, and in the human world affects every 1 in 500 to some degree or another. My attractions are purely to females, which is why I am called a lesbian. Believe it or not, sexual orientation and gender identity dysphoria are two different phenomena. But, considering how flippantly Mr. Peter throws around his words, I expect that to be a difficult position to hear about.

    Have a wonderful day!

  • 92. elliom  |  December 11, 2010 at 8:50 pm

    Well, as we all know, piddly things like standing (or campaign finance law) don't apply to them. They're doin' GOD'S work.

  • 93. elliom  |  December 11, 2010 at 8:53 pm

    Those 3' fake trees you can get in hobby stores are great too. Don't take a lot of space, look nice, and the tiny little orniments are just so CUTE!

  • 94. elliom  |  December 11, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    Funny story I heard in history class in college.

    Apparently, when Queen Victoria (I think) was presented with an anti-homo law, she struck all references to lesbians because, according to the Queen, such an idea was preposterous, and such women didn't exist.

    So there ya go, it's been confirmed by a Queen. (There're so many bad jokes in that, I just have to let it go, but please…feel free :>)

  • 95. elliom  |  December 11, 2010 at 9:03 pm

    Oh, the memories. Thx Rhie!

    [youtube =]

  • 96. elliom  |  December 11, 2010 at 9:06 pm

    Coffee in 5 minutes, Elizabeth! Would you like a cup or a beaker?

  • 97. elliom  |  December 11, 2010 at 9:07 pm

    Reducio ad absurdum!

  • 98. elliom  |  December 11, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    This letter is AWESOME!

  • 99. Evelyn J. Brooks  |  December 11, 2010 at 11:31 pm

    But by becoming a woman you're compensating for the lack of positive female role models in your childhood. It's a lose-lose situation. Either way, if you grew up with a single parent household then you're going to be gay or transgender or a pedophile or whatever the hell XD

    That's what my mother thought when I came out as MTF. The rhetoric makes a confusing situation even more confusing then it otherwise would have been.

  • 100. Evelyn J. Brooks  |  December 11, 2010 at 11:33 pm

    If you grew up IN a single parent household. Where the hell that edit button?

  • 101. Samantha  |  December 12, 2010 at 12:31 am

    I read this site every day, but I don't comment often… more of a voyeuristic "they already said what I wanted to say" type… but I have to say this question and answer piece made me laugh out loud while drinking my coffee this morning… especially the response to the "why can't a gay man just be with a masculine woman" part… "ew"… too funny and nicely done!!

    BTW, I have 3 boys… my 3 boys have 2 mommies… and they are about as well adjusted and healthy as any boys around… one of them is a typical "guys' guy"… one is an intellectual and one is a sensitive artist type… they are who they are because of themselves and having been given a safe, loving environment to explore who they are… it has nothing to do with what gender their parents are. Some people grow up in a household with a mom, a grandma and an aunt… others with a mommy and a daddy who are abusive… it's about the love and consistency of parenting… nothing else.

    Nicely done! Thanks for the read… time to fill up my coffee cup again!

  • 102. Sheryl Carver  |  December 12, 2010 at 1:05 am

    Somewhere there is a bridge which is missing its troll.

  • 103. Josh  |  December 12, 2010 at 1:15 am

    Strawman arguments from NOM as far as the eye can see. Just another demonstration that they have no idea what they're talking about.

  • 104. Bob  |  December 12, 2010 at 1:41 am

    Samantha, I just sat down with my cup of coffee, and throroughly enjoyed your post, I'm glad you where moved to write, your message ends the argument, on a positive note…

    p.s. your three sons are very lucky fellows,

  • 105. Bob  |  December 12, 2010 at 1:48 am

    I do find it interesting that Maggie wants to take the case to the supremes,,,,,,,for the justice it deserves

    and we seem to be reneging on that route,,, during the first phas of prop8 trials everyone seemed gung ho to go all the way,,,,,after Dec6th people seem more satisified to stay at the 9th circuit, I;m happy with the win for California, if that's what happens, and it stay in California…….

    just wondering though, any comments…….

  • 106. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 12, 2010 at 5:19 am

    Such a shame, peter, that you have bought into the lies of those who have mistranslated, misquoted, misinterpreted and severely redacted HaShem's word over the centuries, and who are trying to convince you that love between two adults is wrong. And you may also want to ask those who focus only on the sexual portion of our lives exactly what is so wrong with their own sex life that all they can obsess about is the sex lives of people they either haven't met, or people they know and refuse to see as fellow human beings. In fact, why don't you ask yourself why you are such a sheep that you follow along with this without doing a thorough investigation of the facts available and the peer-reviewed research compiled over the years and decades of this century? What is it within yourself that makes you so miserable that you can only feel good about yourself when you are working with others to make any group feel bad about themselves? What is the root of your inferiority complex?

  • 107. 415kathleenk  |  December 12, 2010 at 5:56 am

    whew this is a lively comment thread. I read through the post and then all the comments. I have nothing to add. As usual p8tt marshals all succinct, well reasoned articulate responses to the 'questions'. But its all for naught really. I think "joe' has it right- he talks about beliefs- such as the one about the earth revolving around the sun- how it took 2 centuries to overcome that belief. Like climate change deniers, like flat earthers.. That is what we are dealling with. All this talk of children needing a man and a woman- mother/father- its a belief system. Not a statement of fact or supported by evidence. None of their 'arguments' hold up to scrutiny. Fortunately we have the legal system that only deals with facts. We will prevail ultimately. I have my credit card ready to buy those tickets…. LOL

  • 108. Regan DuCasse  |  December 12, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    Actually Cookie, a study was made of married couples who'd chosen not to have children, and compared them to people who were parents, as well as couples whose children were independent adults.

    Of all the groups compared, and there were thousands of couples in this research sample, those couples who'd NEVER had children were the happiest, had more disposable income and robust sex lives.
    These are couples who respect the role of parent, and know themselves and think of what children they might have had very seriously.
    The consider the impact of child raising not only on their lives, but the lives of their children and decided each was better off without the other.

    Considering how many children live in poverty, and are abandoned to single parents or foster care, it's obvious that having children, but wanting to be a parent are two different issues.

    NOM is not mentioning of course, just how many marriages are happy ones WITHOUT children, let alone valid in the law as productive to the welfare of society as a whole through higher taxation and work productivity.

    NOM indirectly insults non parents as if they're chopped liver and don't contribute to the welfare and upbringing of the next generation in other ways.

    Unless NOM and all these other family orgs can boast emptying all the orphanages, foster care and group homes and ensuring parents for each child alive, it's time they put up or shut up rather than show how down they are on gay couples, who ARE making an effort that less children are institutionalized.

  • 109. Menergy  |  December 13, 2010 at 12:16 am

    Brava, Regan!

    I know that my late wife and I (yes, I'm a bi guy, was married for 36 years and by mutual decision we did not have children because we didn't want any for these very reasons…personal, selfish or not, or realistic) perceived the risks and impacts on offspring and on us if we had pursued having children (even adopted). We enjoyed the very attributes you mention the study found, and freely and gladly paid our dues and did our professional services to society, but without children. We were "productive to the welfare of society as a whole through higher taxation and work productivity" and financial/professional support of all kinds to the arts, schools, and immigrants, not to mention my second career service in the US Air Force here and abroad. All that without children of our own. There were plenty of others who made up for our decision not to have children too! Good for them, good for us, I say.

    I would hope I could continue to do the same with a long-term spouse of the same gender if I should be fortunate enough to run into him (or he to me) — and the NOMs and AFAs and FRAs and all those who want to diminish all of us GLBT individuals and our civil rights get out of all our ways to fulfilling that love and complete relationship with one another.

    Let's make it happen!

  • 110. Jon  |  December 13, 2010 at 9:19 am

    It's mostly framing. Smash the frame and there's little left.

    A fine example is "mother" and "father" framed as biological. Smash it! You don't mean "egg donor". You mean the person who becomes a mother. Mom. Without the frame, the question about parents becomes, yes, a parenting question. Yes, children should have good parents. Yes.

    Don't accept the frame. Expose the frame. Point out what the frame includes, and even more important what it excludes.

  • 111. Marlene  |  December 13, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    Not only marriage, but *family* as well!

    Look at all of the American Taliban groups who use the word "family" as part of their name… they're under the delusion that they and ONLY they have the patent on the word, and the right to dictate what that word means!

  • 112. Marlene  |  December 13, 2010 at 9:27 pm

    I use that in the lectures I do regarding gender.

    We see that Western (ie "Christian") societies, love direct opposites (male/female, gay/straight, white/colored, Christian/non-Christian, ad nauseum).

    They had and still have problems when those categories get blurred. Anyone who blurs their happy little world threatens them, and thus must be destroyed, or forced back into their happy little delusional world.

    Eastern and Native American societies, on the other hand, never had those rigid categories, and thus embraced and revered those who cross the gender and sexual divide; that is, until those Western societies decided to invade, and import their evil and perverted ways on those inhabitants.

    It's heartening to see these Eastern societies begin to embrace their heritage again, throwing off the beliefs imposed on their ancestors by those who were delusional to believe that they had the right to do so.

  • 113. Marlene  |  December 13, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    Exactly! I wonder if NOM realizes that there are NO laws on any of the state books which requires married couples to reproduce?

  • 114. Marlene  |  December 13, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    Their website's great too! The Diocese spent one million dollars to distribute those perverted DVDs! How many hungry people could've been fed? How many homeless could've been given a roof over their head overnight? How many with a home but needing help with bills could've had some paid off?

    Once again, it's time for the Catholics of the world to take back their faith from the princes and king who sit in luxury, while their "subjects" wallow in misery!

  • 115. Marlene  |  December 13, 2010 at 9:46 pm

    Logic? Darling boy, you're as far away from making a logical argument as Pluto is from the sun!!

  • 116. Marlene  |  December 13, 2010 at 9:50 pm

    Peter, my poor, misguided, ignorant friend…

    I guess you haven't dony any research, because you would've seen that same-sex relationships have been with humanity for a very long time!

    For centuries upon centuries, societies living in Asia, Polynesia, Micronesia, and in many areas of what is now North and South America recognized and revered those who lived across the gender divide.

    Go back and educate yourself some more, because your ignorance is showing for all to see, dear boy.

  • 117. Chris B  |  December 13, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    Since we have reached the "reply depth limit", these are in response to many of the items here and below, including Joe and Marlene.

    Joe: one of the reasons they believed the sun rotated around the earth is by simple observation, it appears that way, and another the story of how God stopped the sun for Joshua in Joshua 10:13. (Even today we talk about the sun rising and setting, when in reality the sun is always in the same place.) In order for the Bible to be correct, they had to say the sun moved. They couldn't handle that the verse might be a poetic/literary way to say what made the most sense to the observers.

    Marlene: you are so right about the black/white, good/evil views, especially in the Christian church. There are so many actual things that would really blow their simple-world minds if they would just look. They say that God created man and woman, end of story. But then you look into the medial literature and see that there are many people born intersexed. That is a medical fact. So they really don't have answers or don't accept things that fit into their preconceived norms.

  • 118. sue  |  December 13, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    another commoent submitted that won't be published by nom

    why do you pretend that comments are an option? aren't people in the christian lifestyle supposed to tell the truth?

    I'm not going to waste my time answering the rhetorical questions, but i must say i'm concerned with your conflation of parental and romantic relationships. if you think of your children in the same way as your spouse i believe it is time for children's services to intervene.

  • 119. anonygrl  |  December 14, 2010 at 12:02 am


    Why do you feel the need to come in and attack us? You might take some time to read up around here and see what we are all about, then consider taking a CONVERSATIONAL tone where you explain what your thoughts are, rather than launch in with rude comments about something that it is clear you are undereducated about.

    Your facts are faulty, your logic is tenuous at best, and your attitude is unfortunate. When you start off with all that against you, you are unlikely to be listened to, and all you end up achieving is making yourself look rather foolish.

    Would you like to try again?

  • 120. myca  |  December 14, 2010 at 7:22 am

    "If gender is really irrelevant, why do self-described “gays” insist on having a male sex partner? Why isn’t a really masculine woman just as acceptable as a male sex partner?"

    Wow, this is just… Wow.

  • 121. Kathleen  |  December 14, 2010 at 7:44 am

    myca, that was my reaction, too. How does one even begin to untangle that mess?

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