Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

“That was a stupid lie, easy to expose, not worthy of you.”

NOM Exposed Right-wing

Cross-posted at Waking Up Now.

By Rob Tisinai

Maggie Gallagher is savvy.  She leads her followers away from the truth, but usually through distortion, misdirection, obscure language, misinterpretation, and sins of omission.  It’s rare to catch her in a simple, direct lie.  But she be must in a snit , because the Southern Poverty Law Center has added 13 anti-gay organizations to their list of hate groups, and accused 5 more (including Maggie’s National Organization for Marriage) of pushing demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities – though it stopped short of calling these 5 “hate groups.”

On Sunday, Maggie quoted a Washington Post column by Matthew Franck:

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a once-respected civil rights organization, publishes a “report” identifying a dozen or so “anti-gay hate groups,” some for no apparent reason other than their vocal opposition to same-sex marriage.

This.  Is.  A.  Lie.

Not one of these groups – not one – appeared on the hate-group list merely for opposing marriage equality.  The SPLC specifies why it added each one.  You’ll find more details at the end of this post, but in short, the organizations were guilty of offenses like:

  • Distorting scientific research to demonize gays, even over the original authors objections.
  • Calling for the criminalization of homosexuality
  • Advocating the death penalty for gays.
  • Accusing gay men of recruiting children and being more likely to molest them than straights.
  • Holding gays responsible for Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.

Maggie knows this.  She includes a link to the SPLC report containing this information! We have no room to give her — or Mr. Franck — the benefit of any conceivable doubt. They may not think these items justify the “hate group” designation, but they’re committing outright deceit in saying that opposing marriage equality was the only “apparent reason.”

Maggie spread this lie in a piece called, “Is the Hate Card the Recourse of Those Unwilling to Engage the Debate?”  I happen to agree that some activists play the hate card too readily, but Maggie needs to pick her battles.  Death penalties?  Pedophilia?  Nazi Germany?  There is hate here.  (She ought to fight those battles more honestly, too, but I doubt that’s a winning strategy for her cause).

The rest of the column is mired in contradiction. Click through for more of that in the extended entry.

What’s going on here? Clearly a determined effort is afoot, in cultural bastions controlled by the left, to anathematize traditional views of sexual morality, particularly opposition to same-sex marriage, as the expression of “hate” that cannot be tolerated in a decent civil society. The argument over same-sex marriage must be brought to an end, and the debate considered settled. Defenders of traditional marriage must be likened to racists, as purveyors of irrational fear and loathing. Opposition to same-sex marriage must be treated just like support for now long-gone anti-miscegenation laws.

This strategy is the counsel of desperation.

Oh, there’s desperation here, and a hope to silence debate.  But more on that in a moment.  It continues:

In 30 states, the people have protected traditional marriage by constitutional amendment: In no state where the question has been put directly to voters has same-sex marriage been adopted by democratic majorities. But the advocates of a revolution in the law of marriage see an opportunity in Perry v. Schwarzenegger , currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. In his district court ruling in the case in August, Judge Vaughn Walker held that California’s Proposition 8 enacted, “without reason, a private moral view” about the nature of marriage that cannot properly be embodied in public policy. Prop 8’s opponents are hoping for similar reasoning from the appeals court and, ultimately, from the Supreme Court.

Do you see the contradiction?  Maggie and Mr. Franck claim we want to shut down debate, but here’s the reality:

Our side is happy to appear in the courtroom, where each side is free to present its best experts and have those experts cross-examined, leading to thousands of pages of testimony and analysis, all of it available to the public.  Furthermore, we’d love to have these hearings televised, for maximum exposure.

NOM, on the other hand, opposes the courtroom approach.  They’d rather see popular referendums on civil rights, elections where arguments are made in 30-second fits of sloganeering, safe from cross-examination, free of any evidence requiring more than half a minute to convey.  And if hearings have to happen? NOM certainly doesn’t want them televised!

I don’t want to overpaint the moral picture.  Both sides, of course, are choosing strategies that offer the greatest chance of success.  But it’s laughable for her to accuse us of shutting down debate as we struggle to bring our cause to the highest court in the land.

Why the dishonesty?  Why the logical incoherence?  Maggie and Franck point to one possibility: desperation – but on their side, not ours.  They know they can’t win the court battles.  They know their electoral victories are getting smaller and smaller.  They know they’re losing this fight.  I guess the SPLC just pushed them over the edge.

Desperation does that to you – and by the way, if you don’t recognize the title of this post, you really need to rewatch “All About Eve.”

Finally, as promised, the 13 groups added to the hate list, and a sampling (just a sampling) of the reasons for each:

Abiding Truth Ministries

Its founder, Scott Lively, blames gays for the Holocaust and claims the Nazi SS recruited gays because of our “innate brutality.”

American Family Association

Bryan Fischer, the AFA’s director of analysis for government and policy, has written, “[h]omosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and 6 million dead Jews.”  Further, he wants to criminalize homosexuality.

Americans for Truth About Homosexuality

ATAH’s founder Peter LaBarbera has helped perpetuate the myth of gays running the German Nazi Party.  He’s called homosexuality a “lethal behavior addiction,” and has claimed “a disproportionate incidence of pedophilia” in the gay population.

American Vision

Leader Gary DeMar believes in the death penalty for practicing gays.

Chalcedon Foundation

The organization wants the US to adopt Old Testament law, including the execution of gays.

Dove World Outreach Center

The group’s pastor, Terry Jones, campaigned against a gay candidate by posting signs that read, “No Homo Mayor.”  The group has endorsed Westboro Baptist Church’s condemnation of homosexuality (“God Hates Fags”), though not all of their methods.

Faithful Word Baptist Church

Its founder, Steven Anderson, has called for the execution of gays.

Family Research Council

The organization’s leadership accuse gays of being more likely than straights to molest kids, calling us a “danger to children.”  Its senior research fellow Peter Sprigg opposed immigration equality for gay couples, saying he’d rather export gays from the country than import them. He apologized for the remark, but later called for the criminalization of homosexuality.

Family Research Institute

More crap about gays and pedophilia, this time from founder Paul Cameron, who believes gays should undergo “public shaming,” and when it comes to Uganda’s Kill-the-Gays bill, he says, “Whatever they decide, I’m OK with.”  He’s also been kicked out a long list of professional psychology association after researchers complained he’s misused their data to lie about gays.

Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment

The group has said “legalizing homosexual deviations” will create a “confused and sick society.”  It also asserts “[P]enalizing people for engaging in homosexual behavior is clearly not discrimination, just like penalizing people for exhibitionism or incest is not discrimination.”

Illinois Family Institute

The SPLC added this group to their hate list for their promotion of Paul Cameron’s discredited lies about gay men.

Mass Resistance

The group’s head, Brian Camenker, has claimed that gays want to legalize bestiality and push perversion on kids, and that no gays died in the Holocaust.  The group has also perpetuated the image of gays as child predators.

Traditional Values Coalition

Yet more accusations that gays molest children.  Also that we recruit them because, you know, we can’t reproduce.

I’d love to see Maggie defend the claim that some of these groups were added “for no apparent reason other than their vocal opposition to same-sex marriage.”  But that won’t happen – because NOM, you remember, is no big fan of cross-examination.


  • 1. Ann S.  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:33 am

    It was definitely a stupid lie. I'm less certain about the "not worthy of you" part.

    Thanks for another detailed and informative post, Rob.

  • 2. Kathleen  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:34 am

  • 3. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:36 am

    tx Rob for keeping track of these various "HATE" groups! subs.

  • 4. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Maggie absolutely has NO room to accuse anyone else of not being willing to engage the debate, when she herself refuses to actively listen to anyone who disagrees with her, instead rolling her eyes, using grimaces, and even taking her shoes off and placing her feet up on the table or railing in a federal courtroom. Maggie's latest article is a perfect example of someone who lives in a glass house trying to throw stones.

  • 5. robtish  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:46 am

    I've looked for a youtube clip of the scene from which I drew the post's title but haven't been able to find it. The "not worthy of you" portion may not mean quite what you think. :)

  • 6. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:49 am

    I am noticing is a pattern. NOM doesn't makes any statements on their own – they wait for some other group to make a the first statement or issue then watch the internet chatter and align themselves with the most discussed. It's like they are afraid of having or saying an original thought/idea for fear of what their base thinks…so they wait to see the reaction from other groups and then takes the road most traveled.

    I may be wrong, but it's what I have been noticing.

  • 7. JonT  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:53 am

  • 8. Ann S.  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Ah, the tlot plickens.

  • 9. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:56 am

    I don't even think NOM knows what they think.

  • 10. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:00 am

    All the anti-gay and hate group names seem so innocent!

  • 11. Rhie  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:01 am


  • 12. Ann S.  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:10 am

    Yes, and often confusingly similar to legit groups. I recently came across something else similar — the ACLJ. Does that look a tiny bit similar to "ACLU"? They brag about being called “a powerful counterweight” to the ACLU.

    Coincidence? I think not.

  • 13. Rich  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Listen carefully; we have found the achilles heel of NOM. Their website will post no comments if they even closely speak to gay family units, happy gay people and, here's the killer; if a gay friendly post declares that Nom's fundamentalist religious beliefs have no impact and mean nothing to loving, committed gay couples. In short, posts by those of us friendly to gay marriage, should bombard the site with totally upbeat, first person accounts of the joys and benefits that exist in gay existence and relationships, married or not. In fact, any mention of the thousands of gay couples who are married in this country is never allowed in a post. Maggie Gallagher is her own worst hypocrite when, in her post on "Hate Speech" she calls for open debate on the topic but, just check out her site; you'll see not one post that paints a positive picture of gay families with or without children. But trust me; they've been posted.

  • 14. 415kathleenk  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:27 am

    well the statement about SPLC list is just plain dumb
    What is so insidious about NOM and others- however is this specious claim about letting LGBT folks marry is somehow depriving them of their "religious freedom". I find that more disturbing- easily refuted but still disturbing.

  • 15. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:27 am


    DADT repeal forces heterosexuals to strip naked for gays

    At a time when the economy is in total meltdown mode, when Phoenix police officers and Arizona border patrol agents are being slaughtered by a drug war Obama refuses to fight, Congress focuses on gays in the military while it has no ability to help us win the wars we are waging or turn the economy around.

    Isn’t the whole point of being gay that you are attracted to same sex individuals?

    With the repeal of DADT (Don’t ask don’t tell) in the military, individuals who are gay will no longer have to hide that fact. In other words, the whole world will know that they are gay.

    What a neat advantage gays will have when sharing close quarters with straight people. They get to go into locker rooms and ogle the goods in their naked splendor. Can you imagine a lesbian master seargent who has been in the service for a few decades going to check out all the cute twenty something honeys in the locker room? How about if the same seargent wants a relationship with that cute honey? The honey goes to complain and is told that it is simply not politically correct to complain about the gay lifestyle and to grin and bear it.


  • 16. Sagesse  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:28 am

    Watching to see how NOM will patch the cracks in its public face to avoid being designated a hate group this time next year.

  • 17. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:33 am

    The above article is so incredibly stupid. I can't even find a starting point against it. Gays are already serving and showering – nothing will change.

    The women at my health club all know I am gay and don't have issues in the showers…and they aren't even the 'disciplined' military personnel. Not that I am checking them out either!

    I think these folks that write this stuff should seek counseling – soon.

  • 18. Ed Cortes  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:36 am


  • 19. Ann S.  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:37 am

    They seem to mistake the repeal of DADT with the repeal of all of the rules and regulations against sexual harassment in the military.

    Oooh, the big, bad, scary, lesbian master sergeant.

    I guess they're not all that worried about all of the women in the military who've been raped, molested, or blackmailed or coerced into having sex. As long as it's by a man.

  • 20. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:43 am

    That must be it. I wonder if these folks who write these twists of reality sit in strip bars while thinking up this nonsense. I couldn't even guess what they will come up with next…showering with the military canine team?

  • 21. Kathleen  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:44 am

    That's just one of the weirdest f'in things I've read so far.

  • 22. Maggie4NoH8  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:48 am

    Yes Rich, opposing views on NOM blog have been posted, and censored!!!

    I think they have blocked my IP address in fact.

  • 23. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Needed some happy thoughts after the above article:

    Pineville veteran cried when Senate repealed 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'

    As Ray Fruge of Pineville watched C-SPAN coverage Saturday of the Senate repealing the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, he says he broke down in tears.

    “God, I never really thought I’d see that day,” Fruge, 69, said Monday. President Barack Obama is expected to sign the bill into law on Wednesday.

    Fruge volunteered for military service in 1959 and remembers one question on the enlistment application — whether he was a homosexual.

    “If you answered yes, you were not going to be accepted,” said Fruge, who ended up serving 15 years — nine in the Navy and six in the Navy reserves.

    In 1993, the policy was changed. The military continued its ban prohibiting gay men and lesbians from service, but under 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,' people weren’t required to reveal their sexual orientation, and, assuming homosexuality wasn’t disclosed, gay and lesbian soldiers could continue to serve.

    That policy still was discriminatory, Fruge said, and resulted in many good soldiers being removed from the military after their sexuality was discovered, at a great cost to the military, which lost valued troops, and to the careers of those disqualified.

    Full Story:

  • 24. GraciesDaddy  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:58 am

    It isn't fear… it is the incapacity of having an original thought.

  • 25. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:15 am


  • 26. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:16 am

    I know, Rich. I have been blocked from posting at that site. Was not even able to post the link to our wedding videos!

  • 27. Josh  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:18 am

    Please correct this, it doesn't make sense unless I'm not reading correctly.
    "Accusing gay men of recruiting children and being more likely to molest them than gays."

    Is that really what she said? It appears to say gay men are more likely to molest kids than gays. That makes no sense.

  • 28. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:18 am

    Where did they come up with that piece of total unmitigated hogwash!?!

  • 29. Kate  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:19 am

    Oooo … Count me in! Woof.

  • 30. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:19 am

    Gen. James Amos?

  • 31. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:20 am

    LOL Kate!

  • 32. robtish  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:22 am

    Nope, that's my typo. Should be “Accusing gay men of recruiting children and being more likely to molest them than straights." The entry is locked for editing so I can't change it, but I've let the admin know.

  • 33. Josh  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:23 am

    "traditional views of sexual morality"

    C'mon!! If that is your concern, attack all the people, mostly hetero, who have sex outside of marriage.

    They really are the "legal experts" of Jesus' day!!!

  • 34. Josh  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:26 am

    Oh good, hopefully they fix it. I didn't mean to be a picky wench :-s

  • 35. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:27 am

    I clicked on the link, read the entire article, and then reported this column for being nothing more than unmitigated hate speech. Anybody else care to do the same?

  • 36. Josh  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:29 am

    "In 30 states, the people have protected traditional marriage by constitutional amendment"

    They have done so in part by being duped by lies and in part by prejudice.

  • 37. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:30 am

    Tony Perkins of FRC? Porno Pete LaBarbera?

  • 38. James in Hollywood  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:31 am

    Cool use of the Addison DeWitt line for the header.

  • 39. Kathleen  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:32 am

    Those amendments did nothing to protect traditional marriage; they only denied certain people form being allowed to marry.

  • 40. Ann S.  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:34 am


  • 41. Josh  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:35 am

    "Our side is happy to appear in the courtroom, where each side is free to present its best experts and have those experts cross-examined, leading to thousands of pages of testimony and analysis, all of it available to the public. Furthermore, we’d love to have these hearings televised, for maximum exposure."

    Yes, this!! We will debat them outside the court as well, but they will not answer the questions, they just avoid the questions to talk about what they want to, even though what they talk about are lies.

    I wish there was a debate in which there was strict control If the participants don't answer the questions directly, they would be cut off and they'd go on to the other person to speak.

  • 42. Maggie4NoH8  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:37 am

    ABSOLUTELY INSANE! Is that a real web site? Or some sort of gag?

  • 43. Leo  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:38 am

    <cite>Fruge volunteered for military service in 1959 and remembers one question on the enlistment application — whether he was a homosexual.</cite>

    Just curious — could one have answered "don't know" back then? What happened if you did?

  • 44. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:38 am

    Looks like we will be making calls to the democratic-led state senate in Iowa soon…I am sure NOM is starting to bend their hooks.

    Iowa GOP lawmakers vow to try to oust 4 justices

    Several Republican state lawmakers say they will try to impeach four Iowa Supreme Court justices who joined in a unanimous 2009 ruling that legalized gay marriage in the state.

    Voters in November removed three other justices from the seven–member court after a campaign that focused on the gay marriage ruling. Those justices were up for retention elections in which voters can oust judges near the end of their terms.

    Incoming House member Kim Pearson says the remaining justices should be impeached because she feels they overstepped their authority by overturning a state law that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.


  • 45. Josh  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:40 am

    "Why the dishonesty? Why the logical incoherence? Maggie and Franck point to one possibility: desperation – but on their side, not ours."

    Exactly, This ^^

    You can always tell which side is wrong based on the number of lies that are told to support their position. Does anyone who is right need to resort to lies to win? No, nom is wrong and grasping at straws, changing their priorities/arguments to what they think they can make the most convincing lies to gain support from uneducated people and MORE MONEY.

  • 46. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:45 am

    No. The only choices you had for answering that question were yes or no. That question was still there when I enlisted in 1981.

  • 47. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:45 am

    Just give me the numbers to call and I'm on it!

  • 48. John  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Yuck. The sexualized bathroom bull-$#@! arguments.

  • 49. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:53 am

    A little news from the Wall Street Journal

    Mice Are Created From Two Males

    Scientists have created mice that are the genetic product of two fathers, the latest in a series of unusual experiments in mammalian reproduction.

    Researchers at University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and elsewhere first engineered a female mouse whose eggs contained the DNA from a male. When the female was mated with another male, the offspring had genetic contributions entirely from two males. The study appears online in the peer-reviewed journal Biology of Reproduction.

    While the achievement is technically intriguing, its practical benefits are far from clear. Any move to try the same experiment in people is certain to be more complicated and controversial.

    The study describes the technique as "a new form of mammalian reproduction" that could potentially be used to improve livestock breeds or preserve endangered species. More provocatively, the authors argue that if certain technical hurdles can be overcome, "then some day two men could produce their own genetic sons and daughters." But those technical hurdles are extremely high.

    "It has been a weird project, but we wanted to see if it could be done" in mice, says Richard Behringer, lead author of the study and a developmental geneticist at M.D. Anderson in Houston.

    New techniques are allowing scientists to tweak the biology of reproduction in unusual ways. In April, scientists at U.K.'s Newcastle University created embryos with DNA taken from a man and two women. The research, published in the journal Nature, was undertaken to potentially help mothers avoid passing on rare genetic disorders to their children. The embryos weren't brought to term. In 2009, a cloning-related method was used to produce monkeys with genetic material from two mothers.

    So how is it possible to engineer mice whose genetic material is entirely from two males?


  • 50. Rich  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:54 am

    We all agree on so many points; let Maggie know how you feel but accent the positive. Be prepared: if you talk of love, family, commitment and you make it very clear that her (their) fundamentalist religious beliefs are of no concern to you, ( I have made it clear to them that there are many Christian/other faiths that would bless gays in a civil marriage contract) …you will not be posted…but THIS IS A GOOD THING because it confirms their unwillingness to listen to all sides. Let's keep in touch as we hammer our message on the NOM site. Let's reveal every time we are blocked so we can keep track of their bias and homophobia. And, I encourage everyone to take your positive message to the airwaves, local/national newsprint and other media sites. NOM is on the defensive right now (just read Maggie's blog about "hate speech); it's time to hold her feet to the fire. Just finished posting an upbeat description of my, my partner's (18 years) and our grown children's plans for a loving, peaceful holiday gathering. "Don" beat me out with accusations of gay communist affiliation. The 50's are alive and well.

  • 51. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:56 am

    News from the BBC

    Gay marriage rights battle takes to European courts

    A campaign group is launching a legal challenge in the European Court of Human Rights to extend the rights of gay couples to full marriage.

    Equal Love is also arguing that heterosexual couples should be entitled to form civil partnerships.

    More than 40,000 same sex couples have had their relationships recognised in law since when civil partnerships were introduced in 2005.

    The Equal Love campaign will see eight couples file a court case.

    The couples, four heterosexual and four same-sex, have all recently tried to marry or form a legally recognised civil partnership and been refused for various reasons.

    BBC correspondent Sophie Hutchinson said that civil partnerships are "marriage" in all but name, giving couples exactly the same rights as those who wed – but for some the name is all important.

    The four same-sex couples will file a case with the European Court of Human Rights as part of the Equal Love campaign, arguing that they are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

    At the same time the four heterosexual couples, who have attempted to form civil partnerships and been turned down, will do the same.

    Each group wants the rights afforded to the other and insists the government has an obligation to consistency.

    The case could take three years, but campaigners are hoping government policy may change before that.


  • 52. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Peter Sprigg looks like he got his makeup done by a Mortuary makeup artist…and what's with the wig?

  • 53. MJFargo  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:24 am

    It's just one of their tactics for instilling fear. Others are mentioned in Rob Tisinai's article.

  • 54. Peterplumber  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:30 am

    My partner of 6 years was forced to attend Dove World Outreach Center as a child. Fortunately, he has recovered from thier brainwashing and has joined the real world.
    PS, his family hasNOT disowned him & has taken me in as one of their own.

  • 55. Ray in MA  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:34 am

    This is Maggies M.O ("Method of Operation" …someitmes a military term)

    Instead of 'Hand" it's her "Tongue".

    It works wonders with those a slow mind… brings her hundreds of thousands of dollars annually… "nice work if you can get it"…

  • 56. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:34 am

    Whitehouse staff: It Gets Better

  • 57. Ray in MA  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:38 am

    I can't resist… Here's the Magget and Brian Brown:

    Brian has the same"M.O"…

  • 58. Peterplumber  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:40 am

    Hmmm, I sent that story to Adam weeks ago. He never acknowledged it.

  • 59. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:47 am

    If it were weeks ago, it might have been caught in the in all the battles here, the Perry case, the repeal of DADT, etc.

    I am planning on following those legal challenges in Europe.

  • 60. Peterplumber  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:50 am

    I know! It's been a busy few weeks!!

  • 61. Peterplumber  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:55 am

    As I remember, there were several questions. I believe one was something like, " did you ever dream a homosexual dream?" I had to lie on all counts.

  • 62. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    Seems that after DADT was repealed on Saturday – service members reiterate the sentiments of the Pentagon Study – so much for all that rhetoric uneasy-speak from the bigots…

    Reactions to DADT repeal mixed among servicemembers

    Servicemembers around the globe reacted to the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” – some with apprehensions, but most indifferent or supportive of repeal. [emphasis by LLB]

    Many soldiers at Combat Outpost Terra Nova near Kandahar, Afghanistan, where they’ve spent months in intense combat, were indifferent about the repeal, caring more about the skill of the man next to him than his sexual orientation.

    Staff Sgt. Cleveland Carr, an infantry soldier with 1st Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team,101st Airborne Division, said that all he cared about was whether the person next to him “knows how to shoot and shoot well. I’m just worried about skill set. I don’t care; come on in. That’s one more person putting rounds downrange.”

    Carr said he thought the concerns about showers and sleeping arrangements were silly and that it was a waste of time for the military to be concerned about the sexual orientation of its servicemembers when there’s a war to fight.

    “The last thing we should be spending our time on is if this man likes men,” he said. “It’s so crazy because gay men and women are in the Army now and getting the job done. So, what changes if we know they’re gay? For me, it would be like, ‘You’re gay? OK. Get back to work.’” 

    For Spc. Craig Miller, if someone wants to serve their country, “then by all means,” he said. “It doesn’t matter to me what someone’s sexuality is. I look at everyone in the Army as just soldiers,” adding that he won’t put up with backlash.

    “I’ll go up against anyone who has a problem with it,” he said.

    Chief Warrant Officer 2 Ahmad Staley said he didn’t care if gay soldiers served with him, but he did think there would be hurdles to overcome.

    Read More:

  • 63. Ray in MA  |  December 20, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    We need to hear more of these nice stories… your situation givse hope to many more than you realize.

  • 64. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    And if I still have the link on my clipboard, here is the video I just sent in to It Gets Better:

  • 65. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    And more soldiers that don't fear the repeal of DADT

    Fort Campbell Soldiers Respond to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Repeal

    Repeal of the military’s 17-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy concerning gay service members could mean big changes at Fort Campbell over the next few months.

    One officer said this about the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”: “No one has any issues with it at all.” This former brigade commander did not, however, want to go on the record.

    A few enlisted members of the 101st Airborne didn’t mind sharing their thoughts.

    ARTIS: “I know numerous gay soldiers that I serve with, that are in my company, that I fight side-by-side with.”

    Pvt. Devere Artis will deploy to Afghanistan in March. At 22 years old, he’s already served two tours.

    Artis says he’s fine with lifting the ban on serving openly, but mostly so he’ll know for sure who is gay. He says he still doesn’t want homosexual behavior in his face.

    ARTIS: “You like flowers and daisies, like flowers and daisies, but don’t do it while we’re trying to stick together so we can come back alive.”

    One soldier told me she feared for the wellbeing of infantry members who come out.

    The Department of Defense survey regarding “don’t ask, don’t tell” indicates broad support or indifference toward repeal, about 70 percent of returned surveys, but frontline troops are more mixed. Nearly 50 percent of the Army’s combat elements said repeal would have a negative effect.

    Spc. Brad Baldwin leaves for Afghanistan next year and says he sides with those who don’t see any problems.

    BALDWIN: “Still going to go do my job, do my duty, and nothing’s going to change just because some policy changes and somebody’s living a different lifestyle than me.”

    The commander of the 101st Airborne has said his 17,000 troops in Afghanistan have bigger concerns. Maj. Gen. John Campbell told reporters this fall that for a soldier on the front lines, repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell is “probably the farthest thing from their mind.”


  • 66. Sagesse  |  December 20, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Wonderful message, Richard!

  • 67. Ben  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    « … [O]verstepped their authority by overturning a state law … »

    « … [O]verturning a state law … »

    Isn't that the point of the judiciary, to overturn laws which are unconstitutional, once they are challenged ? Or to halt the implementation of unconstitutional laws ? These people should re-read their founding documents, both Federal and State.

  • 68. Sarah  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    That was pretty cool. I like how it emphasizes the support throughout our White House, from where our country is governed. Feels empowering and hopeful!

  • 69. Sarah  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    Since DADT is till being mentioned on this thread, I have a question. Since this policy is being repealed, is the old one that said homosexuals could not serve in the military still on the books? I was under the impression that DADT was a provision to sort of mitigate issues with the older policy, but not sure if it was actually taken away. Thanks for your help, as always.

  • 70. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    Thanks, Sagesse. And if it prevents even one of our LGBT youth from acting on suicidal thoughts, it will be worth it.

  • 71. Carpool Cookie  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    That's my favorite scene : )

    "You're too short for that gesture."

  • 72. Carpool Cookie  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    The sad thing is, whenever I go there…there's hardly any postings at all. Maybe 5 or 6. I love seeing a Maggie article with "Comments: 0" after it.

    It's like a ghost town.

  • 73. elliom  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    As far as they're concerned, the only founding documents are found in Laviticus.

  • 74. Carpool Cookie  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    "With the repeal of DADT (Don’t ask don’t tell) in the military, individuals who are gay will no longer have to hide that fact. In other words, the whole world will know that they are gay."

    There's a missing link between those two sentences.

    I don't think every gay and lesbian is going to come pouring out of the closet after the repeal happens. Not EVERYONE talks about their sexual orientation at work. So just because it will not be a fireable offense to publicly identify as gay, that doesn't mean "the whole world will know that they are gay."

    I've always thought the repeal was mostly about not getting fired, and benefits for a spouse or partner. Are who your benefits go to public knowledge? Whoever licks the stamps might know, but otherwise…

  • 75. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    And when they go to Leviticus for their "founding documents" they conveniently ignore the fact that the book is called Leviticus because this was the law handed down to the Levitical priesthood. The priesthood was called the Levitical priesthood because they were all of the tribe of Levi, which was the tribe from which Moshe, Aaron, and MIriam came. They also very conveniently ignore the history and culture of the region, and therefore increase the amount of misinterpretation, misquoting, and redaction that they commit against the book they supposedly revere!

  • 76. elliom  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:51 pm


    Forward this to our sys admin to put on the site. Can you post this on our FB group, too?

  • 77. Carpool Cookie  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    That's why after a crime the police say to people, "Just tell us what happened."

    When someone's story stops adding up, they look closer for what really happened.

  • 78. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    I can post it to the FB page simply by pulling up the YouTube URL. I don't know if that will work with the Feed Equality site, but I will try. If nothing else, I will email the link to our sysadmin.

  • 79. elliom  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    But, but twisting the words, they make money, and we all know that, if God likes you, he'll make you rich. Since they're making money, God must approve.

  • 80. elliom  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:56 pm


    Thx! :>

  • 81. elliom  |  December 20, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    Heard this on the radio earlier today, and just thought it so apropos:

    [youtube =]

  • 82. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    elliom, let everybody at Feed Equality know to watch their FE inboxes. I could not figure out how or where to post it on the FE site, but it is on the FB page now. I just shot an email to everybody at FE except myself asking for help from anyone who can post it on the site.

  • 83. elliom  |  December 20, 2010 at 2:29 pm


    I'll have a look and see what I can do tmrw.

    Thx again!

  • 84. Dave  |  December 20, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    I am not one to advocate violence, but I can't help but think the world would be a much better place if certain biggots were taken out.

  • 85. Michelle Evans  |  December 20, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    "The priesthood was called the Levitical priesthood because they were all of the tribe of Levi"

    So does this also mean that they were all required to wear blue denim pants? (Sorry, couldn't resist) :-)

  • 86. Ronnie  |  December 20, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    Just got home …catching up & subscribing…haven't read through all the comments yet…for now I'll just go with…Maggie "Shoe Flinger" Gallagher …..lying is a sin….repent…REPENT!…(sighs)……<3….Ronnie

  • 87. BK  |  December 20, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    grumble grumble… heightist…

  • 88. JonT  |  December 20, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    Nice job Richard… Nice to 'see' you IRL :)

  • 89. BK  |  December 20, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    Wow… that sounds really interesting. I wonder how many same-sex couples would try that rather than adopting.

  • 90. BK  |  December 20, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    I had no idea there were that many LGBTs in the White House. I love the way they included multiple people in that video… it shows how times have changed.

  • 91. Kathlene  |  December 20, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    Kim Pearson sounds like an idiot.

  • 92. JonT  |  December 20, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    I don't think violence will be required, just time :)

  • 93. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    If only that were the case. There might have been fewer priests with their knickers all atwist if that had been the case. Although I know a rabbi who favors black denim and leather.

  • 94. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:04 pm

    McLame is liable to take himself out with a cranial explosion. I would have said a heart attack, but one must first have a heart before one can have a heart attack, and we all know McLame has no heart–only attitude problems.

  • 95. Ed Cortes  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:59 pm

    I answered it yes during the draft for the VietNam war. The local draft office was in Oakland, CA. It was an agonizing decision, for sure! They sent me to a military shrink who asked questions for a while, which I answered (without profanity). At the end of the interview, he told me that I was well-adjusted, and that they would take me. (So much for no gays being allowed to serve)! I guess I was so "well-adjusted", that he thought I was making it all up. The last stop was a review by the chief medical officer of the day. After looking over the paperwork, he asked me if I wanted to be drafted, and I replied "No.". He waived the intelligence test, told me to get down to the testing section immediately before they closed for the day, and I made it! I'm so glad I didn't have to live that lie!!

  • 96. John B.  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:05 pm

    After their recent commentary about Bishop Harry Jackson and same-sex marriage in DC I posted a very polite comment pointing out that NOM had had no success in unseating any of the DC councilmembers who had voted in favor of same-sex marriage despite their dire predictions of an uprising by DC voters–and that perhaps (as polls have shown) a majority of DC voters are in favor of same-sex after all. It was hung up in "moderation" for about 30 minutes and then disappeared, never to be seen again. They apparently don't want to hear it, but perhaps more importantly, don't want anybody else to hear it either.

  • 97. Ann S.  |  December 21, 2010 at 2:01 am

    Classic Catch-22! If you don't want to be drafted, you're sane and you have to go. If you want to be drafted, you're insane and you can't go.

  • 98. Steve  |  December 21, 2010 at 2:38 am

    Such a relationship would be illegal, just as it would be illegal if it were between a man and a woman. And there are ways to report and complain about it.

  • 99. fiona64  |  December 21, 2010 at 3:29 am

    I used to write a column for, and this article is a significant violation of their reporting standards (to say the least). It has been reported as such.

    My comment to that effect was moderated and deleted — but that doesn't change the fact that it was reported.


  • 100. anonygrl  |  December 21, 2010 at 3:59 am

    If you COULD have answered "I don't know" I am certain the government would have taken that as a "yes".

  • 101. anonygrl  |  December 21, 2010 at 4:08 am

    SOB!!!!! I can't SEE it!!! My home computer is dead, I can't afford a new one, and it is RESTRICTED AT WORK!!!! ARGH!!!!

    Well, over Chritstmas I will be at my brother's house, I will have to check it out there.

    Please remember, Feed Equality folk, if you need me please call! Elliom, let's touch base tomorrow evening anyway?

  • 102. JT1962  |  December 21, 2010 at 11:52 am

    Doesn't look like it will actually succeed because while it takes a simple majority in the Republican-led House, it needs a 2/3 majority in the Democrat-led Senate. Somehow, I don't believe it will get that 2/3 majority.

  • 103. Michael  |  December 21, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    Shrill anti-gay activist Gallagher is sweating. She can hear us right behind her…catching up. She doesn't willingly want to give up her seat at the money hate trough. She's tired and exhausted and she's starting to mess up. The good news is that God will allow her to hang herself with her own words and He will reveal her true self to the world at the time of His choosing. And she will have no one to blame but herself and her bad decision to choose money over God.

  • 104. car scratch repair&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 3:22 pm

    How to car repair…

    […]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[…]…

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