Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Liveblogging Day 2: Part V Afternoon Continues


By Rick Jacobs

Hang onto your hats. Anita Bryant is below and she’s not funny at all. Not at all.)

We’ve been hearing about hate crimes, including a vivid description of Mathew Shepherd’s murder and young Master King’s eighteen months ago.

“Two men are afraid to walk down the street holding hands now not because of fear of police, but of being attacked in society.”

We’re looking at hate crimes statistics and a document from the Safe Schools of California. (I had to leave the room, but there were statistics of hate crimes and reports of school bullying in the thousands).

“Save Our Children” in 1977 in Dade County Florida was the most famous response of local jurisdictions adding homosexuality to anti discrimination laws. This very name, “Save our Children,” returned to the theme from the ‘40’s and 50’s suggesting that children were threatened by gay people. This very successful campaign worked and then was replicated. There were 60 such campaigns through the 1990s and most were successful.

(There’s back and forth between the attorneys as to whether or not they can use a book he’s going to use. There are many documents that fall into this category or I’d not make this objection. Judge says it was not disclosed with witness’s deposition. Since defendant interveners have refused to testify about their messaging in Prop. 8. Because he was deposed about Save Our Children Campaign and he’s a historian. Sustained objection, but said you can find a way to refer through the fact that the book was part of the supporting documents for the depo. I may have the procedures wrong, but the intent here is clear: The Prop. 8 side does not want to allow any discussion at all for how they came up with their messaging.)

They made a variety of arguments in the various campaigns against gay people. The main one was that children would be threatened, that sexual identity was unstable, that children could be persuaded and then drew on the arguments that homosexuals are predators. They’d say, “we’re willing to tolerate homosexuals so long as they don’t flaunt their lifestyle, i.e., not be openly gay.”

So as the gay rights movement was gaining a bit of steam the reactionaries were pushing back as hard as possible, using the children as the weapon.

Reads quote from Anita Bryant: Some of the stories I could tell you about child abuse and recruitment by homosexuals would turn your stomach. This recruitment is absolutely necessary since homosexuals cannot reproduce themselves so they must recruit to swell their ranks. “ And kids are the logical base for recruitment.

(Okay, now my stomach hurts and I have those damned tears again. I feel that I was punched with that one. I want it to be funny, but it’s so not. Anita Bryant promulgated the myths that homosexuality is a choice and suggests that we are really vampires. )

[UPDATE] 3:44 The success of the Anita Bryant campaign in Florida spawned many other such campaigns in the late 70s and early 80s. Two were unsuccessful: Briggs in CA and one in Oregon. Over the next twenty years, there were dozens of such campaigns designed to restrict homosexuals and overturn anti-discrimination laws.

Now we get to Prop. 8.

Terri Stewart (lawyer for the plaintiffs): Are you familiar with Prop.8?

Dr. George Chauncey: Yes. He then defined it. (It hurts a bit more in this context, I have to say.) As a historian I have to say that the wave of campaigns we’ve seen in the last decade is an extension of the previous campaigns.

T: She has C read from the ballot guide for Prop. 8 to show that the same arguments are used in Prop. 8 as were used in all of those others.

C: Reads ballot guide language that focuses on children, on saying that gay marriage should not be forced on our children “against our will.” Prop. 8 does not take away any of those rights and does not take away any of the rights for gays to live the lifestyles they choose.

T: How does this extend from the previous testimony?

C: They say that a married heterosexual couple is superior to a gay married couple. Focuses on children, not calling them child molesters and so on, warning that gay marriage should not be taught against our wills, gay equality should be stopped. We should not have to force this on our kids. Have the rights to do what they want on their own, but don’t make us take note of them, so their rights are lesser than ours. This is all consistent with the previous decades of attacks.

C: Telling us to protect children against us as child molesters. Same messages.

TS: Do you believe Prop. 8 ads perpetuate the stereotypes of the history you describe?

C: I think they do, but they are more polite than the Anita Bryant ads. Society has changed such that what you can say in polite society is different, but most striking is the image of the little girl who comes in to tell her mom that she can marry a princess. There’s a strong echo of this idea that simple exposure to gay people will lead a generation of young people to become gay.

TS: (I adore her!!!!!! She wants to show some of the ads. I suspect the other side won’t like that.)

[UPDATE] 3:53 First ad is the Gavin ad “like it or not” and the attack on the judges that will lead to churches losing their tax exemption and gay marriage being taught in school.

Then the princess marrying a princess ad.

Then the ballot guide ad that shows that gay marriage has “everything” to do with schools. Same ad as they showed in Maine. “It’s already happening in Massachusetts.”

Opponents of Prop. 8 took kids to a lesbian wedding because it’s a teachable moment. Jack O’Connell’s website is called into play. And it ends with Gavin.

Then the African American minister and the Latino/Latinas who oppose SF judges imposing will on them. This is the one where a little girl says “on me?” when the question is asked about imposing gay marriage on teaching in school.

(Remarkably, the Prop. 8 folks agreed to admit their own ads!!)

C: Same messages. We have to protect our children from exposure to gay people, fight gay marriage which is the full recognition of our rights. Underlying message here is something about the undesirability of homosexuality; we don’t want our children to become this way.

TS: Now having him look at two print ads.

(Prop. 8 objects to having Chauncey testify to this document besides the ads were not available for discovery. This was in the first production of documents. Objection is that this was not disclosed before the deposition. TS says that the 9th Circuit said quite late, as late as January, that our witnesses could talk about messaging because defendants refused to produce anything about messaging.

Prop. 8 says I know about this document, we’re proud of it, but we did not have the chance to examine Dr. Chauncey in deposition.

Judge: Inasmuch as the defendant interveners produced the document and since TS’s point about the 9th Circuit is correct. Overruled; show it.

Prop. 8 For second document, it’s a photocopy so we have to authenticate it.

Judge: Admit the fist and second subject to verifiability.)

TS: Show photo of poster of two presumably married young male/female couple kissing their young child. You have the po0wer to protect your children?

C: Implies inferiority of gay couples, same issue.

Second one is a poster that says, “Restoring Marriage and Protecting California Children You can help. Visit our website, etc. with images of hetero couple holding up a banner with their children and then photos with heterosexual families (Judge asks how you know they are heterosexual? He’s tapping his fingers and he seems done.)

C: says they appear to be heterosexual or at least opposite sex. Same message: protect kids from gay people.

C: Talking about ideas of religious involvement in same-sex marriage. Compares to what Rev. Falwell said in 1958 speech that if there is black and white equality it could lead to interracial marriage. People hold their beliefs deeply and interpret scripture variously and it changes. Compares invocation of religion in maintaining segregation as against God’ s will just as is happening especially since Anita Bryant’s first campaign. Same thing happened in Prop. 8.

(He’s not saying that people who believe are bad. He’s saying that religion is used to motivate people and that those beliefs do change.)

TS is done. She’s done a great job!

Now, the judge is giving Prop. 8 a shot at Chauncey, at least for ten minutes.

[UPDATE] 4:15 Prop. 8: You gave to LAMBDA and another group that advocates for gay marriage. Profile about you says, “George Chauncey is an advocate.”

C: Likes line above that says that he’s “a historian’s historian,” but yes I do support the right of gay couples to marry but I distinguish that from my work as a historian, which is beyond reproach.

Prop. 8: He wants to define homosexuality. (This is just great. It really is. We have homosexuality on trial!!) Well, in that context I was using it objectively as substantively as people having relations with people of the same sex. As a noun it’s an identity of people whose primary attraction and erotic appeal is to someone of the same sex.

Most of the historians say that definition of homosexuality has changed.

Prop. 8 is trying to make the point of that C’s writing shows that the definition of modern homosexuality is only since 1930’s. Earlier culture allowed men to have sex with men without the need to identify as homosexual in the modern taxonomy. There were many men who had same sex relations who went on to marry women. Moving from a time when homosexuality was evil to face a powerful movement that changes that to neutral or even good.
(This part stops for the day.)

Boutrous asks about more secrecy questions. He says that there are several documents presented to the court under seal at the order of the Magistrate for production by the Prop. 8 side. Boutrous says, “Since Mr. Thompson has been such a stickler about document production, I want to be sure we can share with our witnesses.” Cooper says he has to look at the documents again tonight. Boutrous says they are not confidential, public documents, should not be in any way controversial for confidentiality.

Judge wants to see them. Both sides do not object to having Judge review.

Cooper says we have to review document by document and may have to remain under protective seal. (Wow again. Come on, guys. These are apparently public documents from Prop. 8 that Prop. 8 does not want to release to the public, or at least use in court. Hide. Hide. Hide.)

Cooper wants to place the objection that the future documents that are produced under the Magistrate’s order be under continual possible objection under First Amendment and grounds that they are irrelevant.

The judge agrees that Amicus Briefs may be filed only until seven days after the presentation of evidence.

(4:08PM Adjourned. Called for 0830AM tomorrow)

Tags: , , ,


  • 1. missdk  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:33 am

    🙁 *hug*

  • 2. gero  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Hang in there Rick, I am right there in that courtroom with you. You are doing such a great job. Reading some of these things makes me sick, but I am so grateful you are following this for us.

  • 3. jstueart  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:36 am

    We're all here with you, Rick. You're doing an awesome job.

  • 4. Urbain  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:37 am

    Pastor Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church said the exact same thing (i.e., can't reproduce so they recruit children). This was just a few months ago.

  • 5. Ed-M  |  January 12, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    I recently figured him out to be a self-loathing closet homosexual! (Or maybe not-so-closeted) I have his crazy, hysterical speech about the NYC Health Dept promoting gay sex, when they were really promoting condom use. It's at my YouTube channel, EdM021, in the favorites category.

  • 6. robert wright 1 of 1  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:39 am


  • 7. Matthew S.  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:40 am

    Simply nauseating. A number of fitting epithets come to mind to describe Ms. Bryant and all of her ilk, but I wouldn't want to sink to their level… at least not in writing.

  • 8. Steffi  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:40 am

    damn this "Boys Beware" vid is gross.
    I see how people would fear Homosexuals if they were taught only stuff like that about homosexuality! I mean when I watched the part where a boy got into a strangers car I imagined my nephew falling into the hands of a child molester. considering that they were told that gays were child molester their fear is understandable.
    it is so important that people are properly educated on what homosexuality means and that child molesting is not something that has to do with homosexuality! (though there are homosexual molesters but also heterosexual molester…)

  • 9. Morgan  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:42 am

    'Cause, you know, girls don't have to worry about what strange _men_ might do to them. No, wait…

  • 10. Steffi  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:49 am

    it really implicates that to protect your children from getting molested you need to protect them from gays… well if this came across a person who doesn't know anything about homosexuality it would certainly work (as it does also nowadays I guess)
    the movie managed to make me emphatize the feaf for this boy very vividly. Ok I am aware that molesting is the issue here and not homosexuality but if i didn't know…….

  • 11. Mary Lee  |  January 12, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    mostly hetro males with priests a close second and hetro females third.

  • 12. jayjaylanc  |  January 12, 2010 at 10:45 pm

    If that's the same video I ran across a couple of months ago, there was one small detail that disturbed me very much. Notice that the BOY who was (if you momentarily grant the plot of the short argumentatory truthfulness) victimized was ALSO prosecuted and put on probation for (I assume) violation of sodomy laws. Even the people that were considered the victims were considered guilty of deviant acts.

    It wouldn't take much more than one or two of these shown in my classroom when I was a child to make me absolutely certain that to be gay was the very worst thing in the world ever.

  • 13. Mito  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:41 am

    So let me get this straight…..

    The anti-8 people tried to use a certain document to describe where the pro-8 people got the ideas for their campaign? And then they were denied the ability to use it because it was not in the deposition?

  • 14. robert wright 1 of 1  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:53 am

    No, the Yes People are trying to keep the documentation and their strategy out of the case, they are trying to keep all messaging and strategy documents, emails, letters, etc out of the case, but they have provided them in deposition by the court.

    They have a plea in to the Supreme's to keep those documents out, so until that is settled they cannot use those documents. That book he wanted to use was in the books and messaging information of the Yes campaign and was used in depositions.

    Part of the case will involve how they stratagized their message, and weather their intent was to discriminate against gay people. Goes to the validity of the ballot initiative in the first place.

  • 15. jack  |  January 17, 2010 at 9:59 am

    They H8rs want to keep the documentation out because they have to show that their grounds for this case are not descrimination based…I'm about 100 percent positive those documents showing their ideology behind this all have discriminatory information on them.

  • 16. Brian  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:41 am

    I just wanted to convey how much I appreciate your blogging all of this. I know its taking a lot of work, and perhaps is distracting you a bit from the proceedings, but its valuable beyond words to those of us out here dying to know whats happening.

    Try not to take the case information personally at this point… this is the venue where we need to be heard, and these wrongdoings need to be brought to light.

  • 17. Adam Sanford  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Rick, you're doing a Great Work by covering this for us all. It's okay to have tears – this is disgusting stuff, like having to wade through a river of manure, and you're holding it together for all of us. You'll be okay.

  • 18. meg  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:42 am

    Hang in there. Maybe this will help a little:

  • 19. Marlene Bomer  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:11 am

    The only problem with acts like that is it amps up the bigot's self-importance, not to mention raises the delusion that each time it happens they become martyrs among the other bigots.

  • 20. Mito  |  January 12, 2010 at 3:46 pm

    I love you. Plainly said.

    I just watched a video of this. It made me happy. Very happy.

  • 21. Theresa  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:42 am

    if they are going to try to argue that we "recruit" people to "choose" to be gay, why didn't my mother and father – heterosexuals – recruit me to be straight?

    they are well aware of my sexuality.

    Strange how gay children can come from heterosexual parents.

  • 22. Morgan  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:44 am

    Shhh, you're not supposed to bring that up. 😉

  • 23. Steffi  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:52 am

    oh cool! I'm gonna make my son gay if I ever have one. 😀 to cercruit some more people for you guys 😉

    lol kidding.

  • 24. David John Lawrence  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:01 am

    It's because the gay "recruiting" mojo is infinitely stonger than everything your parents may have brought to the table.

  • 25. Lymis  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:30 am

    It's worse than that. "Recruiting" in this sense does not mean holding rallies and handing out pamphlets.

    They're talking about rape. That we abduct or seduce young children and rape them, which permanently damages their psyches and makes them gay.

    That's why healthy heterosexual parenting can't override it, because it is presumed that straight parents don't rape their kids.

  • 26. Steffi  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:37 am

    shit, never thought about it that way. it's gross that people would argument like that!

  • 27. fiona64  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:49 am

    Never mind, of course, that the vast majority of child molestors are straight men … and that most molestation is by a family member.

  • 28. Lulu18  |  January 12, 2010 at 10:33 am

    Yeah, sure, say that gay rape stuff to me. I was a female child molested by an adult male (straight) family member. Twice (different straight male uncles).

    And a religious right woman told me in a Prop 8 discussion that most women "turn lesbian" because they were molested/mistreated by men. So they turn to women for tenderness and comfort. And she knows this how???

    Can't prove any of that by me. I've been married for 38 years. But just coz I'm straight doesn't mean I can't recognize a civil rights issue when it's staring me in the face!!!

  • 29. Mary Lee  |  January 12, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    Rigt on lulu

  • 30. Rebecca  |  January 12, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    This person makes a good point about any so-called "link" between CSA and homosexuality- "Some people question whether it is the fact that they were abused by a man / woman that results in their being GLBT. Female children are statistically more likely to be abused by a male. Lesbian survivors may question whether the reason they are a lesbian is because they fear men as a result of their abuse. This could make sense until you consider the gay male argument related to this. Male children are also statistically more likely to be abused by a male. Some claim that a man may become gay because he has been abused by a man and therefore identifies sex with men. In effect, this proposes that a female becomes a lesbian as she is so scared of men because she relates all men to her male abuser. BUT a male actually becomes gay, and hence seeks relationships with men, because he had a male abuser??"

    Doesn't add up, does it?

  • 31. jack  |  January 17, 2010 at 10:08 am

    OMFG. I hadn't really considered that concept, but after reading your explanation I was instantly in tears. That is the most horrifying thing I have ever heard. Ever.

  • 32. Tom  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:43 am

    Rick – you are my new hero. Wish I was there with you but so appreciate all you are doing to get the word out. We all owe you a great deal – just let us know when you want to collect! You newest and biggest fan, Tom from Hollywood

  • 33. Mark  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:45 am

    Hang in there Rick! We love you! You are doing a fantasic job!!

  • 34. Joshua Scarpuzzi  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:46 am

    I currently live at home with my family…and the closest description of my mother is anita….i feel like im living in "prayers for bobby" everyday….it hurts to hear these things, these statements that live of of the fear and ignorance of religeous people all over our country…I am good with god, i made my peace years ago and i know where im going after this life…and being only 19 and out and in the spotlight of the gay community here in san diego is rough at times but it makes my stumach churn when i see the young gays who take their rights and freedoms for granted, who havnt been through the hate and shame and isolation many of the older, wiser gays have…and im not saying they should go through it…no one should, but i honestly feel that loosing prop 8, and now having this battle in the public eye and discussing all of the shit weve gone through will open the eyes of other kids, families, and the public to see the truth….we have a long way to go and i wish the best for everyone in that court room…thank you so much for blogging this to us on the outside it is truly a blessing…..much love and hugs 🙂 – Josh

  • 35. Mito  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:48 am

    Oh, Josh! I wish you were at this court case to tell your story!

    We have to keep believin'!

  • 36. Joshua Scarpuzzi  |  January 12, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    In october of 2007 i was transported against my will to a behavioral modification camp in western montana. My parents ahd me locked in this facility for exactly 365 days of which i spent doing labor, line drills, shock therepy, isolation therepy, among other things…i was starved at times, spit on, molested, called a faggot, and beat up by staff and other kids….these religeous hypocritical leaders, and i hate to compair the two(because i would never want to minamize what the jews went through), are the modern day nazi’s of america….they want to govern everyone with their narrowminded biggotry and we have to fight…we have to come out of the closet and say enough is enough!!!!! i survived 365 days of abuse and humiliation because i knew one day i could share my story with the world……ive still not told anyone on this big of a scale but i hope that one person may read this and that one person more will take a stand…… ive been out in the real world for a year and 3 months and i still day to day get the abuse from my family…..we have to keep fighting….for my friends who are still in these camps…fpr our own future…and for the future of our children….. 🙁

  • 37. Steffi  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:16 am

    thanks for sharing this story!! this is exactly why I as straight (and without gay family members to "defend") am so involved in this whole topic! My brother once asked me why I would do this. Gays would (as he sees it) be able to live a happy untroubled life and where protected by anti discrimination and could have civil union and whatever they want. so why not rather take this effort and dedicate it to something usefull and really relevant like sick children in Africa?…
    well lets say I got kinda mad at him especially for using all this biggot's arguments as he did…

  • 38. Joshua Scarpuzzi  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:23 am

    There are so many of these "camps", and so many these that goes on behind the closed doors of prop 8 supporters, churches, and religeous organizations that we never hear about…ive tried a few times to contact gay newspapers, news sattions, and magazines as well as police officials to try and bring light to these "camps" but no one has wanted to publish my story…people need to know abouit the cruelty and hypocracy that goes on behind the god following mask they wear!

  • 39. Kelly  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:51 am

    you are such an inspiration. Also being 19 and out, I can't imagine what you went through those 365 days. Fortunately, I also can't imagine having a family who is any less than accepting. Thank you for sharing your story, hopefully we have a bright future in store for us.

  • 40. Lulu18  |  January 12, 2010 at 10:41 am

    Oh Joshua,

    I'm in San Diego too and my heart just pours out to you! I am SO SORRY for your experiences and your ignorant family.

    No one who hasn't been there could ever feel the discrimination you've felt from the people who are supposed to care for you most in the world.

    I just hope that someday soon, G0d willng, you will find a special man to share your life and love with. And get a good education so you can climb out from under the oppression you live with every day. There's a big world outside your house, and not everyone in it is an intolerant bigot!

  • 41. Ed-M  |  January 12, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    Josh, your story about your yearlong sentence to "conversion therapy" is compelling! I'd like to post your story on my blog to let others know!

  • 42. Joshua Scarpuzzi  |  January 13, 2010 at 11:47 am

    yes ide be happy to write in more detail if you wish… we can talk more [email protected]

  • 43. jack  |  January 17, 2010 at 10:17 am


    Keep your head up. At 19, you're old enough to be free of your family as soon as it's financially feasible for you to get out of there. If I weren't bouncing around right now, I'd offer you a place to live, no questions asked. Everyone has the right to love who they choose, and words can't express how impressed I am by the fact that you (or anyone else in the same situation, I know there are others) not only survived the situations you have faced, but continue to be who you are instead of letting them force you back into a closet. Stand up and be proud of yourself, because I certainly am proud of you, and I don't even know you. It's a privilege to have heard your story, and I hope you keep trying to contact gay publications to spread the word regarding these camps you were subject to. Keep the faith.

  • 44. Beth  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:48 am

    Thank you for doing the live blogging. My girlfriend and I both appreciate this.

  • 45. Mark  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:48 am

    If I remember my history correct, Anita's husband, Bob Greene came out a flaming queen sometime in the early 80's.

  • 46. Lulu18  |  January 12, 2010 at 10:47 am

    Not according to Wikipedia. He's a big-time fundamentalist who still considers himself married to her even though she divorced him in 1979 and later remarried.

  • 47. L.A. Guy  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:48 am

    It's very helpful to have this blog reporting the trial. The issue of whether being gay or lesbian is a choice is not a good way to approach the question. If you survey gay men, some say it was always an obvious attraction tfor them, while others say it was a gradual discovery or was based on meeting a particular guy. Women are more likely to describe their sexual orientation as variable or as depending on the particular partner.

    The issue of whether there is a genetic base for sexual orientation is a misleading issue, I think. We can have genetic predispositions that we do not necessarily follow (that's what socialization and civilization are for). A preference (not genetically based) can be strongly impelled and yet not be a "choice" like deciding which movie to watch.

    Gay men and lesbians sometimes report phases of their lives when they identified as heterosexual, bisexual, or asexual. This variation by the same person argues against genetic or prenatal determination, or at least against strong determination.

    The civil rights issue should be separate from the sexual orientation explanation. Most of our freedoms are freedoms of choice, to make decisions that are voluntary, not innate or predetermined.

  • 48. Morgan  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Religion is unquestionably more of a choice than sexual orientation, but it's still legally protected. Hence, even if it is a "choice," that's no reason to not protect it. Next? 😉

  • 49. Mito  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:52 am


  • 50. L.A. Guy  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Yes, that was a point I was trying to make. The idea that sexual orientation is genetically or pre-natally determined is most helpful for fighting the "psychotherapy to convert gays" agenda. The only advantage of seeing sexual orientation as immutable and genetic is to draw a close comparison to race.

  • 51. Mito  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:52 am

    No one listen to this man. I insist on it.

  • 52. Ann  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:49 am

    Hang in there, Rick, we're all rooting for equality, and for YOU. Thank you so much for this service you are performing. I'm a straight ally, and hanging on every word you write here.

  • 53. Theresa  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:53 am

    i love seeing straight allies for our cause. with our straight allies, helps others know that we aren't on a "gay agenda", but rather just an "equal agenda".

    Thank you Ann.

    and RICK, we're all with you! hang in there buddy!

  • 54. Steffi  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:56 am

    same here

  • 55. Brad  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:28 am

    Thank you for reminding me that standing up for what is right has nothing to do with age.

    I know polls say that "older" people favor marriage discrimination and that "younger" people believe in equality.

    But you are a good reminder to me that many "older" people do believe in equality and justice for all.


  • 56. Brad  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:36 am

    (Apologies, Ann. I commented on the wrong post.)

  • 57. Ann  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Brad, it's OK. I'm in my 50s, and my 80-something parents are both strong allies as well.

  • 58. A  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:34 am

    Another straight ally here, surrounded by straight ally friends, reading every update from Rick.

  • 59. Beth  |  January 12, 2010 at 11:50 am

    Yet another straight ally. I love being married–and believe that two people in love should be able to experience that whether gay or straight.

  • 60. Jake  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Rick, you're the man. Thanks for keeping me updated.

  • 61. Randy  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Thank you from Sophia, NC! My eyes are full of tears with you!

  • 62. Paul Joseph  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Rick, you are doing a great job, thanks for your indispensable help while we hope, and wait to see this ourselves.

    One small item: If you could refain in making so many personalized comments while transcribing, it would be much better to read. ''Young master king" wtf? Putting your own thoughts in parenthetically is distracting at best. Your comments (5 million for training?) about DADT are your guess, and most if us know about Dan Choi already if you can read, and give a crap about Queer politics.

    Again thanks, and appreciate you being there till we can see this ourselves, you're it till then…

  • 63. Kevin  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:04 am

    I disagree. I think the purpose of live blogging should be to be a rich contextualized sense of the proceedings, not simply to function as a court reporter.

  • 64. Urbain  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:08 am

    I love Rick's comments. This is a blog, not a transcription service. He is giving us a wonderful gift.

  • 65. Brad  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:09 am

    Rick is giving us the first draft of history, and I appreciate any context he offers.

  • 66. jstueart  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:21 am

    I disagree with this comment. Rick, your insights are invaluable and keeps us understanding context and summarizing where we are in the trial. I love the observations. To me, they are the part we could never get with just a transcription! Thank you!!!

  • 67. TampaAgainstH8  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:58 am

    Thanks so much for your reporting on this, Rick. As a California resident currently away in Florida, it's comforting to have a link back home to know what's going on. I know there are going to be a lot of harsh things said throughout this process, but the Anita Bryant things are the last things to worry about. After all, she really sucked as a singer 🙂

  • 68. elfpix  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:59 am

    Thank you, thank you, thank you. You are doing such a terrific service to the human race and the American legal system. It shouldn't matter that I'm straight, and 67 years old, and grew up aware of the junk and hypocricy permeating our society and that I'm sending you every bit of encouragment and thanks I can imagine. But I want to make sure you understand that there are plenty of us middle-aged straights who are appalled and inordinately thankful for the work you're doing.

  • 69. Theresa  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:02 am

    THANK YOU! Straight ally!

  • 70. Morgan  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Add me to that list. I don't have a personal stake in this, in that no one I know whom I'm close enough to expect a wedding invitation is gay, but I'm still with you all on this. Blessings on all of you who are going through the fires, and hopes that soon the idea of forbidding gay marriage will be as outdated as forbidding inter-racial / inter-religious / inter-class marriage.

  • 71. Steffi  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:18 am

    as well as a lot of young straights 😉

  • 72. Brad  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Thank you for reminding me that standing up for what is right has nothing to do with age.

    I know polls say that “older” people favor marriage discrimination and that “younger” people believe in equality.

    But you are a good reminder to me that many “older” people do believe in equality and justice for all.


  • 73. Steven  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:00 am

    wow…the more I read Rick's transcript…the more I feel that this needed to have been broadcast on main stream media. This is BIG stuff…serious stuff.

    The homo-haters campaign stuff makes me sick. It should make every honest American human being sick.

    It's something that there are so many…that have to hate, so much.

  • 74. Mito  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:04 am

    Im pretty sure the court agreed to allow youtube video by wednesday, or past it!

  • 75. Hera  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:04 am

    Thank you so much for taking the time to tell the world what's being said inside the hallowed halls of justice. Everyone needs to know what's happening up there, and those of you who are being our eyes and ears are providing an invaluable service and resource for so many who can't be there in person.

    Only by working through the painful can we appreciate the joy on the other side.

  • 76. jstueart  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Wow, I find myself cheering and gasping along while I'm reading….

  • 77. Steffi  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:20 am

    so do I. and reading with an open mouth or laughing at some funny comments.
    btw. the comments here are equally valued!

  • 78. Brad  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Reading Rick's great work and everyone's comments, I feel a part of this community. With so much hate out there, it is so comforting to be among friends. We're in this together. We are making history. History is on our sides.

  • 79. RichM  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:07 am

    I wonder why Colorado's Amendment 2 and the subsequent striking down by SCOTUS is not being discussed.

  • 80. Theresa  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:26 am

    Can someone help explain that latter part of the Judge Walker's comment:

    <q cite>"The judge agrees that Amicus Briefs may be filed only until seven days after the presentation of evidence."</q>

    I want to make sure I am understanding, properly.

  • 81. JefferyK  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:38 am

    Actually, if someone could explain from "Boutrous asks about more secrecy questions . . ." onward, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

  • 82. DonG  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:52 am

    The plaintiffs requested certain documents from the defendant-intervenors. The defendant-intervenors objected. Judge Vaughn ordered them to supply the documents. They appealed. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said that they did not have to supply all the requested documents and that some of them would be supplied under seal for the judge to see before they are introduced at the trial.

  • 83. DonG  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:49 am

    Organizations like Lambda Legal, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, or The National Center for Lesbian Rights or the ACLU or interested parties can file briefs after the trial is over to explain, in legal terms and using legal case law, how the judge should decide the case based on the evidence presented at trial.

  • 84. Dr. Lao  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:27 am

    Thanks, Rick! Get a good night sleep. You'll need it.

  • 85. Drummer  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:28 am

    As I recall, Anita said something like, "Semen is concentrated blood so homosexuals are all vampires." I also seem to recall some reference she made (and not a nice one) to Jews in her proclamations about gay people and the blood-thing. I wish I could find THAT.

  • 86. Carla Grande  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Rick Thanks so much for bringing us this landmark case! we will support


  • 87. Steffi  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:32 am

    hey guys for those still on: you do notice that you can add a white knot for equality on your twitter profile?!
    I'll post it again tomorrow 🙂
    so good night to all of you! (It's 1:32 am over here 😉 )

  • 88. David (San Diego)  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:33 am

    You know those "WWJD" bracelets that many Christians wear? They stand for 'What would Jesus do?" The bracelets are intended to help themselves remember to do the loving thing and behave as they think Jesus would in the same situation. I wish they had a bracelet that said, "HWJSTM" to stand for 'How would Jesus spend the money?' Because I bet that it would be on something that actually helps people (like taking care of the homeless and hungry) instead of spending millions on discrimination.

  • 89. Steffi  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:43 am

    yeah and to be reminded of "what would jesus do" you would also have to be reminded of what jesus had said! and well in Matthew 19:11+12 he actually SAID that not all people are to apply to the rule (That a man should mary a woman and that one should not seperate what god united) that some are born eunuchs and that what he said about man marrying women is not for them (and most of us might know that up to the early 19th. centuary and especially in the times this passage was written eunuch was a common term also for gays… ESPECIALLY the term born eunuch!)

  • 90. Steffi  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:45 am

    so basically one of the most common cites of the bibal where it is said that a man should marry a woman is being relativized by Jesus HIMSELF just a few verses later!!!

  • 91. Robert a.  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:34 am

    Rick, you're doing a great job…I'm right there with you. I'm going to have to figure out how to buy you a beer from Colorado!

  • 92. fiona64  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:34 am

    First of all, thanks to Rick for all of his hard work.

    Second, I am astonished that the Prop 8 lawyers are arguing about when homosexuality was defined. The word itself wasn't even coined until the late 19th C., but homosexuality certainly existed long before that. Talk about playing semantics games. I guess they know that's all they've got …

  • 93. Mito  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:34 am

    Cowards don't want to show the stuff they made that would OBVIOUSLY show discrimination. These so-called "public" documents are not so public when their religious views are on the line!

  • 94. Warren S  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:40 am

    Just a quick note to everyone who is enjoying this blog. It isn't free! Remember to donate anything you can spare above. Rick and his team are doing such a great service to all of us and they need support!
    (Full disclosure: I am in no way connected to CC other than as a reader of this blog and attendant at meet in the middle in Fresno last May.)

  • 95. Steffi  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:47 am

    still waiting for an easy way of donating from Germany… (though as a student from a low social class family I have not much but I agree! I am willing to give as much as I can afford for this great work!)

  • 96. michael  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:41 am

    If anyone is interested in James Dobson's Focus on the Family (who supported Prop 8 and Maine's recent ballot initiative. Even though Focus had to have two layoffs in the past 12 months so they could afford to fight gay marriage in other states) turf in Colorado Springs, here is a cover story in their local paper on the internet about the family values you find there:

    Colorado Springs seems to have LOTS of heterosexual child abuse cases. Hope the trial spends a lot of time focusing on that part of the sanctimonious 'save our children" garbage – the amount of child abuse, death that occurs in heterosexual homes versus gay couples who actually LOVE their children.

  • 97. Kevin  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:44 am

    For anyone interested in what the other side is saying, this is from Pugno:

    This morning’s testimony by the plaintiffs’ expert witness on the history of marriage, Professor Nancy Cott, attempted to describe the history of marriage in our nation without acknowledging the obvious: that it has universally understood to be between a man and a woman.

    She was able to avoid this reality by choosing her words carefully, but then on cross examination by David Thompson, one of our legal team attorneys, reality came crashing down on her like a ton of bricks. In fact, the witness did great damage to the plaintiffs’ own case, making key admissions in our favor.

    For example, she conceded that the consequences of same-sex marriage are impossible to know. She also admitted on the stand that the public interest in promoting the raising of children by both a mother and father is a purpose that is promoted by traditional marriage. She also undermined the plaintiff’s characterization of marriage as a purely private decision when she conceded marriage is a highly public relationship in which society has great interest.

    On a separate note, the presentation of Prof. Cott as a scholarly observer fell apart when she admitted to being an entrenched and committed advocate for changing the law to allow same-sex marriage. Whether filing legal briefs, lobbying to pass legislation or supporting organizations that advocate the deconstruction of marriage, she was solidly revealed as an irretrievably biased witness.

    Meanwhile, we are still waiting on a permanent decision from the United States Supreme Court following their temporary ruling that suspended the televising of the trial.

    We continue to believe that we cannot get a fair and impartial trial if our witnesses are subjected to worldwide exposure of their personal beliefs and morals.

  • 98. Mito  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:49 am

    God forbid their morals will be broadcasted! Are they afraid that no one will agree with them? Well in that case: ITS A SIGN! People are starting to realize the discrimination! If people don't agree with your hate, then maybe you deserve to lose!

    Thanks for sharing this- its good to see how the other side is reacting!

  • 99. RW in LGB  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Pugno is spinning the truth of the actual proceedings so violently in his description that I'm surprised he doesn't just fly off the face of the earth. What a lying sack of sh!t he is.

    And what cowards the pro-H8 people are! They're condemning US and putting OUR personal beliefs and morals up to popular vote (and characterizing us with complete LIES)– yet their personal beliefs and morals are beyond scrutiny and discovery? Hypocrites. Cowards. Scum. Their God is sickened by their vile dishonesty.

  • 100. Bonobo  |  January 12, 2010 at 10:23 am

    It seems to me that they've asked that the trial not be televised not to protect their witnesses as much as to protect the truth of what is being said. If they are not quoting, but giving an end of the day summarization, then they can bloody well say anything they want too and their followers will still be left in the dark. In the end, this strategy will work for them (blindfolding their followers) more than if they could see and hear it for themselves.

  • 101. Steven  |  January 12, 2010 at 10:51 am

    What a load of cr*p…TALK about spin!

  • 102. Andy  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:44 am

    They used the same Anita Bryant tactics recently in Singapore too, to oppose decriminalization, and to justify the attempted takeover by religious fanatics (connected to Focus on the Family) of a women's organization that had the temerity to be neutral on the issue of homosexuality, rather than condemnatory. Didn't realize it all started with her.

  • 103. ashleyfmiller  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Someone needs to get this statistical analysis to the lawyers. States with constitutional ban on marriages have increasing divorce rates; states without have decreasing divorce rates.

  • 104. jack  |  January 17, 2010 at 10:35 am

    Well it's a law of averages really. Within a select number of married people, a certain percentage of those are going to be divorced. Add more people to the mix, noting that gay people are more likely to stay married because we had to fight for it…..of course its going to drive the divorce rates down. Something the H8rs conveniently aren't taking notice of, and skip over completely by pointing out that gay marriage hasn't been around long enough to create significant data to draw a conclusion.

  • 105. John  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:48 am

    In the late 1970's, I remember the priests during mass warning the congregation not to watch the 'new' tv show SOAP because it contained a gay character. Apparently, all the churches were notified to give this warning.
    (Billy Crystal played the first gay recurring character in a tv series in SOAP.)
    I remember my father aggressively making sure we didn't watch that show because 'The Church Said So'. Even if a show had just ended and the credits to SOAP were just beginning, it was a race to change the channel.
    A lot has changed in 30-odd years. But not easily and not overnight.
    Perhaps soon a generation of gay youths will know what it's like to grow up without any shame attached to who they are.

  • 106. Peter Godbold  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:50 am

    You have somehow managed to transport me to the court room. I am so thankful for you.

    Peter Godbold

  • 107. Jan Garbosky  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Thank you SO much for making all this information available to us. I've learned so much from what you've reported that I can use when I'm talking about marriage equality to others–even though I've been involved in marriage equality work for years!

  • 108. Anaguma  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Another straight ally, reading this several times a day.

  • 109. ns  |  January 12, 2010 at 9:59 am

    Thanks for doing this, it's much less scary when I can follow what's going on.

  • 110. stephanie lynn  |  January 12, 2010 at 10:00 am

    You're doing a great job, Rick! I'm reading these as you post them, and passing them on through Facebook. Hang in there – this is history in the making.

  • 111. Jess  |  January 12, 2010 at 10:12 am

    Thanks a lot for posting this, I'd be going crazy with anticipation if I didn't know what was going on! It's all a tremendous relief that the only thing prop 8's supporters seem to be doing is proving that the only reason to forbid gay marriage is to preserve their homophobic attitude. It didn't work for white supremacists, it's not gonna work for them either.

    And I had no idea those were the kind of things people said about gay people a few decades ago. That's just sickening!

  • 112. CJT  |  January 12, 2010 at 10:13 am


  • 113. Kelly  |  January 12, 2010 at 10:22 am

    I'm so glad I found your site. Thank you for all the wonderful information. I will be reading daily!

  • 114. Bonobo  |  January 12, 2010 at 10:28 am

    Thank you Rick. You are a life line. I live in a little tiny town in California, and believe me, they aren't talking about this trial in this town.

  • 115. MJFargo  |  January 12, 2010 at 10:35 am

    I can't thank you enough for doing this.

  • 116. The Alphabetist  |  January 12, 2010 at 11:01 am

    Thank you for this liveblog; I cannot put in words how much I appreciate this.

  • 117. Kwach  |  January 12, 2010 at 11:37 am

    Just a note to echo the thanks you've already been receiving. This is history being made, and it's shameful that it's being hidden from public view. As far as the mainstream media are concerned, this trial may as well not even be happening. If only OJ had been gay, huh?

  • 118. Kevin  |  January 12, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    CNN, MSNBC, NBC Nightly News, ABC News, and … although I'd hate to include it alongside respectable news operations FOX News have all covered the trial, many both in print and in broadcast.

  • 119. Womyn2me  |  January 12, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Rick, this is very hard for you. I am so grateful to you for your service to our community, doing this very hard work for us.
    I dont know you, but brother, I think I love you.

  • 120. Dennis  |  January 12, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    Thank you recording this historic moment of our history. Thank you, thank you thank you….we will prevail and we won't stop fighting until we do. Love always conquers hate.

  • 121. Mary Lee  |  January 12, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    I was under the impression there was simply a 2 day delay. If so we will be seeing everything soon.
    I'm going to be clued to the footage.

  • 122. Liveblogging Day 2: Part &hellip  |  January 12, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    […] Liveblogging Day 2: Part VI Afternoon Continues […]

  • 123. Roberta K  |  January 12, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    Back in those days, I came up with a drink called the Anita Bryant: orange juice and fruit punch.

    I was brought up to believe that homosexuality was “icky” — but after a good friend in college came out to me (he wanted me to help break the news to a mutual friend who had a crush on him), and later when I worked side by side with gay men and lesbians (the owner of our company had the opinion that as long as you made money for the company it didn’t matter who you slept with if it wasn’t on company time), I decided it was just one of the many lies my mom told me.

  • 124. Aisha Kabia  |  January 12, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    Thank you, thank you, thank you. I am so grateful to you for your coverage. I feel so full of hope reading your updates. Keep up the good work!

  • 125. ChuckinTucson  |  January 12, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    I’m sure there is going to be a lot in this trial that is going to be hard for you to listen to (and us too if they ever allow cameras), but just know that you are witnessing history and passing it on to us that can’t be there. You are doing a great job. Your writing is easy to read and your comments help a great deal in decisphering the legal manuevering that is going on. Thank you, thank you.

  • 126. RW in LGB  |  January 12, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    If there is a Hell, and Anita Bryant isn’t burning there already, I just know that there is an especially horrible, eternal lower circle of Hell waiting for her sorry, stupid, intolerant ass– along with all other right-wing fundamentalists, idiot teabaggers (and their queen, Sarah Palin) and anyone associated with reality shows.

    It warms my heart to think that Anita Bryant will spend eternity in a never-ending bar fight with “Snooki” from “MTV’s Jersey Shore”, with sulfuric acid reacting with all the hair product and igniting their skulls on fire.

  • 127. Kate  |  January 12, 2010 at 11:53 pm

    You're doing such a great job! I'm happy that I get to follow along even though I can't watch. We all really appreciate what you're doing; without you, we wouldn't know anything! Keep up the good work.

  • 128. richard  |  January 13, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Thanks, Rick, so much. I am glued to this.
    Re the older folks. What about this 78 year old who lived with my "partner" in sin for 44 years– according to the Catholic church-, but is now married to same–seemingly by a fluke–on 08-08-08 in Palm Springs.
    Hang in there. Hope SCOTUS comes to its senses, but doubt it.

  • 129. jack  |  January 17, 2010 at 9:05 am

    "Prop. 8 is trying to make the point of that C’s writing shows that the definition of modern homosexuality is only since 1930’s. Earlier culture allowed men to have sex with men without the need to identify as homosexual in the modern taxonomy. There were many men who had same sex relations who went on to marry women. Moving from a time when homosexuality was evil to face a powerful movement that changes that to neutral or even good."

    I guess I get were the H8rs are going with this, but wtf? Having gay sex and then moving on to a straight marriage completely escapes the point of this trial. This isn't about a homosexual's right to sleep with who they choose to, it's about a homosexual's right to marry who they choose to; that's a right duly owed to us by the constitution.

    Actually, I've been devouring this reading and thusly gotten my dander up over the marriage rights thing, which is certainly absolutely important….but to me, the marriage portion is almost…well I was going to say moot, but it's definitely not moot….let's say secondary… compared to the greater implictions of Prop H8.

    The people voted discrimation into the constitution.

    Standing at rallies watching teenagers carry signs supporting Prop H8, that was the issue I expressed most to them. To me it isn't about marriage or not (I mean it is, but I think the issue is larger), but certainly about equality and equal protection under the law and these kids had overlooked the discrimination in the constitution thing entirely and looked directly at the marriage portion. One boy who had just turned 18 said to me, "I don't support discrimination, I just don't think marriage should be changed." I pointed out to him that the two issues are absolutely hand in hand, and explained that it was only a generation or so ago when interracial marriages were not allowed and had the definiton of marriage not been changed at that time the President Elect's parents could not have been married. He responded in true teenage fashion, "Well….whatever."

    In my senior Civics class in high school, we were taught that the basis for original laws was this: if an action, when repeated throughout a society, would cause the eventul downfall of the society, it was made illegal. The only "logical" (trust me I use that term loosely) argument I can see here would be that homosexuals cannot naturally procreate through sexual conduct with each other, and procreation is required for the advancement of any society. Now, I think we all know that homosexuality is not the pervasive majority in any society, so that argument is utter BS. At any rate, we homos bear offspring all the time, either by former hetero relations, surrogacy, artificial insemination, etc. Even if we didn't, there are unfortunately enough people who either don't want or can't keep their children so that we have been able to adopt or foster where possible.

    Now let's flip that coin. Doesn't discrimination present a larger possibility for the downfall of a society? Scare tactics, hatred, pitting people against each other….these things create a division in society, and I'm sure we all have heard the phrase "A house divided cannot stand." Shouldn't this be what we are more concerned about? At that same Prop H8 rally a car pulled up to the corner I was standing on with my "I love my wife" T-shirt and handmade "Refuse to legalize discrimination!" sign and started spouting Bible quotes to me. I responded with some verses in kind…since I had legitimate Bible verses to quote they reverted to personally attacking me by saying crappy things to me and then threw bags of Skittles out the window telling me to "taste the rainbow." The thing that strikes me the most isn't their reaction, to hell with them as far as I'm concerned…but the fact that they had 2 kids who looked under the age of 10 in the back seat of the car. This is how you act in front of your children? This is how you would teach them to act? That, more than anything, horrifies me and makes me fear for the future of this country…and if anything was going to contribute to the downfall of our society, it certainly wouldn't be homosexuality…it would be that type of behavior right there. Especially when performed in front of children.

    "Ruth said to Naomi, "Don't ask me to leave you and turn back. Where you go, I will go; where you lay, I will lie down with you. Your people shall be my people, your God shall be my God."- Ruth 1:16

    "Let no man look down on you because of your age; but BE THOU AN EXAMPLE to the believers in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, and in purity."- 1 Timothy 4:12

    "Why do you look to the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye, and fail to see the log in your own?"- Matthew 7:3

    "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD."- Leviticus 19:18

    With a few semantical differences in phrasing, Christians typically read roughly the same version of the Bible. I'm not lumping everyone in, I'm aware there are different versions, I'm just saying….quite a lot of us do. I am quite spiritual, and I feel I have a good relationship with God; I don't believe in organized religion because
    organized religion for the vast majority does not believe in me. I guess the point I'm making here is don't sit and quote Bible verses to me straight people, cuz I can go all day, lol. The Bible says to love each other unconditionally, for me that's good enough.

  • 130. jack  |  January 17, 2010 at 9:52 am

    "To those who struggle with the issue of sexual identity, the sin of homosexuality, or any other sexual tempation: do not give in to sinful desires, even if he world stands and applauds them. Resist them and pray for strenght and enablement. Know that God loves you. Christ died for you. The truth can and WILL set you free. God has not abandoned you to struggle alone and neither will we. Consult wih your pastor for confidential support or contact one of the following ministries that specialize in this problem. Will you dare to stand?"

    That quote actually comes from the end of this video. Between this and Boys Beware, I am both nauseated and completely horrified.

    Dare to Stand

    Boys Beware

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