Don’t They Know Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery?
January 20, 2010
By Paul Hogarth
Regarding Prop 8’s failed attempt to take down our logo, Dante Atkins — friend of the Courage Campaign, and front-pager on Daily Kos — had this to say:
“The all-time stupid part is that they’re wasting time trying to get Courage to … stop using a parody logo. Even if they were successful and after a process that would resolve itself long after Perry ends, the only thing they would accomplish is to prevent the site from using a logo. And in the process, all they do is create more attention for the site.”
He does have a point there. The First Amendment is pretty broad when it comes to parody, so their lawyers should have known their chances at winning were slim to none. When you’re writing a book, the best way to boost up sales is to have someone file an injunction to block it from being published. I’m reminded of how Fox News sued Al Franken for Lies and the Lying Liars that Tell Them, because they said the book misappropriated the term “fair and balanced.” Fox’s own lawyers didn’t want to file the suit, but Bill O’Reilly was so pissed off that he insisted they do so — all it did was make Al Franken’s book a bestseller. Certainly motivated me to go buy it. I mean, dammit … if people want you not to see it so bad, there must be really good stuff in there!
And it’s true. Our traffic hits went off the charts after this … thanks, Prop 8 campaign!
But that’s not how the opposition is thinking. See, I don’t think they really believe most of the garbage that they’re spewing out. The right-wing movement to pass Prop 8 — and other anti-gay amendments — are really part of a strategy to keep right-wing conservatives in power. There’s lotsa money to be made keeping the masses distracted by cultural, wedge issues — and to dredge up homophobia and malice against the “other” (in this case, gays) helps propel them politically. These folks have money to burn — where else do you think the National Organization for Marriage gets their money from, and how it just comes out of nowhere?
So a lawsuit to take down a logo on some website? Small potatoes for them — there’s more money where that came from. I don’t believe they’re even thinking about how it helps our website, and how we use this site to build community and a movement.
59 Comments
1.
Larry K Little | January 20, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Everytime the religious reich's discriminatory behavior is exposed, I sleep well. Lets hope that many many more losses will be recorded for posterity.
2.
Marlene Bomer | January 20, 2010 at 4:21 pm
They've been at this for decades now… not in any particular order:
We must stop sufferage for women because it's a violation of god's laws and a threat to society! Society hasn't collapsed? Never mind…
We must stop the teaching of evolution in the schools because it's a violation of god's law and a threat to society! Society hasn't collapsed? Never mind…
We must stop the infiltration of communism in government because it's against god's laws and a threat to society! There were no communists in government and society hasn't collapsed? Never mind…
We must stop blacks from repealing Jim Crow because it's a violation of god's laws and a threat to society! Society hasn't collapsed? Never mind…
We must stop the Supreme Court from allowing interracial marriage because it's against god's laws and a threat to society! Society hasn't collapsed? Never mind…
We must stop the removal of prayer and bible readings in the classroom, and balance on the courthouse lawn at Christmas because it's against god's laws and a threat to society! Society hasn't collapsed? Never mind…
We must stop the easy access to birth control and reproductive freedom because it's a violation of god's laws and a threat to society! Society hasn't collapsed? Never mind…
We must stop women from entering the work force as equals, and supervising men because it's against god's law and a threat to society! Nothing bad happened?
We must stop the removal of sodomy laws because it's against god's laws and a threat to society! Society hasn't collapsed? Never mind…
We must stop "special rights" for gays and lesbians because it's against god's laws and a threat to society!
And as Paul said above — the religious reicht used these threats in order to inflame their mindless followers (they're called sheep for a reason!), bilking them out of life savings, and lining their pockets in the process.
3.
Andrea | January 20, 2010 at 7:40 pm
It's a known fact that Jesus cannot return until same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states and recognized by the Federal Government. Only then can the Rapture occur.
This should really be mentioned more often.
4.
Christine | January 20, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Let's do it! I can't wait to go to hell.
5.
Denise | January 21, 2010 at 3:12 am
I'll start mentioning it often; that's the funniest 'mocking' sentence I've ever read on the subject. Thank you.
6.
Santa Barbara Mom | January 20, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Civil rights as outlined in the Constitution weren't meant to be negotiable. You can make generalized statements against religion (remember not all religions think alike AND not all members of any particular religion think the same), however bottom line is our judges and courts are not upholding the Constitution as it pertains to civil rights. Their fears of not being re-elected, or whatever, are what enable people to challenge the validity of the Constitution……..mostly unknowingly. I mean, how many people read and interpret our Constitution…..a sad commentary, I agree. I think the pressure needs to be assigned to the court system. …..what is it about the 14th amendment that they don't understand?
7.
Marlene Bomer | January 20, 2010 at 6:10 pm
*Exactly*, SBM!
As another poster mentioned in one of the earlier blogs, quoting the famous line from Huxley's epic novel Animal Farm: "All animals are equal. However, some animals are more equal than others."
I'm a guest lecturer to college classes. Part of my lecture includes role reversal: "How would *you* like it if you were in a society where *your* faith was discriminated against? How would *you* like it if whites were the slaves and blacks were your masters, and had to fight for equal rights?
I also bring up the fact that where there are no laws protecting on sexual orientation, I could buy up rental agencies, stores, factories, restaurants and bars, etc. then begin to *legally* discriminate against heterosexuals, and there wouldn't be a damn thing they could do!
8.
Dieter M. | January 20, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Here it is everyone, the TRAILER for the youtube broadcast re-enactment of the prop 8 trial…full sessions starting tomorrow. http://www.MarriageTrial.com
and check out my "don't divorce us" video on youtube to see where this all began: at http://www.youtube.com/watch …
going for 10 million views…more than any TV show would generate…
9.
Paul Isaacs | January 20, 2010 at 5:47 pm
I just found this scrounging around my hard drive.
It's a pic taken at City Hall in SF when they held the first round of weddings.
The line went all around the block waiting for the doors to open.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4292770…
10.
Jay | January 20, 2010 at 10:16 pm
That is a really awesome picture, Paul. Thanks for sharing!
I remember when pictures first started going up of couples who had just been married – some of whom had been waiting 30, 40, 50 years. I cried to see it, although not as hard as I cried when Prop. 8 was passed and then upheld.
I hope to cry again for joy when this trial is done. 🙂
11.
Barb | January 20, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Great pic(s) Paul. That's a looong line of very happy people.
12.
NJLawGuy | January 20, 2010 at 10:19 pm
This lawsuit is not about Prop 8 Trial Tracker. It's about the Prop 8 folks keeping their image from being picked apart by their foes.
While I have no respect for the people at Prop 8, I would (if possible) have even less respect for them if they did not defend their logo. They created the logo. They are battling in court to keep "their" law on the books. Of course they are going to try to squelch any perceived misuse of their property. Not doing so would make them look uncommitted to the "cause" in the eyes of their backers/allies.
That said, Prop 8's efforts here are an obvious waste of their legal resources. We know it. They know it. And the fact that they initiated this legal action makes it clear that Prop 8 has no problem spending their resources to resolve this matter.
13.
fiona64 | January 20, 2010 at 11:29 pm
They changed their logo yesterday after their attempt to get a TRO failed.
14.
MarkOH | January 21, 2010 at 12:38 am
OMG! They really DID change their logo! Hysterical.
15.
Sandy | January 21, 2010 at 3:43 am
Would someone please describe the old logo? I will go to their site, but I am not that masochistic and never saw the old one.
That is a popular thing when one reputation is sullied, reform a new one from the old one.
AIG, Blackwater…
16.
Lies | January 20, 2010 at 10:22 pm
This is really too ridiculous. What are these people on???
Also, I think you're right – the conservative right always needs a group of 'others' to pick on. And sadly, with some of them now jumping ship and accepting 'the gays', you just know they're going to come up with some new group to discriminate against. Because that is how they work. Sigh.
17.
Alan E. | January 21, 2010 at 12:22 am
Latinos (or immigrants in general, but definitely people south of 'Merica) are becoming the new black people. Many of the jobs immigrants have now make more than back home, but they deserve more for them.
18.
Anna | January 21, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Whatever they're on must be some really freakin' good stuff to cause this massive of delusions. They can't be dropping acid, can they? Must be some new drug….
19.
James Sweet | January 20, 2010 at 10:47 pm
"Never attribute to malice what can be more easily explained by incompetence." Well, okay, in this case the malice is obvious, so perhaps more appropriate would be, "Never attribute to a hidden conspiratorial motive what can be more easily explained by incompetence and bigotry."
O'Reilly is obviously in the business of making money off of his "opinions", but that doesn't mean that his righteous anger against Franken was any less genuine (or stupid). Similarly, while I'm sure there are countless cynical conservative politicians who are merely exploiting the gay marriage issue, it seems likely to me that a lot of the ProtectMarriage folks are true believers here, i.e. they really are this pissed off and indignant.
I don't think the TRO filing was a clever ruse to stir up more controversy; I think somebody in their camp really was so pissed off by it that they tried to sue it out of existence. Probably as you surmise their lawyers advised against, but… maybe not even then. The lawyers might have deluded themselves into thinking you would just roll over, or that even though they couldn't win the case they might get an injunction based on irreparable harm arguments (which given the length of the trial might have been a de facto victory).
This much is doubtless true, though it will be a couple of decades still at least before anti-gay baiting starts to not work as well. Hell, race-baiting still works, in case you haven't noticed… But yeah, another group is going to have to become the prime target. Any guesses?
Another prediction for the future: Many people today paint a picture of the abolitionist movement being led by religion, but the reality is that in the lead-up to the civil war, most churches supported slavery and drew on Biblical justifications for it; and most anti-abolitionists were no more religious than your average person of the time (the exception being a number of very vocal members of the Quaker community, but Quakers can hardly be considered representative of the religious climate of the time!) Similarly, in 50 or 60 years when the idea that gay marriage was ever illegal, I predict that some will try to build the perception that the fight for marriage equality was led by religion, rather than religion being the primary obstacle. They will point to those wonderful tolerant churches to which many of the commenters here belong, and dismiss any mention of churches opposing gay marriage as some kind of isolated bigotry.
Mark my words, as stupid as it seems now, our great-grandchildren will think that mainstream religion led the charge for marriage equality, and it was those uncaring immoral godless folk that opposed it.
20.
Brian | January 21, 2010 at 1:29 am
"Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past."
21.
Anna | January 21, 2010 at 12:59 pm
One of my favourite quotations…and one of the most true.
22.
Pam | January 20, 2010 at 11:07 pm
I was just reading Protectmarriage.com's blog about Prop 8. Very interesting that Andrew Pugno says that this case is being based on "emotion". Which makes me ask the questions: Were African Americans "emotional" during the civil rights movement? Did many people speak out about the horrible injustices directed at them due to their lack of rights? Did they "feel" like second class citizens? I guess having a trial that has "emotions" isn't so bad. It sure helped the civil rights movement!
23.
Callie | January 20, 2010 at 11:21 pm
See, we're not supposed to be emotional or morally outraged or even angry that our lives, our rights, and our equality is thrown out like chum for the sharks. I get this all the time from some anti-gay folks I know. I'm always getting comments about being angry and "full of hate" just because they don't think the same way I do. These people are attacking me and my family. How can I not be angry about that?! What they want us to be is quiet little queers sitting quietly by while we allow others to determine our fate and when they're damn good and ready to give us our equality, we should be grateful for it.
24.
fiona64 | January 20, 2010 at 11:32 pm
It is these sorts of people to whom I refer Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's, "Letter from Birmingham Jail."
http://www.mlkonline.net/jail.html
Quote:
One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boatel as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
25.
Alan E. | January 21, 2010 at 12:38 am
That last section rings especially true.
26.
Alice | January 20, 2010 at 11:55 pm
It's a classic derailing tactic. If you can make the claim that the people speaking out are just being emotional and/or irrational, you can easily dismiss everything they say.
27.
Jay | January 21, 2010 at 12:08 am
Exactly.
One day I'm going to go through their entire site and see how many points they've managed to rack up from 'Derailing for Dummies':
http://www.derailingfordummies.com/
I'm willing to bet it's a fair amount.
28.
MarkOH | January 21, 2010 at 12:39 am
Did you notice that comments are always shut down? They don't want ANYONE asking questions or pointing out their lies.
29.
Patrick Regan | January 21, 2010 at 1:03 am
agreed. They are afraid of the "homosexual oppression" coming in and taking over their site.
It's not a completely invalid fear. If they ever started allowing it, I'd be on there in a heart beat talking about all the stuff they conveniently left out.
30.
Patrick Regan | January 21, 2010 at 12:55 am
Someone once tried to tell me that the the fight for gay marriage is not like the fight for AA equal rights at all, and that they were "in fact very different." I laughed and didn't reply. You just can't argue with that kind of stupid.
31.
george | January 21, 2010 at 1:32 am
Yup, "stupid" is what the argument is. For how can one not equate the color of one's skin with the ability to reproduce? It's identical, I tell ya, identical.
32.
fiona64 | January 21, 2010 at 2:26 am
Quelle surprise that George conflates minority status (and therefore civil rights) solely with racial and/or ethnic identity.
Perhaps it is time to drag out those law school texts again, George. Or perhaps I can help you (again).
http://science.jrank.org/pages/7873/Minority.html
Quote (emphasis added): This definition includes minorities based on ascribed statuses such as race, ethnicity, and gender and other statuses that are difficult or impossible to change, such as sexual orientation and disability.
You're welcome.
33.
Urbain | January 20, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Maybe I need a bigger computer screen … When I visited their site the first time, I honestly thought that the couple in the photograph on the top right were lesbians and I did a double — no triple — take. I couldn't figure out why the anti-gay site would have that charming picture of a lesbian family until it dawned on me that what I thought was a butch woman was a very clean shaven man.
It threw me so much that I didn't even notice their logo. That was quite a few months ago, but when I looked at it again with this trial, I had the same reaction.
34.
Barb | January 21, 2010 at 12:38 am
Oh, my, I never noticed that, but you are right.
And, with the change of the logo, NOW it's 'ProtectMarriage.com Action FUND'
35.
Rebecca | January 21, 2010 at 1:15 am
They want us to cease and desist but it's them that end up changing their logo? These people are so weird and it's time for us to change out logo. Make it look like the two moms dropped the sign or something.
Also, that is totally a lesbian couple on their site. LOL.
36.
Sandy | January 21, 2010 at 3:06 am
I saw whom I am convinced was a transexual woman in the company of 2 men at our post Prop 8 huge rally trying to elicit the wrath of the masses of LGBTQ and allies with their "cure" tracts, megaphone and huge sign she was holding "Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve".
Sadly, it was too much for one man that took it from her and messed it up and threw it down. After one guy picked it up and apologized, the men held it up, saying see how you violate our free speech.
Playing the victim.
They are looking for that to use against us, but I totally understood his anger. Many instances of setting up for victimhood. They go to college campuses with signs saying Homosexuality is a sin, begging for someone to say something that "violates their rights".
I saw those 3 walking later and looked her in the eye and said "God bless you". There was a frozen moment and I just know she was feeling shame and a product of "being cured" that was not real.
She never said a word while I was present, but I felt the uneasiness she felt.
I wonder how they would like if a group of LGBTQ walked into their church or rally with signs calling out their pedophilia, adultery, hypocrisy, LGBTQ rights and whatever…
37.
Linda | January 21, 2010 at 12:33 am
The leaders on the prop 8 side know that their followers don't actively search out the facts. They go to church and let their pastors tell them what the truth is, and how they should feel/vote about it. Pugno's daily spin on the trial proceedings are carefully written so that they can be quoted in the pulpit to create moral outrage. Religious (esp. Christian) people are just itching for a fight. (My apologies to those on this site who adhere to this faith, but…) Christianity can be quite dull to live out day after day; there's a long list of can'ts and don'ts, and the whole religion is based on how you 'feel' God moving in your life. Well, the only feelings that are acceptable are moral outrage and righteous hatred. So they create scenarios where it's okay to feel those, and then pour themselves into it. They will give millions of dollars, and then pray; and when the outcome is what they wanted they credit their prayers. (And if the outcome is not what they wanted they blame Satan; and they redouble their efforts.) It seems that Christians love to have someone it's okay to hate. They need a holy war, and they've found it with us.
The politicians know this. They know that Christians are devout, easily lead people who will throw their money and their emotions behind any action that seems to promote what they think they believe. The scary thing is the Christians don't even bother to check the veracity or the credentials of those they are so vigorously supporting. So Pugno can lie repeatedly in his blogs, and he'll never be found out. We can scream 'You Lie!', but that will fall on deaf ears.
If (when) we win this trial we will see the prop 8 supporters rise up in hate and anger. They will be incensed that a 'San Francisco Activist Judge' so unjustly ruled against them. And they will send money; and they will pour their support behind conservative politicians. And their side will become stronger.
It's scary.
38.
Barb | January 21, 2010 at 12:40 am
I guess that's where they saying 'Ignorance is Bliss' comes from.
39.
R Lavigueur | January 21, 2010 at 1:10 am
Its true that we often tend to forget the attractions of extremism to everyday people, something that John Cleese sumed up humourously but painfully accurately.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4
Having enemies and placing yourself on the moral highground does tend to make people feel much better about themselves. The problem, of course, is that these people build their self esteem by attacking the rights, freedoms, and self esteem of others; usually people who are more vulnerable than they are. We had the same religious groups that oppose same sex marriage and lgbt rights in general today opposing women's rights and the rights of blacks and Jews back when those were the popular groups to attack. As was mentioned above, some religious groups, such as the Quakers when it comes to abolition or the Unitatian Universalists when it comes to lgbt rights really are ahead of their time when it comes to promoting tolerance and equality, but for the most part religion seems to take on a reactionary role.
And the best part is, because of their unwavering belief that they know what's best for everyone, they can tell gays and lesbians that they don't deserve marriage rights and then be quite honestly offended when they are accused of being prejudiced. To them, this makes perfect sense, and it never seems to occur to them to actually take into account the thoughts and desires and experiences of the group of people in question.
40.
MarkOH | January 21, 2010 at 12:42 am
And reading their blog, the DARE to pull out the whole "religious bigotry" victim angle.
have they lost a job, been prohibited from seeing a loved one in the hospital, been beaten, thrown out of their church, lost their family all because of their religion?
And, while sexual orientation is NOT a choice, religious affiliation IS a choice.
41.
Brian | January 21, 2010 at 1:34 am
Religious affiliation isn't so much a choice for someone who actually believes in the religion… for people that merely associate with a religion its different.
42.
Pete | January 21, 2010 at 12:59 am
So everyday I’ve read “Protect the Children!” coming from the defendants of prop8. Taken directly from the U. S Library of Medicine:
“Gay and bisexual male youth appear to be at increased risk for both homelessness and suicide. Gay male street youth may have been forced out of their homes because of their sexual orientation, and are more likely to engage in survival sex (prostitution) than their nongay male counterparts. In one sample, 53% of gay-identified street youths had attempted suicide, compared with 32% of a cohort of street youths that included both gay and nongay youths. Prejudice, discrimination, and homophobia are still rampant in society today; these factors contribute to a multiplicity of problems that face the young person who is gay.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1772888
When are they going to realize we ARE their children! If they haven’t discovered this yet someone should teach them that homosexuals don’t reproduce so well. I came from heterosexual parents. My husband came from heterosexual parents. I’m betting if you are gay and reading this you came from heterosexual parents? So pro-prop8ers, please protect your children from yourselves!
43.
Alice | January 21, 2010 at 1:57 am
After reading yesterday's transcripts, it seemed obvious that if any children need protection, it is those whose parents treat them the way Ryan Kendall's treated him.
44.
chris | January 21, 2010 at 12:59 am
Let's hope that when they do lose, they'll be so pissed off that they'll vandalize OUR places and make hateful speeches, we'll document it and quash their bullsh*t argument that THEY are being "victimized"
45.
Marlene Bomer | January 21, 2010 at 7:15 am
The reicht have done it before, Alice — there's been plenty of examples of campaign offices vandalized and burglarized, all in the name of their god, deluding themselves they're doing their lord's work in stopping our fight for equality.
Try and find a copy of the documentary "Ballot Measure 9", which chronicled the fight for equality in Oregon some years back when uber bigot Lon Mabon was in his glory days. The stories you'll hear will curdle your guts — including the desecration of a church sanctuary, which had the letters OCA: for Oregon Citizens Alliance spray painted all over the walls.
46.
Michael Herman | January 21, 2010 at 1:09 am
I've read Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them. I nearly shat myself when I heard Franken had won the Minnesota senate seat. I'm wondering if he's actually living up to what he's criticised about politicians.
47.
Rebecca | January 21, 2010 at 1:10 am
I love the "Streisand Effect" when it hurts the bad guys.
I am so glad MoFo is on our side. Nice work guys! Fight the good fight and thanks for the entertainment.
48.
David Medinnus | January 21, 2010 at 1:16 am
Assuming I buy into the argument that they're just cynical, self-promoting political opportunists who use the culture wars for their own benefit, of course I'd think they filed that injunction with full knowledge of how it would help you.
Just as AQ must know that the more attacks they launch just before elections will help the parties who want to "stay the course"; the more American politicians scare the American public with "ticking time bomb" scenarios, the more they can justify their war crimes and abuses – which are all recruiting and money-raising points for AQ.
They want you to appear strong and powerful so that they can play the victim and wail the sky is falling, send us cash NAO or the Gays will Win!
49.
TrapperSF | January 21, 2010 at 1:19 am
Question, but I thought when someone was part of a trial (i.e., defendant, plaintiff, attorney, witness, jury member, etc.) that they couldn't turn watch the news or read the paper or talk about the trial. This begs the quest of why General Counsel for Defendants are posting blog reports on ProtectMarriage.com. I thought they couldn't do something like that? I'm probably wrong here, but can someone explain it to me, please?
50.
Brian | January 21, 2010 at 1:35 am
You are thinking of Jury Members in a closed trial.
The plaintiffs and defendants don't abide by those limitations.
51.
Patrick Regan | January 21, 2010 at 1:38 am
In contrast this is an open, juryless (sp?) trial. It's decided by the judge only.
52.
JC | January 21, 2010 at 4:27 am
Isn't the difference that this is a civil, not criminal, bench, not jury, trial? Two different kettles o fish
53.
Bill | January 21, 2010 at 2:38 am
The 'religious right' is responsible for the impedment of progress in EVERY area of American life.
They spout off about God & Country, yet are completely willing to ignore the Constitution as it applies to their LGTB offspring.
I think it important to note that we are dealing with a group in society that is actually slinking about the country carving LGTB citizens right out of the U.S. Constitution.
nNd basically, people, the voters, OUR FELLOW CITIZENS, are just going right along with it. Apparently blithely unaware of the terrifying precedent that they are setting here.
One day, this referendum process is really going to turn around a bite them on the ass. It's inevitable. And the cultutal and racial and religious power is changing in this country. And you can smeall the fear of the right-wng about that. I fear we have only begun to see the depths to which these people will sink. And I don't only fear for LGTB citizens, but the entire country and even the entire world. Seriously, these people will not stop until they force upon all of us the armageddon that the bible predicts.
54.
Marlene Bomer | January 21, 2010 at 7:25 am
Bill — The religious reicht *hate* the Constitution! They despise it, and there are those who want it removed!
Oh sure, they'll use the document to further their own ends, but when push comes to shove, they'd rather have the Constitution junked (remember when Little Georgie said it was "just another piece of paper"?) and replacing it with their own perverted interpretation of the bible.
55.
Holly | January 21, 2010 at 5:42 am
As far as a conspiracy goes, well look at what they gain.
Isn't the right-wing using us much like Hitler did the Jews, creating fear, and "us against them", in order to build political power?
56.
Marlene Bomer | January 21, 2010 at 7:27 am
Why do you think some of us on the left call them the religious reicht, Holly?
Go find a copy of the propaganda film "Gay Rights, Special Rights", then go watch the Nazi propaganda film "The Eternal Jew". You'll find so many comparisons you'll get the shivers…
57.
Deb | January 21, 2010 at 10:34 am
I agree. My family is a bunch of voracious book-readers, and anythime some idiot group makes demands that such-and-such book be banned from the libraries, out of children's hands, etc., we immediately run out and buy it. Don't have to be a particularly *good* book, either. We just do that to be contrary.
And if the worst happens, we'll have a very large library of very hard-to-get books! 😀
Just tell me I'm not allowed to see or say or think something, and I'll do it out of spite. I don't believe in having someone else do my thinking for me. And my kids' teachers sincerely were *not* paid enough for what my brats put them through! 😀
58.
Vynce | November 29, 2010 at 8:18 am
Is this lawsuit going forward? Or has it fizzled out?
59.
Josh | July 4, 2011 at 9:02 am
Whatever happened with this case? Did nom give up or is it still ongoing?