Equality On Trial

1052147 Commentshttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.equalityontrial.com%2F2010%2F01%2F21%2Fliveblogging-day-8-part-iii-gathering-storm-aired%2FLiveblogging+Day+8%3A+Part+III+Gathering+Storm+aired2010-01-21+19%3A38%3A26couragecampaignhttp%3A%2F%2Fprop8trialtracker.com%2F%3Fp%3D1052

• 1. evenevan  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:43 am

  I have taken a welcoming attitude toward evidence, so go ahead.

  This cracked me up! He's essentially saying, "What the hell… go ahead. I"m sure it can't get any worse…"

• 2. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:45 am

  Me thinks the Judge likes evidence and not just hearsay.

• 3. Rebecca R  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:56 am

  Me thinks you are right Barb, and here is a pretty silly parody of the ridiculous NOM video….
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0pPEAdDn64

• 4. Loren  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:46 am

  Just as DOMA should stand for Denial Of Marriage Act, NOM should stand for No On Marriage.

• 5. Anna  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:44 pm

  i can't see the NOM abbreviation without seeing a kitten going "nom nom nom nom nom!" in my head….

• 6. Randy  |  January 22, 2010 at 4:37 am

  No, no, "OM NOM NOM" was invented by one C. Monster, a little blue fellow with a predilection for chocolate chips… 😀

• 7. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:46 am

  LOL, just as relevant as O'Reilly. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  This trial has me crying one minute and laughing my butt off the next!

• 8. robert wright 1 of 1  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:29 am

  Are you my dear friend Callie, or are you a Callie I don't know? I enjoy reading your comments.

  Burnsey

• 9. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:47 am

  Every time I see this add it makes me sick to my stomach!

• 10. Roberta K  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:55 am

  Should have shown the Colbert parody, just for kicks. 😉

• 11. Choinski  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:47 am

  Mr T: I pity da fool.

• 12. SFBay  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:47 am

  They have a rainbow coalition? Excuse me while I go vomit…

• 13. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:48 am

  We're building an umbrella. No really, we're building a giant umbrella.

• 14. BMc  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:49 am

  I know, I can't get that out of my head. Next they you know the Defense will play the parody on Redirect claiming it as evidence of religious persecution.

• 15. BMc  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:49 am

  Like Bill O'Reilly was part of Prop8's campaign?

• 16. pearlheartgtr  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:49 am

  So is the defense going to shoot back with the parodies?
  http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-v…
  http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6eddb255b2/a-gay…

• 17. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:53 am

  SHhhhhhh….they might want to sue!

• 18. Roberta K  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:59 am

  OMG — never saw that Funny Or Die clip before! Thanks for the link…

• 19. Jan  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:35 am

  The Funny or Die clip is hysterical!!

• 20. Lain  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:05 am

  I just about died laughing over the Colbert one. Comic relief ftw.

  A storm is coming.
  A giant. Gay. Storm.
  (…paid for by an organization that may or may not be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.)

• 21. Matthew S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:10 am

  Thanks for sharing the links. Those were funny as hell. Was it just me or was anyone else expecting at least one of them to end with 'It's Raining Men'?

• 22. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:14 am

  The first video posted here actually has that as one of the lines.

• 23. pearlheartgtr  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:21 am

  "They'll dance at us.

  It'll be choreographed. And it'll be good."

• 24. Rayfo  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:53 am

  I'm deaf and I've **never** known what was said in "Gathering Storm" (to my ultimate frustration). Does anyone know where there is a transcript of this video?

• 25. Roberta K  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:02 am

  You're not missing much, believe me.

  But there was a diary on Daily Kos last April with a transcript, turns out:
  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/18/721615/-H…!

• 26. Ray Harwick  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:24 am

  Thanks for the link, Roberta. BTW, there are four things hearing people typically say to the deaf when the deaf want to know something:

  "You don't want to know." (We do or we wouldn't ask.)
  "It's not important." (I'll decide if it's important, okay?)
  "You're not missing anything." (What am I not missing)
  "I'll tell you later" (You won't remember later and I don't want to know later. I want to know NOW).

  If I wasn't missing anything, how is it that this video went viral and how is it that the expert witness regarded it as semi-famous? If I'm not missing anything, why did parodies of this video appear? If I'm not missing anything, why is it presented as evidence in the most significant court case in the history of the LGBT struggle for equality?

  Get my point?

• 27. Roberta K  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:25 am

  Yeah, that was pretty clueless — can I blame it on the fact I haven't had lunch yet?

• 28. Ray Harwick  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:53 am

  Roberta, that gives me a great idea that may solve forever the whole problem. I'll offer FOOD when I ask a question.

  Example: I have some nice pasta salad here for anyone who'll tell me what that video says.

  See? Appealing, no?

• 29. Raven  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:49 am

  I think what we're really saying when we say "you're not missing much" is "gosh, I wish *I* hadn't ever heard that crap." 🙂

  But thank you so much, Ray. I will keep your words in mind in the future whenever someone asks me something along these lines (whether or not they are hearing impaired!)

• 30. pearlheartgtr  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:12 am

  I just watched the video and transcribed it for you. Each line is for each "character" in the ad:

  There's a storm gathering.

  The clouds are dark and the winds are strong.

  And I am afraid.

  Some who advocate for same sex marriage have taken it far beyond same sex couples.

  They want to bring the issue into my life.

  My freedom will be taken away.

  I'm a CA doctor who must choose between my faith and my job.

  I am part of a NJ church group punished by the gov't because we can't support same sex marriage.

  I am Mass. parent helplessly watching publics schools teaching my son that gay marriage is OK.

  But some who advocate for same sex marriage have not been content with same sex couples living as they wish.

  Those advocates want to change the way that I live.

  I will have no choice.

  The storm is coming

  But we have hope. A rainbow coalition of every creed and color are coming together in love to protect marriage. Visit nom.org. Join us.

• 31. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:12 am

  dangit you beat me to it. I refreshed my page AFTER I had transcribed it too.

• 32. abbe  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:54 am

  that makes me sick to my stomach.

• 33. kitty  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:15 am

  There’s a storm gathering.
  The clouds are dark and the winds are strong.
  And I am afraid.
  Some who advocate for same-sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same-sex couples.
  They want to bring the issue into my life.
  My freedom will be taken away,
  I’m a CA doctor who must choose between my faith and my job.
  I am part of a NJ church group punished by the government because we can’t support same-sex marriage.
  I’m a MA parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is okay.
  But some who advocate for same-sex marriage have not been content with same-sex couples living as they wish.
  Those advocates want to change the way I live.
  I will have no choice.
  The storm is coming.
  But we have hope. A rainbow coalition of people of every creed and color coming together in love to protect marriage. Visit Nation For Marriage dot org and join us.
  (Voiceover: Paid for by National Organization for Marriage which is responsible for the content of this ad.)

• 34. kitty  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:16 am

  Heh, me too. Apologies for the redundancy!

• 35. InMA  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:24 am

  Just shows we care 🙂

• 36. InMA  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:16 am

  White Woman: There’s a storm gathering.

  White Man: The clouds are dark and the winds are strong.

  Black Woman: And I am afraid.

  Black Man: Some who advocate for same sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same-sex couples.

  Gay Man: They want to bring the issue into my life.

  Minority Woman: My freedom…will be taken away.

  White Woman #2: I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job.

  White Man #2: I’m part of a New jersey church group punished by the government because we can’t support same-sex marriage.

  Different White Woman: I’m a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is okay.

  Different Minority Woman: But some advocating for same-sex marriage have not been content with same-sex couples living as they wish.

  Another White Woman: Those advocates want to change the way I live.

  A Younger White Woman: I will have no choice.

  Man with Strong Foreign Accent: The storm….is coming.

  Black Male Spokesperson: But we have hope. A rainbow coalition of people of every creed and color are coming together in love to protect marriage. Visit Nation for Marriage dot org. Join us.

  Disclaimer voice: Paid for by the National Organization for Marriage which is responsible for the content of this ad.

• 37. jerek  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:23 am

  Words they punched up are in bold:

  There's a storm gathering.

  The clouds are dark and the winds are strong.

  And I am afraid.

  Some who advocate for same-sec marriage have takent the isse far beyond same-sex couples.

  They want to bring the issue into my life.

  My freedom will be taken away.

  I'm a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job.

  I'm part of a New Jersey chrch group punished by the government because we can't support same-sex marriage.

  I'm a Massechuessets parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is okay.

  But some who advocate for save-sex marriage have not been content with same-sex couples living as they wish.

  Those advocates want to change the way Ilive.

  I will have no choice.

  The storm is coming.

  But we have hope. A rainbow coalition of people of every creed and color are coming together in love to protect marriage. Visit nationForMarriage.org. Join us.

  Piad for by the National Organization for Mariage, which is responsible for the contents of this ad.

• 38. jc  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:50 am

  just so you know ray, those things you stated that hearing people say to deaf people…well hearing people also say to each other. i've asked questions, as a hearing person, about a subject and been told "you don't want to know", or even "you're not missing anything"….

  perhaps it's not my place, but i thought it tactless that you chided the one person who provided the info for you.

• 39. jc  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:52 am

  my apologies to all the people who replied to ray…should've scrolled down further…i should have stated "the first person to respond".

• 40. Ray Harwick  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:18 am

  This is a VIDEO. 99.999% of internet-based VIDEOS are INACCESSIBLE to the deaf since they aren't captioned. That makes THIS issue different. Yes, I can look up information at any time, but I can NEVER know what a video is talking about unless I ask someone. I stated my reason for asking. At least a hearing person can view the video when "you don't want to know." I can't do that. I ALWAYS have to depend on the kindness of others for that information. I can look at it until my eyes bleed and not know UNTIL someone tells me. This case has a DIRECT effect on my life and I just think that's important enough not to be brushed aside when I politely ask for assistance. Yes, it's tactless in the same manner that gays fighting for their right can be tactless. I have ANOTHER issue to advocate for: the right to be informed about things that have an effect on my life. Sometimes I have to forcefully assert that point so that when ask for basic help, people of good will will understand and not brush me aside.

• 41. jc  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:46 am

  nobody brushed you aside ray, several people were quite helpful from what i see…yes i understand that these issues are just as important to you as they are to the rest of us. i feel badly that information is not made as easily accessible to the deaf as to people who can hear.

  if roberta had just replied "you don't want to know" and didn't go out of her way to find you the information i would say you have all rights to be irritated, but after she gave you the info it seemed you chided her unnecessarily. my opinion..take it with a grain of salt…

• 42. Doug  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:54 am

  I've always found their choice of words ("rainbow coalition") quite amusing.

• 43. InMA  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:17 am

  Yeah, a lot of them are on a kick to "reclaim" the rainbow because, you know, God gave them that rainbow first.

  Google, "Redeeming the Rainbow"

• 44. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:20 am

  Stephen Colbert interviewed some guy who wrote a book about being happy and how to achieve it. One of his points was that he wanted to take back the word "gay." He said his father would stand around with his buddies when the author was a kid and say "aren't they just so gay?" as if he meant Happy.

• 45. Richard Cortijo  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:37 am

  They really have a quest to redeem the rainbow?? LOL they totally crack me up….!!

• 46. Mykelb  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:28 am

  Especially when you look at the homogeniety of the race of the people who are on the Board of NOM (all white).

• 47. BMc  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:56 am

  There was a study done recently- in just the past year or so – that showed quantifiable relationship between the stress and psychological problems suffered by G&L people as a direct result of anti-gay marriage amendments and political campagins agains G&L people.

  They surveyed people in Colorado and other areas about the environment during those campaigns and were able to show the very real post-traumatic impact it had on G&L people in those areas at that time.

  I hope this comes up in the trial at some point.

• 48. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:06 am

  Do you know where this study can be found? I'd love to read it!

  I can certainly say that my stress levels are higher now than before my state passed the anti-gay marriage amendment. Now I know exactly which neighbors, friends, and co-workers voted against me and my family. That'll mess with your head something terrible.

• 49. BMc  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:08 am

  I don't know the name, I would have to ask my psychologist friend who found it (she's getting her PHD.)

• 50. BMc  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:11 am

  Here's something about it, I believe
  http://www.beyondhomophobia.com/blog/2008/11/25/a…

• 51. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:13 am

  Yeah, I think I just found that too. Thank you for mentioning it. I want to get this book and share it with others.

• 52. Mykelb  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:29 am

  I was living in the State of VA when they passed the Constitutional amendment disavowing marriage equality. I moved to MD. I wasn't going to live in a State where they take my tax money and legislate against me.

• 53. DonG  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:02 am

  Ann: Legal scholars are arguing whether or not Romer was about ONLY animus or whether it was about animus (in addition to any other reason) since you can’t know what is in the voter’s mind when she/he votes. That’s why some of the early testimony was elicited by our side–to show that animus was a primary focus of the PROPONENTS of Prop 8.
  When Dr. Tam testifies this afternoon, it will be even clearer since he was a main proponent of Prop 8 and because his main motivation was animus toward gays. That’s what’s going to be so interesting–in addition to seeing Tam being examined by our attorneys. Apparently, he didn’t stand up too well in the deposition.

• 54. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:26 am

  Thanks, Don. I hadn't thought about the fact that Romer was also about an initiative.

  Can't wait to see Tam get grilled. Er, read about it, I mean.

• 55. drjams  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:03 am

  Yeah, I can't watch the original "Gathering Storm" ad without laughing cause I'm thinking of the parodies! They are SOOOO funny! (especially the "Gaythering Storm" and their idea of a large gay-deflecting umbrella!! HAHAHA!!) Maybe the defense should consider buying said umbrella, let there be marriage equality and call it even.

• 56. Cj  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:03 am

  Damn i knew we should have gotten that whole rainbow thing trademarked!

• 57. Jenny O  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:31 am

  hahaha this makes me think of a Demetri Martin joke where he says, "Why does one group get refracted light? Pretty greedy, gays"

• 58. Richard Cortijo  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:39 am

  hahaha we should sue!!

• 59. Ray Harwick  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:12 am

  There is a court case in Bakerfield right now concering a Prop 8 support (who, I think, is a City Councilman) who attacked a gay guy over an issue with signs. There is video of the attack. The guy who was attacked is suing the attacker.

  The upshot was that the gay group had confiscated Yes on 8 signs that someone placed in their yards and they altered the signs to read "No on 8". The Yes group noticed this and the councilman crossed the street to "claim" the signs being held by a man. The man wouldn't give him the sign and the councilman slugged him a couple of times, grabbed the sign, and returned to the other side of the street. The guy who got slugged was knocked down and from that position he tried to defend himself.

• 60. Patrick Regan  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:16 am

  just read on twitter that Tam is up next (S was just done so expect post soon). I'm looking forward to hearing what Tam has to say.

• 61. Jason  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:24 am

  Here's more info on the Bakersfield case.
  http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x113239042/…

• 62. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:34 am

  Thanks for the link…but there is no video of the incident at the site. Is this because it will be used in court, as evidence?

• 63. pearlheartgtr  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:24 am

  Yes, Mr. Tam should be fun. I would expect George Takei tp play him in the reenactments. One could only hope…

• 64. Happy  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:26 am

  OMG! George Takei playing Tam would be BEAUTIFUL!

• 65. Happy  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:26 am

  Tam will likely cause reactions of disbelief, anger, possible laughter at the preposterous nature of most of his statements, possible tears at their hurtfulness.

• 66. Jenny O  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:26 am

  "At least as relevant as O’Reilly and other post-Prop. 8 stuff."

  hahahahahaha that cracked me up!

  Living in Ohio, I'd never seen that gathering storm ad before. The worst part about that is there are people out there are actually stupid enough to believe BS like that. Doesn't give me much faith in America.

  Love the parodies though. Especially Colbert (I remember that one when it was on). "Did you see all that lightening?" hahaha Gotta love Colbert

• 67. Frijondi  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:48 am

  Over here in the San Francisco Area, we've been having a series of rainstorms, with a lot more thunder and lightning than we usually get. The western sky was nearly black around 3:00 yesterday, at least from my vantage point.

  Can't decide whether it's because God is pissed off about the passage of Prop. 8, or simply trying to save all the homosexuals in Northern California from having to take one-minute showers this summer.

• 68. Ted  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:27 am

  Oh man, bring on Dr. Tam.

  I've been anxiously waiting our chance to grill this venomous asshat.

• 69. waxr  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:27 am

  When President Lincoln was running for re-election in 1864, his opponents put up posters showing a black man kissing a white girl. This was to warn white voters that if Lincoln is returned to office their daughter might marry a black man.

• 70. sarah  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:30 am

  William Tam's new nickname should be Train Wreck Tam. A boon for our case a travesty for the pro prop 8 side.

• 71. Richard W. Fitch  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:40 am

  Does pleading the Fifth apply to this case?

• 72. Patrick Regan  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:42 am

  not exactly, Tam isn't on trial for himself. So there is no self-incrimination going on. I asked that question earlier in another post, but I could have miss-understood the answer.

• 73. Tom  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:49 am

  Since this isn't a criminal trial, Doctor Tam can't incriminate himself by making statements, so no, the Fifth is pretty much null and void here. Not to mention the defense already has a videotaped deposition of Tam already in evidence.

• 74. James  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:48 am

  I agree on Segura's statement indicating that people do vote according to their religious beliefs. My mother will continue to vote Republican candidates because she believes they are ALL against abortion, of which she is in agreement with. She has even stated that regardless of where they stand on any other issue. If you are anti-abortion you are guaranteed her vote. And unfortunately there are alot of people with the same attitude.

• 75. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:55 am

  With many of us it's the opposite. I will NEVER vote for an anti-choice candidate.

  But your point is a valid one, religion is a very strong influence on voting. No question.

• 76. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:55 am

  Actually, my partner and I have had a "confrontation" with a friend very similar to this, except she's in the "fear all brown skinned people" camp. She doesn't really care that we get hurt by these politicians she votes for as long as a Mexican doesn't take her job and she's never forced to go to a mosque and wear a burqa (sp?).

• 77. Andrea  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:33 am

  That's weird.

  It's a FACT that illegal aliens use marriage bans to take your guns away and use them to steal your Medicare. Marriage equality is the only way to secure our borders.

  I'm surprised your friend didn't know this. It really needs to be mentioned more often.

• 78. Loren  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:48 am

  I'm sick of that disgusting ad, but it does hearten me to see it played in a court of law where a bunch of smart people have a chance to show in a public forum exactly what a bunch of fear-filled bullshit it really is.

  Speaking of the "my freedom will be taken away" line, I got into an argument with a Yes on 8 supporter at a rally who claimed that her freedom was being impugned by ss marriage. She could not explain to me what freedoms were threatened or how that would happen, and I've never heard anybody do so.

• 79. Frijondi  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:51 am

  I often wonder how reachable people like that are.

• 80. Tom  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:52 am

  Two words: Good Luck!

• 81. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:58 am

  They're not, but they're not the point anyway. There are still people that hate blacks, interracial marriage, desegregation, all of it; however, I hope for every one of them that there may be ten that aren't and that their mind may change, even just a little.

  Most people are just ignorant, not pure hateful asshats like Tam. Those are the ones we need to talk to and open their eyes to people like Tam.

• 82. Andrea  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:28 am

  Very reachable. You just have to speak the truth, and stop trying to confuse them with lies about fairness and equality. Religious people are not stupid, and they see right through that kind of deceptive spin.

  It's a known FACT that the Second Coming cannot happen until the forces of depravity have fully taken root. Jesus cannot return unless same-sex marriage is legal. Only then can the Rapture occur.

  It's also a FACT that if same-sex marriage is made legal nationwide, Mormons get their own planets immediately. This is what happens for Mormons when the Rapture occurs.

  It's a FACT that the forces of Satan have infiltrated the churches – Satan is using marriage bans to prevent Jesus from returning to win the battle of Armageddon, to prevent the Rapture, and to deny Mormons their right to a private planet.

  It's also a FACT that same-sex marriage must become legal nationwide soon, probably before Dec. 21, 2012, or they all get LEFT BEHIND.

  These FACTS really need to be mentioned more often.

• 83. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:57 am

  Loren, they try to claim that churches will be force to marry gay couples, they bring up a fertility doctor who got sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian, they bring up a photographer in New Mexico who got sued for refusing to photograph a commitment ceremony.

  The first argument is specious, the second two have nothing to do with marriage.

• 84. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:24 am

  Yep, those second cases have to do with violations of the Unruh Act. If you offer up services to the public, you cannot discriminate.

• 85. Mykelb  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:25 am

  The second two arguments are about public accommodation and general business practices. That is why we need to be given the "suspect class" classification. We should not be discriminated against in public accommodation which is what is happening in the 2nd and 3rd example, but we cannot sue because we have no standing.( see: http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/race-discr…

• 86. jc  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:04 am

  nothing like being unoriginal in a stance on something, but my favorite part is what you said, they've no idea what rights or freedoms are being threatened! it's sad, frightening and funny all at the same time!

• 87. Robert Carter  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:14 am

  Last year in Idaho the Civil Rights Comission refused to endorse a measure to protect gays from discrimination. the argument seemed to be that it would infringe on the "right" to do so for relgious reasons.

• 88. Mykelb  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:26 am

  Seems to me that the Idaho Civil Rights Commission needs to be sued for discriminatory practices themself since they are putting their religion above the law.

• 89. BMc  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:49 am

  So wait, they harrassed you in court about the Logo? What did they say? did they throw spitballs? Make faces?

• 90. sue  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:50 am

  yes, the lgbt community has so much power, that others are able to block us from getting married, being employed, getting housing – because of their "deeply held convictions".
  the simple fact that there is such a qualifier as "openly gay" used in front of "politician" should lead a thoughtful person to realize there is a power deficit.

• 91. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:01 am

  Yes, I agree, particularly when that "openly gay" is used as an epthet aimed at hatred.

• 92. Frijondi  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:02 am

  I'm always amazed at the way "deeply held convictions" are considered a legitimate reason for discriminating against gays (and in many cases, women, too), but no one else.

  It's a triumph of emotion over reason.

• 93. jc  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:08 am

  depending on your sense of humor, some of this stuff is even funnier to read over at firedoglake…

  regarding the teacher telling student he's a fascist:

  T: Let’s turn to another LA Times story from Feb 2009. Classroom dispute at LA City College about Prop 8 has given rise to a lawsuit. Student says his professor called him a fascist bastard after he gave a speech against same-sex marriage. Professor told him to “ask God what your grade is.” Would this dissipate support for LGBT political power?

  i know it doesn't help our case ,but i cracked up when i read that the teacher told him to ask god what his grade is.

• 94. jc  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:09 am

  also..regarding about high-powered gay mafia members meeting with politicals:

  T: Called “a secret gay SuperFriends, a homosexual Justice League.” Says they met with two sitting governors (Schweitzer and Sebelius). Isn’t it true that gay leaders can have high-level meetings

  gay superfriends? my goodness i laughed when i read that…..

• 95. abbe  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:20 am

  gAy Team?

• 96. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:36 am

  If there WAS a gay mafia, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. We would have had our equality years ago!

• 97. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:29 am

  haahaahaaaaaaa! now that's funny!
  Especially if it was a U.S. government class…
  Maybe the student thought he was at that Christian University where these anti court folks are getting their education?

• 98. Michael Herman  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:12 am

  That ad is sickening, and nothing but complete lies.

• 99. Randy  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:17 am

  I have been thinking, and being perhaps more optimistic than I should be at this time, but think about what this country will be like after this is all over and we win. Not that all of a sudden people will like us and treat us with respect, but politically, when LGBT issues can no longer be used by the right as a wedge issue. There will always be divisive issues and people like Maggie Gallagher will always find ways of making money by hurting someone, but what’s really left? What big issue will they be able to use as effectively as us? Possibly abortion, but I don’t feel that that has the staying power as homophobia. If there are fewer and fewer issues to motivate the Christian right to get out the vote, what will America be like? I don’t know it’s just a thought that has been going around in my head…

• 100. Happy  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:25 am

  It will be like Utopia. I mean, there will still be hatred. There will still be anti-gay sentiment and acts. They will likely lessen with time, but probably never disappear. But, to have recourse….. nirvana.

• 101. Eddie  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:28 am

  I was thinking about that same thing earlier today. It will indeed be quite different. I don't think Bush would have been reelected if not for all the homophobes coming out in droves to vote on homophobia. Ah, to wonder…

• 102. Frijondi  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:36 am

  Let's say we win when it goes to the Supreme Court. My gues is that the religious right will immediately start looking for legals ways to devalue same-sex marriage. They'll probably try to pass laws that allow employers to treat couples in "opposite marriages" differently with regard to benefits than those in same-sex marriages, on some obscure statistical grounds.

  They're good at this — look at how they've been chipping away at abortion rights ever since Roe v. Wade.

• 103. Randy  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:53 am

  Well I thought about that too, but there is a difference between abortion rights and human rights. If the SC goes our way you can’t really attack the same way. Were there similar issues after the interracial marriage case I wonder?

• 104. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:02 am

  Randy, there was that foolish JP in Alabama or Louisiana (I think) who refused to marry an interracial couple just last year. Fortunately, he has now resigned under pressure. But this is more than 40 years after the SCOTUS ruled that interracial marriages cannot be barred.

• 105. David from Sandy UT  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:23 am

  Here in Utardia—The Pretty Hate State (a.k.a. Utah), some people actually believe the deliberate, fear-mongering lies included in The Gathering Storm video. Every single statement in that video is a distortion of the truth. In my electronic conversations with fellow Utardians, I have explained repeatedly that individuals are welcome to believe whatever, but (just one example) if a social services agency accepts tax dollars it must also accept and abide by the non-discrimination policies of the government agency providing the funding. If the social services agency wants to discriminate (Go, Bigots!) just stop accepting tax dollars. (Whiners respond: The social services agency might have to shut down. My response: Too bad.)

  I have a hard time understanding how intelligent individuals can support such illogical, fear-mongering stooopidity. On the other hand, I live in Utah.

• 106. Happy  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:30 am

  I visited UT once….. Once. I went to St. George and Cedar City. In both places I completely crawled into the closet, tail between my legs, afraid to leave the house without makeup on for fear that my short hair and general lack of femininity would lead to a lynching. What a place you live in, sir. I commend you for your brave stance in support of non-traditional UT beliefs.

• 107. Brandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:24 am

  Can anyone link the press conference held after the Mormon+Catholic church support revelation was revealed.

  I though there may have been a video involving that subject. Maybe I am confussed.

• 108. K  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:26 am

  I can't stay over there are nomblog. It's literally making me ill. I am just so tired of being up for debate. I'm so tired of looking at my kids and praying that when they are old enough to understand (they are 3 and a half) all of this it will only be to look back and wonder what on earth was the issue. I am so tired of feeling like my life is on continual display because we all have to be good shining examples of how wonderful and perfect we are in order to "deserve" marriage. I'm tired. I'm tired of fighting people who don't listen and who will never change their minds. Even if we win. Then what? Appeal. Supreme Court. Where does DOMA come in? More debate. More display. More fear. More fighting. Sorry. I'm just so frustrated at the immense display of hate and ignorance that it feels insurmountable.

• 109. Brandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:28 am

  Feels.. powerless?

• 110. Patrick Regan  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:32 am

  I feel your pain. It's tiring to debate and argue, but we are all here to support you. Fear not about your kids. a vast majority of people in my generation (I'm 23) will be here welcoming your kids as the kids they are. Change is coming. It's slow and possibly not complete by the time your kids are old enough to understand, but there are many of us out here to show them that they are good. We are here to show them that their Moms/Dads are good. We are here to show them that while some people may hate, there are many who love too.

  I'm here to stand with you, as are many who are here. When one of us falters, it falls on the rest of us to help lift you up. Don't despair, there are others here to take your fight so that you can rest for another day.

  We are out numbered now, but reinforcements are on the way (our children). We are on the right side of history. We are on the right side of this fight. Continue to have hope, because there are many standing with you.

  I may not know you, but I love you. I love all of you. I love. And there are many here to do just that every day. Love.

  Love,
  Pat

• 111. jc  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:38 am

  pat,

  beautifully said. your reply is very touching!

• 112. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:38 am

  *gives running tackle hug to Pat* You rock, buddy!

• 113. Ozymandias  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:41 am

  Pat, that was awesome! *big hug*

• 114. K  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:51 am

  Thank you. You made me cry at work. 🙂

• 115. Tigger  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:01 am

  Wow. That really moved me…

• 116. Patrick Regan  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:29 am

  Thanks guys, I didn't mean to write anything profound or anything. I just wanted to tell K how I felt. We all stand and help each other. This fight is too big for any one person. K just needed help remembering she isn't alone, and we are here to help.

  Many people would have said the same thing.

  Love,
  Pat

• 117. A  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:41 pm

  Thanks Pat – I needed to hear that. 23 eh? your folks must be proud!

• 118. Ozymandias  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:33 am

  K, I know EXACTLY what you mean. It's also incredibly frustrating when our own testimonies of fear, discrimination and abuse are summarily dismissed, ignored or worse, rationalized into it becoming our fault – 'Well if you didn't flaunt being Gay it wouldn't have happened' – WTF?!?

  Nonetheless, hang in there! There is soooo much importance about this trial – it's laying the fury and bigotry against us open for full view… and we're right here with ya.

• 119. Frijondi  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:40 am

  Back in the early nineties, I had a friend who considered himself a social liberal. He said he supported gay rights, but hated it when gays flaunted their sexuality. Turns out he meant holding hands in public, something he did with his fiancee on a regular basis. He really couldn't see the inconsistency.

• 120. jc  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:35 am

  k,

  though it won't help with your frustration, thank you for being a good, shining example. i definitely get what you are saying…at points i feel so weary reading these proceedings, because i am tired of our sexuality being such a target of vehemence and vitriol, and, as you said, debate!

• 121. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:42 am

  That's exactly what the "powerless" talk has all been about. This feeling that you can't take another moment of being a political football kicked around at a stranger's whim. I completely understand. I blogged for several years locally on gay rights and after the anti-gay marriage amendment for my state passed, I dropped out of all of it. I was very active on the DNC blog as well, and found myself fighting people that were supposed to be on our side. Eventually, I just gave up all of it.

  Sometimes, you have to walk away and take a break from it. Don't waste your time over at NOM. Those people are NOT reachable. Like Pat said, we're here to pick you up and share in your joys and sorrows. Take a break and let us carry the load for a little while. We'll still be here when you come back. 😉

• 122. A  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:39 pm

  I absolutely feel the same way you do. I live in conservative northern Cal – the land of Wally Herger – and I have 3 year old twin girls. I don't think it can change fast enough for them – luckily I am not too far from chico and there is at least some sanity there. I do feel like we somehow have to be above reproach – especially as parents. I really apprecited Olsens opening statement where he pointed out marriage rights are reserved for four classes of people and in the het example her calrified that this applied to all of them regardless of moral fitness. That is the first time I ever heard someone make that connection so clearly. I have been thinking it a lot when asked to 'change hearts and minds' – I think it's valuable to do that but [email protected]# d#[email protected] it! after the PTSD of yes on H8 HELL up here they can go f themselves if I am going to politely ask them for permission to do what was none of their business to begin with. I also can't stand their private vote on my marriage – I want to know where they stood and generally the yes onH8ers seem to be the ones who won't own it publically…why is that? Is that at least a small positive sign that it may be getting less popular to be ani-gay than it was before? I suppose that is a silver lining.

  I also appreciate whoever posted that link to the PTSD article – that's me in a nutshell. There were PUBLIC school boards passing resolutions to support prop 8 up here – leading directly to the harrassment of kids with two mom's and the ultimate decision to home school them. One of the mom's was in the military so they had to be pretty silent about it all or lose her job (which can't even provide benefits..health, retirement or death..to her family as the military can't know about it)…yes..we have oh so much power!

  ….ok..thanks for listening choir – I guess K just hit a cord!

• 123. Mark 'RikerBear  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:28 am

  Big Hugs K….just remember you are NOT alone!

• 124. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:44 am

  We have each other and allies growing daily. That is the fear being demonstrated in that video.
  It's all about losing power. Fear seems to work for some.
  I cannot see how they equate money as political power and try to say LGBT have power or equality.
  I am not an advocate for separatism, but I understand how some would like to form their own society.
  DOMA is going to have to be overturned, plus there will definitely be appeals to Supreme Court.
  The thing I look for hope, is that the Supreme Court affirms marriage to the person of your choice is a right, citing 14th Amendment in 1967. But I have to wonder at 56, will I see it? I hope so.

• 125. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:46 am

  I wonder if I'll see it too, but I have a 2 1/2 year old that I hope will have a chance to grow up in a world where she can marry the person she loves – man or woman. Because God knows, I want her to have the chance for all the things I didn't.

• 126. Aconite  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:40 am

  Sandy said: "The thing I look for hope, is that the Supreme Court affirms marriage to the person of your choice is a right, citing 14th Amendment in 1967. But I have to wonder at 56, will I see it?"

  About fifteen years ago, I told a lesbian couple who had just adopted their second child that I believed I would see gay marriage in my lifetime. I expected it to be, you know, when I was gray-haired and considerably more wrinkled than I am.

  Ten years after that, Mass. made it official. That was not only before my hair went gray, but before my knees started making those annoying noises when I bend over. We have a long, long way to go, but as Rev. King said, the arc bends toward justice.

  So hang in there.

• 127. Nakhone  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:29 am

  Did I miss something? Can somewhat please tell me how William Tam is now a witness for our side? I hadn't been able to find anything on the matter. Last I heard he dropped out as D-I's witness due to 'fear' for his life and now he's on our stand? Please explain.

• 128. Patrick Regan  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:33 am

  he was summoned in layman's terms. He is sort of being cross-examined by our side.

• 129. Happy  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:35 am

  He's a witness for our side in the sense that we're going to rip apart everything he stands for, expose his bigotry, as well as the animus that was the basis for his position in bringing about Yes on 8, which would in turn outlaw the proposition – eventually.

  I imagine he might be termed a "hostile" witness? Or have I watched too many legal TV series??

  It'll probably be like a Perry Mason moment: Get him on the stand and make him admit his own guilt. Even though this is not a criminal trial, his guilt will be their ultimate undoing. HOPEFULLY!!!

• 130. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:50 am

  But Tam thinks he will be rewarded in heaven for standing up for these bigoted beliefs…

  To some, this is Armageddon, Bible vs. Constitution, instead of coexistence.

  uh oh, what have I said?

• 131. Philip  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:52 am

  I am pleased that this disgraceful video is getting played and scrutinized in court. I thought this comment in the transcript in the court was right on"Hard not to look at video and see that homosexuals are to be feared. References to fear, children, churches facing government repression, gays and lesbians as serious threat to all sorts of aspects of public life."
  Thank you, and well said.

• 132. draNgNon  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:15 am

  I realize that you have to type fast becuase you are live-blogging the testimony, but the image of the defense lawyer as Mr. T has really prevented me from taking this and the previous post without a very strange court scenario in my imagination…

• 133. Nakhone  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:39 am

  "No. But I agree with this. If same sex marriage is legal, it would encourage children to explore same sex as their marriage partner. From Asian as well as Christian angle, we think this is social, moral decay."

  That's a crock of shit. I'm Asian and that bigot William Tam does not speak for all us Asians and he can't claim from Asian angle because that is not the Asian perspective. More accurately, it's the fundamentally flawed Christian idiotic and bigoted belief system that is outdated. Just to be clear.

  Your friendly gay Asian-American activist,
  -Nakhone Keodara

• 134. Liveblogging Day 8: Part &hellip  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:49 am

  […] I’ve moved over to a new thread, where Judge Walker lets the Gathering Storm video be […]

• 135. Ryan Blazer  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:24 pm

  So the “Gathering Storm” video got me to thinking what ol’ Maggie is doing at NOM… nothing like Andy, but at least she has the comments open (subject to moderation, but anti-Prop 8 stuff is getting posted)

  Here’s my comment to her analysis (which did get removed… guess I pissed her off)

  http://nomblog.com/707/
  

  Maggie, while the only thing I can applaud you for is leaving the comments open on the blog, I disagree with everything else…

  You wrote: “When this trial began I told you: gay marriage activists were putting 7 million Californians on trial…But this week it got worse: They are clearly putting Christianity itself on trial. Why else have an expert read statements of Catholic and Southern Baptist doctrines into the record?”

  Not all Catholics and perhaps “some” Southern Baptists hold your views. You forget to mention other denominations like the United Methodists, Episcopals, et al do not take the same stand, so please do not lump everyone under the cover of “Christianity.”

  Second of 7 million people are on trial? I think not. It’s the Governor and AG of California, who ultimately chose not defend themselves on the ground that Prop 8 flies in the face of the 14th Amendment.

  You simply cannot put the rights of a minority up to a popular vote, and when you do, the judicial system gets involved.

  People seem to forget that there are 3 branches of government at work, and not 2. When any of the branches overstep the bounds, then one of them must step in to put the other branch back in line, which is happening right here.

  Call it what you will, i.e. “judicial activism, legislating from the bench” etc. but it’s simply the system of checks and balances at work. The US Constitution guarantees this check and balance.

  The whole point of reading “statements of Catholic and Southern Baptist doctrines into the record” is to show when organizations (being general) chose to become involved in politics, they open themselves up to public scrutiny as has been witnessed. They have to own up to their position and can’t hide.

• 136. Ryan Blazer  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:25 am

  I think Maggie wants to hide the fact that we have 3 branches of government and not 1 or 2. Guess she failed HS Civics?

• 137. Ryan Blazer  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:27 am

  Guess I pissed the moderator or Maggie off by reposting my comment.

  Got the following response:

  Ryan, your point is irrelevant since you and I have exactly the same, identical rights. We can both choose, or not choose, to enter into marriage as defined.

• 138. Mykelb  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:45 am

  Maggie Gallagher had better never cross my path. I live in DC and she has become the enemy. She couches her fallacious logic as a "difference of opinion" when in fact it is a difference of definition, whether we are to define marriage as a civil right, a religious rite, or both. Their side seems to want to exclude us from both the right and the rite. She has no legal right to expect that our constitutional rights aren't equal and that we have the legal right to marry who we love.

• 139. Bill  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:53 am

  Big Maggie Nom Nom says: "Ryan, your point is irrelevant since you and I have exactly the same, identical rights. We can both choose, or not choose, to enter into marriage as defined."
  ___________________________________________
  It always amazes me when heterosexuals present that option to gay citizens.

  They literally make public fools of themselves by screaming about 'the sanctity of marriage,' when we all see how heterosexuals treat marraige. It is about as 'sanctimonious' to them as a piece of day old toast.

  So when they inevitably suggest that we join them in their complete and total disrespect and disregard for marriage by marrying people that we do not and COULD not love, it really reveales just how 'sanctimonious' they truly think marraige is. What about a sham marraige promotes family stability or family values? Eve from a religious perspective… How would a sham marriage honor God in any way???

  Transparent. Totally transparent.

• 140. Shane Z.  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:07 am

  If it's Maggie ( else frame it as if you are talking to a lady ), just be like no, we do not have the same rights. You, as a woman, have the right to marry a man, and I do not. You also do not have the right I have to marry a woman. We may have an equal AMOUNT of rights, not but not the same, identical SET of rights.

  It's amount to saying before civil rights that hey, you black people have the right to drink from that fountain, and white people have the right to drink from this fountain. See, same, identical rights!

• 141. Roberta K  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:28 am

  UCC churches have been performing marriage (or loose equivalent) services for same-sex couples for some time.

  And marriage equality is still a sticky wicket in the Episcopal Church — the last General Convention just finally ruled that it's okay for parishes to perform services in states where same-sex marriage is legal (MA, IA, etc.).

• 142. Alice  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:34 am

  Not directly relevant to what's happening in the US, but the Church of Scotland has passed legislation allowing ministers to perform blessings for same-sex couples (Scotland has civil partnerships but not SS marriage). They also ordained an openly gay minister last year, though this was controversial.

• 143. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:46 am

  If more people just responded to the "christians are victims" mentality, you may offer the following:

  – Please tell me more about all the state propositions to curb religious thought and practice?

  – Please provide me a list of the states that have attempted to amend their respective constitutions to deny religious institutions and their followers the right to practice their religion?

  – Please?

  You have my permission to use the above.

• 144. Jenny O  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:52 am

  "People seem to forget that there are 3 branches of government at work, and not 2. When any of the branches overstep the bounds, then one of them must step in to put the other branch back in line, which is happening right here.
  Call it what you will, i.e. “judicial activism, legislating from the bench” etc. but it’s simply the system of checks and balances at work. The US Constitution guarantees this check and balance."

  I love this part of your post. I really hate it when people call court cases "legislating from the bench". There's a reason we have 3 branches of government, but these people just want their way regardless of the constitutionality of it. When it doesn't go their way they make up dumb statements like that to show how they were supposedly wronged.

  Great post! Too bad they practice intolerance AND censorship over there.

• 145. Dina  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:57 am

  I always wondered if these people even took high school civics…

• 146. Pat  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:20 am

  The will of The majority?

• 147. Pat  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:23 am

  or a flaw in the democratic system?