Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Explosive evidence exposes Prop 8 campaign


by Robert Cruickshank

During the fall of 2008 – and again in 2009 in Maine – the forces behind Proposition 8 ran a very slick and clever campaign that emphasized “protecting marriage” and “protecting children.” They deliberately left it unclear just what was being protected against, assuming that voters would know to fill in the blanks. Prop 8 backers did a good job of keeping a tight lid on their own true beliefs, making their own position seem less discriminatory and less radical than it actually is.

That all changed this morning in the trial courtroom, as explosive Yes on 8 campaign videos and documents were introduced into evidence. One of the videos was of a campaign rally from 2008 paid for and simulcast by that shows what they really believe. As reported to us by Yusef Robb of the American Foundation for Equal Rights and shown at the trial today, the video included the following stunning quotes:

“Then pedophiles would have to be allowed to marry 6-7-8 year olds. The man from Massachusetts who petitioned to marry his horse after marriage was instituted in Massachusetts. He’d have to be allowed to do so. Mothers and sons, sisters and brothers, any, any combination would have to be allowed.”

Of course, no such marriages were allowed in Massachusetts, or any other state where same-sex marriage is legal.

“Second of all, the polygamists are waiting in the wings because if a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman based on the fact that you have the right to marry whoever you want to marry, then the polygamists are going to use that exact same argument and they’re probably going to win.”

Opponents of marriage equality love to raise this example, even though it is not what is at issue here. It’s an example of what is often called “moving the goalposts” – shifting the ground from a discussion they might lose (“should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?”) to one they feel they might win, even though it isn’t actually what is at issue. No serious and credible organization supporting same-sex marriage has expressed support for polygamy. This is farcical at best.

“We are seeing the people of Massachusetts being desensitized day by day concerning homosexuality and becoming more and more adjusted to the idea of homosexual marriage being the law of the land and the homosexual agenda becoming more and more of a powerful element in the life of our society.”

Here we see very clearly that to Prop 8 backers, this isn’t about marriage at all. It’s about whether homosexuality is accepted by the public and by the law. They believe that legal recognition of same-sex marriage would make it harder to discriminate against LGBT Americans. This quote is indicative of what Prop 8 was really all about.

“I think a helpful way to think about this is to compare it to 9/11 because a lot of us are asking: How does this directly affect us? Well I wasn’t directly affected by 9/11 and my guess is most of you weren’t either in the sense I didn’t know somebody who crashed the plane in the building. I didn’t know somebody who was in the building. But after 9/11 the world was a fundamentally different place and that has affected me. The change in the redefinition of marriage is the same type of thing.”

Can you imagine the public reaction if Californians had known in the fall of 2008 that Prop 8 backers compared marriage equality to the murder of over 3,000 innocent people on that September morning in 2001? Such an outrageous and offensive statement would have caused major damage to the Yes on 8 forces and showed how callous and radical they truly are. When Democrats mistakenly used footage that included the old World Trade Center towers in an ad for Martha Coakley just days before the Massachusetts Senate election, it was seen as a major gaffe that helped ensure Coakley lost the race. Who knows what would have happened had the public known this was being said at a rally paid for and simulcast by the Prop 8 backers?

Rick Jacobs took a moment from his trial liveblogging to offer these comments on the video and quotes:

“This morning’s evidence made the Prop 8 side’s strategy crystal clear — use fear and lies to promote hate. It is horrifying that Prop 8 proponents would compare marriage equality to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and imply that marriage equality will open the door to pedophilia, incest and bestiality.”

“Ron Prentice, Andrew Pugno and their Prop 8 team — with the highly capable and apparently deeply cynical leadership of Frank Schubert — created a permanent campaign to scare voters into believing that same-sex marriage would threaten children, undermine America and lead to every form of illicit behavior imaginable.”

“This evidence is not just a smoking gun. It was an arsenal of incendiary devices directed at the LGBT community and voters. This is how the Prop 8 side won — through fear and lies.”

“Finally, this morning we saw indisputable, documented evidence in the form of emails and videos that Ron Prentice and Protect Marriage coordinated closely and relied upon the Catholic Church, the LDS Church, the Family Research Council, Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown and the National Organization for Marriage to get Prop. 8 on the ballot and to win through a campaign of lies.”

“Last week, the Supreme Court erased decades of precedent by ruling that corporations have the same rights as people when it comes to speech. Let’s hope that the court will as readily see that LGBT people have at least the same rights as corporations and surely the same rights as other people.”

Looking at these quotes, it’s no wonder why Protect Marriage fought so hard to keep this trial as hidden away from the public as possible. The truth is revealing. The truth is explosive. The truth shows that far from “protecting” families and children, the primary goal of Prop 8 backers was to impose their radical views of society on us, and discriminate against LGBT people in California and across the nation.

Tags: , , ,


  • 1. Scot  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:03 am

    I have to ask – is this meant to be an opinion or a news piece?

  • 2. Drew  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:17 am

    Its Rich's opinion piece on the latest news from the trial.

    This is blog, and they are working to get the news and opinion about the news, out as fast as they can. And some of it is opinion.

    Isnt that evident? Do you think they should do more? If so, why dont you go sit in court and start blogging yourself.: go volunteer.

  • 3. Scot  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:34 am

    No, no, no – just making sure if my own reaction was justified or not. Now I know – no worries now. 🙂

    As Fiona explains, it's a commentary, and it's all good.

  • 4. fiona64  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:18 am

    It falls into the category of commentary.

    (a former newspaper editor)

  • 5. Greg  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Where is the MSM? Why isn't closet-case Anderson Cooper and other news anchors reporting these blockbuster developments? The revelations reveal an insane level of bigotry among the Prop 8 campaigners. Why is the media hands-off and so eager to please Tony Perkins and give him equal time?

  • 6. Urbain  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:05 am

    The media silence speaks volumes about the "political power" of the community, doesn't it?

  • 7. waxr  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:12 am

    "Then pedophiles would have to be allowed to marry 6-7-8 year olds."

    For hundreds of years, the church allowed the marriage of 6, 7 and 8 year olds. Is that what they mean by "traditional marriage"?

  • 8. JimmyD  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:37 am

    The Church has also allowed child rape. God love the Church…

  • 9. BobP  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:30 am

    Remember, it isn't rape if the rapist marries his victim.

  • 10. Richard  |  January 25, 2010 at 11:57 am

    To BobP: Whether it is rape if you marry your victim depends upon which state you are in. There are some states with laws against spousal rape.

  • 11. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:36 am

    I think BobP was referring to biblical law. If a man rapes an unmarried woman, the OT penalty was that he had to marry the woman and could never get divorced. FTW!

  • 12. Russell V  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Interesting piece of writing. As always, enjoying having this access to the courtroom's happenings.

  • 13. JPM  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:22 am

    The man from Massachusetts who petitioned to marry his horse after marriage was instituted in Massachusetts.

    Did someone really do this? Google is not showing me anything to suggest that it actually happened.

  • 14. fiona64  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:26 am

    That's because the source for the original statement is colorectal in nature.

  • 15. Joe Z  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:24 pm


  • 16. Johnathan Fii  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:26 am

    Me neither, and my Google-fu is exceptional.
    Sounds like more paranoid H8.

  • 17. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:34 am

    I had friends that either died on 9-11, worked in the buildings but were not there, and some that survived……

    I was beyond offended by this connection…..To be perfectly honest I am repulsed by it……somebody who makes a statement like that should be marked as a traitor and shot!


  • 18. elliott  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:49 am

    I love this "moving the goalposts" argument… if I'm not mistaken, it is akin to the "slippery slope" fallacy. According to that logic, if we, as a society allow the expansion of the definition of a civil right, it necessarily leads to the expansion of all superficially conceivably presumable rights, including those that we as a society deem harmful. The only problem is that as an ex-Mormon, this little stoat has trod this road before. We aren't just on a slippery slope, we are on exactly the same slope upon which Mormons themselves have before tread. Once upon a time, during the birth of Mormon religion, Mormon leaders not only bore but encouraged polygamy. Currently, however, the church disavows polygamists and designate those who practice polygamy as members of a splinter-sect of the Mormon church. If they had the prescience to see the bottom of the "slippery slope" (read: compelled by the federal government to prod them to back up,) why on earth do they presume that gay people will do the same and require the same state-led intervention. It seems as though they are guilty and are expecting the gay community (and we are a community, despite friday's testimony!) to commit their same mistakes and slide just as far down into their self-constructed pit of moral decline. Screw that.


  • 19. Scot  |  January 25, 2010 at 11:06 am

    Which is why I am very baffled at the LDS Church leadership for forgetting the persecution they endured for having polygamy, and yet here they are.

    Speaking of moral decline, there is a lot of good to be had in the LDS Church (Haiti comes to mind as a recent example), so I wouldn't classify them as, a friend puts it, "morally deficient".

  • 20. fiona64  |  January 25, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    Scot (I think you and I may have interacted in a FB discussion where a LDS brother of yours was making a complete fool of himself …), I have met some very nice people from my parents' church. No organization is all good or all bad. I take tremendous exception to *any* church trying to force its beliefs into the civil code all the same.

    My tiny MCC, with its congregation of 60, sent $400 to the MCC-wide Haiti relief special offering. I know that sounds like a tiny amount, but when you think about the size of our congregation, well … there it is.

  • 21. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:42 am

    Many members of the LDS church are good and decent people. The leadership of LD$ Inc. are not.

    Yes, the church finances some charitable work. But as a percentage of their income from tithing and various (often hidden) investments, it's a pittance.

    Most people don't know this, because the church leadership is all about information control and emotional manipulation. Different "truths" for different people, y'know.

    If you are objecting to classifying all Mormons as morally deficient, I agree with you. But the church itself? I make no apologies for referring to as "morally deficient" an organization that bamboozles its members out of 10% of their income in order to finance secret investments and hate-filled political campaigns and god knows what else, while making a token show of charity, and expends a considerable amount of effort concealing information from its members and from the public in general. If that's not morally deficient, I don't know what is.

  • 22. Bill  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:50 am

    "Can you imagine the public reaction if Californians had known in the fall of 2008 that Prop 8 backers compared marriage equality to the murder of over 3,000 innocent people on that September morning in 2001? Such an outrageous and offensive statement would have caused major damage to the Yes on 8 forces and showed how callous and radical they truly are."

    I feel that the 'public reaction' would have been exactly the same. I mean, let's be honest here:

    Very few people besides ourselves care about us, our well-being or our very lives. (Yes, I am aware that there are hetero-exceptions to that.)

    I do not think for one second that even IF the voters knew what a group of slimeballs the Yes on 8 people were, it would have made a darn bit of difference.

    Prop 8 was a vote of condemnation from many heterosexuals. The majority in California simply wanted to keep us 'evil gays' as less than second-class citizens. Heck, defense witness even stated that they could take away our DP's and CU's if they so chose.

  • 23. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:57 am

    I beg to differ. I think that if they had at least been told the truth, they could have formulated a rational opinion. They were never given the chance.

    In other words:
    Prop8 didn't believe they could win without the lies.

  • 24. Bill  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:03 am

    I get that. And I would like tobelieve it and agree.

    However, studies showed that a lot of people who SAID they would vote NO on 8, actually voted YES when in the privacy of the voting booth. Lots of interesting articles written about that after and even during the election. We had such an unprecedented lead at one point during the election and according to the polls, that experts were predicitng just that. People presenting themselves as voting NO, but actually voting YES.

    So, I guess my poorly made point was that people in voting booths vote what is in their heart. Whether that is prejudiced or not. They did win, after all.

    (But they WILL lose this one!!!!!!)

  • 25. fiona64  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:05 am

    @Bill: A lot of people believed that by voting "Yes" on 8, they were voting for marriage equality. I cannot tell you how many people told me this.

    Part of the fault definitely lies with the No on 8 campaign. So many of us could not believe that a rational person would vote in favor of discrimination. We didn't count on how easily irrational behavior and scapegoating could take over the race.

  • 26. Joe  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:49 am

    Barb, you're dead on correct. Prop 8 was trailing horribly in the polls and they did whatever they felt necessary, even outright lie, in order to win.

  • 27. Alkanshel  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:58 am

    Honestly, I think part of the problem was that No on 8 never really refuted the claims (psychotic and irrational as they were) of Yes on 8, at least not on prime-time TV.

    I mean, I recall seeing hordes of Yes on 8 ads, all of which made me want to throw things at my TV; while the ads for No on 8 were good and meaningful, they never really refuted the claims being put forth.

    I can't speak for the people that changed their votes at the voting booth, though. That's just crap. If you can't bring yourself to state what you actually believe publicly, you should take a good, hard look at your beliefs.

  • 28. Kevin_BGFH  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:59 am

    I'm not sure I agree. If we had access to these materials before the vote and were able to turn them into a campaign ad, I think some of the moderate voters fooled by the "what will children be taught" rhetoric wouldn't have bought into the Prop 8 arguments.

  • 29. Bill  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:27 am

    @ fiona64

    Yes, I heard and read a lot about that, too. However, this is the OFFICIAL Prop 8 language as it appeared on the ballot:

    "Shall the California Constitution be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California?"

    I was there. I voted. I read the ballot. If you read the ballot, the language was ans is really quite clear.

    I'm not trying to squash people's hope that people will come to their senses and treat us fairly.

    I am saying that as someone who has been on the planet awhile and as someone who has witnessed other civil rights struggles, we must simply not forget how the majority of Americans view us.

    Most Amercians, if you look at how we are doing at the polls these days, still view us as sinful, immoral people who simply 'chose' and 'choose' to be LGTB. Those Americans are most easily identified when the word 'lifestyle' leaves their lips. That tells me that the person is about to spout, verbatim, all of the things that every LGTB citizens has heard, verbatim, for their whole lives.

    It seems like we all just want to blame the 'Yes on 8' folks for this, when in fact, 52% of my fellow Californians voted to "eliminate my right to marry" by carving me out of the constitution.

    Voters have responsibility here, too. Voters are adults. Voters must be able to read. The language on the ballot is clear. And people's votes were intentional.

    Of course, there's always a margin of error. I think it is simply important to pint out that, ultimately, this is the voter's responsibility. To know what they are voting on. And I believe most of them did.

    Just important to not forget that. The Voters are responsible for Prop 8 as much as the campaign bullies are.

  • 30. Alkanshel  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Voters are also idiots. If they've been led to believe beforehand that Prop 8 was about, say, marriage equality or preventing pedophilia, it's highly unlikely that they'd actually READ or BELIEVE the language of the Proposition.

    Plus, as I'm learning (on a daily basis), the average American is an idiot with a very, very narrow worldview (I can't claim that I'm not subject to such moments myself).

  • 31. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:45 am

    I'm getting really sick of Bill. I didn't even see who had written this at first, then I saw the gratuitous hetero-slandering, and I'm like, "Oh, must be Bill."

    As a straight white middle class male, I don't have anything to complain about. If somebody wants to pick on aspects of my personality that I can't change, well, I really can't make too much of a fuss since I surely have received unfair privilege as a result of those things. But you know what? It really makes you look like an ass.

  • 32. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:47 am

    Really, the problem is this in a nutshell: When Bill wants to refer to "bigots", he uses the word "heterosexuals".

    NEWS FLASH: It is not heterosexuality that drives people to bigotry, it is a combination of ignorance and religion.

  • 33. Christopher B  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:58 am

    I wish someone would ask: Your materials state that gay marriage would lead to child marriages/polygamy/animal marriages. What research of evidence do you have to support that statement? You say that children do better in homes with a father and a mother. Given that same sex couples are a small minority, what are you doing to prevent the 50% divorce rate? Would you time and money be better spent on preventing the larger percentage of opposite-sex divorces than on the significantly smaller number of same sex marriages? Why are you specifically targeting gay marriages, most of which do not have children?

  • 34. Rick  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:56 am


  • 35. Ed-M  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:01 am

    @Bill et al,

    Don't be too sure the majority of voters voted for this thing! Brad Friedman and others have uncovered evidence that indicates that the vote on Proposition 8 could very well have been stolen.

  • 36. fiona64  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:07 am

    This is a good point. There is a place to file evidence if you know something about the voting machine tampering in Orange County (which went heavily in favor of Prop 8).

  • 37. Matt  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:28 am

    Well if they were still looking for proof of animus, they just found it with all this drek.

  • 38. activecitizen54  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:41 am

    The Great News out of all this now is that we, The LGBT Community, have documented evidence of the collusion and cooperation of the Cults of Jesus from the Catholics to the Evangelicals and the LDS/Mormons and can put this in their face that they spent $43 million on HATE in California alone. How long will the congregations put up with that kind of expense by the "Church"?
    This from JoeMyGod this morning is worth the watch:
    [youtube =]
    I cross posted it on my tomorrow's blog and filed it away.

  • 39. Joe  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:57 am

    Thank you posting that, that is VERY well illustrated!

  • 40. MJFargo  |  January 25, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    I got a chance to see this earlier today but didn't have time to thank you for you very good work in presenting this information. I look forward to sharing it with others.

  • 41. Jon  |  January 25, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Amazing! This is how we need to advocate. You want to talk about the facts- bring it on!

  • 42. Scott Lanway  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:54 am

    I wonder how Andy Pugno will try to spin this in his recap.

  • 43. Understanding  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:59 am

    Regarding the "slippery slope" / "moving the goalposts" stuff. People who say that really believe it. While there's absolutely no proof of it, there's also no proof (that I know of) against it, because this this has no known precedent in a comparable political system.

    Since "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still", perhaps civil discussion, not excluding persuasion, would be bit better than accusations that anyone who thinks that way is a liar. People believe these things; it's not a lie to them. We all have good judgement in our own eyes.

    I wish both sides would seek for more civil understanding.

  • 44. Desert Verdin 1 of 1  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    You know what, dammit? They believe we are pedophiles, we advocate bestiality, and we're out to f&&k their children.

    Screw "civil understanding." We know what they think of us and it ain't at all charitable.


    I do not need to be brought into some sort of understanding with them!!!! They tell us to our faces in person, via Faux News, and at the ballot box year in and year out what they think!


  • 45. Desert Verdin 1 of 1  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    In case I wasn't clear:

    There is no civil understanding to be had.

    They are the ones not listening. They are the ones who are lying.

    I have heard their crap my entire life. They have nothing to tell me that I have not already heard a thousand thousand times over.

    They are the ones telling us we are bad people. We are not bad people. We are just people. We are not lying about anything. THEY ARE THE ONES LYING.

    This trial and the evidence coming out of it shows the absolute venality of their "arguments."

    We know their arguments: Religion. Baybeez. Well so frickin' what. They have no rational point. I don't give a crap if it gives them the heebee-jeebees when they think of 2 guys goin' at it. Their uncomfortableness does not justify their lying, obfuscating bullcrap.

  • 46. John P  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:54 am

    To Desert Verdin: Thank you for your very straightforward comments—that sort of is the bottom line. We can sugarcoat the issue with studies and compassion for the misinformed forever. I stood outside of a polling place for our local Marriage Equality program— most people were very clear that they did not want to give equal rights to the community—-despite the fact that it was within our rights to be outside of the polling place, the police eventually drove us off with threats of jail. In other countries where same-sex marriage is allowed, I have not yet heard of people marrying animals or young children or any other the other outrageous claims. The most outrageous part of this, for me, is that I am expected to fork over an equal part of my income in taxes — no one thinks that my "gay" money is going to contaminate children and ruin marriage as they know it….

  • 47. Dave Hoen  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Most of the parents and grandparents who voted against us in Prop 8, still believe that being gay is a conscious choice. And that's what most of their religions continue to brainwash them with. Society and their religions have convinced them that being gay is the worst thing that could happen to their child. (Before I even knew what a homosexual was, my mother was telling me over and over she would rather see me in a coffin. The message I received was it was better to be dead than to be a homosexual.)

    With brainwashing like this, parents naturally leap to the conclusion that if their child learns it is okay to be gay, then he/she will simply choose to be gay. The "Protect Marriage" people knew this all too well. All they had to do was to tell the voters that if Prop 8 failed, children will be taught that two Princes can be married. The voters made the leap in their own minds that if they didn't vote for Prop 8, their was a good chance their child would choose to be gay.

    As it is right now in California, approximately 50% of the population are either bigots or clueless. Bigots are bigots and will probably never change. Unfortunately many of them are our political or "spiritual" leaders. As far as the clueless, we can either wait until they die off or we can work to educate.

  • 48. Alkanshel  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:04 am

    To be fair, when you're past a certain age, what you believe is what you believe, regardless of any evidence that might stand in the way of your beliefs.

    I'm not saying it's right, but it's definitely something I've observed from people like my grandmother. In her worldview, interracial marriage is wrong (but it's tolerable if they learn Chinese!), blacks are violent and generally criminal, Mexicans are 'amigos' and thieves, and all Indians smell of curry. There's just no way of convincing them that most of it is not true.

  • 49. Dave Hoen  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:39 am

    Yes, I agree it is extremely frustrating that many of the clueless "choose" to remain clueless which I believe makes them bigots.

  • 50. MJFargo  |  January 25, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    I'll be 63 in Sept and both my parents who lived to be 90 never doubted that I was "born" gay. While they wished it was different certainly, they saw how happy I was once I "came out" and met my partner. I'm sure they suffered because I was open in my relationship, but they never complained and always welcomed me at family gatherings (if not their conservative church). As well, I wouldn't say they were particularlly enlightened in other areas of society (racial relations, for instance), but in accepting me and my friends for who we were, I thank them. Of course other relatives, my teachers and peers…. That's another story.

  • 51. NG  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:25 am

    I wouldn't necessarily call those videos explosive. I posted extensive commentary about those simulcast on my blog, not that anyone noticed.

    In fact, I recall contacting quite a few, um, digital activists for talking points; But I guess their e-mail doesn't work at the cafeteria.

    I'm just saying, that's all.

    I'm just finding some irony, perhaps even hypocrisy, in those bloggers expressing indignation today.

  • 52. Alkanshel  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:28 am

    Well, they certainly aren't anything new…

  • 53. MJFargo  |  January 25, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    But there were many denials that this stuff existed even if we knew it or suspected it. And now it's on record for all to see.

  • 54. Michael  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:47 am

    Radical anti-gay activists and large, pro-homophobia advocacy groups claim to be Christians, yet openly attack and revile law-abiding, taxpaying, gay Americans. The Bible they claim to follow contains more than one warning that revilers are going to hell. Perhaps those promoting the anti-gay agenda should pay more attention to what the Bible really says instead of trying to impose their misinterpretation of it on everyone else through our nation's legal system and our Constitutions.

  • 55. Holly  |  January 25, 2010 at 11:23 am

    I have nothing intelligent to add that hasn't already been said both eloquently and unintelligibly here ; )

    All I really want to do is thank everyone for posting here, and allowing a poor, demoralized, inner-city high school English teacher a chance to read something laced with more compassion than vitriol. Yes, it does appear that the average Californian is a numbskull now, but only by a narrow margin. And when the sun does come up tomorrow, perhaps there'll be a rainbow? Bless everyone here!

  • 56. Richard  |  January 25, 2010 at 11:54 am

    You truly said a mouthful! Even with everything that I have been through in my almost 47 years, even with all the hate, vitriol, abuse, and even being chained by kids from school, I never expected this level out of so-called adults! What were they thinking? But you are so right, this is yet one more reason they did not want this trial televised. the truth hurts. And it will surely hurt them.

  • 57. Dr C  |  January 25, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    WOW! Protect Marriage's twitter site came to a complete halt once they started cross examining miller!

    GREAT WORK GUYS! Its nice to feel vindicated to some degree for the horrible attacks on my family.

  • 58. LB  |  January 25, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    Hey check this out, there is a company re-enacting the trial w/actors playing all the parts.

  • 59. michael  |  January 25, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    Found the video that we submitted today from the H8ers

    Posted it on our Facebook page that Calvin Started:

  • 60. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    OMG…….the pure evil is so pungent that I am about to vomit….using the deaths of 9-11 like that..SHAME!

    Really SSM is affecting the gov, of Canada and Mass?

    Canadas economy is doing better then ours and Mass's ecom is the best in the country…yeah they are doing real bad!…….."GOOD GOD MAN!"……..i couldn't help it…lol

  • 61. michael  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    "There givein' it all theyth got Capt'in….And I think their ready to BLOW!!!!"

    I think that they must have blown our their pants today….

  • 62. Kim  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    Oh please, the voters had their say and you're just a bunch of sore losers. Get over it, life moves on.

  • 63. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:59 pm


  • 64. fiona64  |  January 25, 2010 at 11:57 pm

    Ignore it, Ronnie. It's a troll who apparently thinks that it's okay for its rights to be balloted on someday. I wonder whether it will just "get over it and move on" in that case.

  • 65. Marcia  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:07 am

    Every Court has its clown.

  • 66. Protect Civil Marriage &r&hellip  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    […] Explosive evidence exposes Prop 8 campaign « Prop 8 Trial Tracker During the fall of 2008 – and again in 2009 in Maine – the forces behind Proposition 8 ran a very slick and clever campaign that emphasized “protecting marriage” and “protecting children.” They deliberately left it unclear just what was being protected against, assuming that voters would know to fill in the blanks. Prop 8 backers did a good job of keeping a tight lid on their own true beliefs, making their own position seem less discriminatory and less radical than it actually is. […]

  • 67. Equal Protection Under Th&hellip  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    […] the Courage Campaign’s Robert Cruickshank comes this quote of the evidence admitted today into Judge Walker’s 9th District California […]

  • 68. Understanding  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:14 am

    @Desert – I know unquestionably that there are spiteful haters on the yes-on-8 side. I also know unquestionably that there are people of compassion and caring on the yes-on-8 side. And of course, as you mention, the all-together ignorant. I'm inclined to say the same for the no-on-8 side.

    In talking with prop-8 supporters, I've found that, even those who talk about gay marriage leading to bestiality, polygamy, etc. rarely if ever relate gay people to those things directly. Rather, they see gay's and those who would support bestiality, polygamy, etc. as separate groups, but that the acceptance of gay marriage would inspire the others to push their case.

    This is just one tiny example where I think yes-on-8 folks could be less offensive if they would be more clear about the separation, and where no-on-8 folks could be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's these kinds of understandings that seeking civil understanding could work out. Again, I wish there were more of it on both sides.

  • 69. Desert Verdin 1 of 1  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:30 am


  • 70. David from Sandy UT  |  January 26, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Cross is going to be so much fun. Who has the buttered popcorn and soda?

  • 71. Court Shown Video of Prop&hellip  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:38 am

    […] (unedited and summarized) can be seen at the Courage Campaign website, but the following were just some of the statements that were played to the […]

  • 72. samanta  |  August 29, 2010 at 9:54 pm


  • 73. Court Rules Christian Gro&hellip  |  September 9, 2010 at 7:42 am

    […] the considerably small group of undecided voters that, especially in this case, were swayed by the lie-filled campaign ads designed to stir up fear.  Without their lies and fear tactics, Proposition 8 would have been […]

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