Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

NOM’s Maggie Gallagher’s Tiny Violin

Press Right-wing

By Julia Rosen

Remember way back when, before the trial started, when NOM was predicting they would lose this case because Judge Walker wasn’t ceding to their lawyers’ every demand and motion?

Turns out the actual proceedings of the case didn’t make NOM’s president Maggie Gallagher any more confident about the outcome. Today out of nowhere she penned a letter whining to Judge Phyllis Hamilton, Chair of the Rules Committee that Judge Walker simply attempting to get the trial televised lost the case for them. Well actually, she put Judge Hamilton’s name/address at the top, but addressed the letter to Judge Walker. Don’t worry…as you will see these details don’t matter too much to Maggie.

My objection to televising high-profile trials is not theoretical. It emerges directly from the experience of the attempt to televise the trial for Proposition 8. Two-thirds of the expert witnesses-people who had been willing to sit for deposition, to prepare testimony, to fly to Sacramento to testify-dropped out under the prospect of having their faces and names televised.

Uuum, Maggie the trial was in San Francisco. While we residents of humble Sacramento are happy to be confused with our much more famous (and by you despised) neighbor 85 miles west, we won’t try and take away this spotlight from San Francisco.

The Supreme Court stepped in to prevent the broadcast of these hearings. But it was too late. Expert witnesses had already dropped out. The trial had been changed, forever, by the mere prospect of television broadcast.

Our case for Proposition 8 has been deeply harmed. The public record has been impoverished and the information available to reviewing courts permanently reduced all because some witnesses feared retaliation as a result of the publicity. I wish they had more courage, but I cannot view their fears as unreasonable.

Maggie conveniently forgets that part of the televising plans included allowing witnesses to request that the cameras be shut off during their testimony. NOM and Prop 8 built their case on unfounded fear and are now trying lay the groundwork for appeal, or at least influence the media narrative. More from Maggie:

Here’s the bottom line: If the Supreme Court should overturn Proposition 8 and find a constitutional right to gay marriage I will never know whether or not that would be a result of the haste to televise the trial.

Oh poor Maggie, I have a tiny violin playing for you. My heart is just breaking.

More seriously, if these witnesses were as good as Mr. Blankenhorn and Dr. Miller, you were better off having them not testify. For proof I give you this lede from an article in the SacBee today:

The star witness for backers of Proposition 8 testified Tuesday that he’s confident – but has no evidence – that same-sex marriage would increase divorce rates and lower the rate of heterosexual marriage.

Blankenhorn had no evidence because he was not really an expert and chances are that if this was a jury trial, he would not have been admitted as an official expert witness.

My guess is the witnesses they had lined up were supposed to actually testify that children are better of in homes headed by a man and a woman than a same-sex couple. After all, that’s what Pugno was claiming was their big argument. They never got a legitimate social scientist up there to prove this, not that it would actually be possible. Study after legitimate study has proven that children do just as well with same sex parents as they do with opposite sex ones.

The facts, they burn.

Really that’s what it comes down to, the facts. Judge Walker will weigh the evidence presented in court and issue his legal opinion. Maggie, et al are just upset that we have three branches of government that check and balance each other. They simply want public opinion to be the final word, not those pesky “activist judges”, you know like George H. W. Bush appointees like Judge Walker. So, they whine and complain. They try and shut the public out to in order to keep them from hearing these facts, not the fears and lies of a campaign.

This letter will have no effect on the trial. It is simply an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of its proceedings. And perhaps to hear some violin music.

Tags: ,


  • 1. robiedo  |  January 28, 2010 at 10:38 am

    That was delicious–thank you, Julia!

  • 2. Von  |  January 28, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Nicely put! Thanks Julia!!! πŸ™‚

  • 3. Richard  |  January 28, 2010 at 10:42 am

    Are you sure Maggie Gallagher isn't David Blankenhorn in drag? Oh, G-d, I hope not! But I bet a DNA test would probably find that they are twins separated at birth. They both seem to whine the same way, don't they? And before you protest, I hereby offer my humble apologies to our transvestites. I truly know hat all of you have more class in your pinkie toe than Maggie and Blankehorn have in their combined bodies!

  • 4. Ronnie  |  January 28, 2010 at 1:32 pm


    Blank in Drag….. you made me spit cola champagne all over my monitor…..but its all good…..thats some funny shit right there……hehehe

  • 5. RebeccaRGB  |  January 28, 2010 at 8:41 pm

    Just wanted to let you know, transvestite is an offensive term, and the politically correct word is crossdresser. Just FYI.


  • 6. Anonymous  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:42 am

    Actually, the two are just entirely terms, in my experience. A transvestite dresses in clothing typically assigned to the opposite gender to get off sexually; a crossdresser does it for fun; a drag queen/king does it for fun, and really plays it up.

    While a transgender/transsexual person wouldn't be crossdressing unless they were, for instance, FTM and in traditionally feminine attire.

    But that's just how I've heard it all defined by my trans and genderqueer friends. (I, myself, identify as genderless, so I can't speak personally on the matter.)

    The only other thing that I wanted to say isn't directed at you, Rebecca. It's that I strongly doubt that whining is carried via DNA, and I'm glad that you apologized to the transvestites, because I know I'd be offended to be lumped with Maggie. I don't see why people use drag as a way to mock someone… Hmm. Maybe there's something I'm not getting?

  • 7. Richard  |  January 28, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Forgot to hit the subscribe button in time again!

  • 8. Larry Kenneth Little  |  January 28, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Why are we fighting two wars which refused to allow men and women to serve in the military because they are members of a gay population? This imposes unacceptable and avoidable discrimination for no good reason. It also violates the 14th amendment by denying equal protection of the law.
    Assuming we are fighting these two wars to protect our freedom and civil rights, does this mean freedom and civil rights for everybody except gays? You are denying gay people their patriotism. They were born and raised in this country and yet they are denied equal rights such as the right to marry because they were disenfranchised by three major religions who conspired to use their fabulous wealth of tax free dollars to successfully legislate hatred against the gay population in the state of California.
    Can we expect the Supreme Court judges the Republicans nominated to protect our gay population through equal protection of the law, or just run over them with the bus and let the church replace the state?

  • 9. Bill  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:02 am

    I've never understood the quest of gay Americans to be allowed to fight for freedoms and liberties that are denied to them because of their sexual orientation.

    I guess those LGTB's are bigger people than I.

    Because I would NEVER in a million years serve a country that I was not allowed to be a full citizen of.

  • 10. textor44  |  January 28, 2010 at 10:53 am

    Damn it! The trial was held in Sacramento! I should have taken work off and drove downtown the last few weeks!

    Damn you, Maggie, for not telling me this before!

  • 11. Brad  |  January 28, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    I am happy to hear that Mr. Tam at least was so willing to fly to Sacramento from his home in San Francisco.

    I wonder if ProtectMarriageDiscrimination's witnesses actually all did fly to Sacramento and are waiting for the trial to start. Maybe somebody should tell them.

  • 12. Charles  |  January 28, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    Maybe that's why Pugno gave the impression of having seen a different trial… he DID! He saw an alternative one in Sacramento!

  • 13. Bob  |  January 28, 2010 at 11:00 am

    Comments at NOMblog are moderated, which means that very few pro gay posts get through, even those that are polite and relevant. Still, there are one or two.

  • 14. Roy  |  January 28, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    wow, I just went back there and one of MY replies actually got posted and is still there! I'm shocked.

  • 15. chet  |  January 28, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Others have commented that the witnesses dropped after the depositions didn't go well.

    Are those depositions public record? Where are they available?

  • 16. JeffSD  |  January 28, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    Portions of them are under a restraining order – but what I understand the parts and depositions that are not under restraining order can be released. I doubt they will be though until after the trial is over – if ever.

  • 17. chet  |  January 28, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    thanks Jeff. Well at least that's something to look forward to when I get tired of re-reading Blankenhorn's farce.

  • 18. Dave T  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:41 am

    It appears some of them may be on youtube. See .

    I haven't watched these (yet) and I have no idea if they're authentic.

  • 19. Dave T  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:41 am

    Oops. Maybe this link will work.

  • 20. Richard W. Fitch  |  January 28, 2010 at 11:14 am

    It will be interesting to hear what new song Maggie composes now that the Maine Ethics Committee is ready to roll.

  • 21. Mykelb  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:22 am

    Really? Is there a possibility that Maggie and Brian will go to jail?

  • 22. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:22 am

    And then Maggie will be forced to have beaver fever and Brian will be forced to lollie pop….yeah?

  • 23. draNgNon  |  January 28, 2010 at 11:18 am

    just a note: from wikipedia,

    Walker believes in a legal approach known as law and economics.[1]

    Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan was delayed because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics."[2]

  • 24. truthspew  |  January 28, 2010 at 11:26 am

    I'm amazed that Gallagher offers herself up as an expert in marriage and the family. Why the hell didn't SHE testify in this, it isn't like we don't already know her by face at this point.

    I hope it goes through the entire process and that we're ultimately successful. Then she can cry foul and we can just gloat.

  • 25. Brad  |  January 28, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    Well, it's worth noting that Gallagher is a "scholar." David Blankenhorn told Boies all about Gallagher's "scholarly" work, explaining that she is "an intellectually serious person."

  • 26. Bose  |  January 28, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    That was my favorite comedic moment from the trial. Maggie G is a scholar?

    Well, I'll give her this much: She's as credible a scholar as Blankenhorn.

  • 27. Bill  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:08 am

    If your definition of 'scholar' is an over-weight, middle-aged, homophobic twit who steals money from the poor and under-educated in order to slither about the country attempting to take away certain people's civil rights, I would simply have to agree.

    Maggie Gallagher IS quite the scholar.

    And the world will remember her that way.

  • 28. Mykelb  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:25 am

    Her only credibility lies in her B.A. from Yale – Religious Studies. That doesn't qualify her for anything.

  • 29. Mykelb  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:23 am

    She probably wouldn't fit in the witness box.

  • 30. Glenn I  |  January 28, 2010 at 11:42 am

    I wonder if Clarence Thomas will quote Maggie in his written opinion … If he does, he probably won't name her. "Frightened defenders of the traditional family have said, 'The public record has been impoverished and the information available to reviewing courts permanently reduced all because some witnesses feared retaliation as a result of the publicity.'"

    Thomas has already cited NOM's unsupported allegations of harassment in his judicial writings; I'm sure he will again!

  • 31. Kevin  |  January 28, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell Clarence Thomas will write *anything* for this case other than "I concur" or "I dissent." When's the last time he's asked a question in oral arguments?!?

  • 32. Joe  |  January 28, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    Which for gods' sakes, PROP 8 actually threatened to EXTORT No on 8 supporters, now they cry foul?

    "Were you to elect not donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to but have given to Equality California will be published. It is only fair for Proposition 8 supporters to know which companies and organization oppose traditional marriage."

    Protect Marriage Extortion Letter

  • 33. DebbieC  |  January 28, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    Was this letter included as evidence? Do we know? (How do they get away with this crap?)

  • 34. Joe  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:06 am

    My understanding is no, it wasn't entered into evidence. But the "wah wah those gays are threatening us we need to keep our names quiet" is just a load of stinking poo.

  • 35. Bill  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:11 am

    Clarence Thomas should stick to things he knows about.

    Like pubic hair on a Coke can.

  • 36. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    I'm not even sure he knows that much!

  • 37. Linda  |  January 28, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    Well, I see no reason, then, to not show the videos after the verdict comes. I mean, the scaredy-cats withdrew, so there's no one who needs protecting, right? What could the objection be to airing the whole trial?

    It would sure beat the summer reruns!

  • 38. Casey  |  January 28, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    Thanks, Mags – classical music has always helped me to sleep soundly, and yours puts me to sleep extra-EXTRA well!

  • 39. Cy Guy  |  January 28, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    "the witnesses they had lined up were supposed to actually testify that children are better of in homes headed by a man and a woman than a same-sex couple. After all, that’s what Pugno was claiming was their big argument. They never got a legitimate social scientist up there to prove this, not that it would actually be possible. Study after legitimate study has proven that children do just as well with same sex parents as they do with opposite sex ones."

    Here's a scientist that has found that in a round-up of Apples to Apples studies, lesbian parents were equally good, OR BETTER, parents than heterosexual couples.

    (not enough data on gay male couples to draw conclusions)

  • 40. Kathleen  |  January 28, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    I just made the terrible mistake of following the link to NOM included in the above article, which then led to reading the comments. It did nothing but get me angry once again, being reminded of the self-righteousness ignorance spewing forth from so-called Christians.

    Yes, Clarence Thomas. I always describe him as the "yeah, what he said (pointing to Scalia)" justice.

  • 41. Richard  |  January 28, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    And Kathleen, I always call Clarence the "Doesn't have enough self-respect to respect a woman when she tells him she doesn't want to go to bed with him" justice. (Remember Anita Hill?)

  • 42. Kathleen  |  January 28, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    Richard. I remember Anita Hill very well. I remember watching the confirmation hearings in total disbelief…. I was stunned when they confirmed the guy.

    And he doesn't seem even minimally qualified to be in the position he is. It wouldn't take much to convince me that he got his law degree through the mail somewhere. Do you think he has his own office, or did they just give him a little desk in the corner of Scalia's?

  • 43. Richard  |  January 28, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Actually, Kathleen, he probably sits on Scalia's lap, just like any "ggod puppy" would. And he may have gotten his law degree in a box of Cracker Jack. I, too, was absolutely disgusted and appalled when he was confirmed. I have four older sisters, and if one of thier employers had treated any of them the way he did Anita, the results of me meeting said employer would NOT have been pretty! Women are NOT to be abused! Nobody is here to be abused!

  • 44. fuzzygruf  |  January 28, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    I would make a case that same-sex couples make better parents than lots of opposite-sex couples. The percentage of same-sex couples that planned their parenthood is significantly higher than opposite-sex couples who aren't even prepared to be parents.

  • 45. Joe  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:12 am

    There's 510,000 kids in the foster care system. Approximately 0.00% of them were the children of same sex parents. It's just part of God's design to create a class of parents who can't procreate on their own to clean up after the class of parents who can. πŸ™‚

  • 46. Denise  |  January 30, 2010 at 7:05 am

    Thank you! Do they EVER think of THAT when they're just yak yak yakin' about how harmful it is for a child to be raised by their ss parents??

  • 47. misken  |  January 28, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    This is juicy. I'm really glad that this is put up. All other blogs I follow have a new post once a week or something. This blog has comments unrelated to daily summaries like 3 times a day! Keep up the great work. πŸ™‚

  • 48. Larry Kenneth Little  |  January 28, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    The Supreme Court, which recently gave corporations the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to buy elections, are free to seat members of the senate and congress with purchase orders and many of them can thank for their wealth because of Republican votes. This is only possible because we have five Republican nominated rightwing ideologues masquerading as judges who are making far too many 5 to 4 decisions. We dare not let abortion or Proposition 8 approach this bench because the outcome will be predictable even to a celery stalk. Judicial activism on our Supreme Court will do more damage to our country than the Republican Party.

  • 49. george  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:27 am

    So are you saying the Roe v Wade was not judicial activism?

    Or are you saying that it's ok for the Court to legislate when the make-up of the Court will result in decisions that you will agree with but not ok when you are afraid that the decisions will be against your personal views?

  • 50. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:36 am

    Dictionary of George:

    "Judicial activism" — When the judge follows the Constitution instead of making a decision George likes.

  • 51. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:38 am

    George, I really thing you need a good man in your life to show you what love really means. And I am not referrng to sex acts, either. I am referring to how to learn that just because someone is different from you it does not make you any better than they are. Maybe you should hang out with some gay men for a while and learn what a REAL amn is.

  • 52. Mouse  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:24 am

    Why do activists use "activism" as if it were a slur?

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • 53. Karen  |  January 29, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    One thing we have been learning from walking neighborhoods and talking to voters is that you need to listen and not just assume that you know. People can have different opinions and still disagree with us. That puts the onus on us to come up with the persuassive arguments that will touch their hearts. And yes, George, many people like judicial activism when it falls into their corner and don't like it when it falls the other way. The conversations that come out of it should be what gives us hope for real change.

  • 54. george  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:56 am

    See, Richard, that's where you're wrong about me. I think everyone deserves equal rights, but those rights have to be balanced by the rights of others and the good of society. I think marriage should be fixed so that more kids can have the opportunity to be brought up by their real parents. I think that gays can have equal rights through civil unions without messing with the definition of marriage.

    You would be very, very suprised at the number of gay men I have associated with, and I would wager to say that all of them would have very positive things to say about me (especially the ones who wanted to get into my pants).

  • 55. Rightthingtodo TX  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:01 am

    real parents

    as if same gender parents aren't real

  • 56. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:07 am

    You are so incredibly ignorant. If so many gay men would say good things about you, then why do you still want to believe the lie that civil unions are equl to marriage, especially when civil unions and domestic partnerships are not recognized universally throughout the United States? That is part of being denied equal protection under the law! And I hve seen more maladjusted children come out of straight homes, being raised by the biological progentiors (I will not use the term "parent" for child abusers) than I have seen come out of homes where they were raised by two loving parents who were not biologically related to them. And THAT is what is important. Is the child raised to believe that he or she can pursue any career choice? Is the child raised to believe that he or she is equal to evey other child in his or her classroom? Or is the child constantly told that he or she is stupid, no good, worthless? Is the child sexually abused? For your information, George, the LGBTQQI community has been at the forefront of protecting children. We were trying to protect the children from harm long before it became trendy in the heterosexual community. And why is that? Because we know better than anyone else what it means to be beaten, both verbally and physically by those who are supposed to raise you and ensure that you can be a productive citizen. So, please, George, grow up and get a brain. One that actually works and a pair of ears that actually listen to go along with it.

  • 57. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:17 am

    And George, I for one would NOT want to get in your pants–Not even for practice! One ofmy requirements is that my man have a brain and be able to use it, rather than following some unrealistic fantasy notion of the world that someone has foisted off on him since he was an infant.

  • 58. Bill  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:27 am

    Richard is not wrong about you, George.

    You are wrong within yourself.

    You'll be a happier, more successful man when you wake up to yourself.

    Also, simply by your own words, "You would be very, very suprised at the number of gay men I have associated with," your true attitude is exposed.

  • 59. george  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:50 am

    Richard –

    I'm not saying that there still isn't discrimination against homosexuals and a lack of equality for homosexuals; I'm saying that the latter can be fixed via civil unions at the federal level without disrupting the institution of marriage. And I sincerely believe that the discrimination will be reduced substantially, but there will always people that look at you differently, regardless of whether you can get married, because you are different from most other people.

    Notwithstanding all of the laws put in place to enforce equality and non-discrimination, people still discriminate on the basis of race, religion, handicapped status, weight, etc…. Nobody says, "Oh, they're married? Great, then I guess I don't hate them for being Jews anymore!" or, "Oh, you're married? Great, now I won't expect you to be good at math because you're Asian."

    You anecdotal evidence means nothing. You hang in circles of people who have been abused; they are not the rule. Here's a thought, based on what you said, if we can make better heterosexual parents, we might not have as many gay people (who will be subjected to a life of being discriminated against).

  • 60. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:58 am

    George wrote: You hang in circles of people who have been abused; they are not the rule. Here’s a thought, based on what you said, if we can make better heterosexual parents, we might not have as many gay people (who will be subjected to a life of being discriminated against).

    Are you for real? Do you really think that people choose to be gay because of crappy parenting? Gah. People do not choose their sexual orientation, regardless of how well their heterosexual parents rear them.

    The stupid, it burns …


  • 61. LND  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:29 am

    "The stupid, it burns…"

    HAHAHAHA love it!

    George, the problem with arguing with you is the foundations of your arguments do not rest with logic.

    If they did, you would realize the same tired arguments you keep trotting out were debunked by science, studies, and real scholars who have studied families for decades.

    Read the transcripts of the case, consider them without your pre-conceived notions of what families should be, and educate yourself on what the reality of the situation is.

  • 62. Mouse  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:32 am


    If when you say "can be fixed via civil unions" what you mean is "If we take away the concept of the secular marriage contract and make marriage into nothing more than a hokey religious term with as much legal weight as a bar mitzvah, and replace that with civil unions for everyone regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation" then maybe that could work.

    As soon as you have two separate institutions you have inequality.

  • 63. george  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:34 am

    LND –

    Read my posts on what I think about (bogus) research. Or read about Kinsey's research, and maybe find out for yourself how unreliable research can be.

  • 64. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 10:40 am

    George continues to complain about what he calls “bogus research,” and yet provides no counter-studies/citations to back up his own opinions.

    I wonder why that is …


  • 65. Rightthingtodo TX  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:00 am

    you mean all these years of reading Karl Rove hasn't helped jorge to hone his spinning skills?

    what is being spun as activism is really just the court doing it's job…in the example provided, protecting a woman’s right to personal bodily sovereignty.

    my guess is that jorge doesn't like that..hence the whining 37 years after the fact

  • 66. Bill  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:29 am

    George is so transparent he should change his name to Casper.

  • 67. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:37 am

    No no no Bill…because Casper is a friendly ghost….he should change his name to Stinky because he's so full of, well you know what.

    Or maybe George is an acronym for:

    Guy envying our righteous gay energy!

  • 68. george  |  January 29, 2010 at 10:50 am

    No, that’s the legislature’s job to make laws to protect people. The Court’s job is to interpret law and determine constitutionality. But I wasn’t the one whining about judicial activism.

  • 69. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 10:52 am

    George wrote: “But I wasn’t the one whining about judicial activitism.”


    43. george | January 29, 2010 at 8:27 am

    So are you saying the Roe v Wade was not judicial activism?



  • 70. Rightthingtodotx  |  January 30, 2010 at 1:16 am

    too bad for jorge, this isn't fox news…just because it's said/written doesn't make it so

    the legislature enacts laws it considers to be for the good of its constituents and citizenry

    the judicial branch, where there is a opposing view of what is good relative to the legislature, determines the viability of such a law as it relates to constitutional mandates…ie. protecting all citizens where the legislative act (whether legislatively driven or constituency driven) fall short of truly being for the good of and in the best interest of all citizens

    in jorge's world the judicial branch doesn't exist

  • 71. george  |  January 29, 2010 at 10:42 am

    Mouse –

    The mere fact of 2 separate institutions does not mean there is inequality. It’s ok to treat different things differently; in fact, oftentimes, it’s great to do so. E.g., we don’t let people with uncorrectable vision to fly commercial airliners.

    And, btw, the gay claim of “separate is not equal” is not analogous to that of racial segregation; there was actual physical separation involved there.

  • 72. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:53 am

    "We have two separate water fountains. What's the problem? Black people can still get water."

    "The bus gets there at the same time regardless; why does it matter whether you have to sit in the back"?


  • 73. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:00 am

    And, george, the fact that there are so many areas where we are not allowed housing, or jobs, proves that there is physical separation of us, also. There is also the fact that we cannot visit our spouses in the hospital. Then too, CU's and DP's are not universal in the US. You can have one of those in one state and be transferred on your job and then lose it because you are transferred somewhere that does not recognize it. And no, Separate is NOT equal. Especially when it comes to civil marriage.

  • 74. Rightthingtodo TX  |  January 30, 2010 at 1:08 am

    I wish I had some extra dough to send to jorge so he could take a class that would help him fully understand the roles of the 3 branches of government

    willful ignorance is beautiful thing for jorge

  • 75. Ronnie  |  January 28, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    "Here’s the bottom line: If the Supreme Court should overturn Proposition 8 and find a constitutional right to gay marriage I will never know whether or not that would be a result of the haste to televise the trial."

    And your point, Maggie, is?

  • 76. Andrew  |  January 28, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    Yeah, I'm just really sick of the whining coming from their side. Especially seeing as how their view is still the one that's currently being put in action.

    Pardon the french, but shut the f&%* up already. ><

    With love,

  • 77. Jess  |  January 28, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    They will never admit we've won this case fair and square. They'll insist it was because their witnesses were scared. Well their array of witnesses that did show up were next to useless anyway, so unless one of their witnesses was God, I don't think it would have made much difference.

  • 78. Mykelb  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:41 am

    They shouldn't have put forward spineless, gutless, snake oil salemen/women to be witnesses in the first place.

  • 79. Felyx  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:55 am

    I am not so sure that having God as a witness would have done them any good….if God himself came down and said they were wrong I have no doubt that they would immediately reject God and invent a new one!!!

  • 80. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:23 am

    They already did. Look at what jesus said in Matthew 19:12.

  • 81. Bill  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:31 am

    Do not forget that these are the same people that crucified their very own savior.

    But they prove daily that the only decent Christian died on the cross.

  • 82. Felyx  |  January 29, 2010 at 6:27 am

    Matthew 19:12 (King James Version)

    12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

    Powerful passage but not sure how it relates. It does however bring forth a definite foundation for love of gay (men in particular) eunuchs from birth and all. Not that I need any sort of book to tell me that loving others is an effective means of relating and caring for my species (let alone any other species.)

  • 83. Felyx  |  January 29, 2010 at 6:33 am

    I will ammend. If you look at Matthew 19: 1-12 in its entirety then I see your point. Not all men are called to marry women. Only those called to do so should and then actually take care of them and not divorce them frivolously. It doesn't speak of gay unions but it in do way invalidates them.

    Good point my friend! Well put and well received. I will have to remember this when speaking to my seriously christian friends. Thank-you.

  • 84. Charles  |  January 28, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    I love how according to Pugno they've totally owned it, their witnesses were magnificent, and ours really sucked and proved nothing.

    But Gallagher feels she has to say that… THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE BEFORE SCOTUS BUT IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT OK???111

    Geez, people, get your stories straight! You either totally owned it or blew it, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it too!

  • 85. Richard  |  January 28, 2010 at 11:47 pm

    Charles, they CAN'T get their story straight, because no two of them are being told the same story. Each one of them is in his or her own little world, so they only "know" what they have heard through the grapevine. And we all know how things get twisted and distorted as they pass through a grapevine. Each and every one of them has a different agenda that is supposed to tie into the whole ball of wax, and as a result, the ball of wax will melt away into nothing once it is exposed to the light of day.

  • 86. Rev Scott West  |  January 28, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    your comment about the truth burinng made my think of the wizard of Oz, and Maggie /Gallagher accidently being splashed with truth-It burns, it burns, what a world, what a wor,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  • 87. Alan Chan  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:39 am

    My thoughts went elsewhere. Think the movie, Trick (1999).

    Miss Coco Peru says, "You ever get cum in your eye Gabriel, HMM? It BURNS."

    I love Julia Rosen for using that line. XO Julia!

  • 88. Felyx  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Oh! Look what you’ve done! We’re melting! Melting! Oh, what a world! What a world! Who would have thought a good little Boies like you could destroy my beautiful dispicableness!


  • 89. Roy  |  January 28, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    wow! the NOM site is allowing all posts to be posted…and many many are putting THEM, the proH8ers, in their places, … maybe they will be deleted in a day or so.. but right now they are all allowed and posted.

  • 90. Scott  |  January 28, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    I left a comment…it was held up pending review by a moderator. It was denied. I tried again with the same message…they don't seem to accept anything from my email address anymore. Here was the offending post:

    "I have a friend who was gay bashed one night walking home from work. It left him with permanent brain damage. He now suffers from seizures.

    I had another friend who was thrown out of his house at the age of 16 after his parents discovered his sexual orientation. He struggled with that for years until he finally killed himself.

    I don't condone violence or harassment against anybody. But I also find it hard to muster sympathy for those on the prop 8 side who are suddenly playing the victim because some campaign signs were vandalized. From my viewpoint, prop 8 is nothing but another manifestation of the attitudes that left one friend dead and another disabled."

    Real offensive. But whatever. What's that recently coined saying about talking to a dining room table?

  • 91. Jaye  |  January 28, 2010 at 8:16 pm

    From reading the moderated comments on the NOM's blog, it's pretty obvious they only post the more combative messages post by our side; the ones with actual facts get left off as they don't support NOM's positions.

  • 92. Scott  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:01 am

    I have to agree with you on that, Jaye.

    It'd have been bad enough if they only allowed one-sided comments. But they go out of their way to present their audience with a false image of the other side…to reinforce misconceptions (and hatred) of their opponents.

    This from people who profess to hold truth and morals in high regard.

  • 93. Brad  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:34 am

    Very interesting, Jaye.

    Well, thanks everyone for pasting your NOM posts on this site so that we can see all of your NOM posts, including those NOM elects to censor.

  • 94. Felyx  |  January 29, 2010 at 6:41 am

    BTW…I just assumed that our site was also moderated considering the lack of opposition and squabbling.

    If it was, I am glad because it was nice to read the pro gay comments without having to wade through endless bickering and opposition non-sense (pro gay non sense on the other hand was, let's be honest and fair, fun and entertaining!)

    I am a rather timid person and did not start posting til much later on. The lack of opposition rebuttals with the positive and receptive sense of community allowed me to feel more open about sharing (and caring.)


  • 95. Dieter M.  |  January 28, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    wooohoooo another EPIC blow
    to the anti-gay bigots:

    NOM Investigation Going Forward

    The National Organization for Marriage wants a delay in an investigation by the state of Maine into the group's finances, but that state's ethics commission denied its request.

    NOM contributed almost $2 million to repeal Maine's gay marriage law. Now an investigation is being launched into NOM's finances, but the organization wants to wait until the federal Proposition 8 trial —which is ruling on whether California's ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution — is decided before the Maine investigation takes place.

    "I understand concerns about duplicate efforts, but that's part of the hand we are dealt," said ethics commision member Margaret Matheson. "We're charged with ensuring that voters have that information and that's the crux of this investigation."

    enjoy prison Maggie gallagher. say goodbye to tax exempt church status….LOL

  • 96. Charles  |  January 28, 2010 at 8:46 pm

    I just LOVE how these people openly want to disguise the truth, you know? They're really not ashamed of saying they don' t want anything publicized, investigated or anything.

    I think it's insane.

  • 97. Mykelb  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:45 am

    I wonder if this will finally prompt an IRS investigation into NOM?

  • 98. Felyx  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:23 am

    I hope this will prompt IRS investigation into Latter Day Saints Mormons! ( I would also hope it would look at the Catholic Church too but in all honesty, it seems that they at least were decent and honest about the financing aspect of it. I have to respect Catholics for the most part even though we don't really agree on this issue.)

    Regarding posts on NOM: I wrote in the point of view of a religious conservative telling Maggie and the defense team to please not go to appeals as it would be upheld and go to SCOTUS. And that if it did, and if all DOMA was overturned we would only have the pro-prop 8 people and in particular her, Pugno and the churches to blame. I said to leave the damn gays alone and really REALLY focus on the family! And in particular I feared that we (loving Christian realists) would reap what you (the pro 8 pot stirrers) had sown. I said I feared that God was going to use the gays to show 'us' the real meaning of marriage and that the money so poorly spent might bring divine retribution in the form of revoked tax exempt status and enforcement of gay anti-discrimination laws. I pleaded that they had gone to far and that going further would take down the churches and the freedom of religion just as they are fearing at our own folly and not because of the gays.

    Needless to say I was not posted. LOL

  • 99. Felyx  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:44 am

    First sorry about the poor wording there at the end…it was meant to read something like, God would let the churches suffer and fall and we would have only ourselves to blame and not the gays.

    Clearly Maggie et al. do not want to hear it, even from supposedly one of their own. I am not sure if it was an official response but it goes to show the delusion…

    " You wrote, 'I do not believe God instructed us to behave in this manner, marching around and wasting money on secular heathen issues. We should be concerned for our own faithful and be wisely using our funds to benefit good works which will bear good fruits. For this reason I refuse to financially contribute my time or resources to this travesty and I forbid my family to participate in any manner other than prayer or bible study.'

    God has called us to combat injustice and heathenism! It is weak bystanders like yourself that are causing us to lose this important battle for Christ and his Church! Buring your head in a book, even the Bible is no excuse for standing idly by while others fight the good fight of justice and morality. You should be thankful there are people like us to protect your children for you in your incompetence! (A reference to a prior part where I stated my parenting and god were all I needed to protect my children, not laws over frivolous issues.)

    I really should post the whole letter but it is rather sad and boring. This bit was just particularly revealing in that it not only showed the dellusion of the writer but also the fact that there may be a sentiment (in at least the mind of the writer) that there is a real chance of losing. It seems I really struck a nerve…and hard!

  • 100. Jose Luis  |  January 28, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    Que onda! I'm a fellow trial tracker from Tijuana, and would love for some help over here for the gay community in Mexico, things are heating up. The states of Puebla and Michoacán are about to enter debate on same sex marriage legislation also.

    I've been reading and taking notes since the prop 8 trail began, preparing for the fight south of the border. There's is so much progress to be made but so much bigotry. México is a LOT more macho and some of the comments in blogs and news stories are just gut retching hateful, but we fight on. The PAN and the Attorney General are really just rehashing the 'protect our children' line from Prop 8 but in an even less eloquent manner or simplified. It should actually be easy for the Mexico CIty government and PRD to win the case. That is, if we are given a fair trail.

    Also, the media is surprisingly but gratefully on our side. Most of the "trusted" (the MSM is just as annoying to the mexican public as the american one) opinion makers are strongly pro gay rights, and I know for a fact that the main anchor for the number 2 national news hour is gay.

  • 101. Dieter M.  |  January 28, 2010 at 5:51 pm

    I just sent Maggie Gallagher a nice little letter telling her that we are going to vote to make FAT people marrying illegal. As a FAT woman she is promoting and condoning an unhealthy lifestyle to our children.If we allow FAT people to get married then people will want to marry a goat.Our innocent children will be FORCED to hear about fat people in school, and they might think it is acceptable, and may want to even try being FAT themselves.This will destroy this country. her CHOSEN lifestyle directly affects me , because it is MY gay tax dollars that go to help pay for her healthcare associated with diabetes, and obesity. And since the whole purpose of marriage according to her lawyers is for procreation, and SHE had her own bastard baby our of wedlock…then clearly her getting married would violate MY rights, and her own definition of marriage.
    Fat people should not be allowed to FLAUNT thier lifestyles in public…all that taco bell running down their faces onto their dirty sweat shirts. Unacceptable. Say NO to FAT marriage. Think of the children!!

  • 102. Scott  |  January 28, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    NOM nom nom

  • 103. Richard  |  January 28, 2010 at 11:51 pm

    Oh, Dieter, you are a GENIUS! Bravo!! (yes, I know, that is also the name of the network that first brought us Queer Eye for the Straight Guy). You just keep hitting all the right notes. Keep up the GREAT work, guy!

  • 104. Tigger  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:09 am

    Brilliant. There is more merit to the above argument than the one against gay marriage. Childhood obesity and American obesity in general is an epidemic that costs millions of lives a year and costs tax payers billions!!

    – The following political statement was brought to you by Gold's Gym, Inc. Thanks.

  • 105. Brad  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Definition of "nom nom nom" at

    1.Represents the sound made when someone is eating or chewing something and really enjoying it.
    2. The sound made by the cookie monster from Sesame Street while he is eating his cookies.

    'Hey, are you eating my brownies?'
    'Nom nom nom.'

    Click here to see more, uh, interesting definitions:

  • 106. Mykelb  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Jose Luis, you should probably get civil rights ordinances passed first the way the District of Columbia did. We fought off any chance that anyone could vote on our rights by having a Human Rights Act. Go to… for the spanish version of the DC Human Rights Act.

  • 107. Gery  |  January 28, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    It is my sinCEREST wish and hope that John and Joan Q Public get to hear about, read, be made aware of, what-have-you both sides, not only of the trial, but the blogging.

    This is SUCH disparity between what is claimed by Yes Propo8 and No Prop 8 that if I didn't know better, I'd swear there WERE two seperate trials.

    Indeed, there WAS the real one in SF, and the one that played in some people's heads complete with subtitles with mistranslation.

  • 108. John  |  January 28, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    NOM is an organization who uses hate as their weapon and defense. Now they are trying to paint a picture as if they are the ones who lost something.

  • 109. Mykelb  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:49 am

    Fits right into the xtian concept of the "devil".

  • 110. dracil  |  January 28, 2010 at 7:02 pm

    They deleted my link to the Prop 8 extortion letter.

  • 111. Joe  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:18 am

    Then keep posting it everywhere else. The facts, they burn. πŸ™‚

  • 112. Jaye  |  January 28, 2010 at 8:17 pm

    Neither the NOM or ProtectMarriage websites includes links to the official trial transcripts…hmmm.

  • 113. dracil  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:59 am

    ADF does though

  • 114. rf  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:12 am

    do you know where? all I can find is their self written daily updates

  • 115. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:25 am

    Go to the lnk on this site to AFER. You will find not only the transcripts of the trial, but every legal posting and hearing pertaining to this case. And they are downloadalbe in PDF.

  • 116. rf  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Thanks Richard, I was talking about ADF – – their side. I know AFER does. but since and nom doesn't I was surprised that ADF might. so I went to check. just in case they were really willing to post the truth. but couldn't find anything…

  • 117. JimB  |  January 28, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    "the facts, they burn"


    most delicious.
    most delicious indeed!

  • 118. ken  |  January 28, 2010 at 11:07 pm

    I'm guessing the reasons that the experts withdrew had little to do with the trial being televised and a lot to do with how their depositions went.

    From what I saw of the trial transcripts the plaintiffs lawyers were very good at taking apart the defendents experts. I suspect some of that already happened during the depositions. So, these experts realized they were going to have to admit to a lot of things about their theories (ex. that they aren't actually supported by science) that they did't want to have to admit.

  • 119. icapricorn  |  January 28, 2010 at 11:15 pm

    Maggie Gallagher is usually described as a "marriage expert.' Based on what? The only academic credential she has, according to wikipedia, is a B.A. in Religious Studies from Yale University.

    The rest of her C.V. is a political one. The brief moment in the trial where this issue came up, she was described as a "scholar" but in cross that was eviscerated. She was merely "intellectually serious." Yes, political operatives always are. This does not make them, to use the Boies mantra, anthropologists, sociologists or psychologists.

    This has bugged me about MG for years. By what standard can she be called a marriage expert.

  • 120. Richard  |  January 28, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    By the same standard that Ann Coulter can be called a "purveyor of truth and sanity," in other words, none.

  • 121. Ronnie  |  January 28, 2010 at 11:29 pm

    Exactly what makes Maggie Gallagher and "marriage expert"…….Is is that she's married and has a bastard child?

    No offense to bastard children…… I for one am a bastard child and dame proud of it.

    I am a Gay Bastard…. Hey, I'm here, I'm queer…Get use to it!

  • 122. Richard  |  January 28, 2010 at 11:58 pm

    Way to go, Ronnie! However, I would like to say this, just based on what I have read here that you have posted. You may have been born out of wedlock, but you are not a bastard. You are a very strong young gentleman, who was raised by a very fine young lady, that grew into a man with REAL morals that are based on common sense, logic, and a belief in the equality of ALL people, not just a select few. You, like so many others who have posted here, are to be commended, and so is your mother. The REAL bastards are the ones who are trying to strip us of our rghts just because we do not conform to their constricted standards and ideals. Don't they know that "normal" is just a setting on your washing machine?

  • 123. Mykelb  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:53 am

    I always loved that quote from Dorothy Parker "Heterosexuality isn't normal. It's just common."

  • 124. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Thank you richard….. <3

  • 125. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:13 am

    You're welcome, Ronnie.

  • 126. Anne  |  January 29, 2010 at 12:01 am

    article in SFGate today; apologize if it's a dup. Thought it finally pointed out the weakness in the Yes on 8's witnesses

  • 127. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Interesting article.

    An observation:
    The past few years I have seen so many comments on articles against same sex marriage. The past few months I have seen the turn to more comments favoring same sex marriage (I personally know a few people who educated themselves who are now in favor of SSM.)

    I wonder it it is becuase we are being more vocal by commenting more, they are being less vocal because their evidence is weak, people are starting to see the injustice gays have suffered through time, or am I now reading selected articles/news media that favors SSM.

    Again, just noticing a change.

  • 128. David  |  January 29, 2010 at 12:47 am

    "My objection to televising high-profile trials is not theoretical. It emerges directly from the experience of the attempt to televise the trial for Proposition 8. Two-thirds of the expert witnesses-people who had been willing to sit for deposition, to prepare testimony, to fly to Sacramento to testify-dropped out under the prospect of having their faces and names televised."

    Hmm, now let me see if I got this straight (pun intended) they are pleading the victim again! And unless I am wrong a large amount of that "expert testimony" was admitted by Judge Walker in the form of Depositions filed.

  • 129. Mykelb  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:07 am

    Did she object to televising the OJ trial? One wonders.

  • 130. Felyx  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:57 am

    Sorry Mag's

    If your witnesses were indeed going to testify then they tucked tail because they were just a bunch of two-faced wusses who knew that they were going to get pwnd in there own ignorance! I didn't see the gays running like a bunch of faggots! LOLOLOL

    (Well, I didn't!)

  • 131. rpx  |  January 29, 2010 at 6:51 am

    Last sentence…LOL

  • 132. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:15 am

    BTW, I am still learning a lot of the shorthand that is increasingly prevalent in the twitter age, so I would like to know this: What is PWND?

  • 133. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:30 am

    Richard I use it to say I'm being controlled against my will or to be defeated which rarely happens to me anyway..

    It means to own… least thats what i use it for.

  • 134. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:39 am

    Thanks, Ronnie<3! You ROCK, dude!

  • 135. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:45 am

    No problem……<3….. ; )

  • 136. Tom B.  |  January 29, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    @Richard – Pwnd is internet terminology for 'completely owned', generally believed to be coined during the early days of online gaming, when someone meant to type 'owned', but hit 'p' instead of 'o'.

  • 137. Dieter M.  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:03 am

    That and the fact that she said Sacramento, and not San Francisco speaks volumes as to her non ability to state facts.

    the trial was in San Francisco Maggie….
    perhaps some of you shrimp cocktail juice dripped on your paper, and you were unaware..

  • 138. george  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:09 am

    Regardless of the results of the studies that the homosexual activists love to hang their hats on, children should not be denied to have the right to know and be raised by their real parents.

    These pro-homosexual researchers remind me of the consultants that come into an organization and put those performance appraisals together that attempt to objectively measure employees' performance. They're crap, useful only as a way to grant or deny raises/promotions, but saying very little about whether the employee is effective and valuable.

    The problem with the parenting arguments, and their respective (biased) studies, is that they can't control/account for the most important, esoteric, aspects of the marriage-procreation link: that is, how would the child have been better off had the child been raised by his/her real parents?

    Would the child have been happier? How would knowing about and having connections to his/her extended family give the child a more fulfilling life (e.g., health issues and other genetically-determined traits)? Wouldn't living with the people who share his/her genetic makeup provide a more stable sense of self than being brought up by strangers? How does having siblings of the same genetic makeup benefit the child and the siblings in the short/long term? How about the children of the children and their further distance from the extended family?

    Whether a child "does better," is a very subjective measure the data points that researchers are free to play with to support their personally-biased hypotheses.

    These silly studies try to quantify whether kids are "better off," but the most important aspects of being raised by one's real parents are not quantifiable.

  • 139. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:25 am

    Dear George:

    You know, I have seen the light. Why would some silly, peer-reviewed studies mean *anything* when we have a "genius" like you to tell us that they're wrong.




  • 140. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:26 am

    PS to George, who wrote: How does having siblings of the same genetic makeup benefit the child and the siblings in the short/long term?

    I hate my biological brother with the flaming passion of a thousand white-hot suns. Don't even *try* that argument.


  • 141. Happy  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:33 am

    "The flaming passion of a thousand white-hot suns."


  • 142. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:34 am

    fiona64, Can I adot you as my sister? You have so much common sense. And believe me, if anybody tries to start anything with you, they will have to go through me first, and that would not be pretty! I have seen too many times where being in the biological family was harmful, and I have seen too many couples like my husband and I where the children grew up well-adjusted because they knew they were loved. But hten, Georgie Porgie doesn't want to come out into the real world.

  • 143. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:38 am

    Dear Richard:

    I would be honored to be your sister. It would be wonderful to have a kind, thoughtful brother. πŸ™‚

    My biological brother is a sociopath in the Charles Manson sense (I am not exaggerating). He has caused my family so much anguish, and then there are the crimes he has committed against others. He doesn't care who he hurts so long as he gets his way. He physically abused me, his late wife, every woman he's been with … and has spent the majority of his adult life incarcerated for violent crimes.

    Yeah, let's talk about the benefits of having bio-sibs as opposed to adopted ones.


  • 144. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:45 am

    Thanks, Fiona64! And I agree with you about how bio-sibs are not always the rose garden and fun parade George wants to mke it out to be. Guess he had one of those mythical Ozzie & Harriet childhoods. Of course, it later turned out that Ozzie was abusing Harriet and the boys when the cameras were off. So, even Ozzie and Harriet didn't have the life they portrayed on TV. I will go to the site you and Sheryl pointed me to, and I hope you get a chance to go to my FB page.

  • 145. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:31 am

    George, would you really want children to remain with their biological progenitors no matter what? would you want to see children raised by someone who is alcoholic or crack addicted who woud pimp them out as early as five years of age? Would you really say that a child is better off with a bioological progentior who does not provide them food, so tha they have to steal from a local merchant in order to remain alive? Take off your rose-colored goggles, George, and take a good, HONEST look at the REAL world! Very few of the characteristics that are present in order to be a proper parent are limited to the heterosexual community. You just refuse to see anything other than your own very narrow POV, and refuse to listen to reason. Why don't you come dwn out of your ivory tower and actually get down and dirty with the real Americans?

  • 146. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:27 am

    George seems to think that as long as Tab A fits in Slot B, one is automatically rendered brilliant parenting material.

    I wonder, then, why CPS even exists …


  • 147. Bill  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:37 am

    George thinks he's a superstar. He's here to dampen the spirits of those he participates in the oppression of.

    Just be happy you're not a George. It's terribly difficult to breathe in such a little box.

  • 148. Alyson  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:33 am

    I also wonder when they make that claim – it's not like in reality thier is a choice if they define it that way ..then a bunch of bio parents will say ..'oh OK – I guess we better raise out kids then'. Kids are raised where they are raised and disadvantaging those that are not raised in their perfect ideal makes no sense – EVEN if they were right about it being better – which they are not. The mere presence of a penis and a vagina as the controlling fator is ridiculous – they aren't looking at addiction, abuse,etc..etc…

    During the prop 8 campaign I actually watched one of their videos were they – in all serousness – said, ' without a father, who will teach them to change the oil in the car?' – LIKE MY DAD KNOWS HOW TO DO THAT ANYWAY. How can people be this …… lacking in common sense!

  • 149. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:40 am

    Alyson, I laughed at that — I have straight parents, and I pay Jiffy Lube to change the oil. How ridiculous was that ad?


  • 150. jayjaylanc  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:42 am

    Hell, if at least one of their lesbian mothers can't teach them mechanical stuff, something's wrong…

  • 151. Bill  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:41 am

    Like I said before, it's been my experience that same-sex parents raise the kind of children who are well-educated and successful enough to be able to pay Lexus to change their oil.

  • 152. becca  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:46 am

    Wouldn’t living with the people who share his/her genetic makeup provide a more stable sense of self than being brought up by strangers? How does having siblings of the same genetic makeup benefit the child and the siblings in the short/long term?

    George, why are you against adoption? you know nothing about the biological parents of my children, but trust me, they are infinitely better off being raised my my husband and I.

  • 153. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:11 am

    Thank you, Becca. I am an adoptee, and my adoptive MOM was fantastic! Wish I could say the same for the "male parental figure" in the house. That's okay though. My mother taught me how to change the oil in the car, how to check the air pressure in the tires. So what do you say now, George?

  • 154. george  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:05 am

    Richard –

    I say that I think it's a shame that your biological parents weren't good to you, and it's good that you were adopted by good parents. But because things turned out better for you – or as best that we can determine – it does not follow that we should encourage denying kids both of their parents, or creating environments where that is likely to happen (e.g., reducing welfare benefits when the father is in the household).

  • 155. MirrorMan  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:03 am

    george, you are making an argument against adoption, not parenting, unless you think adoptive and foster parents are not capable of raising children. Perhaps you are right. Maybe we should take children out of abusive or broken homes and just dump them on the street. According to your argument, it would be infinitely better than letting a gay couple raise them?

    Feel stupid much?

  • 156. george  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Not feeling stupid at all. I'm not saying that there aren't instances in which the negative aspects of the parenting outweigh the benefits of the two-parent genetic link. But it doesn't follow that since there are those situations, that we should enourage gay parenting based on some farkakta research study that says that gay parents are better or equal to the genetic parents (or more to the point, that children are better or worse off), because these studies fail to control for or address the esoteric value of the biological link. And I think that if we are to err, we should err on the side of keeping the children with the biological parents.

  • 157. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:25 am

    George wrote: because these studies fail to control for or address the esoteric value of the biological link.

    How about if you show me some unbiased, peer-reviewed studies that address this "esoteric value" that proves bio-parents are automatically better than adoptive ones, regardless of gender makeup?

    I'll wait …



  • 158. Charles  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:28 am



    Stop answering to "George" (whos very probably not a real person anyway but just the name of a few h8ers trolling around here)

  • 159. Bill  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:42 am

    George does not have the mental capacity to feel stupid.

  • 160. Jenny O  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:08 am

    I need to go tell that to my adopted cousin. He needs to know how much he's missing by not living with his biological parents. Never mind that he's in a loving home with parents, grandparents and cousins who love him dearly. Never mind that he is very happy and well-adjusted. Never mind that his adoptive parents provide him with a loving home, food, clothing, and ways to foster his talents in music and sports. Nope, none of that matters, he's clearly missing the most important thing in life: a common gene pool.

    Wow, george, it's really sad to me that there are people out there ignorant enough to believe that. My aunt and uncle love THEIR SON more than anything in the world and he (and every child) deserves that.

  • 161. george  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:21 am

    Well, your cousin will never really know how his life might actually have been better – perhaps not in materialistic aspects, which you apparently feel are pretty important – had he been brought up by both of his genetic parents. And I would wager to say that your cousin has wondered about that too.

    Heck, who wouldn't want to be Oliver Warbuck's kid and have a great life, but maybe, just maybe, Annie might have been happier if her parents turned up: "Don't really care as long as they're mine…."

  • 162. Jenny O  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:57 am

    george, you are a moron. There is no scientific (yes, science!!) evidence for what you are saying. I studied Child Development and other forms of Psychology for many years in college and what children need to be successful is a loving home with the resources to grow (physically, emotionally, etc) and learn. Adoptive children are sometimes even more likely to have that than children w/ biological parents b/c adoptive parents go through an intensive screening process. But, I'm sure you'll come up with some really illogical response to this too. Until you provide real evidence that what you're saying is true, I'm not interested. My cousin has 'his own' family. It's his PARENTS and all of us who love him. Period.

  • 163. Joe  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:26 am

    George, as an adopted child, my biological father date raped my biological mother at the age of 19. He had no right to raise me, and my biological mother was in no shape to raise me by herself. She gave me up for adoption and I was raised by two loving parents who were about as biologically related as you and I.

    To insist that just because it was his sperm that created me that he should have had anything to do with raising me is patently awful. If you don't think so, give me your number and my biological mother can call you and tell you that herself.

  • 164. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:45 am

    Unfortunately, Joe, George is not man enough to take you up on that offer. Thank you for standing up for adoptees. And wat would George have us do with those adoptees, who like me, were placed for adoption due to the death of a parent while we were infants? Are we to be raised on the streets?

  • 165. george  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:23 am

    I addressed adoption in another repsonse; short answer: I'm not against adoption.

  • 166. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:26 am

    George wrote: "I'm not against adoption."

    You forgot the predicate of your compound sentence, George: " … as long as it's not a gay couple."

    You've made your position abundantly clear.


  • 167. me  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:28 am

    A good friend of mine of was regularly beat up by his biological brothers while their biological parents looked on and did nothing to stop it.

    His possessions were destroyed by his biological brothers while their biological parents looked on and did nothing to stop it.

    He was raped by two of his biological brothers and molested by his biological sister.

    30 years later, he takes several medications to help deal with the OCD and depression from the abuse wrought by his biological family.

    I guess a study that found he was not in a good environment would be biased, eh?

  • 168. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:46 am

    Yes, it would. It would be biased in favor of the truth, and that is what the other side cannot stand.

  • 169. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:00 am

    Well, of course. You see, George has informed us right up above that people raised by good heterosexual parents will not grow up to be gay.

    George also informed us that anecdotal evidence is irrelevant.

    George seems to dismiss anything that doesn't fit into his worldview. This is because George is an idiot.


  • 170. george  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:31 am

    You should have your friend contact one of the pro-gay-parenting researchers; he's just the kind of subject that they would be looking for (Just like Kinsey).

    I'm sure that there are no instances of gay parent abuse, and if there is, I'm sure the percentages are not even close to the percentages of abuse with heterosexual parents. Waiting for that study….

  • 171. Mr. HCI  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:11 am


    F*CK OFF, you insensitive pr*ck. It's a good thing you have your keyboard to hide behind.

  • 172. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 10:38 am

    George, are your eyes brown? Because you are awfully full of excrement.

    Gay parents choose to become parents; there are no parenting accidents with LGBT people the way there are in the straight world.

    I am absolutely confident that you believe the American Psychological Association, with its peer reviewed research is biased. However, I dare you to overcome YOUR bias and have a look at the facts at hand:

    The simple truth is that, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise, biology is not destiny — and procreating does not automatically make you a good parent.


  • 173. Mykelb  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:10 am

    um REALLY? George, your blathering is clogging up the blog.

  • 174. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:48 am

    And again George forgets that their are orphans, wards of the state and so forth that either both of their bio parents have died or have they have been taken away from thier bio parents because of abuse, sexual abuse, drug addiction, and alcoholism

    Not to mention surrogates…There are hetero parents who have adopted kids….no bio connection….lesbians have bio kids and so do gay men

    What George you think that gay men choose to use another mans swimmers to have a baby?

    Go share your thoughts with Mr. PUG-NO oh wait you can't.

  • 175. Dieter M.  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:07 am

    since the CLEAR majority of hetero marriages end in divorce, and the CLEAR majority of children live in Non traditional NON 2 parent bio homes…then your theory has a major hole in it.

    how could you POSSIBLY come to the conclusion that the few marraiages that remain in tact in the hetero world
    would be better than the clear majority of them that are not?.

    are you from Florida?…where 2+2 = 5?

  • 176. Felyx  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:30 am

    Dear George,

    Your position regarding a 'natural' family structure is not really what anyone is debating. Of course children born of truly heterosexual married LOVING parents are in a blessed setting. What is being argued is the overall context of your view that this is the only way a family should occur.

    The fact is that there will always be 'natural' heterosexual couples who have mental disorders, financial problems, are too young, etc. who will not provide or be able to provide a blessed and happy childhood for their offspring.

    There always has and most likely always will be children born out of wedlock.

    Neither party in a marriage or union (regardless of orientation) are not indestructable and so there will always be widows and widowers with children.

    Children will be born of incestuous relationships.

    Invitro-fertilization is here to stay. (And biological science is showing that it is theoretically possible to implant a blastocyte on the liver or peritoneal lining and with artificial means assist it to maturity. Men might one day be able to get pregnant and have babies! We do just about everything else…we might try to do this as well!)

    This list is by no means comprehensive but it does suggest that there are a lot better ways to spend $40,000,000.00 and an ungodly amount of man hours on social causes before worrying about what 1.4% (as the pro 8 campaign has advertised) of the population is doing with themselves…quietly behind closed doors…with their own biological and legally adopted children.

    Another way to say this is that, your (groups) efforts to ban gays from marrying gives the suggestion that christians have already lost their handle on what marriage and childrearing is all about. With two millenia and all on modern science and technology within the last century available to christians to show the way, the mere fact that it doesn't work that way shows that the concept is nothing more than a template. Like enduring true love at first sight, it is nice if it happens for you but it is not the definition of love.

    George, look in your heart and wieght it against your head. The trend of gay liberation is taking the same course as that of women and different racial groups. It is a matter of time. In the end you still only have you to account for and your higher power to account to. Are you spending your money helping those you love? Are you spending your time loving those around you.

    Disagree with women, blacks, muslims, jews, terrorists, palastinians, russians, gays or with any other group you feel at odds. but Please! be rational enough to know that you can only take care of you and the ones you love, and in the end you will still never change the world as much as it will change you.

    One day gays are going to get married, legally, here in the US. Are you going to be the ranting old geezer with whom your kids are going to be embarrassed to be seen?

  • 177. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:21 am

    Oh, and George, you really showed how tightly your rose-colored glasses are glued to you when you mistakenly stated that adult survivors of child abuse, and abused people in general, are not the rule. Actually, the people who have NOT been abused are the rarity. It is just that abuse was swept away under the rug for so long, under the dictum, "A Man's Home Is His Castle." It has only been in the last 20 years or so that a lot of the abuse has come to light. And this has been proven in studies by HETEROSEXUALS. So, please, do not try to pontificate upon subjects where you are so clearly clueless and in the dark. It is not a pretty sight. But then, you are only her because the leaders of your sheepfold won't let you post your comments there. So, in fairness, please hush for a while until you actually read actual scientifically proven cases and can be a man, instead o a petulant little boy who has has his favorite helicopter toy taken from him for not behaving properly in public.

  • 178. Bill  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:15 am

    I think Maggys letter is a good thing. Does this mean she is looking for grounds for appeal? Don't we need that for SCOTUS? Just wonderinng.

  • 179. Happy  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:26 am

    What's really gross about this letter is that it, NOM,, William Tam, and the entire defense in general – and its affiliates (have I missed anyone?), forget to take into account that all the witnesses for the plaintiffs willingly got up and testified, cameras or not, regardless of the retaliation they might possibly, probably, face. Retaliation against and hatred of homos and their supporters is historically documented and known to exist. And it happens far more often and with more devastating results than come to heteros who happen to cross us, the mighty homos. (Puh-lease!)

    That these hetero holier-than-thous who have enjoyed unfettered respect, acceptance, rights and freedoms from this state, country and world can now play the victim is repugnant. Next they'll deny that hate crimes against homosexuals have ever happened, that to say so is a homosexual conspiracy, and that homos are not only politically powerful, but somehow actually the majority rule.

    This Gallagher woman is infantile and obnoxious, whining away right along with Blankendouche. They can both go to hell, and take the rest of the defense with them – including their crappy lawyers.

  • 180. george  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:34 am

    Off topic, but I read an interesting twist on Don't Ask/Don't Tell: the theory was that the policy was put in place to protect gays in the military. I don't agree with that proposition, but I can see how repealing the policy will result in violence to gays and an extensive use of resources to adjudicate the various anti-gay incidents.

  • 181. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:44 am

    It didn't protect anyone; it just forced good soldiers like Lt. Dan Choi and SGT Jose Zuniga (who worked for me) out of the service.


  • 182. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Fiona, it also booted more lesbians out than it did gay men.

  • 183. Rachel  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:12 am

    Richard –

    That would be in line with the "No women in the Military" mode that some people wholeheartedly believe. Like having a vagina means you cant shoot a gun.

  • 184. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:17 am

    Heh, Rachel … as I've said, I'm the fundamentalist/Conservative's worst nightmare.

    I'm a pro-choice, pro-equality, feminist, progressive/liberal registered Democrat with a dead-eye aim.

  • 185. jayjaylanc  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:47 am

    That would appear to be a problem to solve at the culture-of-the-military level, just like Tailhook was. What has to be realized is that the time for tolerance of those atavistic cultural reactions is over. It's time to make it clear that violence against gay soldiers is a problem with the people doing the violence, not with the gay soldiers.

  • 186. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:07 am

    Jayjay wrote: It’s time to make it clear that violence against gay soldiers is a problem with the people doing the violence, not with the gay soldiers.



  • 187. Joe  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:29 am

    Yes, it's the equivalent of saying, well, it's just more trouble with the racists, so we shouldn't allow black people in the army.

  • 188. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:52 am

    Yes, George, and one of the most wll-known, successful challenges that proved DADT is NOT a means of protecting the LGBTQQI military personnel was when MCPO Timothy R. McVeigh succdessfully sued the Navy because they began discharge proceedings after someone hacked into his PERSONAL email account and then went to his superiors. Also, if DADT is about "protecting" LGBTQQI's in the military, then why are there MORe of us being discharged under DADT than there were prior to DADT? You really should do some research, darling, before you go spouting off on things you have no earthly idea about. Otherwise you run the risk of making yourself look even more stupid than you already are.

  • 189. george  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:06 am

    I don't think DADT protects gays from discharge, if that's what you thought I meant by "protection."

    What i do think is that if DADT is repealed, gays who are out will be subject to more verbal/physical abuse than those who are not.

    Love when you resort to using words like "stupid;" it's such a persuasive word and makes you seem so smart.

  • 190. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:16 am

    George, as far as protections against gay bashing for openly LGBT in the military, those are GONE under DADT. Why? Because if you have to lie about who you are, then those who attack you are allowed to lie about their reasons for attacking you. So DADT is nothing but a SHAM!

  • 191. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:17 am

    George wrote: What i do think is that if DADT is repealed, gays who are out will be subject to more verbal/physical abuse than those who are not.

    Do you really think so? Because, you see, not everyone is a bigoted, redneck moron.

    I worked for the DoD for 16 years, George. When Sgt Jose Zuniga came out during the first "March on Washington," he was thrown out of the service within 72 hours. Sgt. Zuniga was soldier of the year in the 12 western states; my boss sung his praises to the skies as an example of the ideal soldier. 72 hours later, Joe was a jerk and the worst kind of soldier — all because that bigoted, redneck moron knew something about Joe that he hadn't known three days earlier.

    When I asked how it was that Joe went from being the best to the worst within 3 days time, I was told that "gays have no place in the military. I don't want to see two guys holding hands in uniform at the officers club. Gays don't know how to be soldiers."

    I pointed out that the UCMJ precludes public displays of affection while in uniform, so I didn't want to see *any* couple holding hands whilst in uniform, gay or straight — and asked that lieutenant colonel whether he had ever heard of Hannibal or Alexander.

    Yeah, it ticked me off big-time. Joe was thrown out of the service for telling the truth … just like Lt. Dan Choi and numerous others.

    DADT is bigotry, pure and simple. I wonder how it is that so many other nations manage not to have such nonsensical laws against LGBT people, and those people serve without issue in the military. Hmmm.


  • 192. Bill  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:34 am

    Most awesome that you are actually arguing that DADT was actually passed against HETEROSEXUALS.

    Because they can't control their violet impulses against the LGTB children that HETEROSEXUALS ALONE create???


    Simply genius.

  • 193. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:37 am

    Or is it that repealing DADT is the best thing to do to gather more evidence of hate crimes and therefor supplying the ammunition to gain more rights for the LGBT community

    We only get stronger when faced with adversity.

    YA DONE!

  • 194. jayjaylanc  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:45 am

    Frankly, if you're not willing to stand up there and proclaim your supposedly scholarly, scientific findings to the world at large, then you obviously shouldn't be testifying AT ALL. Have the courage of your convictions or step down. Tens of thousands gay men, lesbians and transgender people confront hatred and the possibility of violence face-on every single day that they decide not to live a lie to make someone else comfortable. All you would be doing is testifying to what you supposedly believe to be the truth in a courtroom. Cowards.

  • 195. Bill  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:50 am

    As I have said before, it is Maggie Gallagher's children who I feel most sorry for.

    Because they will be forced to pay for the sins of their mother.

    They will open their history books to see a picture of their mother, who spent her life trying to destroy innocent people's lives. They will know that their very own mother slithered about the country with millions of church dollars taking civil rights away from innocent, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. And her children will have to answer for that over and over again on behalf of their mother, long after Maggie Gallagher is worm food.

    However, if I had an opportunity to ask 1 question of Maggie Gallagher, I would simply ask her what it feels like to be the kind of human being whose only positive influence on this earth will be her eternal exit from it.

  • 196. jayjaylanc  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:54 am

    Oh, yes…I have to imagine that it would be like being Bull Conner's grandchildren. "Mommy, why do people use grandpa's name as an example of evil?"

  • 197. Pearl  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:53 am

    OK the folks over at Alliance Defense fund have posted their own analysis of the trial and some convoluted explanation about why they called David Blankenhorn as their witness when he really is "one of us"??

  • 198. Joe  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:32 am

    Oh good lord Jesus, they even have to call them "so called 'domestic partnerships'" with the scare quotes?

  • 199. DanO  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:53 am

    The light in this letter is Maggie is no longer confident they'll win at the Supreme Court. She's setting it up for her minions to believe their loss will be because of this. Not their entirely impotent defense. Once the Supreme Court blocked the cameras, the witnesses could have come back. There was nothing barring them from doing that. On the NOM blog people keep referring to the Heritage Foundation's "findings" of proof of intimidation. What that finding fails to recognize is, except for the claims of violence and threats of violence, the rest of their findings were that people protest and boycott when others take away their civil rights. That's hardly illegal in this country. As for the claims of violence, that would be left to law enforcement.

  • 200. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:17 am

    To borrow a line from Jack Lor, "Book 'em, DanO!"

  • 201. Dave T  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:12 am

    The only proof of intimidation I've seen is that letter from the prop8 side attempting to extort "donations" from businesses.

  • 202. Dave T  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:16 am

    I just got curious about the definition of extortion & came across this (from Wikipedia:

    Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand made upon the victim is met. This information is usually of an embarrassing, socially damaging, and/or criminally incriminating nature. As the information is substantially true, the act of revealing the information may not be criminal in its own right nor amount to a civil law defamation; the crime is making demands in exchange for withholding it. English Law creates a much broader definition of blackmail, covering any unwarranted demands with menaces, whether involving revealing information or not.

    Any criminal law experts out there want to comment on whether that Prop 8 Blackmail Letter violates California law?

  • 203. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:24 am

    If it is not technically blackmail, then it is most assuredly extortion.

  • 204. jc  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    dave t,

    i wonder who the appropriate people would be to point that query? i definitely think it appears to be old school mafia blackmail and/or extortion…heck it would need more grace and subtlety to qualify for that status. i'm just so appalled at how blatant this letter is and yet nobody seemed to make a big deal out of and consult legal counsel.

  • 205. Kathleen  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:17 am


    That actually is the only reason I can imagine they called Blankenhorn — that he, in general, supports gay rights.

    Recall that the plaintiffs are trying to show that there is no legitimate state interest being served by the denial of marriage to ss couples. That is, that the reason it passed was mostly the result of religious bigotry, not an interest that the state should be catering to. (Not precisely the legal argument, but the gist of it).

    By bringing in Blankenhorn, who has stated he has no animus toward g&l, and who considers it generally a good thing that g&l should marry, the defense is trying to provide "proof" that there's a reason to deny marriage other than religious prejudice — namely, the protection of the institute of marriage. If you recall, much of Blankenhorn's testimony had to do with the notion of two competing "goods" and that a choice had to be made.

    The reasoning behind their trying to present this type of testimony is, IMO, a sound one. The problems they have is that (1) Blankenhorn isn't an "expert" (the way in which the court requires) — he just kinda knows what he knows and thinks that ought to be good enough and (2) this notion that there are two competing goods is a false construct. He couldn't provide a shred of evidence (beyond his opinion) that gay marriage would harm the institution.

  • 206. Joe  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:35 am

    That's exactly their problem, and almost any point they made were refuted by our actual experts.

  • 207. Kathleen  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:06 am

    Precisely, Joe. Once they remove all the supposed biblical justification for their objection (which they've been careful to do in the trial) their argument seems to rely on something like: it's self evident that marriage should only be between a man and woman and therefore, it should only be between a man and a woman.

  • 208. Alan E.  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:37 am

    Boies and team got some of the religious animus into the trial! They also made a point to show that it was the majority of people belong to the largest religions that support those "values."

  • 209. Kathleen  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Alan, yes. Our side got the religious stuff in. The pro-po8 people didn't bring it in.

  • 210. Kathleen  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:18 am

    That was supposed to read "Pearl" NOT Pearly. I'm so sorry. Just a nasty typo!! Please forgive

  • 211. Susan  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:41 am

    Did I read somewhere that she was an Irish Catholic? I am 52 years old and proudly of Irish descent. I was raised catholic as well as my children. This woman is what's wrong with religion these days. An embarrassment to any Irish community as well as the gospel of Christ. I love to read what she says, it's always entertaining and makes me laugh. Keep fighting for equality, this is America!!!

  • 212. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:49 am

    Oh, and George, I was placed for adoption, not because of parental abuse, but because my biological mother was killed by a drunk driver. And gays are not Made, we are born tis way. Even Jesus stated that. Read Matthew 19:12. At the time of Queen James, "eunuch" was the popluar euphemism for those whose sexual orientation is same-sex. You really need to get a reality check. And as far as anecdotal evidence, it is just as valid as any other.

  • 213. george  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:11 am

    I'm sorry about your mom, Richard.

    I'm not going to get into the nature/nurture thing here, except to provide my own anecdotal evidence of two of my friends who decided – their word, not mine – to be gay, or at least chose to live a homosexual lifestyle.

  • 214. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:19 am

    Oh, of course. Now George has hauled the proverbial "I have a friend who …" nonsense. @@

  • 215. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:20 am

    George, those who "decide" to enter into a gay lifestyle, are choosing how they express their sexula orientation, not the sexual orientation itself. If that were the case, then let me ask you when you "decided" to enter into the heterosexual lifestyle. Or when did you "decide" to be right-handed. Or when you "decided" to be the skin tone you are.

  • 216. Mr. HCI  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:35 am

    Chosing to no longer hide one's sexual orientation (to "live a homosexual lifestyle," as you put it) is absolutely not the same thing as choosing one's sexual orientation.

  • 217. Kim  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:54 am


    Well, it is nice you know a few who choice the gay lifestyle. Many of us don't experience it as a choice (really, I rather be in jail than be with a man), and I hope you keep those who do not experience it as a choice also in consideration

  • 218. Mr. HCI  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:59 am

    Kim, if George knows two gay people, he obviously knows all there is to know about homosexuality.

  • 219. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:10 am

    George you should know a few secrets about the LGBT community, since you "say" you have gay friends.

    You know they saying keep your friends close keep your enemies closer?

    LGBT people love all people, even Bigots like you, but secretly those LGBT friends are making fun of you behind your back.

    Please look of Dane Cook's "Retaliation:Need"…

    You are the friend nobody likes….. "God Karen!"

    "Fuckin Brian's Coming!"

  • 220. Kim  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:20 am

    Mr. HCl. I know, maybe we have to educate this poor soul a bit. I think we should point out that his sample set is rather small and that most of us know many more and that most do not feel they have a choice.

  • 221. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:28 am

    to Fiona64 @ # 149. You go, sis! YOU ROCK!! Give it to him from one who has been on the inside of the system. Of course, he can't take off his rose-colored glasse long enough to see the real world as it really is.

  • 222. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:29 am


    I"M TIRED OF YOUR SHIT!!!!!!!!!



  • 223. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:33 am

    Curious George….the Curious little monkey!

  • 224. Mr. HCI  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:43 am

    I think it's just remarkable that so many people who are against marriage equality just happen to "know" gay "friends" who told them they chose to be gay.

    Yeah, and my best friend in high school chose to grow nearly a foot in a year, in order to be taller than me.

  • 225. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:53 am

    The best line…"Dude I was so drunk last night I don't what happened!"

  • 226. Kim  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:52 am

    Guys and Gals, stop feeding the troll. Reactions in all caps will only be used against us as a sign of violence against pro-prop8 supporters.

    Really, if you cannot respond in a level headed manner to someone, don't. And if he/she gives the impression he/.she is trolling, just ignore all together.

  • 227. Mr. HCI  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:56 am

    True. I should not have done it, but George's incredible insensitive and flippant response about the guy who was beaten and raped by his bio family just made my blood boil.

  • 228. Kim  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:04 am

    One characteristic of trolls is their insensitivity. That is how they illicit a response.

  • 229. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:02 am

    I responded in caps because that was 20th time I had to point that out to him…..I have found that caps are effective in allowing bigots to see what they don't want too….

    Better to use word caps then actual caps

    although I apologize for my french.

  • 230. Pearl  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:21 am

    I agree Kim- do not feed the trolls. It just takes away from the civil discourse of this site.

  • 231. jc  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    one of my favorite statements, coined by myself…as far as i know…if it has a genuine start somewhere let me know, is you can't win with crazy. people like george, and the people involved in instituting prop8 are so mental you'll never win….they'll always have an answer or a one up on you…i'm not saying their responses will be legitimate or grounded in logic, but they so fervently believe what they are saying and are unwilling to actually think rather than spout what they've heard that you just won't win.

    george isn't coming here to glean some understanding and learn why we want SSM, he's got an argument and time on his hands and he's just going to keep up with the nonsense. really, there's no reason to try to convince him of anything else, and certainly no reason for any of us to get upset by him. seriously, ignore him and he will disappear, i've no doubt.

  • 232. Alex D  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:34 am

    NOM has posted an article on her site linking to a national study that says (from what I can skim), that married biological parents are better parents (in terms of child abuse) than the group of parents who aren't that.

    What they claim is this shows that they are better than adoptive parents – but I can't find anything in the study that breaks it down that well. All comparisons with actual numbers just say "Married Bio" vs. "Everything else"

    I asked them about it… but of course it is awaiting moderation (and has been for hours as other posts have been approved)

    I am looking over the study and although it does seem to classify Married Biological (both) Parents differently from Married Adoptive Parents, I can’t find any chart that compares the abuse between the two.
    Every chart at the end is “Married Biological” vs. “All other types”. That includes unmarried relationships, non-adoptive step-parents, etc.

    Most studies show that married parents are better than unmarried parents – neither side is disputing that. So I’d like to see the chart that distinguishes between married parents, purely on biological basis, instead of lumping in the others.

    If you could please list the chart in the study, or page reference that explicitly shows the difference between those two categories, that would be helpful (I’m certainly curious to see what kind of difference we’re talking about)

  • 233. Kim  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:36 am

    Three of my four replies at various topics have been rejected. And I was very nice and polite.

  • 234. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:54 am

    That studies not say what they are claiming, not in the slightest.

  • 235. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 6:03 am

    Argh. How about some nice grammar?

    That study does not say what they are claiming. It measures cases of documented abuse and neglect. To claim that because bio-parents in the cohort abused and neglected their children *less* than other categories of kinship does not mean that they are automatically better.


  • 236. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 29, 2010 at 6:15 am

    Yes, fiona64 you are right. Plus, in the study they clumped step-parents and adoptive parents together.

    "NIS–4 classified children into six categories: living with two married biological parents, living with other married parents (e.g., step-parent, adoptive parent), living with two unmarried parents, living with one parent who had an unmarried partner in the household, living with one parent who had no partner in the household, and living with no parent."

  • 237. JDI  |  January 29, 2010 at 6:18 am

    It's not like NOM ever lets facts get in the way!

  • 238. Alex D  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:21 am

    She did post the excerpts this time which at least shows the numbers I was looking for.

    ~6/1000 cases for married bio-parents, ~26/1000 cases for married parents who weren't both bio.

    But as you've said, they lump step-parents and adoptive parents together, which could easily be a significant difference.

    A step-parent who isn't adoptive is most likely not someone as interested in rearing a child. And where you have one bio parent and 1 step-parent the bio parent can often be single due to trauma (divorce, widowing) which of course would affect the child.

    (Not that step-parents can't be great. Someone I know had a step-father, grew up, became a lawyer, and wrote the adoption papers herself as an adult for her father)

    Adoptive parents of course are self-selected for those who want kids, so I'd expect the numbers to be different.

    I'd also be curious about cases where it's a married het couple, but due to infertility, only one of them is a bio parent, but they both adopt vs. pure adoptive couples.

  • 239. Rachel  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:32 am

    Here is another question:

    Did they lump same sex adoptive parents into that study??

  • 240. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:54 am

    They are getting ready to upload the first set of enactments:

    From Sign On San Diego
    "The first is set to upload today at San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders testified, and will be played by character actor Peter Jason, although his episode won’t air for a few weeks. Jason has appeared in “Mad Men,” “Deadwood” and “Seabiscuit.”"

  • 241. Kathleen  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:11 am

    I'm still hoping that the actual tapes of the proceedings will get released some day. I reeeally want to see Boise's cross of Blankenhorn!

  • 242. Kathleen  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:13 am

    JDI — heehee so true!

  • 243. Kathleen  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:19 am

    Another example of all that political power D-I's were trying prove?

  • 244. Kathleen  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:17 am

    Wow. I hadn't noticed these before. Not sure how these got released, and they appear to be edited so don't know what we're not seeing, but check these out:

  • 245. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Kathleen, these are the same video depo clips that were on the P8TT site recently.I have seen both of them. These both show the real reason These two witnesses were droppe. They did not toe the Prop H8 party line. they told the truth. And that is the last thing they want out there is the truth. Glad this finally got to YouTube, though.

  • 246. Kathleen  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:40 am

    Richard, thanks for the response. I've been having a one person conversation here on this thread for a while. πŸ™‚

    Don't know how I missed these before. I've been glued to this and several other sites and thought I'd sifted through all the content and comments.

    I never doubted that they withdrew their witnesses for reasons other than what they were stating, and assumed it likely had something to do with their performance in depos; I just didn't realize their witnesses had made such thoroughly damaging (for their side) statements.

  • 247. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Oh, yes! And did you get the blog post about the paperwork Rick filed against Re-Pug-NO? Looks like he will get to serve his CA representative's term in a set of browns, rather than a suit. And I think that particular shade of taupe will look quite lovely on him, don't you?

  • 248. Kathleen  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:56 am

    I did catch that.

  • 249. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    to Tom B. @ #133. Thanks, Tom. Between you and Ronnie, I won't be confused anymore when I see it.

  • 250. Jade  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    To George: You are a disgusting pig.

  • 251. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    Now, Jade, let's not insult the pigs. They are a higher life form with more intelligence.

  • 252. Jade  |  January 30, 2010 at 9:06 am


    Amen Richard. And even lower on the food chain than the sub-porcine George is ol' Maggie Hatemonger. People like these will gostraight to he'll on a red-hot poker, if there is such a place, for being evil and hateful. No doubt.

  • 253. adminhowtobuildmusclesscom  |  April 24, 2018 at 8:56 am

    With so many violin types to choose from it can be confusing for a first-time buyer, so I would recommend this great guide I have come across when looking to buy my daughters' first violin:

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