Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed


Right-wing Trial analysis

By Julia Rosen

This weekend at Camp Courage during my training on online organizing, one of the campers asked me essentially, how useful is it to go mix it up with the other side and argue with them.

My answer was that generally you don’t get anywhere, but that it can be entertaining.

What is more useful is when you deconstruct their arguments in your own space/turf.

To that end, today I found an article by the Catholic News Service, covering the last days of testimony, including Blankenhorn. The article ends this way:

Blankenhorn, testifying the previous day as the principal expert witness for the Proposition 8 defense, said the social foundation of marriage is greater than the legal issues surrounding it. He described marriage and domestic partnership as separate institutions. He said marriage predates law and “is not a creature of law.”

“The marital institution is differently purposed, is specifically purposed,” he said. “The purpose is to bring together the biological male and biological female to make it as likely as possible that they are the social and legal parents of the child. That’s the lodestar, that’s the distinctive and core contribution of the institution of marriage.”

Fascinating, because this really is an argument for getting the state out of the “marriage business”. It was something Judge Walker seemed to be particularly interested in at the start of the trial, but asked less about as it wore on.

The trouble is there are hundreds of places where our laws mention marriage. They are incredibly intertwined and this court case is indeed about how marriage is a creature of the law. This is a court of law and one cannot simply claim: society sees it how we see it and so the law should follow our lead.

This court case is about how the law treats two people who make a commitment to each other. It is not about sex. We don’t subject people to a fertility test before their wedding, or inquire at the frequency of their sex life. If we were following the Catholic Church for guidelines, they would likely have us test to ensure no birth control was being used by the couple applying for a marriage license.

Modern marriage is designed for stability, support and social recognition of that commitment. Children, sex and paternity can be a part of it, but are no longer the fundamental reasons for the union. After all, they exist increasing frequency outside of the institution of marriage. The lodestar is love, not sex (the physical act or biology).

Tags: ,


  • 1. Alan E.  |  February 1, 2010 at 7:53 am

    Then how do we get those onto our turf so we can deconstruct their arguments? The media won't work because Faux News will just invent some spin to negate any action take the day before.

  • 2. Misken  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:19 am

    This federal litigation is a prime example of getting "those onto our turf so we can deconstruct their arguments".

    The court system has always been our best friend, and so has San Francisco.

  • 3. Alan McCornick  |  February 1, 2010 at 8:14 am

    Well said. What continues to baffle me is how little Americans look to the larger world for experience. We don't see that coming out in the military hasn't been problematic in a single country where gays serve openly. We don't see that society has not collapsed where gay marriage has been recognized. We don't see how the quality of life rises with universal health care. And we don't see how non-problematic this same-sex marriage issue is in places where marriage is viewed as a contract to be monitored by the state, and whether the church "sanctifies" that marriage is outside the state's interest. All this fuss. All this money. What insular provincial people we are.

  • 4. Peter  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:10 am

    Interesting how Canada hasn't completely collapsed, even though they have had Military Same-Sex Weddings. No doubt both spouses were covered by the national health care system, too.

  • 5. G Rod  |  February 1, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Peter and Alan
    I have linked an article that appeared in November 2008 newspaper observing that near all tensions had dissipated with residents of the most resistant of the 10 provinces and 3 territories. May reading the article give hope that your neighbour's attitudes will change once ssm is achieved.

    Change came via lower and appeal courts. By the time the Supremes became involved, there was little if any wiggle room. Your northern neighbours are just as provincial and insular, but perhaps more acquiescent.

  • 6. R Lavigueur  |  February 1, 2010 at 10:14 am

    Speaking as a Canadian, where we have not only same-sex marriage, gays and lesbians openly serving in the military, and (though our current government wishes it were otherwise) universal health care; but also a long experience of dealing with Americans as neighbours, it isn't all that surprising. Many Americans still seem to presume that Canadians are backward, less developed folk who wish that they were themselves American. Indeed, they seem to think that way about pretty much every other country.

    And that seems to be what it seems to come down to. For a decent chunk of the American population, the assumption is that America simply IS the best country in the world, no questions asked. With that kind of thinking, frustrating as it is for outsiders, it isn't really much of a surprise that so little attention is paid to how other people do things; despite how often nations can learn from each others' experiences.

  • 7. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 10:27 am

    I totally agree, R. Lavigueur, I hate when people are like if we legalize gay marriage, let LGBT serve openly, and give universal healthcare then it will fall into the abyss…

    i always say ….Hows that abyss working out for Canada?

    They can't answer…

    I luv you Canadians

  • 8. Tim  |  February 1, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    R Lavigueur, I agree with you. Im so close to getting the hell out of this corrupt country! Its being controlled by money and religion! Sounds alot like the middle east.
    I think Canada is a great choice!
    Don't get me wrong, I love my country!! But my country is STILL condoning discrimination. So much for a FREE country!

  • 9. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 8:17 am

    "We don’t subject people to a fertility test before their wedding, or inquire at the frequency of their sex life. If we were following the Catholic Church for guidelines, they would likely have us test to ensure no birth control was being used by the couple applying for a marriage license."

    That is perfect!…..Right on the nose!

    I love it!….I love Hype!

  • 10. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Nothing but applause from me, Julia. Right on!

  • 11. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 1, 2010 at 8:25 am

    The sad situation is that we live in a predominately "Christianist" society. The "American Jesus" is such a blend of prosperity gospel and Puritan/Victorian sexual aversion that many no longer have any grasp of what it means to live according to the intent of the Gospels.

  • 12. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 8:27 am

    I've often said that I doubt Rabbi Yeshua ben Joseph would recognize his teachings in the mouth of his self-proclaimed followers …

  • 13. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:42 am

    From "Armageddon Days Are Here (Again)" by The The:

    But if you think that Jesus Christ is coming
    Honey you've got another thing coming
    If he ever finds out who's hijacked his name
    He'll cut out his heart and turn in his grave

  • 14. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    And you are right, Fiona, he would not. they have been twisted too badly.

  • 15. Callie  |  February 1, 2010 at 10:43 am

    The "American Jesus"…I like that and unfortunately, it's very true.

    Just today, one of my coworkers had come back from a 2-week course for her doctoral theology program (she's a very open-minded Christian and walks the talk; we've even talked about gay marriage and she doesn't understand the big deal over it).

    Anyway, she came back today and asked me if I heard about the church folks who went to Haiti and passed out pamphlets to parents there saying their kids would have great lives with swimming pools and tennis courts and the BEST education. She was like "Can you believe that?"

    I just looked at her totally unaffected and said, "Yes." Then went on to tell her about what was uncovered in the trial about all the lies the church spread to get Prop 8 passed. She was deeply saddened by this and had nothing to say really except that she doesn't understand what's happening to the church these days.

  • 16. Dieter M.  |  February 1, 2010 at 10:59 am

    yeah and at least 10 of those so-called baptist using the christian faith as their guide, are in jail for kidnapping 33 haitian kids in an attempt to take them to a rented "hotel", where they promised they were only going to set up an adoption center in the hotel room.
    their goal was to get 100 kids. that would have raked in tons of money for them by selling those kids on the black market. How christian of them…so desperately running out of money that they now need to steal and SELL get some extra cash flow coming in…way to go Christianity!!!..WWJD?
    I am pretty sure he would not be selling kids…(who weren't even orphans in the first place.)If this case doesn't open the eyes of this nation to what religion is all about then our country is hoplessly lost forveer. Dismantle all churches…think of the children. I know for a fact no child of mine will EVER enter a the risk of being abused or sold, or brainwashed by them… stop religious cults. save the country now.

  • 17. Tim  |  February 1, 2010 at 7:04 pm

    YES! CULTS! Until they start acting differently, that is all they will be to me,CULTS!

  • 18. Ed-M  |  February 1, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    And judging by the fundie-evangelical churches' Marvel-Comics-Interpretation-of-the-Book-of-Revelation, the "American Jesus" is also a Death God!

  • 19. Adam Dales  |  February 2, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    What do you care you're in Argentina, right Richard? (kidding)

  • 20. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 2, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    Adam, I don't know to which Richard you were replying, but I, for one am in Hope Mills, North Carolina, which is just outside of Fayetteville/Ft. Bragg. What would make you think someone on this site is from Argentina unless he or she specifically stated that he or she is from outside the US? Or are you in California and think tat this case only affects California, and that the rest of the US is in Argentina? Don't you realize that this is our very life we are fighting for here? Do you not realize that if we lose this case, that the radicals who are calling themselves Christian, Conservative Americans, but are none of those things, will find ways to undo all of what little progress we have made? If we let them win on this, they will find a way to repeal the Shepard-Byrd act, and it will no longer be a hate crime to take someone out, beat them up, and leave them for dead because they are gay or perceived as gay. If we let them win on this, then they can ghettoize s just like the Nazis did with the Jews, the blacks, the mentally and physicaslly handicapped, and the LGBTQQI's befor they began herding them off to the death camps. Do you really want to see us regres to that type of behavior?

  • 21. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 8:34 am

    I agree with you, Julia, that part of the lodestar of marriage is love. However, the lodestar is not complete without commitment. You can have love in many forms, but without commitment, you will not have a marriage. This applies whther we are talking about OS marriage or SS marriage. And with the divorce laws in this country especially, we see how the heterosexuals view marriage, at least, how they view marriage until we try to obtain the legal right to marry our spouses. OUr divorce laws make it quite clear taht heterosexuals do NOT see marriage as an institution designed to last "until death do ye part" until same sex couples try to obtain a marriage license. then they see the fact that we want tohave legal recognition of our commitment to each other as "destructive" to the "sanctity" of marriage as an "institution." Would someone do me a favor and check the whites of their eyes for me? They seem to be rather brown lately. How can expandingthe right to obtain a legal recognition of your love and commitment to each other harm an institution that is supposedly based on a commitment, and upon the legal recognition of that commitment? that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I think the real reason they do not want us to be able toget legally married is that they are afraid we will do better at staying true to our commitment than they do. They are afraid we will honor those commitments we make to each other ffar more diligently than they do. They are afraid we will finally be happy. They are afraid that they won't have anyone to bully around anymore. And maybe they are right.

  • 22. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 8:40 am

    But, Richard … don't you know that Brittany Spears' 52-hour marriage was okay?


    I think you're right, frankly. It's about fear … fear of being shown up. I can't imagine why couples that have been together for 50 years should be denied the right to marry when any ol' straight fools can head to Reno and do it on 2 hours' acquaintance. And yet, that second example is considered "sanctified" somehow?

    I'm not going to throw rocks at divorce laws. My first marriage was a mistake borne of feeling pressure from my family to marry (I was 28). I knew three months in that I had made a horrific mistake, but my nice Mormon mother told me that I was just not trying hard enough and that I was just too stubborn after being "alone" for so long (I had been far from alone, thanks …). We were legally married for two years; at a year and a half, I did what I should have done in the first place and filed for divorce. Some marriages are mistakes, no doubt about it.

    Yet, it's not up to me to dictate that for others. I lack the hubris. 🙂

  • 23. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 8:56 am

    This is true, sis. And I probably did not make myself clear with what I was trying to say. Yes, there are legitimate reasons for divorce. However, there are also those who misuse those laws to do exactly what Bitne Spears did–get married while drunk, then get a divorce simply because they want to. Your case was different. You were pressured by your family, whether that pressure was explicitly stated or implied. In either event it was still there. But the laws that allow someone to get married on Friday and divorced on Monday are ridiculous. And I know about pressure being applied to get married. There was a lot of that both times I got married. Had same-sex marriage been legal back in 1981, however, I would have been in San Diego with the man I met there. But that is okay, because the man I am with now shows me thesame respect, love, honor, and commitment that Joe showed me 29 years ago. The only difference is that this time, I can marry the man of my dreams when we go up north in April.

  • 24. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 8:58 am

    LOL, Richard … it was express pressure.

    We had been married for about 20 minutes when, right in the middle of the wedding reception, one of my aunts said (loudly) "You'd better hurry up and get pregnant, you're not getting any younger."

    Nice, eh?


  • 25. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Yes, and this may sound cruel, but if that had been my aunt, I would have turned right around and said MYOB! Sounds like auntie dear needed to get a life of her own so others could live theirs! And I can relate. I have aunts and uncles like that.

  • 26. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:11 am

    I just stared at her and said "We aren't planning to have any kids," which was true. She then pursed her lips and made a little "tut-tut" sound before telling me how selfish I was being "and with such a handsome man, too."

    I rolled my eyes and walked away. There was nothing else I could say without being rude. She was elderly, and I was taught better than that.


  • 27. Vaati  |  February 1, 2010 at 8:48 am

    Julia: Modern marriage is designed for stability, support and social recognition of that commitment. Children, sex and paternity can be a part of it, but are no longer the fundamental reasons for the union. After all, they exist increasing frequency outside of the institution of marriage. The lodestar is love, not sex (the physical act or biology).

    Love is the lodestar? Why, I think Christ would say something like that. Pity the Catholics lost that whole understanding and love bit in there somewhere. Good post Julia!

  • 28. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 8:58 am

    And Vaati, it was not only the Catholics who lost that little bit. Most of the hierarchy of the fundamentalist Protestant denominations also lost that. And as you say, it is a shame. Or as we say in the jewish community–a shanda! (a disgrace)

  • 29. Bill  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:05 am

    So, let me get this straight, no pun intended…

    Blankendouche is actually saying that marriage isn't 'really' a part of our civil laws.

    Except that it is.

    Wow, He really IS brilliant.

  • 30. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Yes, he is, Bill. About as brilliant as the light bulb I just threw into the trash can.

  • 31. Felyx  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:13 am

    "The social foundation of marriage is greater than the legal issues surrounding it. "

    Tell that to the legal issues! Has anyone heard about the DC Gay Marriage Contradiction? Congress passed DOMA saying there will be no recognition of gay marriage…the DC passes a completely unrestricted gay marriage ammendment that congress will end up recognizing.

    Once the DC legislation is put into effect it will be a contradiction that will not go unnoticed with the very first federal DOMA challenge. (How is it that Congress recognizes gay marriage when it said it would not? It will make the legislation VERY suspect and indefensible in the eyes of the law. Judges won't take it seriously!)

    Congress is going to be nationally embarrassed by the territory that is Taxed without Representation. If a legal challenge makes it to the SC in time I have high hopes that maybe the conservative ego will be roused enough to slam congress and revoke the DOMA legislation, if for no other reason, than to show dominance. (I would prefer they do it to validate us but hell…I just want to be recognized as a first class citizen!)

    If Prop 8 is overturned (which I have high hopes that SCOTUS will be in favor of civil rights) and DOMA is found to be unsupportable by the legislative branch itself, it will be short work for PRO CIVIL MARRIAGE RIGHTS leaders to overcome most all opposition fairly quickly.

    America could I am projecting 'go gay' in under two years…12/21/2012 here I come!!! (Blowout party at my place…if the world doesn't end you have to stay and clean up ;P)

    Post Scriptus: As a Roman Catholic born gay male…the Church can just choke on my Eucharist!!!

  • 32. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:42 am

    I was planing to have a party that night too…including a fashion show to top all fashion shows….I'm gonna kill it….pun intended…..BWAAAA!!!!

  • 33. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Ronnie, if you ever do a line of clothes for plus-size ladies, you give a shout, okay? (I nudged over into that range a couple of years ago …)


  • 34. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:53 am

    LOL…I will….big women need love too…unless gluttony becomes illegal since prop ha8te wants to use the bible to make laws….If that happens I'm going to plump up just to smite them and start the Voluptuous Rights Movement…yeah?

  • 35. Angel  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:16 am

    I found an amazing article today! Sorry if you all know about it already, but it is WONDERFULLY written, and I just have to share it!

  • 36. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:41 am

    I have no patience with rape apologists:

    Scroll all the way down.

  • 37. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Specifically, "Mark" (who is well known to me from the SacBee) said he would "service" lesbians to make sure that the population continued to grow … and then tried to pretend that this was something other than rape.

    Honestly, I just want to bleach my brain because of this guy's bullshit. I finally told him to seek counseling.

  • 38. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 1, 2010 at 10:03 am

    He's not worth a second thought, Fiona, forget him!

  • 39. Dieter M.  |  February 1, 2010 at 11:03 am

    I find it hard to believe that he could change any woman…I heard that if his penis was 2 inches smaller it would be a scar!!

  • 40. Felyx  |  February 1, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Fiona64, you rock.

    You can't take Mark seriously though….he has no ball and still can't figure out why all the pussy he has ever 'serviced' taste like feces.

    And before we get all bent out of shape about rape, think…

    All the lip service about tongue service has to do with the fact that he hasn't got anything else to service with! Poor little thing. Kinda makes you feel ashamed for him.

    (Repost from prior thread…but still true*.)

    *True is defined in the same manner as the Pro-H8 campaign portrayed it.

  • 41. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 11:35 pm

    Heh. He's laboring under the impression that you and I are the same person (delusions of persecution, I guess). I should tell you, though, in response to your remark over there — I'm straight.

    Mark has nothing to worry about from me, though; I like men.

  • 42. Dracil  |  February 2, 2010 at 3:36 am

    Apparently Mark also loves men.

  • 43. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:44 am

    OH I love you guys….. Britney Spears and all….I'm gonna have to put on a facial mask to get rid of all these laugh wrinkles and the tears that opened up my pores like a crater on the moon…LOL

    Here's one, How many of LIza's bride's were Gay?…BWAAAA!!!

  • 44. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 2, 2010 at 1:15 pm


  • 45. Alan McCornick  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:46 am

    We made a mistake some time ago by not calling certain groups on their claim that their understanding of scripture was, or ought to be, the law of the land. We need to expose that claim as nonsense every time we hear it. First of all, these people have co-religionists who disagree with them on how to read the scriptures. It’s not a fight between Christians and gays, but between literalist authoritarian Christians who claim without justification to speak for all Christians and all the rest of us. Secondly, as Jamie Raskin, the constitutional lawyer put it, “People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don’t put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.” And finally, whether I marry for love, for the sake of children, for companionship, for money, or for any of dozens of other reasons, as an American citizen, I don’t need to ask the church’s permission, I don’t need my neighbor’s permission, and I don’t need to follow anybody else’s tradition. I just need a partner who will say yes and mean it.

  • 46. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 2, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    And that little piece of LEGAL paperwork known as a marriage license. THANK YOU, Alan McCormick.

  • 47. Larry Kenneth Little  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:47 am

    The Catholic church believes sex is for the purpose of procreation only. That means no blowjobs except the ones the priests give to altar boys. The church has no business deciding what appropriate sex behavior is. Look at Tiger Woods, Ted Haggard, Sen. Larry Craig, Dave Letterman, Gov. Sanford, Sen. Edwards, President Clinton, Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, Newt Gingrich, and the list goes on and on to show everybody has baggage when it comes to horizontal refreshment and other and related activities. We have to have comprehensive sex education that follows nature and personal guidelines, not repressive religious nightmares. How can anybody thirteen or fourteen years old just cross their legs till married with no "touchie"? It is totally unrealistic. Marriage is not a monopoly of the church. Marriage is offered by Catholics, Jim Jones, Dominionism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Redneck Baptistism, Muslim, Hindu, and I don't know how many &*^%#$ others for everybody except the blatant discrimination that includes hating homosexuals and lesbians called Proposition Hate who can't marry or be accepted in the military service. Religion wrote those guidelines? The Republicans are determinee to obstruct changes in DADT and DOMA. Please………vote them out of office and back up President Obama who is trying to repair all the damage done by the Bush Adminstration and being carried on by the current Republican leftover sludge. Anybody respect Orrin Hatch on the judiciary panel? He is a Mormon; Do you think he donated any money to his church's $43,000,000 to help spread hate in California or is he going to defend the constitution and fight for equal rights that the 14th amendment that says everybody is entitled? Can this proud bigot be voted out of office?

  • 48. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:56 am

    You forgot Charlie Sheen….woah now!

  • 49. Caitlyn  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:51 am

    This reminds me: I have an acquaintance who decided to legally marry her male friend right before he went off to war, just for the tax benefits of it. No one questioned them about whether they would have kids, fought against them for destroying the institution of marriage, or put up any fuss.
    The world needs to face it: there is NO prerequisite for marriage. Any two different-sex adults can enter into the relationship regardless of whether they plan to have sex, children, or even are in love. It is thus clear that stopping gay people is pure bigotry, and the whole 'procreation' thing is just an excuse. An excuse that they make themselves believe completely due to cognitive dissonance, but an excuse all the same.

  • 50. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 2, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    Caitlyn, I do believe you and I may have had the same instructor for Critical thinking, as well as for professional research and reporting. whoever your teacher was, he or she had a very intelligent pupil, and a very worthy student of humanity. You rock!!!

  • 51. rpx  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:54 am

    From the Baptist Press Here is how they killed Civil Unions in Hawaii
    After becoming involved in P8TT I don't even support civil unions any more I'm full out -gotta be marriage.

    Yeah I guess this shows you how much power GLBTs have. Member that first witness for the defense the college professor, saying how powerful gays and lesbians are? Well they sure dont' look that powerful in Hawaii. My gosh I hope this court case is successful.

  • 52. Frijondi  |  February 1, 2010 at 10:22 am

    I hope a lot of visitors to this site click on that disgusting article. The discrepancy between what anti-gay activists say when they're addressing the general public, and what they say among themselves, is huge.

  • 53. JC  |  February 1, 2010 at 10:42 am

    Thank you for posting this, really, even though I am so sorry I read it. Time for a glass of wine and activities away from the computer to shake that religious righteousness off. Ick.

  • 54. slsmith66  |  February 1, 2010 at 11:37 am

    So I guess Hawaii dosn't have seperation between church and state?

  • 55. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    You notice they don't mention Massachusetts in the article where their Economy is the best, marriage rate is the best, divorce rate is the best, and education rate is the best…..hmmm!

  • 56. Righthingtodo TX  |  February 1, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    anybody wanna have a go at this nonsense? i'm looking in your direction fiona64

  • 57. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 9:59 am

    Comments are either not or are no longer being permitted.

    It is, of course, utter nonsense … the same utter nonsense Maggie spun on NOM.


  • 58. Larry Kenneth Little  |  February 1, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    Focus on The Family has a $2,500,000 anti-abortion ad on the Super Bowl. Focus on the Family is a religious terrorist organization and gathers millions of tax free dollars annually and is using it for political purposes. They could very well of used this kind of money to get the Bart Stupak amendment passed, or convinced Ben Nelson to refuse to sign the health care bill unless it had Focus on the Family’s anti-abortion demands. They could also use this kind of money to promote hate in California. This is the church abusing its power. Extreme rightwing religions, the Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals and Redneck Southern Baptists conspired and were successful in spending $43,000,000 promoting Proposition Hate in the state of California, and I don’t want them to get Roe V Wade overturned. We must insist their tax free status is revoked. With a Republican Supreme Court we got five right wingers licking their chops for an opportunity to overturn Roe V Wade and already we can predict that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and especially Alito are just waiting, waiting, waiting.
    Focus on The Family imposes its radical religious view points on our television screens and we all know that this anti-abortion television ad will replay on Fox News every five minutes for the next 24 hours masquerading as news and its purpose is to create more anti-abortion fanatics who are worried about their tickets to Heaven what Obama might do and I have to wonder or how many meals 2 and half million dollars would buy to feed the homeless or feed the hungry in Haiti.
    It is vital we keep the church and their divisive hot button issues confined to their church and especially kept out of our government and televisions sets.
    We got more churches than gas stations and they have parking lots bigger than Yankee Stadium.
    I don’t want any part of the church having laws written that violates my right to privacy or try to be my moral compass, or how I should use my reproductive organ. I don’t want to learn how to hate or who to hate and that includes getting my directions on a television screen, listening to Christian terrorists or their opinions on abortion, or have Pat Robertson telling me what happened in Katrina, Haiti or why 9/11 happened.

  • 59. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 11:37 pm

    And yet they refused to accept the United Church of Christ's ad wherein the organization welcomed LGBT people because it was "advocacy." This is such crap. How is an anti-choice ad anything other than "advocacy"? I have written nastygrams to the NFL about the matter.

  • 60. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 2, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    What is the email address? I want to spread that one around myself.

  • 61. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 11:21 pm

    I did it via the CREDO action network; they have an e-mail form on their site:

  • 62. Laura Kanter  |  February 1, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Great post Julia. One of my friends asked me if the word love was ever used by the defense in relation to their arguments. He said he went through the transcripts and didn't see it once. I look forward to going through the transcripts myself to see where love does come in. Its so sad that marriage can be reduced to such meaninglessness and yet those of us who really do want to marry for love, for a way to have acknowledgement and support of a commitment founded in LOVE (as opposed to a privilege reduced to a relationship based solely on gender = one man/one woman) are denied that right. The endless preposterousness of it is maddening.

  • 63. george  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:06 am

    Actually, most marriage ceremonies actually require the betrothed to promise to love one another.

    Sure, love is often the initial bond, but to suggest that that kind of love should be the sole basis for marriage is the reason that the divorce rate is so high. Foolish expectations; misperceptions of what marriage is about.

  • 64. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:08 am

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem, George? The point is that the defender/intervener never once mentioned love. Like you, they seem to think that the only reason people marry is to breed … as though it's some kind of livestock husbandry program.

    Well, maybe at your house it is …

  • 65. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:42 am

    To Curious George…A FOOL says what?

    Go to worship at your cult SWATZY!!!

    Marriage is about love and commitment, tis sure as hell not about having children because not all heterosexuals can reproduce unless in your fantasy world all heterosexuals can reproduce because bigots only see what the want and hear what they want and the rest never happened in not there.

    Swatzy Troll!

  • 66. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 2, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    No, Team George, love is not what makes the divorce rate so high. It is the fact that so many of you treat marriage as a throw-away proposition. If this were not true, then there would be fewer heterosexual couples going for prenuptual agreements. If you are truly intending to honor your commitment under all but the very worst circumstances, then you should not need a prenup, because you will not be so willing to throw your marriage out at the first sign of trouble. No one is suggesting that the kind of love you are referring to be the basis for marriage. We are taklking about the kind of love that signs on for the long haul. The kind of love that is more than just a fleeting emotion. The kind of love that is based in and expressed through your actions–those little things such as putting the toilet seat down, cleaning up the mess when your husband eats something that disagrees with him and pukes all over the living room rug, going to an event that doesn't really interest you because you enjoy time with your husbasnd and want to learn more about his likes and dislikes, going to dentist and doctor appointments with your husband. You know, those little things that let your husband know, "Hey, I am committed to you for life." But then, I have probably posted too much in this one comment for your little overworked vacuum tube. So I apologize. I will give you time to recover and go get your interpreter. so you can have him or her translate this into terms you can understand.

  • 67. w11USA  |  February 1, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    I just realized there is no David Boies fan page on facebook, so I took the liberty of creating one. Please become a fan!

  • 68. Tim  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    The whole idea that marriage is soley for the purpose of procreation is the rights LAST string ,even if it's completely false! .That is why we are hearing it so often from the proponents of prop H8.
    They know that the constitution is going to override their bigotry so they are pulling at any string they can find!

  • 69. george  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:01 am

    Last string? That's funny; it is THE string; always has been.

    What's ironic is that what was once mere common sense -even by gays – has to now be defended because of a group of people who resent the fact that a man and a woman is the only couple that can create a baby.

  • 70. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:06 am

    Dear George:

    I keep looking and looking for the legal statute that requires that a couple must breed in order to be married, in any state in the union.

    I am *confident,* since you maintain that this is the only reason people marry, that you can show it to me.


  • 71. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:13 am

    Ronnie, please calm down. I know you're angry … and that gives Kay/George what he wants. He's an idiot, we all know that.


  • 72. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:16 am

    At this point I am not sorry for my language…I'm tired of this shit! If this keeps up I will sue protect for breech of freedom of speech…they can come here but we can't go there…NO FUCKING WAY!!!!

    DO NOT PUSH ME GEORGE I WILL HAVE YOU ARRESTED for harassment…I have friends at the FBI and I will have you arrested for cyber harassment which is against the law! Freedom of speech is one thing but harassment is another!

  • 73. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:21 am

    Thing is, Ronnie, there's no real freedom of speech on the internet. Any time you participate in an on-line public forum, you're subject to the terms of service. George is taking advantage of the fact that his hate-filled friends don't want any rebuttals over at their bullshit site and that Courage Campaign encourages actual ::gasp:: dialogue as his excuse to come over here and spew homophobic and misogynistic hate speech. At least (unlike Little Mark) he has not (yet) shown himself as one who promotes the rape of lesbians … so he's not even the worst troll we have.

    I understand your anger, okay? I really, really do. I would love nothing more than for the Rapture that these self-absorbed boneheads keep talking about to take them all the hell away so that the truly good people will be left behind to fix all the things they fucked up.

    But when you act like this, George/Kay and Little Mark *win.* They say "See, this young black gay man called me names and was MEAAAAAANNNNN to me." Of course, it's crap. We know that … but it allows them to continue to feel righteous in their ugliness, stupidity, bigotry, bias, lack of education, fundamentalist fervor and so on.

    Don't let people this small drag you down to their level. You're a better man than that.


  • 74. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:23 am

    wrong Curious George…..a baby can be created in a petri dish…all is needed is an egg and sperm….so technically heterosexuals aren't needed at all… I mean I love some of you but Gay people will carrie on without you…We will keep the nice ones because they actually have a heart

  • 75. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:28 am

    Thank you Fiona64…I know I need to calm down but I mean this guy(people)…..i mean the balls….they would never say this shit to my face because they know I'll pop them in it.

  • 76. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:38 am

    You're right, Ronnie. They would never behave this way to *Any* of us in person, because they are cowards. They delight in their bigotry from the safety of their hovels.


  • 77. Kenneth O Garrett  |  February 2, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    I have to agree with George. There is noly one way to have babies and the is the hetero way. The only way homoists can get one is to steal it from its right full parents or trick someone into having sex then claiming to be gay.

    The sceintific truth is that brains of so called homo men are deformed. And before you cry that I am some neanderthal look it up. There was a sceintific study that proved homo men brains were deformed and not normal like real brains of real men. The corpsus coloseum was large like a womans brain which no dout is why homo queerists men act so feminent.

    But first I will say I am for queerist homoist marriage. Then you will see what a farse it is. Two men will want to have sex with every other men and will only marry to prove a point. Then they will divorce becase there is no real man to put the other one in *her* place. Yes, woman is the weaker sex and needs strong male leadership! This is self evidant!!!

    Homoists will marry and divorce over and over and the ones that will benefit are us who know what marriage really is.

    So have your marriage and fill our cofers with your money! I dont mind because homoist queerist marriage will just keep falling apart everytime and we will get the benefit! I am proud to have voted for Prop gr8! But i dont care even if it goes legal state wide. The laugh will be on all of you! God will show you the eror of your ways and you will reep your reward.

    Oh and save your breath on calling me a hater or a bigamist, I am only treating you like I see you….ungodly filth! It is my first amendment right and I will feel free to use it and I am proud to put my name on it too!

    You know where you are going….have fun!

  • 78. Felyx  |  February 2, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    Dear KOG (in the machine),

    It is a corpus callosum. The study you refer to is unproven and outdated. Larger CCs however, can be found in musicians, left handers and authentic psychics (or intuitives)…however they can barely be found in chimpanzees.

    (BTW I am not suggesting that you in anyway are as good as a chimp…chump!)

    LOL! Yankovics 'DARE TO BE STUPID!' Is ringing in my head now.

  • 79. Felyx  |  February 2, 2010 at 2:29 pm


    He (they?) are just baiting for a reaction.

    Please realize that you are yelling at someone who has the spelling of high school drop out.

    I love you guys, believe in yourselves and ignore the disturbed and small minded. We are a group here and our solidarity will be our peace.

  • 80. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    No I'm done…I'm done being nice to people…the next person that says anything anti-gay in public in front of my face is getting push in front of bus

  • 81. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 11:29 pm

    Dear KOG:

    I have no cause to call you a bigamist. Are you married to more than one person? 'Cause that's what a bigamist is.

    A bigot, OTOH, is a label that most definitely applies to you.

    And guess what? I'm straight. Your hate speech against my friends and loved ones is duly noted, as is your homophobia. I have no doubt that you are proud of your small-mindedness.

    You seem to be interested in studies, although you provided no citation for the one to which you referred. I would like to share one with you as well. It was conducted at the University of Georgia.

    I think you will find the conclusion rather interesting. You see, the university did a study of self-proclaimed homophobic men. They hooked them up to a plesthyometer, as they did witn a control group of non-homophobic men. The plesthyometer, lovingly referred to as a "peter-meter," measures erectile behaviors. The two groups were shown straight porn, lesbian porn, and gay male porn.

    When shown gay male porn, the homophobes had significantly higher erectile behavior by percentage. You can click on the link to look at the actual results.

    The conclusion of the study was, and I quote: The researchers concluded that these data are consistent with the belief that most homophobic men have repressed homosexual desires.


  • 82. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 11:39 pm

    LMAO!!!!!!….Fiona64….I luv when people pull out the repressed homosexual tendencies…

    "Dude…..I got so drunk last night…..I don't even know what happened…. now get out of my bed man…i need to sleep!"

  • 83. James Sweet  |  February 1, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    one of the campers asked me essentially, how useful is it to go mix it up with the other side and argue with them.

    From my experience arguing with Creationists, "You can't be good without God"-ists, etcetera, I have a different answer: You are virtually never going to get the person you are arguing with to budge an inch, but as long as the discussion is taking place in a public forum you may convince others.

    So I think it's rather pointless (except for, as you say, entertainment value) to "mix it up with" them in a private conversation or an e-mail or whatever — but in the comment section of a blog, or on a message board? You never know who else is listening and can be convinced.

  • 84. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 11:39 pm

    That's the attitude I take, James. In addition, there may be some LGBT young person out there who reads it and realizes that not everyone is against him/her … and perhaps will not commit suicide today.

    GLBT kids constitute the largest group of homeless youth because they are thrown out of the house by their parents (this disgusts me no end … I chose not to have kids for reasons of my own, but if you choose to have kids — and it IS a choice — then you have signed on to support them until their majority at least).

  • 85. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 2, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    And how about those of us who want children so badly, who want to adopt and are told we cannot adopt where we live because we are gay? That is not fair. There are too many children who want a loving home to deny those of us who would take them in and show them wht love really means. And no, I never wanted to adopt sons. I always wanted daughters so that I could show them that women are stronger than men, and threfore do not let any man abuse you or take unfair advantage of you. You want to study science and be an astronaut? Go for it! You want to be president, then run for the office. And for anyone out there who thinks men are stronger than women then consider this. If men were to get pregnant and delver a child, we would not have any problem getting men to use preventative measures if they do not want to be fathers.

  • 86. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    Amen sister!

  • 87. Callie  |  February 2, 2010 at 12:01 am

    That's pretty much my attitude too. I have one person on my FB (former high school friend) who is virulently anti-gay. Her arguments are verbatim from these trial transcripts so you know she's a hardcore Focus on the Family, lovin' nutcase. However, I have about 50 or so of our fellow classmates on my FB as well. They may agree with her. They may not, but they're not attacking me. I have made a personal committment to not personally engage her, but I do make a point to post news and other information, like the Prop 8 trial, that refutes pretty much everything she's ever said. I won't sit by and let someone denigrate me and my family on a public forum to people I've know nearly 40 years. I've had two people unfriend me and another person say she was "offended" by my attitudes about Christian beliefs. She was my best friend in high school and I said, "Honey, I will friend you but I am NOT going to shut up. You want me to show some respect to your faith while you show no respect for my life and my family, but that's unacceptable. Until you can, I'll continue to speak the truth." That person hasn't unfriended me or given me any crap. Maybe most of them ignore my posts or even hide me, but someone somewhere may FINALLY understand and that's what's important to me.

  • 88. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 4:17 am

    This just in, via a most excellent Pagan newsfeed (Wren's Nest News):


    Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are expected to announce at least two specific policy shifts: No longer will a “third party,’’ such as a spouse or informant outside the military, be able to prompt investigations of service members by saying they are gay; and only generals and admirals will be authorized to decide whether someone should be discharged for being gay. Such decisions are now often made lower in the chain of command.

    By barring third-party testimony from initiating investigations of service members’ sexual orientation, the Pentagon could cut down on the “witch hunts’’ that gay rights advocates say have resulted in the ouster of soldiers who have followed the policy by keeping their private lives private.

  • 89. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 4:23 am

    Oh Fiona64….I'm just to quick for you I posted the same thing from the NYT on another thread…..Great minds thing alike.

  • 90. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 2, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    Thank you fiona. Too bad this didn't happen years ago. Then MCPO Timothy R. McVeigh would not have had to sue in order to retire from the Navy wih the honors he had earned and his full pension, as well as beating a DH discharge. And no, he is not related to the other Timothy McVeigh. This man was outed by 3rd party testimony that sent the USN to his PERSONAL email. Not his MILITARY email, mind you, but his PERSONAL (PRIVATE) email account. And yes, he was successful in his suit.

  • 91. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Ok get this people…I just got an Email from…you are gonna be like OMG!!!:

    Christian Ministry Courses…first………BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

    2nd when I saw that in my inbox I was shocked and said are you f-ing kidding me somebody sent me a death threat!

    But is just an ad for a college, but dude WTF!!!!!!

  • 92. Larry Kenneth Little  |  February 2, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin who quit so avoid an investigation is at the top of her bitchy lungs criticizing the Obama administration and asking him to fire Rahm Emanuel for using profanity. But she takes that event and without connecting the dots accused him of discriminating against disabled America………..I’m sure Focus on the Family can use that accusation with their fanatic anti-abortion ad during the Super Bowl to encourage more young minds that pure evil is in the White House.
    I’m getting so sick of these distortions and outright lies from people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly from Fox News, who are able to influence millions of voters into believing President Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate, has made a pact with the devil in allowing gays into the military and won’t fire Rahm because he used a naughty word. Since you are the only one who mentioned the “N” word, it points out that only you are the racist. While we are at it, what have you done to support the president? Why should President Obama fire somebody on the advice from somebody who doesn’t know where Oatmeal, Kansas is? Kidding aside, I am offended by this bitch. Her only purpose is to demolish the leaders chosen by the people. What is most offensive by this unnecessary onslaught is the depth of hypocrisy of the Republican Party she represents, and I don’t remember a word coming from Sarah Palin when Vice President Dick Cheney told Senator Leahy “to go fuck yourself” when he made an inquiry regarding the multibillion dollar contracts given to Halliburton where Cheney had an executive position.
    This country was nearly destroyed through eight years of Republican administration and if anybody is stupid enough to give then permanent filibuster privileges, so continue to discriminate against the gay population with DADT (John McCain, John Boehner, Orrin Hatch) and the rest of the Republican Party, reject all forward progress health care legislation unless it has fanatical anti-abortion language in it written by a Christian terrorist group called Focus on the Family. DOMA also needs to be repealed and there is an effort to do so by the Obama administration but any attempt to remove that Christian dogma by the Democrats has a Republican filibuster waiting for it.
    Guess what? Canada has universal health care, same sex marriage, ok for gays and lesbians to serve in the military and their citizens can feed the kids, pay the rent, squander on entertainment, are free from right wing fanaticism and everybody is happy except Focus on the Family. We have all heard of how our country will be destroyed if gay marriage is approved and if we let gays in the military. Canada shows that all this destruction nonsense from Satan is just Christian” bovinus turdus.” The United States is not the beacon of freedom: no country under the boot heels of religion can enjoy freedom. Look at Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. Most of the hate roiling up in America comes from religion. They have several clients in congress and at least five members on the Supreme Court. Religion has abused its power and has become a powerful political force and needs to have its tax status revoked.

  • 93. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 2, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    AMEN, Larry! Thank you for being here on this site. In an earlier post, you said that you and your bride have been married 40 years. My only wish is that you too have at least 40 more years of enjoying each other's company and loving each other. Now, take a little time and spoil each other. You deserve it!

  • 94. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Here is a shout out to shut down Curious George (one could dream):

  • 95. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:01 am

    Newsflash people your kids are doing the teaching!

  • 96. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:11 am

    I told you your kids know about Gay people and most of them are ok with it:

  • 97. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:15 am

    SEEE!!!!! You think you know Bigots but you have no idea!

  • 98. John  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:23 am

    The role of the state in "marriage" is to create a legally recognized entity for taxation and transfer of property.

    The state should offer a "Joining " or "Unioning" license with the now recognized legal benefits of marriage (no domestic partnership is not exactly the same) and let people do what they will with that license… even get "married", maybe even in on of those magical worship places under "god" or "gods" or satan – who gives a crap?

    If there is one thing this trial has shown religion is not always about love, so separate the church and the state a little further and let the religious nutjobs claim this is one more secularist attack on them and their "beliefs" (not truths) at which point I will remind them, that we don't all believe in "One Nation Under god" – There god or anyone else's god. And then when one of them sneezes I'll prove it by saying "Allah Bless You", and watch brains fly.

  • 99. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:29 am

    hahahah…."Allah Bless You"

    don't you mean "Cher"…I'm sorry, i couldn't help myself!

  • 100. Larry Kenneth Little  |  February 2, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    Kenneth Garrett:
    Its bigot, not bigamist. I can tell you are a Pat Robertson/Focus On The Family congregation member. Since it appears obvious you graduated from Bob Jones University, let me help you with help you with one other concept. Homosexuality is not a disease, homophobia is. You need to take your medicine.
    You probably voted for McCain, and Rush Limbaugh is your idol and you would like to get Sarah Palin in your back seat. Am I right?

  • 101. Felyx  |  February 2, 2010 at 3:10 pm


    Me thinks you give too much props when you suggest he graduated from BJ University…(BJ University…hmmm….) much less any university at all!


  • 102. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    What?…He graduated from Blow Job university? where is that school? I want to go…I would get a full ride….and keep it because I have never gotten lower then a B+…I'm a very good student!

  • 103. Kenneth O Garrett  |  February 3, 2010 at 12:01 am

    Hot Dam ronny!

    You talk big about guns and martial arts —something what you kno nothing about it is ovious!—and all but all I got to do is pull out my babymaker and you would drop to your nees in a second! It would be a one sided fight with me wang-bangin you usside the head and you loving evryminute of it.

    As for Rush, the man knows his stuff! I don't know no homosexualist commentator that is even haf so popular thta Rush—–because it is ovious they have nothing worth saying. And yes I would bang Sarah cuz she is hot and her daughter to. Ask you queer dyke friends who know what beauty is. And FYI i make her take a pill frist so I didnt have to suport her baby what is legal now since pervert filth made it legal to subvert gods plan for man. I am not ashamed to say that I use contriseption since it is legal and the 1st ammendment gives me the right to say what I like.

    And to Tim I am not judging you. I just call you what God calls you. I think the bible is clear ABOMINATION!

    Or condering the HNIC is presiding over the completely enslaved world—it is an HUSSEIN OBAMANATION! he intends to bring war upon us with the Mohamadins which will end this wicked gereration in blood.

    I will be their to see it and the rest of you—well bring an ice pack it is going to get hot!!!!!!

  • 104. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 12:08 am

    Wrong trash bag…..what "made it legal to subvert gods plan for man"…..Is separation between church and state, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech…We have nothing to do with it…Just following the law

    They just announced that there will be a terrorist attack in the next 3 months but do not know when and do not know where…..

    I HOPE THEY DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 105. Kenneth O Garrett  |  February 3, 2010 at 12:58 am

    Seems we fianaly agree on something—separation of churchand state WHICH IS NOT IN THE BIBLE OR THE CONSTITUTION really is what made it all legal to subvert Gods plan. That is why america needs to be attacked by your friends the gay terrorist so htat Gods wrath will spill over and he well send Jesus back to avenge the rightius.

    and BTW Nazis just followed the law and got rid of the filth in their land but I dont hear yousingin their prases for staying WITHIN the law!

  • 106. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 1:09 am

    First the bible is not a legal document its just another fictional book that can burned along with your face

    2nd you are wrong separation between church and state is…do the fucking research TROLL

    3rd do more research the terrorists also kill gay people…fucking dumb ass

    4th…gods wrath?….tell me how is that working for all the countries and states that legalized SSM who are doing way better then those who have YET too….It seems to me that god is rewarding them for being Humans with heart….

    5th…the last time I looked Jesus was is back and living in Mexico….Hes working on his tan and converting Mexico to equality.

    6. if it was the law in Germany then how come they were destroyed? What they did is what god hates and he punished them….take a fucking history class BIGOT THUMPY(if you even know what that is)

  • 107. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 1:24 am

    Can someone kindly translate KOG's post into English? I am afraid that I do not understand whatever language it is typing in.

    Thanks in advance,

  • 108. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 1:27 am

    Oh, Ken. I am so sorry. Separation of church and state is not only part of the First Amendment (you know, that pesky estabilshment clause …), but it is indeed in the Bible. Matt 22:20-22, in fact.

    Quote: 20And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

    21They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

    22When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

    I really suggest that you not meddle with people who actually know their Bibles, Ken. However, if you would like, you can answer some questions for me; after all, you are a self-proclaimed Bible expert.

    You see, Ineed some advice from you regarding some of the other specific Levitical laws and how to follow them:

    When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

    I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

    Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

    I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

  • 109. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 1:37 am

    See….read between the lines….due to the lack of direct wording, the wholes have been filled…all you need to prove that is the precedented rulings and you know what they are…THE CHURCH WON NONE, ZERO OF THOSE BATTLES!!!!!!

  • 110. Felyx  |  February 3, 2010 at 1:40 am


    Seriously man…you have got to chill. You are sounding just like KOG and it is disturbing. I love you man and I am on your side so believe me when I say you are acting seriously manic and out of control. KOG and George on occasion, and Mark and several the others are just baiting you for a reaction. KOG just happens to be a master at it.

    Ronnie, if you are going to let KOG Master-Bait you then you two just need to get a room and keep it off the thread! Please Ronnie, find a good place and come back to being the funny guy who was doing such a good job at cheerful pointing out the flaws in the H8 parade….Please?

    As for KOG,
    What do you want to bet…

    That you never graduated HS,

    That you are twenty something,

    Recently lost your job within two years,

    Recently divorce because your wife was tired of supporting you,

    You aren't allowed to see your child (probably daughter),

    Hooked up with a hot chic who dumped you after an excruciating night of anything but hot sex,

    and now you have nothing to do all day but 'bate yourself while 'baiting gay guys?

    How close am I?

    Do something productive instead of living in constant anxiety. Go volunteer at your church. Those people can help you and you in turn can be of service to your community. The Bible is a hard read, you are clearly highly intelligent but hte Bible is still a hard read. Join a study group. It is ok to have your views, the 1st does indeed protect them. It's ok to not like gays…we'll survive. but sitting around all day torturing yourself and living in misery helps noone. Time to man up and live your faith. Go in peace and find meaning in your life….Please?

    With concern, care and respect for the both of you,

  • 111. Felyx  |  February 3, 2010 at 1:54 am

    Me thinks I struck a nerve, eh?

    I suggest we all leave Ken alone for awhile. Truly it would be to our shame to antagonize someone who seems to be as hurt and betrayed as he seems to be.


  • 112. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 1:57 am

    Felyx, to your profile I would add …

    White male, late 20s-early 30s. If he hasn't lost his job recently, he is in a low-income position. He very likely lives with his mother. He most likely has a sealed juvenile record.

    There are other factors that I will not list here … but I think I have KOG's profile pretty clearly in mind.


  • 113. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:01 am

    And there it goes that is why the next step in this war WILL be violence!

  • 114. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:07 am

    Um, Ronnie?

    I've been Wiccan for years. It's not even funny for me to see someone suggest that anyone be "burned like a witch."


  • 115. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:15 am

    I'm sorry Fiona64…I understand.. I was a little interested in Wicca in high school…I was just trying to point out the erie parallels btw. salem and what the far reich will try to do…case in point KOG, Curious George, Lay Kay..and all the rest(who just might be the same person or a team of prop ha8te..wink wink)

  • 116. Felyx  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:38 am


    White yes, male self-evident, low-income position I doubt it, he is not showing the stability of mind that someone would have with a regular or even part time job. Infrequent odd jobs perhaps. He is highly intelligent and the fact that he was married and had a daughter speaks highly of him. Juvy record, I doubt it…if he did then I would not count it against him. Also, I suspect he was a HS drop out to support his family, he has a high ethical standard (in that regards as evidenced by the fact that he is so torn up by a failed marriage.) I suspect he had little help keeping afloat and the recent recession hit him hard. Between school and work (at a clearly subsistance level) I would favor the odds that he was not involved in criminal activity.

    As a profiler I would place him at young 20's who has lost everything he thought was due him, family, success, support from community, etc. and is protectively curling himself up in a religion that he is apart of but does not truly understand.

    I have sympathy for him. He is a good guy who will be a benefit to society (assuming society doesn't keep failing him) when he matures a bit more.

    I would make a brief comment on George. He likes to pick on strong willed sensitive (or emotional as he sees it) women who are large. It is a blatant prejudice that indicates a need to pick on the (perceived) weak (or perceived weaker sex in this case) as a self-esteem booster. George is about 5-10 years older than you and, I would dare to venture, is sexually attracted to his perception of you. Use that to your advantage Fiona…he really does like to hear what you have to say and he gets a 'hard-on' when he riles you up!

    With Love and Sincerity,

    (PS I would peg me as a over intellectual homebody with no friends, so goes to show I might have some skill at guessing but it is not proof that I conclusively know what I am talking about. Just FYI.)

  • 117. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:43 am

    Dear Felyx:

    Any thoughts on our friend KOG being a fire-starter??

    It's a serious question. There are two other legs on the "stool" I'm considering here, but I'll just ask about that one.

    As for George, I have no doubt that he has certain ideas of what I must be like. I have no doubt that it irritates him mightily that I am not afraid of him, and that I do not back down. I also have no doubt that he gets, er, excited about certain things. I think you have him pretty well "nailed."


  • 118. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:48 am

    hehe…"nailed it"….pun intended

  • 119. Felyx  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:59 am

    Not sure what you mean by fire starter? You will have to clarify.

    I am going to respect this because you say you ask in seriousness but I really do believe we should leave Ken alone. He doesn't seem to be commenting anymore and his pain is clear.

    If you were asking if he was an instigator (the type that starts conflicts not the lizard type that get huge when you saok it in water…sorry that word just sounds so funny) then yes. But like I said, he was in pain and was trying to spread it around.

    BTW I am suprised that no one is asking why I think he had a disasterous one night stand just recently….I thought it was a brilliant piece of inductive reasoning!

  • 120. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 3:08 am

    Dear Felyx:

    I meant fire-starter in terms of petty arson … or even playing with matches.

    I am indeed curious about that recent one-night stand theory, if you wouldn't mind elaborating.

    I do agree that KOG is in obvious pain. I also think that he is perhaps a danger to himself or others, and I hope that he will get help.


  • 121. John  |  February 3, 2010 at 3:24 am

    Failed one night stand – same or opposite sex?

  • 122. Felyx  |  February 3, 2010 at 3:29 am

    To the moderator of this site.

    I have noted that Kenneth's tirade was removed from the thread. I respectfully request that my profiling of Ken be removed along with all the subsequent threads I have posted within this singular thread (even including this one.) Without the 'tirade' message I cannot justify my profile. In the absence of his 'tirade' message my comments can appear derogatory and unjustified. I do not wish to appear as though my comments were unfounded and unsupportive of an individual who spoke from the pain in his heart. If he is to be censored (even for good reasons which I would not dispute) then please give him the dignity and me the courtesy of removing my comments.


    I no longer have the reference I need to support my comment on the one night stand. My recollection is that he said he 'would' be with Palin but 'used' contraception so that he 'didn't' have to support another child. It seemed he went from a hypothetical future tense to a indicative past tense as though there had been a past event that did occur and he was super-imposing a fantasy situation on a past event. As for it being disasterous….there was no indication in his writing that indicated that it went well….quite the opposite, if there was a new relationship going well he would not be here torturing himself and others.

    As for a propensity for arson, this is usually born of a desire to cleanse through total destruction. Ken suggested he was pro gay marriage for economic reasons. This suggests he had economics on his mind and that he views the issue to be inevitable (although subject to retribution by a more powerful being.)

    I still say a person like this is a good person and deserves help are respect especially when they are hurting the most.

    So again I ask the moderator, please remove my post so as to retain dignity of the site and fairness to posters, regardless of how we feel about them.

    Sincerely, Felyx

  • 123. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Thanks for explaining, Felyx, and I see how you made the deduction that you did.

    I also concur with your request to the moderator and ask that my comments concerning profiling be removed as well … for the same reasons Felyx sited.

    I do hope that Ken is able to get some help. No one should be in that much pain.


  • 124. Tim  |  February 2, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    As to Kenneth Garrett's Comments, at first I can't emagine anyone haveing so much hate in their heart.Then realized that he can't spell worth a hill a beans! He is an uneducated poor lonely soul. I could go on, but will agree with a previous poster. He needs medication. (or less of it). One thing he said was true. God will take care of it.
    Kenneth some day you will have to get down on your knees and beg for forgiveness from the same God that will judge you just as you are judging others.
    Now go take your meds (or not) whichever the case may be.
    I dont expect a reply because you probably won't be able to find your way back to this blog.
    God forgive me if I have stooped to his level.

    Love Tim…

  • 125. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 11:35 pm

    Hell, he doesn't know the difference between a bigot and a bigamist ("Don't waste your breath calling me a hater or a bigamist.") That's the best laugh I've had since this site was established.


  • 126. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    I have to admit that I let these trolls get to me..but i'm a Cancer so anything less then my full heart and emotion would by the same as if I were still in the closet….I apologize to all my friends here.

  • 127. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:11 am

    There has been a lot of talk all over "conservative" news stations (which are actually radical) in which Pres. Obama is referred to as a fascist.

    I find that fascinating, because it is readily apparent to me that the people making those claims have no idea what constitutes fascism.

    I thought I would share this link, and a pertinent quote:


    The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

    Just as a point of information.


  • 128. Mikey  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:30 am

    Have a look here:

    Yes, it says college sports, but it's not. It's a story in the Salt Lake Trib about a film critically documenting LDS involvement in campaigning for prop 8.

    The film seems to have gotten a warm reception in Utah.

  • 129. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:52 am

    YEAAA!!!! KOG got censured…but how will the clock work?

  • 130. Tim  |  February 3, 2010 at 5:53 am

    Felyx,Ronnie,Fiona you rock!
    Even though a nut job attacks you(us) you still have a heart and class. I'm proud we are on the same side.
    I believe these guys are so upset because they see we are gaining ground and fast.
    If we treat them with respect as you have(except for once or twice, lol) must have an effect on them. Enjoying your banter! Tim…

  • 131. Felyx  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:26 am

    Thank you for your support Tim. Those who have been hurt are more likely to be caring to opposition.

    That being said I will publicly lodge my protest. On the grounds that the censoring is not being applied with a deeper sense of integrity, I have to retract all statements I have made regarding Ken starting with the one where I profiled him. Clearly Ken is either not responding further or has been banned from the site. His voice is being erased and my comments have gone from being honest sincere dialog to being mere opinionated slander.

    I feel that allowing my comments to stand is disingenuous and biased against Ken and is unfair to me in that it corrupts the meaning and intention of my dialog. It also, in my eyes, affects the reputation of this site.

    After this I will be monitoring anything I post, especially when commenting on another, so that I am not forced into this unethical snare again.

    Ken, if you are reading this, I apologize to you and I hope you are able to obtain the happiness that every human deserves.



  • 132. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 7:25 am

    Felyx wrote: Those who have been hurt are more likely to be caring to opposition.

    There's a lot of truth to that. About 10 years ago or so, I participated on an AOL debate board concerning abortion (and if you think some of *our* nutjobs are bad, you should see some of the anti-choice folks).

    Anyway, there was one very obstreperous anti-choice woman on there, very religious, and from a small town in the Midwest. She would say the most vile things to people who believed in a woman's right to choose.

    And then her husband died after a lengthy illness. She was off of the boards for a few days and came back to tell us why. She was shocked when the people who stood on the other side of the fence from her on the issue (including me) offered condolences at a minimum, and some folks who lived in the area asked if she would like to meet someplace public for a cup of coffee and to talk.

    No one changed each other's mind, but she discovered that the pro-choice folks were not the inhuman monsters that she thought we were, and we found at that there was a hurt and grieving lady behind those cruel words.

    This is one of the reasons I try so very hard to be reasonable, even when obvious trolls are obvious. (Yes, I lost it a couple of times … like I said in another thread, I'm only human …). Who knows what kind of battle that other person is fighting?


  • 133. Dan Hess  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:36 am

    Actually, fascism is an ultranationalist philosophy (similar to neoconservatism), but doesn't necessarily imply violence or hatred–even though fascist states like Italy typically WERE violent and racist. It's a combination of extremely liberal socialist economics and far, far right ethics leading to police states, imperialism and nationalism. Basically it's the worst ideologies of both the Democratic and Republican parties and the exact opposite of my beliefs (minimal government, progressive social reforms, environmentalism and improvements in infrastructure, and a strong and capable foreign relations policy). But yeah, don't equate it with discrimination. Ain't QUITE as bad as the Christian Right we have in America. ^_^

  • 134. Felyx  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:44 am

    The country most associated with Fascism is Italy.

    The country most associated with the Catholic Church is Italy.


    Not that the two have any corelation what so ever.


    Seriously they don't.

    And besides, I like Italian food….

    Just sayin'.

  • 135. Tim  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:37 am

    I appreciate what you are saying and understand.I believe Ken is the one who should be apologizing.
    He was down right MEAN and , of course puts any civilized human being on the defense.Dont be too hard on your self. Much respect Tim…

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