Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Iceland’s Leader Gets Married


By Robert Cruickshank

One of the best headlines I ever read was back in 2001, when Bertrand Delanoë was elected mayor of Paris. The San Francisco Chronicle reported it as “Paris Beats SF to Gay Mayor.”

I have a similar reaction to the news out of Iceland this week that Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir married her longtime partner, Jonina Leosdottir, the first time that a head of state anywhere in the world has been in a same-sex wedding:

Iceland’s prime minister made history last week when she wed her longtime girlfriend, becoming the world’s first head of government to enter a gay marriage.

But fellow Nordic nations hardly noticed when 67-year-old Johanna Sigurdardottir tied the knot with her longtime partner — a milestone that would still, despite advances in gay rights, be all but inconceivable elsewhere.

Scandinavia has had a long tradition of tolerance — and cross-dressing lawmakers and gay bishops have become part of the landscape.

“There is some kind of passion for social justice here,” respected cross-dressing Swedish lawmaker Fredrick Federley said. “That everybody should be treated the same.”

The article goes on to ask the question “how would this be received around the world?” I’m not sure I agree with everything that Louise Nordstrom, the article’s author, has to say. For example:

But a gay head of government would be impossible in strong Catholic nations.

“We will never see a gay prime minister in Italy. The power of the Catholic Church is too strong,” said Giuseppina Massallo, 60, from Sicily who lives in Rome. “We have institutions that make us believe that … being homosexual is simply not the right thing to do.”

I’m not sure I buy that. Two of the most deeply Catholic nations in Europe – Spain and Portugal – have recently legalized same-sex marriage. Italy will be a tougher nut to crack, and while there aren’t currently any major parties in Spain or Portugal led by an LGBT person (to my knowledge) I could see it happening in the near future.

The AP article is almost certainly right on about how Uganda, where a brutal anti-gay law has generated controversy and strong opposition, would react:

Ugandans were shocked to hear of Sigurdardottir’s marriage to her partner with whom she had been in a registered relationship since 2002. The partnership was converted into a marriage on Sunday, when a new law legalizing same-sex marriage went into force.

“Their society is finished, they have no morals,” said Uganda’s ruling-party spokeswoman, Mary Karooro Okurutu, described the marriage as “disgusting.”

The East African nation frowns on homosexuality and is considering proposed legislation that would impose the death penalty for some gays. The bill has sparked protests in London, New York and Washington.

Here in the US, the reaction is likely going to fall out on predictable lines. Those who oppose marriage equality will either ignore this or somehow cast it as part of the great plot to destroy heterosexual marriage, and those of us who support marriage equality will rightly point to Prime Minister Sigurdardottir’s marriage as a sign that society not only survives, but thrives when adults are able to marry the person they love.

One day there will be an openly LGBT mayor of San Francisco, an openly LGBT governor of California, and yes, an openly LGBT president of the United States. But right now, there are hundreds of openly LGBT elected officials who are denied their right to equality, prevented from marrying the person they love merely because of their sexual orientation. And there are thousands of same-sex couples who are denied that right as well, whose rights matter every bit as much as the elected officials, and every bit as much as us heterosexual folks who can marry, divorce, and marry again as many times as we like.

The Prop 8 Trial Tracker will be off for the long holiday weekend. And as we enter the 4th of July holiday, it’s worth remembering the words of the Declaration of Independence. “All men [all human beings, of course] are created equal” and have a fundamental right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

It’s a bittersweet holiday when the pursuit of happiness is denied to anyone merely because of who they love.


  • 1. Bob  |  July 2, 2010 at 6:10 am

    "All men are created equal" guess that's where things started to go astray, once we changed the traditional definition of men, to include all human beings,

  • 2. JonT  |  July 2, 2010 at 6:25 am

    @Bob: Ha! Yeah, that slippery slope again! 🙂

    (ǝqıɹɔs ǝɯos ƃuıqqns)

  • 3. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 2, 2010 at 6:57 am

    ¡sqns ʎɯ ƃuıqqnɹɔs

  • 4. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  July 2, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    ¡¡¡sqns ʎɯ ƃuıqqnɹɔs

  • 5. Ronnie  |  July 3, 2010 at 9:13 am

    slippery slopes are for water parks not human beings personal lives…..HAPPY 4TH OF JULY WEEKEND!!!!….<3…Ronnie

  • 6. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 2, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Yes, it is a bittersweet holiday when LGBTQQI citizens are denied one of the most basic rights that this holiday supposedly celebrates our independence to pursue. I will only be able to fully celebrate Independence Day when my husband and I can join LGBTQQI citizens everywhere in being able to get married when and where we choose, and to have that marriage legally recognized at all levels of government from city to county to state to federal.
    BTW, welcome aboard, Robert!

  • 7. Tim  |  July 2, 2010 at 6:46 am

    Being that Spain and Portugal are deeply catholic, do those countries have their own version of NOM, trying to enslave everyone in their ignoant beliefs?
    Or are we the only *free*? nation that is so easily brainwashed by cults? hmm…
    Happy 4th of July to all of you!

  • 8. John B.  |  July 2, 2010 at 7:17 am

    So… if she visits the USA as a head of state and brings her spouse with her, will the U.S. government treat her spouse as such–i.e., recognize their marriage–even though DOMA prohibits any such recognition?

  • 9. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  July 2, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    John B., she is a diplomat: even in Russia same-sex partners of diplomats are being treated officially as spouses. Diplomats get away with many things. Only simple people do not get anything.

  • 10. Don Clanton  |  July 4, 2010 at 1:09 am

    She is Prime Minister, therefore not head of State, but head of Government. She and her spouse would be recognized, their marriage acknowledged as a diplomatic courtesy.

  • 11. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 4, 2010 at 1:16 am

    Thank you for that distinction. Don. To be honest, I thought that the she was the head of state also.

  • 12. Bill  |  July 2, 2010 at 7:21 am

    Off topic, but wanted to share this with you all. How this can not be considered hate speech is beyond me.

    How can The Washington Times publish this absolute garbage???? Open, immoral condemnation of innocent human being's lives, published for all to see as if it were a movie review.

    Very, very depressing.

  • 13. JonT  |  July 2, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    Oh boy.

    resistance to incentivizing homosexuality is evidence of hate or bigotry or ignorance.

    Incentivising. Really? (Psst. “Turn Gay today and get $5 off your next pizza purchase! Act now while supplies last!”). Haha.

    But I also know a lot of other folks with behavioral quirks that don’t rise to the level of an “unalienable right” given us by our Creator.

    Behavioral Quirks“? Really? I actually laughed when I read that.

    Of course, that Creator part gives it all away. 🙂

    He goes on about the ‘3 planks’ of conservatism: traditional values, lower taxes (less government) and national security..

    Where of course traditional values is code for fundamentalist christianity.

    I’m not depressed. A little dismayed the post would be so blatant in their bigotry, and obvious in their support for theocracy, but I’m not depressed nor surprised by it.

    What is interesting (and indirectly encouraging) about this article, and others like it, is the growing divide in those who call themselves ‘conservative’, but are no longer buying into the theocratic ‘morality’ view of the world.

    The fundamentalist christians are shitting themselves over the possibility of losing control of the only party they currently have great influence over.

    This is where the teabaggers come in – to help shore up those ‘traditional values’ and force the republicans back into the christianist way.

    All very fascinating. It will be interesting to see how this develops over time.

    Don’t be depressed – look at the crack in conservative circles that is developing over the issue of gay rights. I think some of the non-christianists are starting to say, in the words of that hag anita bryant: “Enough. Enough. Enough.”


  • 14. Kathleen  |  July 2, 2010 at 9:45 am

    JonT summed it up nicely for me. I would only add – I get a little tired of being told I'm immoral. This meme that says morality=religion gets old real fast. I think they're immoral, so where does that leave us?

    Also subbing (…not the first time hehe)

  • 15. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 2, 2010 at 10:28 am

    And let us not forget that the individual who wrote this piece is associated with Coral Ridge Church, and David Kennedy, who is about as tightly wrapped as Fred Phelps and/or Sarah Falin.

  • 16. Straight Ally #3008  |  July 2, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    And that the entire newspaper is a pet project of Sun Myung Moon.

    JonT is right – furthermore, it's not just control over one party that is causing them to lose their collective s–t, it's the loss of power period. When you invest vast amounts of time and money demonizing "the other," and the country slowly but surely comes around to realizing that "the other" isn't harmful to them after all – well, your credibility takes a massive hit. It upsets me that they are hurting as many people as they are, but the flip side is that they are wasting their resources at a rapid pace.

  • 17. nightshayde  |  July 2, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    Wow — another paper I can put under my cats’ litter boxes (except that I wouldn’t pay money for that trash).

  • 18. Billy  |  July 3, 2010 at 3:00 am

    Just christian conservatives wallowing in their own filth, and putting their fecal snow angels on display for the rest of the world to see. They're trying to alienate their "conservative" friends? Let them. When they've alienated everyone that doesn't agree with them, they'll be left with only their small insignificant party, a bible, and rentboy luggage carriers.

    In the meantime, sit back and enjoy watching the monkeys in the cage. Oh, and report The Washington Times to the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group for ok'ing this bigotry.

  • 19. Kathleen  |  July 3, 2010 at 6:43 am

    "fecal snow angels"

    LOL. Great imagery. Wonderful post, Billy. 🙂

  • 20. Billy  |  July 3, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    I aim to please ;D

  • 21. Chris  |  July 2, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    “Their society is finished, they have no morals,” said Uganda’s ruling-party spokeswoman, Mary Karooro Okurutu, described the marriage as “disgusting.”

    Been a while since I checked, but I'm pretty sure that the quality of life is higher in Iceland than Uganda. As it seems to be in every country and US state that has legalized marriage equality so far.

    I have to say I'm not as irritated as I used to be by that kind of moralistic huffing and puffing. It's all they have.

  • 22. Ronnie  |  July 3, 2010 at 2:21 am

    Mary KooKoKangaroo Okurututu or whatever her name is clearly doesn't know hew world history…if she did…then she would know that the last country with her undeveloped (both physically & mentally) countries ideology was overthrown by the world in a little thing we like to call WWII…so sad….she doesn't see the writing on the wall….<3…Ronnie

  • 23. Tim  |  July 2, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    Let's try this again. My comment earlier in this thread was actually a question not just a smart a$$ remark.
    Does Spain and/or Portugal have their own version of NOM?
    They are heavily Catholic and one would assume there would be resistence.

  • 24. Fulton  |  July 3, 2010 at 5:02 am

    The Spanish Family Forum
    Queen Sophia

    Franco was also heavily Catholic and that may be why many in Spain have turned away from a heavy, handed Church…
    “The Church’s influence on Spaniards has declined precipitously since the death in 1975 of the dictator General Francisco Franco. His regime was closely linked to the Church.

    Opinion polls suggest that nearly half of Spaniards now almost never go to mass. ”

  • 25. Fulton  |  July 3, 2010 at 5:07 am

    Correction…I don’t know if Franco was Catholic or not, only that his regime was ‘closely linked to the Church’

  • 26. Don Clanton  |  July 4, 2010 at 1:18 am

    Franco was definitely catholic, and a homophobe. Spain is currently one of the most liberal nations of Europe. The queen (!) Sophia is irrelevant.

  • 27. Papa Foma  |  July 2, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    ‘But I also know a lot of other folks with behavioral quirks that don’t rise to the level of an “unalienable right” given us by our Creator.‘
    Funny, but I know a lot of straight folks,mostly Repub’s, who fit that description, too. I wonder if his list and mine would EVER contain duplicates. Anyone wanna bet?

  • 28. Alto  |  July 2, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    I suspect there could be a crossover to a certain degree.

    My very first election, I voted a straight Republican ticket (Ronald Regan was at the top of the ticket), but since then I’ve become much more educated. Now I’m a registered Democrat.

  • 29. Alto  |  July 2, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    Sorry for the misspelling. For some reason, spell check kicked out Reagan.

  • 30. Roger  |  July 2, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    Your spell-check is just old fashioned. I'm told that in his movie-starlet days he pronounced his name "Ree-gun" but when he went into politics he changed to "Ray-gun" so voters wouldn't think he was Irish.

  • 31. Tim  |  July 2, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    Is it because we have (mostly) a two party system and they have many more?

  • 32. Mark F.  |  July 2, 2010 at 11:05 pm

    An openly “LGBT” mayor of San Francisco? Well, it would be quite an accomplishment to be lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender all at the same time!

  • 33. Papa Foma  |  July 3, 2010 at 1:21 am

    @ Fulton –
    I'm an older American (68), and have lived through several name changes for what used to be "The N Word." I remember the names Negro, Colored, Black, and finally African American. The people didn't change, but their name did.
    The queen, by acknowledging the right to marry, but under a different title, may have just been playing politics. I think it is distasteful, but at least the rights are in place. I may be off base, but I suspect that USAmericans want the rights. What they call their union vs what others call it may be a moot point. For that matter, I call two young men my "son's" without the same legal rights as my biological sons. They would rather have those legal rights than the title.
    After all that — The right to the titles is also important for total acceptance, and I fight for that right.
    My point (if any), is that I cannot get the same rights as others, and THAT is against my right to a whole and happy life.

  • 34. Fulton  |  July 3, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Indeed, Papa Foma! The queen may have been simply dropping political memes and they kinda blew up in her face.
    I do understand what you are saying. The name isn't important, it is the rights that are important. That is a good reminder for us.
    But, I'm afraid, for those who hate us, the name is important. I don't know how they do it, but they point to the inequality in our law and they see not inequality but justification. Some courts have also decided that blood is stronger than civil unions, but not stronger than marriage.
    And…as the trial demonstrated…we want to get married not civil unioned. We grew up with dreams of getting married and having kids and a home. And, as the trial demonstrated, the only reason we can't is due to irrational, public animosity.
    Keep hope alive! I also believe we will have marriage equality in the good, ole USofA.

  • 35. Ed-M  |  July 3, 2010 at 4:04 am

    @Papa Foma, Fulton,

    Actually for the right, it's not just the name that's important but also the rights. Notice how the GOP in Texas and Montana have expressed in their party platforms that they want to completely turn back the clock!

  • 36. Kathleen  |  July 3, 2010 at 6:38 am

    I've said all along – if the state wants to distinguish between religious and non-religious unions I have no problem with that, as long as they carry the same rights and the laws are applied equally to ss and os couples. So, if California wants to only issue licenses for something called "civil unions" that are exactly equivalent (in legal terms) to "marriages" performed by a church – fine. But that means the os couples who opt out of a religious ceremony will also be granted a "civil union" and ss couples who want to get married in their church will have a "marriage."

    Only THEN will it be 'just a name' – and of course people who weren't married in a church can call themselves 'married' if they prefer, and probably would just because it's a term that everyone understands in every day conversation.

  • 37. Papa Foma  |  July 3, 2010 at 9:41 am

    We are on the same book and page! THanks! – PF

  • 38. Bob  |  July 3, 2010 at 7:12 am

    @Kathleen, that's how it's done in Canada, my partner and I were married in a Civil Union, no blessing from the Church, but all the blessings from the government, that os couples benefit from, they are recognized the same.

  • 39. Sagesse  |  July 4, 2010 at 10:40 pm

    Same-sex rights
    Canada timeline

    Many things are possible. They just take a while.

    Canada has benefited from 'repatriating' its constitution from Britain, and drafting its human rights charter in 1982, with a distinctly 20th century sensibility. A lot has happened on the human rights front since 1776, when the US Constitution was drafted with a giant loophole for slavery, and women couldn't vote.

  • 40. Bob  |  July 5, 2010 at 4:54 am

    Sagesse, thanks for these posts, you always come through with the info,

    Ours is a case of the law changing first, starting way back with good old Trudea, suggesting what happens behind closed doors with consenting adults is private.

    Know finally some of the Churches are grappling with the issues, the most recent is the Lutheran Church with their study of human sexuality. They are at least asking the question, if we live in a country where it's legal for ss couples to marrry, perhaps the Church could try and find a way to accomodate those people…. It's interesting reading for anyone who is a church member, look up their studies on the website for the Evangelical Lutheran Church Canada, under human sexuality.

  • 41. Bob  |  July 3, 2010 at 8:13 am

    I'm confused, at the present time in the States, is it not possible for os partners to get married outside a church, by a marriage commissioner or jusitice of the peace, they presently have that option, correct, and it bestows on them all the benefits.

    I think that was our compromise to get around the Church, who still thinks they own the word marriage.

    Of course not all, there are progessive churches which do preform ss marriage.

    I was under the impression that most of the prop 8 case, was to claim the right equally to the word marriage

  • 42. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 3, 2010 at 8:17 am

    That is the point of it. However, here in America, the Right Wing that is trying to hide behind religion becaue they are selfish beyond measure, are trying to say that the word itself is a religious term that has no meaning outside of the church., Using their logic, none of the marriages that is performed by a magistrate, justice of the peace, judge or captain of a boat is valid.
    This whole trial basically hinges on the LDS church hierarchy and the hierarchy of the Catholic church trying to say that they own the word marriage, and that nobody else has the right to use it.
    My big question is this–since when does the church hold a copyright on the word marriage?

  • 43. Ronnie  |  July 3, 2010 at 8:21 am

    not to mention that…that is a clear violation of our(LGBT) freedom of speech….I'm just saying….<3…Ronnie

  • 44. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 3, 2010 at 8:26 am

    Yes, Ronnie, it IS a clear violation of our freedom of speech. But then, they also think they are the only ones to whom that is valid also. You see, they are forgetting that this is a pluralistic democratic republic. They think we are living in a theocracy like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan or Uganda. If that is what they want, why don't they just move there? That way, everyone will agree with them and they will be happy.

  • 45. Ronnie  |  July 3, 2010 at 8:34 am

    I concur….its not our fault that both we and they were born into a secular society…I know…. life is weird in that way…but whatevs…Gay sera sera….lol…<3…Ronnie

  • 46. Bob  |  July 3, 2010 at 9:17 am

    Richard said "using their logic, none of the marriages that are performed by a magistrate, justice of the peace, jode or captain of a boat is valid"

    That may be the churches stand, but my question is, the state sees it as valid, do they not.?

    So a os couple who are not religious are entitled to all the benefits of marriage without the churches sanction.

  • 47. Billy  |  July 3, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    "My big question is this–since when does the church hold a copyright on the word marriage?"

    Hmmm… I wonder if the "idea" of marriage is copyrighted at the patent office. Maybe we could patent it and get royalties everytime someone from NOM mentions the word or uses the word for their gain?

    Sure, not likely. But its a fun thought :p

  • 48. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 3, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    At the risk of sounding stupid and uneducated again, I'm still gonna say it: I hear Christian Church didn't even want to recognize the institution of marriage till the 4th century, they were opposed to the idea of sanctifying sexual unions between people of opposite sex, didn't think it should be a religious matter, thought it's a private matter.  However, marriages already existed on their own, they predate any reliable recorded history!  This is why (together with the fact that historically marriages exist in many religions and also apart from any religion) no religion can claim to own the concept of marriage, the institution of marriage, or the word marriage!  Any educated person understands that!

  • 49. Bob  |  July 4, 2010 at 4:53 am

    Krill, from my reading of history of religions, I found the same thing, way back when the Church did not want to take on that roll, of performing marriages, it was a secular thing,

  • 50. Kathleen  |  July 3, 2010 at 8:37 am

    Bob, Yes – os couples currently can get married outside a church. But whether married in a church or in a civil ceremony, the marriage is only legal if the state first issues a "marriage license" and the state is prohibited from issuing marriage licenses to ss couples.

    My point was that if the state wants to start issuing "civil union licenses" instead of "marriage licenses" I'm okay with that as long as it applies equally to os couples and ss couples.

    The point of the Prop 8 case, as I see it, is to treat ss couples the same as os couples under the law. Right now, os couples can get "marriage licenses" and ss cannot; ss couples can only register as "domestic partners", which does not carry the same legal rights as marriages. And even if they did, the very fact that they're called something different sets them apart and (by definition) makes them unequal.

  • 51. rf  |  July 3, 2010 at 10:12 pm

    Here in NJ, we've had 4 years with civil unions and a court appointed commission found that they still foster discrimination and are not the same as marriage.

    "The commission…reported unanimously that they didn't work. It found that civil-union couples and their adopted children faced discrimination, stigma and unequal treatment with respect to health care, employment benefits, family law protections and other legal and civic functions."

    duh. so the lawsuits continue.

  • 52. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 3, 2010 at 10:39 pm

    Yes, and we all remember what the legislature did in New Jersey about that this year — nothing!  It doesn't matter if gay couples are as good as opposite-sex ones, it doesn't matter that homosexuality is not a malady, it doesn't matter that gay families suffer from no recognition or from lack thereof, it doesn't matter that it's simply discriminatory and wrong — they still voted against it with accordance to their own personal beliefs and to comply with their constituents' will.

    When I was just a child growing up, I always thought the world is a much better place, fairer, kinder, wiser, more tolerant, more accepting, holding equality and justice for all over individuals' presumptuous and prejudiced preconceptions.  I can't believe I was so naïve!  I wish I never grew up and died that naïve little boy I used to be.

  • 53. Sagesse  |  July 4, 2010 at 10:09 pm


    A summary of marriage equality rights in Canada, which vary a little from province to province. Adoption is restricted in Alberta, but is available elsewhere. The federal statute, passed in 2005, is the Civil Marriage Act.

  • 54. Bob  |  July 3, 2010 at 9:23 am

    Thanks Kathleen, gotcha,

    by the way has anyone ever tried to get a copyright to the word marriage, didn't Mr. Trump do that with the phrase "you're fired"

  • 55. RebeccaRGB  |  July 3, 2010 at 10:07 am

    You can't copyright a word; it would be a trademark. Even then, trademarks are only valid for specific brands, products, and services. You can't trademark "marriage" or "you're fired" because those phrases and what they represent are already common; it would be impossible to enforce the trademark.

  • 56. Kathleen  |  July 3, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Nice! Someone who knows their intellectual property law. 🙂

  • 57. Billy  |  July 3, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    Awww… dashed the dreams of my earlier post 🙁

  • 58. Straight Ally #3008  |  July 3, 2010 at 11:15 am

    Dear Pat Robertson and company,

    Please note that the Eyjafjallajokull volcanic eruption came after the marriage. After.



  • 59. Straight Ally #3008  |  July 3, 2010 at 11:16 am

    Dagnabit, invert that. I just trashed a perfectly good joke. Oh well. Happy 4th, folks! 😀

  • 60. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 3, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    “Please note that the Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption came before the marriage. BEFORE!
    Straight Ally #3008

    Ahahahahahaha!!! ROFLMAO!

  • 61. VoxCanaille  |  July 4, 2010 at 3:41 am

    In fact, it stopped!

    (actually, it's just not in the news anymore.)

  • 62. Bob  |  July 3, 2010 at 11:18 am

    that bodes well for the argument that we have equal access and the use of the word Marriage,

  • 63. Billy  |  July 3, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    A friend shared this with me today, and it bears reposting.

    I know that sometimes it may appear that we hate on religion, but in reality, we hate those that use religion as a weapon against us. To see this gave me hope that there are reasonable christian people out there who truly believe in Jesus' message.

    Besides, I'm a sucker for humbleness and humility… my favorite virtues.


  • 64. Kathleen  |  July 3, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    Nice story 🙂 (btw, one of my sons is named Tristan – I don't see it too often, at least not in the US)

  • 65. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 3, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    OMG!  I'm looking at the pictures in this article and just crying!

    “I'm sorry!”
    “I'm sorry!”
    “I'm sorry!”

    say their t-shirts and their placards!

  • 66. Bob  |  July 4, 2010 at 4:45 am

    great story, love it, this is the way pride marches are changing, it was interesting reading about Pride in Toronto Canada, it's timing right after the riots of the G8 summit, it brought a refreshing sense of revival to the city, they are leaning towards just calling it Pride and letting everyone join in.

  • 67. Dpeck  |  July 5, 2010 at 3:45 am

    I think this is all well and good, and I do appreciate an apology as much as the next person.

    BUT –

    One of the most important lessons I have learned in my own life is this:

    There is a difference between an apology and an amends. If I owe you a hundred dollars and I'm long overdue repaying you and I say "I'm sorry I haven't paid you back", that's just an apology. If I pay you back the money, with interest, and change my behavior so I don't take advantage of others in this way in the future, and THEN I tell you "I'm sorry I took so long to repay you and I'll make sure I never do that again", THEN it is an amends.

    So until these people start working to make amends (like by joining groups that work for LGBT rights etc.) it's just an apology and they still owe all of us an amends for their past behavior.

  • 68. Tuffwreslr  |  July 5, 2010 at 5:47 pm

    Love it!!

    I wonder at what point in a child's life does that switch get flipped to determine whether they will feel completely comfortable in their own skin and close to Jesus….or…

    Will they be so unsure, misguided, and fear filled that they have to demean and exclude others so that they themselves "feel" like are closer to Jesus.

    The latter came and comes in misunderstood droves.

  • 69. Franck  |  July 3, 2010 at 7:02 pm

    I find it hilarious, as an African, to see how some African people and countries like to call Westerners "degenerate". I'd like, for example, to point out the difference between peaceful, if a bit financially distressed Iceland and disease-ridden, poverty-stricken, war-torn Uganda. Oh yeah, I'd take the degenerate Icelandic society anytime…

  • 70. Sagesse  |  July 3, 2010 at 11:50 pm

    Ran across this April 2009 piece about the Iowa Supreme Court decision. An island of common sense.

  • 71. Papa Foma  |  July 4, 2010 at 12:09 am

    Thanks, Sagesse! Best read in a long time. I especially love the terms which put tradition as a poor excuse to keep doing things which began with a different set of circumstances — like Marriage!!! — PF

  • 72. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 4, 2010 at 3:04 am

    The opinion of the court is too good not to mention it here (emphasis mine):

    It is quite understandable that religiously motivated opposition to same-sex civil marriage shapes the basis for legal opposition to same-sex marriage, even if only indirectly. Religious objections to same-sex marriage are supported by thousands of years of tradition and biblical interpretation. The belief that the “sanctity of marriage” would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples bears a striking conceptual resemblance to the expressed secular rationale for maintaining the tradition of marriage as a union between dual-gender couples, but better identifies the source of the opposition. Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained — even fundamental — religious belief.
    (The Iowa Supreme Court opinion on gay marriage)

    I love the use of scare quotes in “sanctity of marriage”!

  • 73. Papa Foma  |  July 3, 2010 at 11:57 pm

    I'm sorry you have been soured on the human part of the world that causes you to write phrases, wishing you were not here to fight injustice and prejudice and bigotry. I have no such wish for you or anyone. Our Independence day, indeed our imperfect union, and all the civil rights struggles since this USA "child" was born set an example of patient and impatient struggles to move to a fairer society. Had our predecessors given up, where would we be?
    You are a bright star of hope for those of us who may not live long enough to see your accomplishments.
    Please have a glass of Kvass, go for walk near the woods, or even the Volga. Enjoy what beauties you have over there, and realize how the Internet has allowed you to share your ideas with us — even to share some dreams with us.
    I find that my connection to the P8TT community gives much hope to this movement and a better World — and that community includes a sometimes depressed Cheburashka.
    We need your perspective, your ideas — we need you!
    Love from one who enjoys independence, but not freedom, and begs your continued help, Papa

  • 74. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 4, 2010 at 1:06 am

    Here is a quote that was sent to me, that truly expresses what we are fighting for, that the religious reich wing seems to find so antithetical to the Constitution, yet is so inherent in its very existence.

    America is much more than a geographical fact. It is a political and moral fact – the first community in which men set out in principle to institutionalize freedom, responsible government, and human equality.
    – Adlai Stevenson

  • 75. Ed  |  July 4, 2010 at 2:22 am

    personal feelings…..but someone told he earlier…."happy 4th of july". to which i responded….."to celebrate a country that does not view her homosexual citizens as equals to her heterosexual citizens? no thanks, i'll pass…."

    boy was he mad LOL

  • 76. Mark M  |  July 4, 2010 at 6:32 am

    Just came across this on FaceBook. I apologize if this is old news to everyone.

  • 77. Straight Grandmother  |  July 4, 2010 at 6:38 am

    I admit to being kind of "down" on the spirit of the Fourth of July. About the only good thing about today is that it brings us one day closer to Judge Walkers decision. I do think we will win and I hope he writes an ironclad decision. It's jsut another day for me but that may be tempered because I am not in the states.

  • 78. Bob  |  July 4, 2010 at 7:47 am

    Straight Grandmother, thanks for the honesty in your sentiments, I'm sure it would be different if you where there.

    Did you read Billy's post #60 that boosts the spiritt.

    p.s. I was serious about your post about the Tractor Website, Grandmothers have a wisdom that goes far into the future and looks beyond our present day navel gazing, you percieve a future for your grandchildren, the whole idea of the Tractor is like a symbol for me, something to focus on outside our present predicament, a symbol of hope for the future. , and yes we can go much further than we ever thought, thanks for that

  • 79. Sagesse  |  July 4, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    Toronto Pride.

    Couples to wed atop Pride Parade float

  • 80. Straight Grandmother  |  July 5, 2010 at 1:31 am

    I guess I am a Gay Magnet LOL! I am kinda wondering if I found out the answer as to why I have 2 children and they both turned out gay. Dunno if i have shared this or not but my husband and i own an olive farm in Provence France. Actually we make spectaular olive oil, just this year we won 8 Medals (Silver and Bronze) and since 2005 we have won 13 GOLD Medals and have been 3 times Best In Show. In the world of olive oil we are at the TOP, no lie. We get visitors reered to us by our USA and Canadian and German Dealers as well as peoplw who jsut plain heard of us through various magazines and newspapers and tv we have been in, honestly and with humilty I would say we are kind of famous.

    Saturday I get a visitor from Salt Lake City, guess what? Oh yeah she is a Lesbian adn has been with her partner 15 years. Today I get a very nice German couple two guys, oh yeah they are gay also. It is like i am this big gay magnet and I dont' understand how my gaydar is so bad? I find out because as I give people the tour and they ask about me and if I have family int he USA, I respond with the requested information and if i get real friendly with them I just flat out tell people about my kids because I am so proud of them. Part of this "telling" involves telling people that my kids are gay as i talk about them and my son and daughter in law. The 2 guys who were here today they ahve been together 25 years and married for 5. Apparently SS Mariage is legal in Germany, whihc i didn't previously know.

    i did feel bad for the woman from SLC, 15 years with her partner and she is still in the closet. She is one year older than me, 56. I do kinda understand though as with my daughter they ahve no legal protections and can loose their jobs because they are Lesbians. But back to my topic, I guess i am just a gay magnet LOL and I am TOTALLY hetrosexual. Without becoming gross I'll just say, well maybe I won't say, just trust me I am hetrosexual to the nth degree.There are GLBT people everywhere, and they all love olive oil LOL.

  • 81. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 5, 2010 at 1:38 am

    Especially those of us who are Jewish and keep kosher. It is especially useful at Passover.

  • 82. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 5, 2010 at 9:14 am

    As a 'born-in-SLC-Utahn-to-a-mormon- family' I can understand why she is still closeted to her family. Especially if her family is Mormon. I recently reached out to my brothers and sisters through facebook and asked them to become friends. I was quite surprised when the floods of my extended family (Mormon aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.) started flooding in to be friends. They know I am a lesbian. I was thinking "did they forget" or think I had finally 'chosen' the right way to their thinking.

    I had pulled back a bit from being the in your face lesbian (as I can with my friends) on facebook. Not completely. Just knowing that they see what I say, the groups I am involved in, etc.

    Well, to my surprise, some of them have become friends with the very groups we all stand united with. I thought they would be firm against who I am and the friends I have.

    I am surprised, happy and mostly 'not knowing' what happened to make the difference in their lives…to finally see me and accept who I am.

    Although, I still have some hesitation about some comments I want to make…yet refrain from…I feel so much closer to the family I wanted to know all my life.

  • 83. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 5, 2010 at 11:07 am

    I am so glad this is working out for you. It is wonderful to be able to feel close to family.

  • 84. Sheryl  |  July 5, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Wonderful that your family is accepting you as you are. Not all Mormons in Utah kick their gay kids out (far too many of them but not all). So, unless you have come out to your family you do not know how they will react.

    Sheryl, Mormon mother to a wonderful son who just happens to be gay.

  • 85. Fluffyskunk  |  July 5, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    Your "gaydar" is so bad because there's no such thing as gaydar. Or if there is, I sure as heck don't have one. Most LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ people look the same, dress the same and act the same as the majority, so there's no way you can tell unless we tell you.

    I bet the reason you're such a "gay magnet", as you put it, is because you so often take the first step yourself by telling people about your kids, and because you seem to be a nice person in general. 🙂 Most likely there are no more or less gay people around you than the general population, it's just that more people are willing to "come out" (I hate that phrase) to you and because it's a logical thing to say when you've told someone about your kids.

    By the way, I love olive oil. 🙂

  • 86. Fluffyskunk  |  July 5, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    Addendum – Germany does not have equal marriage, but "registered partnerships" (Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft, talk about a tongue-twister) are supposedly equivalent in all but name to "real" marriage(™). Separate but equal, in other words (it never is).

  • 87. JonT  |  July 5, 2010 at 5:23 am

    Somewhat OT: Christianity debate, via Joe.My.God:


  • 88. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 5, 2010 at 6:18 am

    Nicely done!
    Couldn't figure out the accent of the guy — kinda British, but not really… which, of course, means Australian! 🙂

  • 89. Michguy  |  July 5, 2010 at 7:15 am

    Did someone close this thread to NEW coments?

  • 90. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 5, 2010 at 7:17 am

    No, but if you posted more than one link in your post, it is stuck in moderation. These are the rules the administration of this blog has. You're gonna have to wait until they check it out.

  • 91. Michguy  |  July 5, 2010 at 7:16 am

    Question for anyone:

    Is it mandatory for the Federal government to appeal a ruling from a District Court?

    The reason I ask is because we currently have challenges to the DOMA and DADT law pending in District Court and I have a feeling that the Obama administration may decline to appeal the ruling if the government loses in District Court.

    For example let’s say that the DOMA and DADT federal law are ruled “Unconstitutional” at the “District Court level”. Does the U.S. Justice Department have the authority to refuse to appeal their loss to the next highest court which will be the Court of Appeals, or is there a law or something that makes it absolutely mandatory for the Federal Government to appeal all cases to the next highest court?

    If the Case is not appeal by either party upon District Court final ruling it would seem that the ruling would have binding authority upon that particular Federal Law with Nationwide affect or am I wrong. I don’t know of any instances where a federal law has been deemed unconstitutional with the effect of it only being controlling in certain areas of the country or only ion certain Districts of the country.

    Also if the government refuses to appeal the DOMA and DADT cases does that mean the DOMA and DADT will be unenforceable NATIONWIDE. Or will that ruling only apply narrowly to the specific District that the Court has control over?

    Can a federal law be ruled Unconstitutional by a District court and still have the affect of repealing the entire law NATIONWIDE.

    I know of some instances where federal regulations and even Presidential Order’s have been deemed Unconstitutional by only a “District Court” and it has had the affect of banning the law nationwide and the case didn’t even reach a court of appeals or supreme court.

    For example when the Obama issued a Presidential Order banning all Oil Drilling after the Gulf Oil Spill and then the District court ruled that Obama’s order is Unconstitutional and issued an “INJUNCTION” against it the presidents Order.

    In my mind I would assume if a certain District ruled a Federal Law unconstitutional and the Federal Gov refused to appeal the ruling, I would assume that the Federal Government would totally stop enforcing the law NATIONWIDE instead of just in that specific district.

  • 92. Dpeck  |  July 5, 2010 at 9:26 am

    … some possibly discouraging news about Billy's post at around #63, regarding the Christians with the "I'm Sorry" message:

    I clicked on the link read their messages and decided to add a comment of my own. I told them the apologies were a wonderful first step and asked what should now be done as a second step, to really put the sentiment into action and help counteract the hurtful messages from some churches. I was respectful and not at all confrontational.

    My post did not appear. So I posted again with a shorter message, asking for ideas about how folks could help, like maybe volunteering to help a pro-gay rights group.

    That post didn't appear either. Other posts have appeared, but not these.

    It's starting to look like these apologies may be empty gestures if they don't even want to acknowledge or discuss actually taking steps to make amends for their past behavior. I hope I'm wrong. So let's find out. Go to their site and post some messages and see if yours appear. Please be kind and positive.

  • 93. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 5, 2010 at 9:39 am

    It may be that they need to 'censor' posts. Some blog software is not well coded for flames. Your post may still appear. Keep looking…a moderator needs to look at it first.

  • 94. Billy  |  July 5, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    I'll post a comment tomorrow morning when I wake up and see what happens. 😀

  • 95. Billy  |  July 5, 2010 at 9:03 pm

    " Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly."

    We'll see if it gets approved or not.

  • 96. Dave P.  |  July 6, 2010 at 2:27 am

    Good news – it looks like our comments are indeed getting posted over there. Maybe we'll see some comments from them about what the second step should be after these apologies. If not, we've at least raised the question.

  • 97. Ronnie  |  July 5, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    The killings in Uganda have begun….

    Missing Ugandan gay man found dead..Posted on July 5th, 2010

  • 98. Ronnie  |  July 5, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Here is the story & the link I got the video from…… > ( ….Ronnie:

  • 99. Dave P.  |  July 6, 2010 at 1:54 am

    I have been reading some reports about this issue and here's what the pattern looks like:

    Religeous groups here in the U.S. have been going to Uganda and other coutries and spewing anti-gay messages that are far, far more extreme than any messages they could get away with here in the States. Then, when they have successfully whipped up a frenzy of witch hunting and gay bashing and murder, they distance themselves from the perpetrators and say they 'didn't realize those people had such extreme views' when in fact they created the situation in the first place.

    But it's been difficult for me to piece together the events and the individuals and their organizations. SO NOW I WANT NAMES. I WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHO THE HELL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTIGATING THESE CRIMES. THE NAMES OF THE INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS. We need to get this story into the mainstream media and bring these people to justice and shut down their organizations.

  • 100. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 6, 2010 at 2:22 am

    “Then, when they have successfully whipped up a frenzy of witch hunting and gay bashing and murder, they distance themselves from the perpetrators and say they ‘didn’t realize those people had such extreme views’ when in fact they created the situation in the first place.”
    Dave P.

    Which leads to one and one conclusion only — those "religious" people are the terrorists, or at the very least are no better than terrorists that do exactly the same thing: finding easily manipulatable people, feeding them shitty and absolutely false propaganda about a certain identifiable group of people, and then using their artificially created anger against the terrorists’ enemies!  I am really at a loss about the United States of America fighting terrorists all around the world, but allowing domestic religious groups to terrorize its own citizens on its own soil every day.  Talk about hypocrisy!

  • 101. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 5, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    I can not even watch the video…so I don't know what happened. My heart aches just learning what they did from your link. Wrong in so many ways.

    Peace Out!

  • 102. Straight Grandmother  |  July 5, 2010 at 7:46 pm

    Just the way you phrased it, "The killings in Uganda have begun…." gave me goosebumps, without even having looked at the video. It so wrong, so very wrong.

  • 103. Ronnie  |  July 5, 2010 at 11:10 pm

    yes…this is very scary stuff…& I don't think we should sugar coat it with fluffy wording….lets not forget that this all started because of American Evangelicals & Scott Lively who are also aligned with the Family Research Council….now that they have gotten their way in Uganda they have moved to implement this here in America…we cannot allow this to happen….. > ( …Ronnie

  • 104. Billy  |  July 5, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    I watched the video. What they did to this man… was horrific. It went beyond a crime of passion. This was thought out, methodical, and meant to send a message. To put it in the words of a member of the Makerere Community Church youth group: "You're caught and you're homosexual, you're hanged."

  • 105. Bob  |  July 5, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    STOP THIS MADNESS NOW!!!!!!!!! what can we do

  • 106. Jason  |  July 5, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    off topic, I just ran across a propaganda group called They've gone on a Fox news affilliate and said a whole bunch of lies parroting the proponents of Prop H8. It's sickening!

  • 107. Billy  |  July 5, 2010 at 10:05 pm

    Wow, the ignorance is thick with this group.

  • 108. Billy  |  July 5, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    Here's an excerpt from their "training" document entitled "10 Ways To Build A Pro-Family Army":

    8. Target the culture: Work to change the culture at the same time you work to reform the government. Encourage more parents to home-school. Invite union workers to resign from the anti-family unions so they don’t fund anti-family, anti-life political candidates or campaigns. Promote sexual abstinence among church children and all schoolchildren, and sexual purity in general. Work to clean pornography out of your community. Visit employers to encourage them to promote man-woman marriage in their businesses for the benefit of their product/service as well as their employees.

    Their homophobia is so great, they want people to pull their kids from public schools, quit they're unionized jobs, and harass local businesses to support man-woman marriage … or else.

    I hate to say it, but… Shit just got serious.

  • 109. Billy  |  July 5, 2010 at 10:24 pm

    Link to the full document:

  • 110. Sean  |  July 6, 2010 at 2:40 am

    Not just pull their kids from public school, but pull their kids from school entirely. They'd rather their kids be uneducated, because it would make them better religioautomata.

  • 111. Straight Grandmother  |  July 6, 2010 at 3:16 am

    Billy, I had never heard of this group as I only became really aware of how bad things are once this trial started, I guess you could say that is when I started my education. Of course I was revolted by Randy Thomasson so I searched and read up on him. Wanna
    bet he gets on his soapbox and preaches but in fact is not a member of any religious organization? Wanna bet he never attends services? The reason I think so is becasue I found him on the internet going back to 2006 and never is it ever disclosed what cherch he is a member of. If he was a member of a church somewhere along the way it would be on the itnernet.

    If I am right and he is not an active church goer where is he getting support from? I think I found out and it is rather surprising, The Russians! – read this article
    If this does not link to the exact article then just type in Randy Thomasson in thier search box, the article will come up.

    It really p*sses me off that these people get into the United Sates and are allowed by our First Amendment to spread their hatred yet loving GLBT couples cannot bring thier loved ones over to the states becuase of immigration laws. You can get in if you are a gay hating christian but not if you are GLBT. And Randy Thomasson is thier evil teacher!!!

    I found out that didn't want any port of him and would not permit him to join in as a Defendent Interviener. To bad I would have loved to see Bories question him at a deposition LOL.

    I have to agree that there REALLY is a lot of H8tred and it is like Katheen said it is a multi headed Hydra. All these people and groups are all intertwined, and it goes back to Catholics, Mormons, Baptists and other wacko Fundamentalist Christians. The do not share the same faith but they share the same hatred. Hatred for my children.

  • 112. JonT  |  July 6, 2010 at 5:44 am

    Hehe – looks like another xtian hater site. Sounds like delguado 🙂 The site's been registered since 1999, so they have been around a little. is another site linked from the savecalifornia site. it was created last year, but good old randy too.

    The stupid is pretty strong with this one.

  • 113. JonT  |  July 6, 2010 at 6:05 am

    '…A Pro Family Army'

    I think that's a typo. It should be a Pro Christianist Army.

    Onward christian soldiers and all that…

  • 114. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 6, 2010 at 6:07 am

    @Straight Grandmother

    Wow…  First of all, on behalf of all Russians, as a Russian gay man, I apologize to all American gays and lesbians who are hated by Russian ignorant immigrants.  But I cannot help but mention that if this is how they treat gays in the United States, how do you think they treat us in Russia where it is not just allowed, but kind of encouraged?  Well, I know how — even worse!

    I remember somebody posted a YouTube video of some "religious" guy talking to Russian community in Sacramento about “the gay threat.”  It was very disappointing and very hard to see, but it didn't surprise me at all — this is exactly how most Russians are: they may have moved to the US, but they haven't become Americans and haven't stopped being Russians.

    By the way, in Russia the deep-seated hatred of gays is only partially religious.  Mostly it comes from a belief that gays are child molesters, that it is, in fact, the same thing, or one thing easily leads to another.  Obviously, it's hard to treat people as human beings if you think they hurt kids in the most disgusting and awful way.  Who came up with this lie — no idea!  But that is one that is really hard to get rid of.

  • 115. Sagesse  |  July 5, 2010 at 10:22 pm

    Interesting statistics.

    Proposition 8: Who gave in the gay marriage battle?

  • 116. JonT  |  July 6, 2010 at 5:56 am

    That's interesting… 🙂

    I just did a simple $500,000-$10,000,000 donation search in support of prop8.

    Who is Alan Ashton of Lindon, UT 84042 who coughed up 1 million bucks for prop 8?

    Claire Reiss of Reisung Enterprises in La Jolla, CA 92037 also donated a cool 1 million.

    Knights Of Columbus Headquarters in New Haven, CT 06510 also coughed up a million buck. Those were the top 3.

    Focus on the 'Family' chipped in a measily $539K, and the American 'Family' Association sqeaked by with $500K

    Fun site 🙂

  • 117. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 6, 2010 at 7:14 am


    Who is Alan Ashton of Lindon, UT 84042 who coughed up 1 million bucks for prop 8?

    But did you see Bruce Bastian from Orem, Utah, who coughed up 1 million and 10'000 bucks?!
    You also missed the Templeton family from Pennsylvania that donated at least 1.2 million, they just did it by making several donations (450k twice and 300k once, at least).
    And you actually come across something like that quite a lot — some people or organizations make several donations in smaller amounts, so, people, feel free to poke around… they are doing everything they can to hide their evil deeds!

    I was glad to see Ellen DeGeneres, Brad Pitt and T.R. Night (who came out some time ago) donating significant amounts of money!

  • 118. Kathleen  |  July 6, 2010 at 7:36 am

    Now I have cause for guilt by association. My maternal gr.grandmother is a Templeton. Though my Templeton family is mostly in MT, KS, and OH, I'm sure I am at least a distant relative to those in Pennsylvania.

    But then I don't have to look so far afield to find Prop 8 supporters — like all that Mormon family of mine in Utah. Though some are really supportive of equal rights (including one who is a mother to a gay son), I have no doubt most tow the party line. I just don't have much to do with any of them.

  • 119. Kathleen  |  July 6, 2010 at 7:37 am

    Alan Ashton is probably this guy:

  • 120. Kathleen  |  July 6, 2010 at 7:39 am

    And Bruce Bastian, the other co-founder of WordPerfect:

  • 121. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 6, 2010 at 9:03 am


    Oh, BTW, I see I did not specify that Bruce Bastian was opposing Prop 8!  Thank you, Bruce!

    As for Templetons…  Well, you don't even know if they have anything to do with your family, and even if they do, we still know that the truth is on our side, and soon, very soon, we will prevail!

  • 122. Kathleen  |  July 6, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Yes, Bastian is also one of the producers for "8: The Mormon Proposition"

  • 123. Ed  |  July 5, 2010 at 10:40 pm

    I'd like to know what Iceland is going to do about being maligned by the Ugandan Government, though frankly it's quite a compliment from the likes of them.

  • 124. Franck  |  July 5, 2010 at 11:23 pm

    The way I see it, Iceland should do nothing about Uganda, just ignore them. Prove by example that Iceland as a nation is stronger now than Uganda will ever be.

    I only find it too bad that Iceland probably never sent any financial aid to Uganda, or else they'd be able to threaten to pull it off, like Norway did with Malawi.

  • 125. Sagesse  |  July 6, 2010 at 4:41 am

    I just watched 8: The Mormon Proposition. As of today in Canada you can rent the video on iTunes (or buy it if you prefer). Exceptional investigative journalism that just may cripple the ability of the LDS church to execute something like Prop 8 in future.

  • 126. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 6, 2010 at 5:36 am

    Our copy shipped out to us on Friday. We are looking forward to watching it. And we were able to do two things at once when we ordered ours. We clicked on a special link that will send half of the purchase price to NCLR. I am really surprised that Courage Campaign did not have something like this.
    Also, Sagesse, if you are on FB, please contact me.

  • 127. Bob  |  July 6, 2010 at 5:37 am

    THE KILLINGS HAVE BEGUN, in the name of the CHURCH , they have upped their attempts at anielating US, (evil) from the world.

    The war rages on, at this time it does us no good to site those Churches who accept us. At this point we must be clear, our enemy is THE CHURCH, There may be divisions, and various levels of acceptance, but it does us no good to site the openess of one Church, in attempts at diminishing the clear overiding hatred of CHURCHES in the broadest sense.

    They see us as other, and continue the war against us, Uganda is their slave, carrying out the murders,

    And silently many of us attempt reconciliation, with our religious upbringing, attending and supporting THE CHURCH, because my church or my congreagation doesn't support that evil. We proclaim a victory when we make amends with our faimly who attend those CHUCHES,

    This is all part of our participation in allowing these situations to occur.

    Let's be clear, name our enemy, and go to war, all that is good hidden in any religious values, in the hearts of invdividuals inside the CHURCH will survive this onslaught.

    But for the good of humanity, to enable the continuation of the human species, the CHURCH as we know it, MUST DIE.

    DEATH TO THE CHUIRCH (which promotes evil as the will of God)

  • 128. Phillip R  |  July 6, 2010 at 6:20 am

    Whoa…I disagree wholeheartedly.

    I understand that a decent number of churches are responsible for hate speech. However, there are others that are the exception and targeting religion as a whole is an extremist and radical idea. That would most certainly be a way to isolate even more people instead of finding a way to close the divide.

  • 129. Straight Grandmother  |  July 6, 2010 at 7:36 am

    Bob, I think it is a rather broad stroke to simply blame the CHURCH. It is rather like Hitler, everyone wants to only blame one man, Hitler for the atrocities Germany committed in WWII. However he was backed by millions of Germans throwing their salute into the air and shouting "Heil Hitler" and doing his bidding. The CHURCH yes I agree, is filled with H8te for GLBT's however it is their CHURCH members who carry out and implement what their leaders say to do. "Give money, get petitions signed, 'Yes my Lord'" This is the era of the internet, those members really have no excuse to simply follow blindly. They have resources available to critically think for themselves, so I don't just blame the CHURCH I blame the members who sanctimonously demand marriage only for themselves. Their eyes are open, they know what they are doing. They KNOW that hetrosexals are the BIGGEST threat to thier children, they KNOW this and yet they persecute the GLBT community falsely. It is the Mormons, the Catholics and the Baptists who are the worst ones. Then add in the homeschooliing fundamentalist christians to round out the cabal.

  • 130. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 6, 2010 at 7:42 am

    I absolutely do NOT agree with you Bob!

  • 131. Bob  |  July 6, 2010 at 8:40 am

    that's three to one, against extremist and radical ideas, I thank you for your response, I did stoop to their level in that outburst of anger.

    I cannot feel peace while the blood of Rainbow people flows,

  • 132. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 6, 2010 at 9:07 am

    Bob, an outburst like yours happens to all of us from time to time. Unlike the other side, however, you were man enough to admit it and also state that you cannot feel peace while Rainbow blood flows. In the time I have been here, that is one thing that has always shone from you–your sincerity. That is why you are part of this community/family here on the P8TT. We are all able to show our sincerity, and are able to vent our anger when we need to. And I hope that when BZ and I ever get the chance to travel to Canada, that we get to meet you, Sagesse, and our other Canadian P8TT family.

  • 133. Kathleen  |  July 6, 2010 at 7:47 am

    Judge Rules for Transgender woman fired by Georgia

  • 134. Straight Grandmother  |  July 6, 2010 at 8:16 am

    Kathleen what does this mean? Is this some kind of precedent? He decided the case citing the equal protection amendment to the constituition, is this like a "first' ? I like the fact that it was a Federal Trial. I'll ahve to go try and find out more.

  • 135. Kathleen  |  July 6, 2010 at 8:26 am

    I don't know any more about the specifics than the article reports.

    As to setting precedent, District Court decisions are not binding on any other court. It is only decisions at the Appeals level become binding (on lower courts in its jurisdiction)

    District Court decisions can be cited as "persuasive" authority (not binding) if there is no binding precedent already established.

    Wikipedia has a good general discussion on the question of binding/mandatory vs. persuasive precedent:

  • 136. Kathleen  |  July 6, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Also see:

  • 137. Straight Grandmother  |  July 6, 2010 at 8:28 am

    And her[youtube =]e she is, I'm glad she WON!

  • 138. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 6, 2010 at 8:47 am

    And this is one of the reasons I thoroughly despise any attempt to throw our transgender brothers and sisters under the bus for the sake of political expediency. This is why gender identity and gender expression need to be included in ENDA. Otherwise, we keep fighting until it is.

  • 139. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 6, 2010 at 8:38 am

    Just got an email from Brainless Brown of NOM with a preformatted email to send in opposition to Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. It even has a selected list of Congressional representatives to send it to, followed by the generic listing "your federal representatives." I have tried to change the NO to YES in the subject line, but it won't let me. However, it will let me change the text in the body of the email. These folks are absolutely nutso!
    Here is the link, in case anybody can figure out how to change NO to YES in the subject line and let the rest of us know.….

  • 140. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 6, 2010 at 10:23 am


    Thanks for informing us about that letter.  I cracked that thing and found a way to change the subject of the letter, so I sent it like that, but I don't know if they actually used my subject and my text in the letter — I'm a web-designer, so I know how easy it is to ignore anything like that and just send to everyone the exact thing they would want us to send… it wouldn't surprise me at all that people who promote these atrocities would go that far as to lie about these things.  One can only hope.

    Don't ask me how to crack it, it won't work for everyone anyway, and it's too late for a young Russian boy to keep on cracking that thing right now — it's past 4 am in Russia…

  • 141. Michguy  |  July 6, 2010 at 10:26 am

    There was another case just like this last year.

    There seems to be a trend in this area.
    A federal Judge rulled in favor of a Transgender Woman last July Also and the plaintiff won the case against the Federal government.

  • 142. James Sweet  |  July 6, 2010 at 10:58 pm

    Well this is a poorly-constructed sentence:

    The East African nation frowns on homosexuality and is considering proposed legislation that would impose the death penalty for some gays.

    "Frowns on"?!?!?

    Yeah, when something makes me frown, I usually get homicidal.

  • 143. ColonBlow&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 8:58 am

    Colon Cleanse Review Site…

    […]while the sites we link to below are completely unrelated to ours, we think they are worth a read, so have a look[…]…

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