Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

NOM’s growing desperation

NOM Tour Tracker Right-wing

(A warm welcome to my friend and colleague Michael Crawford with Freedom to Marry, a partner in This is vitally important pushback. – Adam)

By Michael Crawford, New Media Director, Freedom to Marry

In a clear sign of its growing desperation to place positive spin on its failing anti-gay bus tour, National Organization for Marriage is now throwing every possible smear at equality supporters while attempting to paint themselves in a coat of victimhood.

In his latest email screed, NOM President Brian Brown had this to say about “gay marriage radicals”,

They’ve come to our peaceful marriage rallies in city after city to harass and intimidate us. We’ve seen men harass a nursing mother, refusing her request to feed her children in private and instead stare at her and block her ability to watch our rally from a safe distance. We’ve seen protestors draped in the rainbow flag storm the stage and scream, red-faced into the microphone to prevent our speakers from talking. We’ve seen them bait a five year old child, asking her if she’s being raised by her mother to be a bigot. We’ve even heard a gay marriage supporter threaten to kidnap a child in attendance at a rally.

Reading that, one almost forgets that it’s NOM and its supporters that are continuing to unleash an increasingly violent stream of anti-gay rhetoric. The “solution to gay marriage” sign calling for the murder of gay and lesbian couples is but one example.


Despite Brian’s best attempt at placing a Harry Potter-like invisibility cloak over NOM’s homophobia, the traditional media is not falling for NOM’s song and dance.

From Chicago Tribune’s Steve Chapman:

So why would NOM hold a rally where it is sure of being badly outnumbered by motivated and well-organized critics? Maybe because that’s what it wanted. The Summer for Marriage Tour could have been called the Come Shout Us Down Tour.

The endeavor has managed to make opponents of gay marriage look like a brave, embattled minority, even though they constitute 53 percent of the public and have gotten their way in all but a few states. At today’s rally, NOM supporters just number two or three dozen.

NOM’s typical ploy is to conjure up phony claims of harassment and infringement and complain when anyone speaks the truth about its record and agenda. In its increasingly cynical attempts to provoke responses from equality supporters, NOM’s “One Man, One Woman” tour has devolved from a media gimmick to a display of prejudice and incitement to violence.

With this week’s display, NOM’s mask has slipped, revealing what lies beneath their diversions, protests, and veneer. NOM is funneling millions of dollars into political campaigns aimed at stripping away basic protections from gay people and their families while attempting to portray themselves as a being in the tradition of the Black Civil Rights Movement.

The real victims of NOM are committed, loving gay couples across the country who are denied the freedom to marry and the critical safety net that marriage brings.


  • 1. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Absolutely important post. Thank you.

  • 2. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:36 am


    Talking to my wonderful Felyx on Skype while he's in the hospital.

  • 3. AndrewPDX  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:30 am

    Hi Felyx! Here's to a speedy recovery 🙂


  • 4. Mark M  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:31 am

    Tell him Hi!
    Big hugs to you both!!

  • 5. Anonygrl  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:37 am

    It is all about the money. NOM's constituency doesn't get riled about NOM having a nice day with a good turn out, but a few sentences about "Those evil gays! Trying to storm the platform, kill us and turn our children gay!" gets the checkbooks out.

  • 6. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:39 am


  • 7. Dave in Maine  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:11 am

    Yes, good idea!

  • 8. Dan  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:41 am

    I wouldn't be surprised, honestly, if they had gone so far as to "plant" counter-protestors who do despicable things to "poor NOM" in an attempt to make us look even worse to the media and their supporters.

    Either way, it's a sad, sad thing they're doing, and I am so very thankful you guys are out there and showing everyone that we're not going to take this crap sitting down quietly. I am also thankful that our country is finally starting to treat us a bit better than they did so many years ago.

    Even a bit of progress is some progress, so let's keep going!

  • 9. Sagesse  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Engaging in the discussion.

  • 10. Ben  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:47 am

    Their blatant hypocrisy makes me shudder … especially when I am forced to wonder if they perhaps believe that what they're saying is true. Because really, if they do, maybe we're dealing with something that absolutely requires the generational shift to fix the problem. If the supporters of NOM actually believe what they are saying, with no fissures of doubt in their mistaken bastions of surety, we may need to simply wait until the latest generation reaches true political importance for major shifts to occur … if the other groups in politics don't adjust to the shifting balance already.

    Just some ranting to go with my subscription; a developing thought process, if you will. I think this ground has been covered before.

  • 11. Mark M  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Sadly and maybe frighteningly I think they WANT to believe what they say is true….so much so that they are even willing to look the other way when the logic and science aren't there to back it up.
    I don't know if waiting out this generation will actually work, since they are raising the next generation of haters.

  • 12. Alan E.  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:48 am

    Below Writing

  • 13. nightshayde  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:52 am

    Each and every time I've scrolled across this particular comment, I've giggled. Thank you, Alan E, for brightening my day!

  • 14. JonT  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:51 am

    'NOM is funneling millions of dollars into political campaigns aimed at stripping away basic protections from gay people and their families while attempting to portray themselves as a being in the tradition of the Black Civil Rights Movement.'

    That pretty much sums up the ridiculousness of their game right there.

    So, anyone know how various black civil rights leaders feel about this? I know some tended not to support GLBT people equating our struggle with theirs.

    I wonder if they feel the same way regarding the nomo's attempts to do the same? Just curious 🙂

  • 15. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:57 am

    I know Julian Bond is a very vocal supporter.

  • 16. Chrys  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:57 am

    Coretta Scott King has been vocal in support of gay rights in the past.

  • 17. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Coretta and Martin both were. After all, they remember all of us that were there to help out in the days when the AA Civil Rights Movement was going on, in the days when it was even more dangerous for us to be open than it is now.

  • 18. GraciesDaddy  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:59 am

    Let's keep up the pressure, folks, for I look forward to the day NOM just melts away…

    ::visions of Maggie screeching "Whatta world! Whatta world!!"::

    MINOR LOGISTICS PROBLEM: The "Steve Chapman" link gives me a 404. 🙁 Do you have an accurate one to the entire cited article?

  • 19. rf  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:02 am

  • 20. AndrewPDX  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:24 am

    LOL…. Now there's an image… The Wicked Witch of the Whiny, her empire of cruelty dissolving like the bunch of lies it really is.


  • 21. Mark M  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:38 am

    Love the image of a melting Maggie LOL

  • 22. GraciesDaddy  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:23 am

    Yeah… could likely keep a few African countries and several Southern States in lard for many years. 😉

  • 23. rf  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:59 am

    Housekeeping – I think the Steve Chapman link includes the webaddress for this page, thanks

  • 24. adambink  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Thanks, fixed

  • 25. Ronnie  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:14 am

    NOM officially stands for:

    National Organization for Malfeasance

    >( ….Ronnie

  • 26. AndrewPDX  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:28 am

    National Organization for [fear] Mongering?


  • 27. Jim  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:49 am

    National Organization for Mirage

  • 28. Ray in MA  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:27 am

    Heya Pamzee,

    Sorry I couldn't sound-in during the discussion about the tone of the protest in Providence…

    I got your point, but differentiating between who said/did what was a bit too granular (on a national scale) …

    One had to be there (like us) to feel what really happened…
    NOM was astonishingly rude in what they were saying and we appeared rude trying to drown them out. The overall impression we gave was overshadowed by Vito & Co.

    All the various suggestions at how we should behave are as varied as the stereotypes of Americans across
    the country.

    It's like we are all at the "American Dinner Table of Equality"…

    From New England:

    "You really should pass me the EQUALITY, it WAS on the menu AND in the Constitution."

    Form New York:

    "Pass me the freakin' EQUALITY or you'll have someone in your face to deal with!!!!"

    From the South:

    "With all respect, pass the EQUALITY, or I'll graciously remove the brains from your head and then tare off your ears."

    From California:

    "Hey man, it would be really COOL is we had some EQUALITY on this end of the table!!!"

    From the Mid West:

    "I will say a silent prayer to Jesus, that God will you will give you the strength to pass the EQUALITY."

    We're now all blending our local demeanors in how to express ourselves … EQUALITY for ALL !

  • 29. Linda  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:01 am

    That's funny, Ray. 🙂 And so true!

  • 30. PamC  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    Awesome, Ray, and absolutely true! (and funny!) I was just hoping that the RI folks could get their fair share of praise for a difficult endeavor. They keep living under the shadow of bad press and twisted nom videos.

    Ray, did you say you have an alternate Facebook page? Actually, you could email me at pcaehill2 AT sbcglobal DOT net.

  • 31. Sarah  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    hehe, you forgot the "bless your soul" in the one from the south. 🙂 ("I'll graciously remove the brains from your head and then tear off your ears, bless your soul.") Entertaining!

  • 32. GraciesDaddy  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:38 am

    Actually, Sarah… It's "Bless your hearrrrrrrt!" which is Southernese for "F-you!"

    And if the speaker adds "Shug-ah!" to the end of that phrase, well… Let's just say I wouldn't wanna be the target of what comes next!

    Personally, I prefer "I'm gonna rip off your head 'n' spit down y'throat… Shug-ah!"

  • 33. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:35 am

    We have all known that this was the "Summer for Marriage (As Long As You Aren't LGBTQ)" Tour. But now, the mask, as you stated, is finally starting to slip.

  • 34. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:36 am

    All this stuff about marriage 'domesticating' men makes my head spin. The images it conjures up are hilarious.

  • 35. nightshayde  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:54 am

    It must be working. My husband ALWAYS puts the seat down. =)

  • 36. Mark M  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:11 am

    Mine doesn't thank goodness 🙂

  • 37. Anonygrl  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:15 am

    LOL Mark!

  • 38. nightshayde  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:21 am

    @Mark M

    I don't think you have to worry. It's just the heterosexual men who are "domesticated" by marriage. You and your non-heterosexual hubby don't have to worry about it.

    *can't stop giggling*

  • 39. Mark M  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    Oh thank goodness!!

  • 40. Ben  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:36 am

    Men are being bred to remove the wildness, or at least submerge it enough to be useful around the house! God forbid any of these domesticated men should breed outside the stock! They could re-introduce the wildness that was carefully removed over the generations!

    … I'm not even sure what I'm saying anymore.

  • 41. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:45 am

    Seems to be in keeping with the message. Should we be keeping them in pens, are have they gained the status of lap dogs?

    (sorry, this whole topic is just so hilarious)

  • 42. nightshayde  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:50 am

    That reminds me…

    I think it was on Louis' blog (Hi, Louis!) where one of the commenters mentioned a study that (allegedly) showed that female children of two mommies were more likely to experiment with sex and to have permissive attitudes toward sex than were daughters in "traditional households," while male children of two mommies were less likely to demonstrate sexually aggressive behavior than the sons in "traditional households." I expected the "oh no – teh gurlz will have teh sex before marriage!!!" argument (and got it), but totally didn't expect that the person would find fault with the males being less sexually aggressive than other boys. I was shocked.

    If teenage girls aren't supposed to experiment with sex or to have relaxed attitudes toward it, and the males are supposed to be (and expected to be) sexually active/aggressive, just who do they think teenage boys should be sexually active with or sexually aggressive towards? I'm guessing they don't want the teenage boys screwing around with adult women, and they certainly don't want them screwing around with pure innocent teenage girls — so aren't they kind of advocating sexual experimentation with other males? o.o?

  • 43. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:55 am

    I suppose there are always young prostitutes. Actually, I think they expect boys to be the "normal" teenage boy aggressor and it's up to the good girls to fend them off to protect their virtue (w/Daddy's help when necessary). If you just think in terms of an idealized version of life pre-1960, it all makes sense. 🙂

  • 44. nightshayde  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    Aaaah. The boys are supposed to go after the non-fundy girls (they put out, don' cha' know?).

    Of course, quite a few of the fundy girls put out in their own special way. Though the data may have changed since I last took a Human Sexuality class, I distinctly recall being told that in areas of the country which put a huge emphasis on abstinence & abstinence education, an astonishing number of girls engaged in anal sex (and presumably oral sex) but not vaginal sex. Why? So they could keep their virginity until marriage.


    Of course they weren't using condoms — they weren't taught about those.

  • 45. JonT  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    @Kathleen – beat me to it… 🙂

    Really, shouldn't men be kept in pens then? Taken out, when required, to provide seed for breeding purposes? You now, as we do with cattle?

    Kinda goes against the whole 'Men should be in control, women should be silent and subservient' thing, don't it?

  • 46. Alan E.  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    There actually is a "special way that fundy girls put out." It's called getting married at a young age just so they can have sex, even if they aren't really ready for said marriage. They end up settling with someone who is not right for them, or a complete jerk, but they at least get to have sex (when their husband tells them to). This is not an isolated issue, though, because it happens all over the country (not sure about the world), but especially in the uber evangellical societies that say only sex in marriage. This kids think "Get married quickly QED I get to have sex now!"

  • 47. Mark M  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    I like my man a tad on the wild side actually 🙂

  • 48. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    @ Alan E.: It also happens on a VERY regular basis in very rural areas.

  • 49. Dpeck  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    All this talk about 'domesticating' heterosexual men reminds me of all those bizarre ramblings from the defense during the closing arguments of the trial. You know, all that stuff about how the state should be 'channeling' penises into vaginas for procreative purposes or something… It all seems like some surreal sexual human cattle drive…. What on earth are these people thinking about all day?

  • 50. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    @ Dpeck: Probably something they aren't getting enough of. At least, it has been my experience that the ones who obsess about sex are the ones who aren't getting any of it.

  • 51. Sagesse  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:19 pm


    Sex. And Sexuality. Other people's sex and sexuality, mostly, and how it is their duty from God to control it. Cause their pastor says so. They're obsessed.

  • 52. Anonygrl  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:15 am

    In response to Brian's rant today accusing the protesters of showing the face of intolerance by booing during a prayer…

    The face of intolerance is the one that says a family with two fathers who love each other very much cannot tell their adopted child that they are married.

The face of intolerance tells two women that just because one of them doesn't have a penis, they are not fit to stand up before whatever God they believe in and declare their love for each other and have it recognized by the state, even though all their neighbors can do so.

The face of intolerance seems to be crossing the country demanding that anyone who dares stand up to disagree with them do so quietly, in writing, from another part of the country, so that the face of intolerance can delete the comment from the blog if it hits too close to home.

You seem to confuse the right to speak with the right to do so unopposed. This is not, nor has it ever, been the case. It is not intolerant to disagree loudly. It may, I grant you, be rude, but not intolerant. However, it is more rude to lie about what others are doing, so please stop that. It is more rude to portray others as evil when they are merely passionate, so if you wouldn't mind cutting that out, we would appreciate it. In fact, if we were to look at it, both of those activities border much closer on illegal than a bunch of shouting during a public event.

Show us tolerance. Stop trying to legislate on your religious beliefs, stop trying to push discrimination based on your theology. THAT is intolerance.

  • 53. nightshayde  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:23 am

    Brava, Anonygrl!

    I'd tip my hat if I was wearing one. Does a visor count? 'Cause I just tipped my visor…

  • 54. AndrewPDX  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:31 am

    I ain't no psychologist with high-falootin' degrees, but everytime Brian et al complain about us pushing our agenda on them or calling us intolerant… Isn't that called Transference?

    Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the most deluded of them all?


  • 55. PamC  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    I'm a doctor of psychology, and you're close, it's called projection. Putting on others the vile things you hate about yourself.

  • 56. AndrewPDX  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    @PamC… Thanks! I couldn't think of the term, but I knew there was one!


  • 57. PamC  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:58 pm

    Actually, you're right…they are very deluded as well, and captive to their own fears. (I really liked "the opposite of love isn't hate, it's fear."

  • 58. Mark M  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:58 am

    From your lips to God's ears!

    "Heavenly Father…please deliver us and protect us form your so called followers"

  • 59. Chuck S  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:26 am

    So did any of the things they are claiming actually happen?? If so, then we need to own up to it and control our own hatred in order to show how bigoted and ignorant they are. If it didn't happen, let's find out when they say these things happened and post the video to prove their lies.

  • 60. nightshayde  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:43 am

    If you read through the posts about the NOM tour from the beginning (and read the comments, too), you'll see descriptions/photos/video of most of these encounters. I'm not sure about the threat to kidnap a kid, or about asking kids if their parents are raising them to be bigots (I can't access the videos here at work & haven't watched them at home for fear they'll put me into a foul mood) – but the people yelling in Brian's face (and him yelling back) was certainly documented. "Storming the stage" is a fabrication on NOM's part — there was no stage, and there was no "storming." The whole nursing mom thing also doesn't seem to have played out as NOM is trying to spin it (there's much discussion of that "incident" on one of the threads).

    One problem is that the NOMblog & the blog about their tour are not open to comments — or if/when they're open, the moderators don't allow opposing viewpoints or anything that contradicts NOMs lies to show up in the comments section.

  • 61. Anonygrl  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:54 am

    Matter of opinion, Chuck. Did some things happen? Yes. Did people in Providence yell at Brian? Yes. Did people boo the Bishop? Yes.

    Was all that wrong and evil? No.

    Did protesters bring two dogs to the Albany protest? Yes. Were they killer attack dogs? No, they were two elderly black labs, wagging tails, just happy to be out for a walk in the sun.

    Did someone yell (in Providence) something about kidnapping a kid? Well, it sounds like it on the video tape, but it is unclear who did it. It is also unclear whether it was in response to something someone else said, so it is entirely out of context to claim that a protester was actually advocating kidnapping children.

    What is happening is that NOM is spinning things to make us look like evil, hateful… whatever. Easy to do when people are upset, unhappy, ignored, oppressed, angry. And USEFUL to do when you want to scare your own supporters into thinking that the gays are coming to get your children, better give us money so we can fight them!

    The thing is, we do it on our side too, sometimes. We go on about the evil that they perpetrate. Now, to give them the benefit of the doubt, the whole Hang 'em High Larry business was probably NOT Brian's doing. I hope, if he knew it was going on, he would have asked Larry NOT to say those things, not to suggest that he represented what NOM stands for. Of course, it is to our benefit to say that Larry is EXACTLY what NOM stands for, at its core, but it is no more fair to insist on that than it is for Brian to claim malice on our part in all of the things he has twisted sometimes rather sharply, in order to make them fit his fund raising needs.

    The major difference I see here between us and NOM is that when we find something that we are going to far with, we recognize it and back off. When we do go to far, we pull back and rethink. But we should not do it simply because Brian says so. We are capable of analyzing our own mistakes, and I, for one, think we should be VERY careful not to back off just because NOM says so, as they are actively looking to discredit us with things that were not wrong. We should NOT apologize for shouting in Providence, nor for booing a Bishop, nor for hollering when someone is speaking. Yelling is our right. Guaranteed in the Constitution of these United States. Let us not let them take away any MORE of our rights for their own purposes, please!

  • 62. Mark M  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    Standing O anonygrl!!!!!

  • 63. Linda  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    The major difference is we have a just cause, and they don't. Therefore we can tolerate scrutiny; we can hold ourselves accountable; we can be objective.

    They, on the other hand, can't justify (constitutionally or morally) the position they have taken. So instead of honest dialogue they incite, accuse and discredit. They have no defense, so they attack.

  • 64. Chris in Lathrop  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:10 pm

    Those who are already on our side, I'm sure, can see right through BB's smoke and mirrors. Likewise, I'm sure NOM's sympathizers are taking BB's bait hook, line and sinker. What I worry is that those who are as-yet undecided on the issue–those who may be the ones to make the difference in the end–are going to believe BB.

    It seemed to me in that interview video that BB was the one leading the conversation, which falls right in line with NOM's new strategy of giving supporters talking points to work with. BB *says* he has video of someone threatening to kidnap children and, of course, fails to produce it or even offer to, but that sort of lie is an easy one for people to remember.

    All I'm saying is maybe we ought to work on our strategies in interviewing NOM personnel?

  • 65. JonT  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    I don't know how to really answer that Chuck, except through an example:

    TrueFact: The sun rose in the east, bathing the nomos in warmth and light.

    NOMoFact: The hateful, violent, out-of-control radioactive fusion reactor rose in the east, bathing the nomos in harmful UV, X-ray and Gamma radiation, scarring their genomes forever.

    You decide.


  • 66. Anonygrl  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    In response to NOM's post about California black church members opposing gay marriage…. by the way, I keep posting these here because posting them there is an exercise in futility. 🙂

    You keep trying to separate the idea of same sex marriage from civil rights by playing the "blacks don't agree with you" card.

    When same sex marriage is equated to interracial marriage, the point is that this was a civil right that was denied to interracial couples, just as it is now being denied to same sex couples. If African-Americans don't support same sex marriage, it honestly makes no difference, the comparison is still valid.

    And the idea that African-Americans do not agree is completely irrelevant (if true, and I have some doubts). While the idea of civil rights became much clearer during the era of Martin Luther King Jr., the fact is that African-Americans do not "own" civil rights. Civil rights issues include women who get less pay than men, disabled veterans who are excluded from housing because it is not accessible, voters who are turned away at polling places because of language difficulties, workers told they must work overtime or lose their jobs… and yes, same sex marriage.

  • 67. Ronnie  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    & let's not forget that Mildred Loving herself said in 2007

    "Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights."


  • 68. Anonygrl  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    I didn't know that. Thanks very much Ronnie, that is incredible. If ANYONE has the right to speak to this issue it would be Mildred Loving. That is beautiful, thank you for sharing!

  • 69. Ronnie  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    You're welcome…<3…Ronnie

  • 70. JonT  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    'I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.'

    Heh, thanks Ronnie. So true.

  • 71. Mark M  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    Thank you Ronnie. That was lovely. I had never heard that before.

  • 72. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    And as usual, you also shared the link where we can go and print it out. Thank you for that also.

  • 73. AndrewPDX  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    Wow… Thanks for finding that gem, Ronnie!


  • 74. nightshayde  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    I'm going to disagree with one small portion of that post — the part about African-Americans' attitudes being irrelevant. I certainly don't know what "most" or even "many" are saying (I'm not AA and I don't attend a predominantly AA church, or any church for that matter) — but I know some AAs who claim to be quite offended that GLBTs are comparing their struggle to the Black Civil Rights movement last century.

    Their church leaders (among others) are teaching them that being gay is a choice rather than an immutable characteristic and many of them are buying it. Their argument then becomes "we were denied rights based on something we can't change (our skin color) — how can they compare themselves to us when they can so easily change their sexual preference?"

    I believe there's a secondary issue in some segments of the AA community, as well. Bisexual AA men don't tend to self-identify as "bisexual." They often view themselves simply as men who have sex with other men, even if they're going home to their wives later on. This was a big issue in getting HIV/AIDS education to AA men who were having sex with other men back in the 80's and 90's (possibly still today – I don't know for sure).

    To me, it seems like men who fall into that description can conceptualize sex and relationships as being two very different things. You have sex with men (and women), but only have emotional connections with women… so why would you need to be able to marry a man?

    I know I'm making broad generalizations, but I really truly do know that not all people of any community are a homogeneous bunch. There are undoubtedly wide variations of opinion about sexuality within the AA community and I'm in no way trying to imply otherwise.

  • 75. Anonygrl  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    I didn't mean to imply that the opinions of African Americans were unimportant, merely that the idea put forth by NOM that "the African American community does not want gay marriage to be associated with civil rights" means absolutely nothing. If it is not true, hurray! If it is true, that is sad, but the point was that no matter what, civil rights are not only an African American concern, they are everyone's, so African Americans who do not agree with same sex marriage do not get to decide that it is not a civil right.

  • 76. Sagesse  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Counter with Mildred Loving's statement, or Ben Jealous (sp?) as evidence that not all AA feel that way.

  • 77. Ronnie  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    I am African-American (among other bloodlines) so it offends me when other when people say it wrong to compare the AA Civil Rights to LGBT Civil Rights.

    I have said this time & again…I am 26yo & if it was not for the government recognition of Interracial couples there is a huge possibility that I would not be alive today. At least not the part of me that came from my father. In fact, If my mother had followed her mothers racist & religious beliefs & wishes I would not be here at all. On her deathbed, my grandmother condemned my mother for being with a black man & said she will surely go to Hell.

    Lucky for me, my mother did not inherit those prejudices. She sees the parallels to interracial marriage & AA civil rights. She supports me & wants me to marry the man I choose too. As do all of my family. My cousin is a Catholic caucasian Woman married to a Southern Baptist african-american Man. She (as well as her husband & 3 kids) supports me being Gay 100% because I am her blood, her family; that comes first.

    Those who oppose marriage equality do it for selfish reasons, a huge lack of civility, education, compassion, empathy, lacking a sense of humanity, & under the impression that they know anything & everything about what falls under the definition of "Love" but they clearly do not. That impression is so far from the truth that it cannot & will not fall under fact of definition but merely an egomaniacal self realization of their own (& those exactly like them) hegemony.


  • 78. AndrewPDX  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    I have heard that we cannot compare our struggle with the African-Americans' struggles because we can 'hide' who we truly are by staying in the closet, but an AA person is branded for all the world to see by their skin color.

    Like that's a healthy option?


  • 79. Linda  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    Andrew–Exactly! You know, just this last week I outed myself to my mother; and her response is that I should just go back in the closet. Just ignore it; 'resist' it. Because it is so easy for us to hide, it becomes our duty to hide. It becomes our responsibility to keep quiet; it becomes our obligation to make everyone else feel comfortable. If we don't, then WE are the selfish ones.

  • 80. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    But not all AA's are dark-skinned. I have read many autobiographies that were published posthumously about those who were pale enough to pass themselves off as white. Wasn't that a form of hiding in the closet? And in the bios I read, it was every bit as harmful.

  • 81. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    Linda, congrats on coming out to your mother. I hope she comes around eventually.

  • 82. AndrewPDX  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    I am sorry your mother didn't understand; for some, it does take some time to come around. Just don't give up — or go back into the closet.

    @Richard, good point; that just makes it that much harder for me to deny there are some similarities in our struggle and theirs.


  • 83. Linda  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    Kathleen–Thanks, but it is highly unlikely that she will come around. She actually told me, in a subsequent conversation, that it would be easier if I had told her I had cancer. My parents are staunch Fundamentalist Christians. They simply cannot accept me, because that would require them to question their faith; and that is the one thing they cannot do.

  • 84. Ronnie  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    I had to come out as African-American many times through out my life. My mother's caucasian traits are much more prevalent then my father's african-american traits….in fact many people through out high-school & college thought I was of latino descent.

    Just because of skin color or lack there of in different situations I had to correct people or make them aware of something they said that was offensive since they did not know my racial background. It is the same as orientation. Heterosexual people make jokes not knowing if the person at the table next to them is of that orientation.

    In most ways being multi-racial is extremely similar to sexual orientation because both are not set in stone characteristics.


  • 85. Ann S.  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    @Linda — hugs to you. I'm sorry your mother can't accept you. But be true to yourself.

  • 86. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    @Linda, I'm so sorry. I don't know what else to say.

  • 87. Linda  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    Thanks guys; but I'm okay. I'm certainly not going to hide just to save my mother embarrassment! Considering the decades it took for me to finally step out of that closet, I'm not about to go back in!

  • 88. Ronnie  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    Good for you Linda. I guess that's all I can say because everybody else said the usual. All you need to do is reiterate to your mother that you are blood, her child & that will never change..quite often those words pierce. It takes time but those words do get through eventually.

    Welcome to the good side of the Rainbow. I wish I could say that you will be receiving a kit but I seem to never have received mine & I've been out since I was 18 going on 19…herumph…wow thats 9 years…time flies…I did get a little leather pouch full of fairy dust, glitter, diamonds, & Swarovski crystals but I don't remember how…hmmm

    anyway…again welcome & congratulations…..<3…Ronnie

  • 89. Linda  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    Ronnie–You always make me laugh! So….no welcome kit, then, huh? Well, that just figures. I did tell my kids to keep an eye out for a copy of the Gay Agenda. I'm still hoping to get my hands on one of those along with a Gay Lifestyle Manual; I'm sure I'm doing it all wrong!

  • 90. Sagesse  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    The proper comparison between LGBT and AA people is that a group (dictionary definition, the Supreme Court has its own) that has been identified and laws passed to criminalize or limit their rights because of who they are. Or society is permitted to deny them rights, and no laws are passed to prevent it.

  • 91. Alan E.  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:23 am

    @Linda Congratulations!

  • 92. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:55 am

    @ Linda. I keep joking with BZ that if we keep doing our own maintenance on the house, instead of moving Kathleen here to do it, that they are going to take away his gay badge, and I will never get mine. And if you are doing it wrong as far as the gay lifestyle, then I guess we are too. Fell free to check out my blog. I don't get to blog as often as I would like to, but I get there when life allows me to.
    @ Ronnie. You will just have to come see us some time, and bring your mom. We have a Swarovski store at Streets at Southpoint Mall in Durham.

  • 93. Dpeck  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    I have heard many variations on the idea that LGBTs should not compare their struggles for equailty to the struggles of African Americans. Usually one of two arguments:
    1. Gay people choose to be gay, blacks don't choose to be black, or
    2. The experience of being gay is just very very different from being black and therefore the comparison is false.

    But our point is NOT that we are comparing ourselves or our struggles to those of AAs. Regardless of whether someone thinks being gay is a choice, and regardless of how similar or different being gay and being black are, that is not the point.

    The point is that we are comparing the bigotry and discrimination aimed at LGBTs to the bigotry and discrimination aimed at AAs. Of course being gay and being black are two different things. But bigotry is bigotry. Discrimination is discrimination. THAT stuff is the same, regardless of who is doing it or who it is aimed at.

  • 94. fiona64  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:49 am

    The problem here is that the exit polls didn't reflect what those people are trying to say they did.

    A low degree of education and a high degree of religiosity were *far* greater predictors of voting against equality than age, ethnicity or any other factor.


  • 95. Ray in MA  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    Speaking of the optimal way to protest…

    "Jerusalem hosts subdued gay pride march"

    and more news from of our universe:

    "Hawaii lawsuit seeks equal rights for gay couples"


    "Novelist Anne Rice says she's leaving Christianity"

    (just thought you might like to know)

  • 96. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 2, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Anne is probably fed up with the way the radical CINO right wingnuts are trying to demonize her son and son-in-law for their relationship. And yes, Anne's son Christopher inherited his mother's and father's writing talents.

  • 97. Anonygrl  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    This exchange from a comment section at NOM blog scares me a bit.

    "From: Adam
    Posted July 29, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    The person responsible for the protest stunt with the noose picture should be sued for slander.

    From: TC Matthews
    Posted July 29, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    I think you hit the nail on the head Adam.

    From: Anonygrl
    Posted July 29, 2010 at 10:06 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Slander is the legal term for defamation of character that is spoken aloud.

    So how does that relate to a printed sign that says a group of people should be killed? The legal concept you are looking for here is incitement to murder. Or possibly incitement to genocide."

    I then thought about what "Adam" meant. Was he perhaps trying to set up the idea that Larry was slandering NOM somehow? Because, if so, YIKES. That whole victim thing is becoming quite terrifying if they manage somehow to make Larry look like something that was done to them.

  • 98. Sarah  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    My first impression upon reading this (before I even got to your last paragraph) was, he means NOM has been slandered. (Is slandered a word? Sounds funny to me, hehehe) Anywho, yes, where's that victim card?

    Subscribing, and this site is becoming quickly addicting. I'll have to stop when I start my job… :-/

  • 99. Linda  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    Ha! Good luck with that, Sarah! You should have been on during the prop 8 trial; I think we were all working nights and week-ends to make up for the lack of productivity during the week!

  • 100. Aya  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:39 am

    And the word is actually libel, to be clear.

    Slander = spoken words

    Libel = written words (and some things like statements said while on the radio)

    Sorry. The recent law school graduate in me felt the need to clarify. 😉

  • 101. Linda  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    Well, I finally got up the nerve and visited the NOM website. And naturally I wasn't surprised that there were almost no negative comments (it seems they only allow the most extreme, hate-filled ones), but I was interested in the fact that there were very few comments, period. Look at our posts, and we have comments in the hundreds; look at their posts and they have comments in the single digits. Wow! Are they censoring their own followers? Or is there really a complete lack of interest?

  • 102. Anonygrl  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    You bring up an interesting point, Linda. I think a combination of those things are probably true. I would bet they tend to filter out their followers who say "EVIL GAYS GOING TO HELL!" (Louis does not on his blog, Hi Louis!), and filter out any comments they get from us that are reasonable and erudite because it makes them look bad.

    I would guess that part of it is maybe some folks who support them do not follow it as closely as we do. For their heterosexual, older, married audience, it may be sufficient to send a donation and then ignore the issue, because it does not really affect them.

  • 103. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    I also have to wonder how many of their followers feel comfortable using a computer.

  • 104. HunterR.  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Indeed Anonygrl!
    I totally get that point.
    How dare they to mess with our families and expect us to seat quietly? DON"T MESS WITH MY FAMILY!!!
    An intellectual debate is necessary but this issue is beyond and above that. It is about OUR FAMILIES a very emotional issues. We need to bring emotion into this debate. Wouldn't you be "emotional" if something happened to those you love.
    Will you say "let me think about it" if somebody is hurting your spouse or your kids? We are fighting for our families and we need to be clear about it.

  • 105. Ann S.  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:29 pm


  • 106. Straight Ally #3008  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Don't know if this has been posted yet. It is so great to see Scott Lively get a comeuppance.

    The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon – Thurs 11p / 10c<td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'Gay Reichs<a> <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com<a href=”” target=”_blank”>Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor<a href='; rel="nofollow">Tea Party

  • 107. Straight Ally #3008  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    OK, that failed. Link is here. Did you know that the Nazis were gay?

  • 108. Ronnie  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    Not a proven fact but more speculation, propaganda, & hearsay by the Anti-gay Fascist Pigs to adjure their sheeple into submission….

    Scott Lively is a paragon of anti-gay hate given the fact that he had a large hand in bringing about the Uganda Genocide Bill….

    : ( ….Ronnie

  • 109. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    I'm sure SA#3008 knows it isn't true. 🙂

  • 110. Straight Ally #3008  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    Sometimes mockery is the strongest weapon against hatred. I love the audience reactions during that clip. If you have any doubt that some people want gay people dead, look no further than Scott Lively – and this only covered his bizarre justifications for being anti-DADT!

    Oh wow, yet another creationist/anti-gay parallel: invoking Hitler at the drop of a hat.

  • 111. Shirley Clukey  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:27 am

    Many were, but they were "butch" gays, and when they weren't busy hustling "girlie" gays, they were busy sending them to death camps. Charming.

  • 112. AndrewPDX  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Hm… this thought just occurred to me:

    I was going to mention above that 'the closet is for clothes, and maybe some skeletons'… then I realized that the skeletons in many family closets are actually the family members who stayed in the closet and died (metaphorically, at least)!

    Scary thought!

    Let's all agree to buy as much clothes as we can, to fill our closets to overflowing so that we can never try to go back in. I'd hate for any of you here to become skeletons.


  • 113. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    With the way my mother-in-law and my husband feed me, there is very little chance of me turning into a skeleton. A MIchelin Tireman look-alike maybe, but not a skeleton.

  • 114. Anonygrl  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    And with your bargain hunting skills, your closet is probably fairly full anyway, Richard. 🙂

  • 115. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:06 am

    Yes, although I am about to gether stuff up for a yard sale because I have quite a bit that is now too small. size 32 pants are not comfortable around a size 36 waist.

  • 116. couragecampaign  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    What a great, rich thread. While the discussion about tactics is vigorous and exciting, the most poignant part of the comments today is this one:

    Edit Comment
    74. Linda | July 29, 2010 at 10:19 pm
    Andrew–Exactly! You know, just this last week I outed myself to my mother; and her response is that I should just go back in the closet. Just ignore it; ‘resist’ it. Because it is so easy for us to hide, it becomes our duty to hide. It becomes our responsibility to keep quiet; it becomes our obligation to make everyone else feel comfortable. If we don’t, then WE are the selfish ones.

    This is what this blog and Courage are all about. It's about empowering our community to own the movement. Thanks to Linda for coming out this week. Thanks to this blog community for supporting her. Thanks to our partner Michael Crawford from FtM for a terrific, thought-provoking post and thanks especially to Arisha, Anthony, Phyllis and Adam for bringing to life the contrast between NOM's fear mongering and the progressive community's support for marriage, full equality and America.

    Rick Jacobs.

  • 117. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:47 am

    So I guess it is a no-brainer as to why so many of us refer to this site not only as a community, but as our online extended family. Thank you, Rick, for what you said in this comment of yours, and thank you to everyone at CCI who has kept this site going.

  • 118. Roger  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    Speaking of civil rights, I'm a legal immigrant in a heterosexual interracial relationship, and I'm pretty sure NOM stands against marriage and civil rights.

  • 119. Roger  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:02 pm

    Forgot to add “The devil can site scripture for his own purpose! An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villain with a smiling cheek." – Shakespeare (The Merchant Of Venice – 1600 AD)

  • 120. Sagesse  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:46 pm

    Good morning Felyx.

  • 121. Alan E.  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:27 am

    We need more congressmen (and women) to stand up like Rep. Anthony Weiner. This is not about LGBT issues, but the target is the same.

    [youtube =]

  • 122. Sarah  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Wow. That was surprising, but would be wonderful if more legislators would feel and express that passionately about our governance. And if on LGBT equality, all the better!

  • 123. Kathleen  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    I LOVES me a good dose of righteous indignation shouted for the world to hear!!!

  • 124. Shirley Clukey  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:24 am

    As a 64-year-old mother of four, one of whom is gay, I stand for marriage equality. As often as I can, I put my money where my mouth is. I understand the anger and bitterness engendered by homophobic hate-mongers.
    But, I also saw the appalling videos of equal rights suppporters intimidating a nursing mother and screaming into a speaker's face. How can such behavior help the cause? And why hasn't anyone asked these protesters to back off before they confirm all the fears in the minds of homophobes?

  • 125. Ann S.  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:28 am

    @Shirley, I don't agree that the nursing mom was "intimidated". People were standing silently, with their umbrellas, several feet away, surrounding the speaker and other attendees. Some of them turned around when she asked, some didn't. I don't count that as intimidation. If she chooses to nurse in a public park, failing to turn around isn't "intimidation".

  • 126. Kathleen  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:44 pm

    It just shows how affective NOM's propaganda videos are, that a supporter is easily swayed into believing things transpired as NOM claims they did. This isn't a reflection on you, Shirley, it's a testament to how good they are at spin.

    I saw multiple photos of that particular event, not just the ones NOM cherry-picked- the ones where the camera angle made it look like the protesters were much closer to the mother than they were, If you see the full range of photos, and read a description of the event, you'll realize it is nothing like what NOM portrayed.

    The (silent) protesters encircled the plaza–the are that contained the NOM speaker's podium and the small group of people listening to the speaker. They then turned their back to the group, as part of their statement. They stood their silently, holding rainbow-colored umbrellas.

    It just happened that this one woman was sitting on the lawn well away from the main event. The protesters were a good distance from her. I don't believe that anything they did was directed at her, or intended in any way to intimidate her.

    Much has been made of the fact that she asked people to turn away while she nursed her child. I am a great advocate for the right of women to nurse in public (I did it myself), but if she is too modest to expose herself in public, then she should move to a more private location to nurse. She is in a public park; It is not up to everyone else in this very public space to move to accommodate her modesty.

  • 127. Dave in Maine  |  July 31, 2010 at 1:35 am

    Yes, I agree with that, Kathleen. Even watching the NOM video and hearing her description of what happened I didn't feel that she was being intimidated.

    I have heard some people say that if someone feels that he or she is being intimidated, then, yes, he or she IS being intimidated-but I don't buy that. I think there are clear lines for such behavior and if one's normal activities just happen to cause an irrational reaction in someone, then who's problem is that? I'm 6 feet tall, muscular with tattooed arms. People might think I'm intimidating because of my appearance, but is my mere existence near them enough to be real intimidation, even if my actions are not?

    And REALLY!!! Nursing in a public place and asking others to turn away! As IF!!!!

    Dave in Maine

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