Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

St. Cloud, MN: Dueling rallies, with equality prevailing

NOM Tour Tracker Right-wing

(We’re in St. Cloud, MN today, about 90 minutes northwest of yesterday’s tour stop in St. Paul, where despite the largest pro-NOM turnout of the tour, hundreds of pro-equality supporters outnumbered them and carried the day with a peaceful, positive message. Courage staffers Arisha Michelle Hatch, Anthony Ash and Phyllis Lozano are on the ground covering today’s events. We’ll be adding updates to this post, including pictures and video, throughout the day so keep refreshing to stay up to date. Don’t forget to check out this morning’s video and analysis from the stop in St. Paul, as well as photos and a summary on what happened there -Adam)

By Arisha Michelle Hatch

Today, 73 NOM supporters gathered on a lawn in front of Granite City Church. Despite being on private property, staff from the church permitted us to stand on the lawn and record the proceedings.

NOM supporters outside St. Cloud rally venue

A handful of equality counter-protestors are standing about 250 feet away from the church on the sidewalk holding handmade signs, such as the ones below:

Equality supporters in St. Cloud, MN

A larger crowd of pro-equality activists are rallying and marching on a different side of town. has a reporter there who will be sending in photo and video footage as it comes. Stay tuned…

UPDATE BY ADAM (11:10 AM PST): Phyllis just radioed in from the other side of town, where a hand-count of 89 equality supporters held a separate rally to show their support for the freedom to marry.

Equality supporters marching near St. Cloud State University

Phyllis told me a community organizer, Justin Michael, spoke to the crowd largely composed of students from St. Cloud State University, the second largest in the state (the rally is being held in Barden Park, next to the University). There’s a lesson here: St. Cloud is part of Rep. Michele Bachmann’s district, a virulent opponent of equality (and many other progressive issues). But this goes to show again that even in the reddest bastions of homophobia, we can find the future in younger supporters of equality like the students from St. Cloud State. We cannot write off areas of the country that may seem more conservative by their representation or character.

Justin Michael rallying equality supporters in St. Cloud

Phyllis said Justin told her they chose to rally in Barden Park, several miles away from Granite City Church, because they didn’t agree with the views of the pastor there and refused to rally on their turf. After rallying, they planed to march nearby before returning to the park to demonstrate their support to the rest of the city.

We’ll have video with Justin and folks from the rally as it comes in.


The NOM rally in St. Cloud today was all about talking points; more specifically, how to respond when equality activists ask confusing questions to NOM supporters.

On the other side of town, 89 equality activists assembled, held a rally and then marched down the streets of St. Cloud waving rainbow flags. They didn’t go near the church.

Back at the NOM rally, Chuck Darryl, Communications Director for the Minnesota Family Council (who was also at the St. Paul rally), led the attendees through a series of common questions that equality activists may confront them with; interestingly enough, all of the questions he referenced were questions that we NOM Tour Trackers have been asking NOM supporters for the last few weeks.

“What do you say when activists compare [gay marriage] to the African American civil rights movement?” asked Darryl.

You could hear a pin drop.

“That’s a hard question to answer, right? [. . . because] it creates a false analogy. [. . .] Inter-racial marriage did nothing to redefine [the institution of] marriage.”

“What do you say when people ask you how [same-sex marriage] will affect your marriage?”

More silence.

Next, Darryl cited a recent “San Francisco study” – a study that in the last few days has become a common talking point for NOM – which claims to have studied the “sexual patterns of 566 gay male couples from the Bay Area.” The study, conducted by the Center for Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University (Darryl, by the way, couldn’t name the author of the study and was not prepared to discuss its statistical validity) concludes that “[m]any Bay Area boyfriends negotiate open relationships that allow sex with outsiders.” The study of gay couples also reported that 47 percent reported open relationships, 45 percent were monogamous and the remaining 8 percent disagreed about what they were.

Because of NOM’s “renewed” focus to staying on message, I decided to go straight to the source – I wanted to confront Chuck Darryl himself to see how this Communications Director might hold up to my questioning.

I asked Darryl several questions, including many of the questions that he posed to the silent NOM audience. Clearly, staying on message is easier when people aren’t around to ask follow-up questions, but I digress.

I didn’t pull out any tricks. I asked him all of the questions that he expected me to (and a few more). I asked him how allowing same-sex couples to marry might affect heterosexual marriages. I asked him if he knew who conducted the study about gay men that he was citing. I asked him why the article was relevant. I asked him if that study had been peer reviewed. (“It’s science,” he answered.) I asked him if he was a sociologist or a statistician – whether he could speak to the validity of the research (“Are you,” he asked).

I asked him if perhaps the study had polled a different subset of the community – if it had polled 600 lesbian couples or 600 of the now 18,000 married California same-sex couples – whether he thought the results would be different. I asked him if polling in allegedly monogamous heterosexual relationships would reveal similar infidelity numbers, eliciting my favorite response of the day:

“Marriage domesticates [heterosexual] men,” he stated emphatically.

I asked him if allowing the access of gays, lesbians and bisexuals to the institution of marriage may have that same domesticating effect – whether it’s possible that being told your whole life that you will never be able to marry the person you’re attracted to may manifest itself in a way that is antithetical to monogamous relationships.

He didn’t see (check that, he wouldn’t admit) the connection.

(Anthony’s working hard to get the video uploaded now, but let’s just say that I’ve seen better spin before. I’m curious to know how you think Darryl handled my questions.)

In other news, I learned a new term today, courtesy of Bob Battle: “homophobe-phobes”, meaning, people who are afraid of people who are afraid of gay people.

That’s one phobia I’ll fess up to, anyone else with me?


Here’s an interview by Phyllis with Justin Michael, an organizer of the pro-equality rally near St. Cloud State University, describing why they chose to hold a celebration, rather than a protest, and to hold it in a separate location:]


UPDATE BY ADAM (5:21 PST): Arisha’s discussion with Chuck Darryl- actually, it’s one of a one-sided discussion because Darryl couldn’t muster a response to many of her points- is below. It’s just amazing.

How do you think Darryl did?


  • 1. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:01 am


  • 2. Alan E.  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:08 am


  • 3. JonT  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:14 am

    In the pipe, 5 by 5.

  • 4. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:02 am


    Felyx is out of OR and should awake up any minute now. Sigh, his hubby-to-be won't be there to meet him… Doctors say everything went well, I'd say even better than we expected.

  • 5. Dpeck  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:04 am

    HI Kirille,

    We're all keeping both of you guys in our thoughts and sending good wishes.

  • 6. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:24 am

    Thanks for the update….when you get to talk with him please give him all our love.

    Big Furry Hugs

  • 7. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:35 am

    Thank you for letting us know. Please send my love.

  • 8. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:59 am

    Thank you, guys, for your words of support and love.  I just talked to Papa Foma who talked to Felyx prior.  Felyx is in post-op, he's awake and feeling fine, however doctors decided to keep him overnight for observation due to high blood pressure.  Later today Papa will deliver him a laptop, so, hopefully, he will be able to log in and write something from the hospital himself.

  • 9. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:41 am

    My thoughts are with him. My wishes for a speedy recovery.

  • 10. Papa Foma  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:59 am

    This just in…

    7:00pm The nurse are insisting that I am still alive. As a nurse myself I am inclined to believe they know what they are talking about.

    As for myself, I feel like CRAP!!!

    The outpouring of love really has me crying. I don't feel good enough to type now but I will give my impressions later.

    One last thing, gotta love modern technology, my fiancé is with me now even from 5012 miles away.

    Thank you all. Love Felyx

  • 11. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:01 am

    Wonderful to hear from you, Felyx. Please rest. Out love is with you.

  • 12. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:02 am

    That was supposed to read "our" love… but out love I suppose kinda works, too. 🙂

  • 13. JonT  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:10 am

    Felyx via pap foma:

    'One last thing, gotta love modern technology, my fiancé is with me now even from 5012 miles away.'

    Yeah! Those InterTubes are neato-keen huh? 🙂

    Glad you're still alive – get better! 🙂

  • 14. Straight Grandmother  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Please send Felyx my love and hope for a good recovery. Thnk Papa Foma also.

  • 15. Bob  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:08 am

    sending cheers blessings and warm thoughts of speedy recovery to Felyx,

  • 16. Rebecca  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:09 am

    I've found it very interesting how different cities have organized their protests. Some have stood just across from NOM and borne silent witness to the proceedings. For others like this one, they march away from the NOM rally.

    Which method do you guys think is more effective?

    I like the idea of NOM having a very visible reminder that they are in the minority on this debate. I like seeing the equality supporters right there. Why do you guys think they decided to march elsewhere?

  • 17. Zachary  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:10 am

    I like the idea of NOM having a very visible reminder that they are in the minority on this debate. I like seeing the equality supporters right there.


  • 18. Go St. Cloud!!!!!  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:03 am

    But the NOM event in St. Cloud was an exception: It was not in a public place. The rationale that Justin presented was spot-on in my opinion. I was afraid that here was one place where NOM might "win" in numbers. But not even here. Wow.

  • 19. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:21 am

    I think that both methods can be effective. However, because this "tour" is likely nothing more than a scam for NOM to bilk any of their easily misled followers into donating by showing how hateful and mean "teh gheys ™" are, I think it is probably more effective to have a separate function where we also have a speaking event to share the key points of our position — those key points addressed by Olson & Boies in the Prop 8 trial.

    Of course, it would be more effective if there were press.

  • 20. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:21 am

    And subscribing… darn clicks.

  • 21. adambink  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:25 am

    I too am intrigued, Rebecca. I think there are arguments to be made for both approaches. The key, for me, is the message and appearance, whatever organizers choose to do.

  • 22. AndrewPDX  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:25 am

    I like the idea of marching TO the NOM site, then surrounding their rally — at a polite respectable distance, of course — holding hands (and making a point to quickly open up for anybody crossing through so its not intimidating and yet another excuse why nobody shows up on their side), facing away from NOM, and singing songs of peace and love. Big smiles all around, color, diversity, and joy.
    The NOM supporters will of couse stay their same sour grapes (we ain't gonna win them over, I don't think) but all the lookiloos who are not aware of the rally/counter-protest will just see us and will want to join the party.

    Fairy dust and kittens and spinkles FTW


  • 23. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:37 am

    Kittens! That's what we need! If anyone has a box of kittens, bring it to the next event! Hand out the kittens to the children of the NOMbies. They're KITTENS! No one can have a problem with KITTENS! And if gays are handing out kittens, they must be wonderful people.

  • 24. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:40 am

    Kittens are great…but NOM will find some way to spin it into being some gay-sex metaphor, or being part of the 'Gay Agenda'.

  • 25. nightshayde  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:02 am

    I can see the pseudo-headline now:



  • 26. JonT  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:22 am

    Hmm, I don't know, I can see it now:


    @nightshayde: LOL!

  • 27. Straight Grandmother  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:35 am

    @l8r_g8r | July 29, 2010 at 11:37 am
    So so funny and ALL the follow up comments, all of them. Made my night.

  • 28. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:27 am

    I think both have their own merits. I do not see a negative in have our own rally away from NOM so long as it gets media coverage by more than just CC.
    No way for BB, MG, LM to spin it as negative so it goes in as a FAIL for them in my opinion.

  • 29. Rebecca  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:34 am

    I think my desire for equality supporters to be right there is influenced by my hope that their presence could change some NOM attendee's mind. That maybe just one person who shows up at the NOM rally would think, hey, look, they don't have horns" and become more liberal. Mostly wishful thinking.

  • 30. JonT  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:19 am

    I would agree with being visible, but I think which is more effective will depend on the situation.

    In this case, the nomo rally was on a church's private property, so it would have been more complicated I think to be 'in their' face like they've been able to do at other rallies.

    Though, I will be curious to see how BB spins this one.

    "Angry Homosexual Activists send long distance Bad Vibes (TM) to peaceful religious rally!"

  • 31. Straight Grandmother  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:42 am

    For me I like looking right int he whites of thier eyes. My favorites (I did like them all guys so don't be hurt) were the guys with the umbrellas, Rhode Island, Indiana, and Madison WI.

    Brian Brown says he wants a nice civil event, that we should be civil also. Why give Brian what he wants? It really irritates him when we are chanting so his people can't hear the speakers. I think Elsie made an excellent point if this was the KKK or Westboro Baptist, would you stand by in silence or have a counter protest at another location? To me they are the KKK they are killing our Civil Rights.

    I do understand and totally agree why today they went to a seperate location not wanting to be on church grounds (if they would have even gotten permission) but then they proudly marched down the street flying the rainbow flag.
    They took it to the street, way to go St Cloud!!!
    Way to GO St. Cloud, you repesented. You did not let us down. Great great job, my hats off to you.

  • 32. anonygrl  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:10 am

    Good to hear!

  • 33. Sagesse  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:18 am

    Hi Felyx.

    And subscribing.

  • 34. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Are the reasons behind this tour because the National Organization for Marriage thinks the Prop 8 case in California will get to the supreme court and SCOTUS might make Marriage a 'given right' for all citizens of the US? Is that why they are claiming that they should have a 'civil right' to vote for marriage – they want it to be up to the people and kept out of the courts?

  • 35. Ronnie  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Is anybody really surprised that the Fascist Pig NOMobile made a stop at a church to preach Hate, discrimination, tyranny, & dictatorship?

    I'm not….. : / …..Ronnie

  • 36. Straight Grandmother  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:09 am

    Your vocabulary of derogotory words is amazing 🙂
    There are very few people here who can match you when you get on a tear. LOL

  • 37. Sam  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:32 am

    Looking at the pictures. I see mostly old people in the picture of NOM's rally and mostly young people in the pictures of the equality rally. Its definitely true. Young people are the future of gay rights in this country. Brings a tear to my eye. :`)

  • 38. Steve  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:45 am

    As expressed very well here:

  • 39. JonT  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:29 am

    Yes! I remember seeing that video when it came out.

    "You have already lost."

    Hence the nomo's increasingly shrill claims of victim-hood.

    Get used to it, it's only gonna get louder and more desperate…

  • 40. Ashley  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:59 am

    The huge majority of people at the march were college-aged. But the PFLAG rally we also had here in St Cloud tonight, was predominantly made up of an older generation. Interesting little comparison 🙂

  • 41. Rhonda  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:33 am

    Your request is being processed…

    Christian Radio Host: Deal With Homosexuality Like We Deal With Drug Abuse

    First Posted: 02- 4-10 03:40 PM | Updated: 04- 6-10 05:12 AM
    facebook Twitter stumble reddit
    What's Your Reaction?
    Read More: Anti-Gay, Bryan Fischer, Christian Right, Christian Right Gays, Discrimination, Fischer, Gay Rights, Gays Drug Abuse, Imprison Gays, Politics News

    Bryan Fischer, radio host for the American Family Association and no stranger to controversy, called into Alan Colmes's radio program on Wednesday night to clarify, or perhaps sidestep, his position on "homosexual behavior."

    In his talk with Colmes, Fischer doubled down on the rhetoric that he had used earlier on his blog.

    "We should deal with the issue of homosexual behavior in exactly the same way we deal with intravenous drug abuse, because both are equally dangerous and risky to human health." Fischer told Colmes.

    When Colmes pressed Fischer to say whether this meant gays should be imprisoned for "homosexual behavior," Fischer waffled (or, as Colmes put it, he "weaseled" out of the question).

    "I'll let you make the call," Fischer said to Colmes.

    On his blog, Fischer writes that gays should be subject to the same legal sanctions as intravenous drug abusers because, he argues, the public health concerns are one in the same.

    "If you believe that what drug abusers need is to go into an effective detox program, then we should likewise put active homosexuals through an effective reparative therapy program," Fischer wrote in an earlier blog post.

    Right Wing Watch, a media watchdog group, has been keeping tabs on Fischer's material and was quick to jump on his logical leap concerning the identical classification between drug addicts and gays. As they have put it, Fischer appears to deduce:

    Intravenous drug use can spread HIV;

    Gay male sex can spread HIV;

    Intravenous drug use is illegal;

    Therefore gay male sex should be illegal.

    In a blog post from Thursday, Fischer argues that "controversies" such as "gays in the military," "gay marriage," "gay indoctrination in the schools," "hate crimes laws" and "special rights for homosexuals in the workplace," could all be avoided if the states again found sodomy, and therefore sex between men, illegal. (Apparently, Fischer isn't worried about lesbians).

    Watch the interview:

  • 42. nightshayde  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:21 am

    Someone really needs to point out to him that in a monogamous relationship in which neither partner has an infection/illness, there isn't a risk of transmitting one — just like straight couples who engage in the same sort of behaviors.

    Perhaps he doesn't realize that viruses don't differentiate among people based on sexual orientation.

  • 43. FirePuff  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:58 am

    In other words…

    Sex itself should be illegal.

    Where's those sex licenses from Demolition Man?

  • 44. Bill  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:27 am

    Maybe Bryan Fischer should read the follow article on this link dealing with reparative therapy:

    I talks about the Psychological association views and statements they have published about reparative therapy. These associations have stated that reparative therapy is not a therapy that is ethical.

    American Academy of Pediatrics

    American Counseling Association

    American Federation of Teachers

    American Medical Association

    American Psychiatric Association

    American Psychological Association

    The Interfaith Alliance

    National Association of School Psychologists

    National Association of Social Workers

    National Association of Secondary School Principals

    National Education Association

    New Ways Ministries

    People for the American Way.

  • 45. Bryan  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:40 am

    I'm gonna use my Psy.D/Ph.D degree in Psych to petition the government to pass a federal ban on Reparative Therapy. It's abuse, often levied against children. Therefore it should be made illegal.

  • 46. Alan E.  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:48 am

    It was done in Britain, and should be done so here, too.

  • 47. nightshayde  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:18 am

    I'm sure he'd just say that all these groups are liberal groups which have bought into the "gay agenda," and that they're trying to intrude upon the Fundamentalist Christians' freedom of religion.

    Trying to point out the flaws of their arguments with that scary science stuff just doesn't work. They can't quite wrap their minds around the concept that opinions of anything (evolution, social sciences, acceptance of discrimination, etc…) change over time. I'm sure that's why they keep bringing up research from 30-40 years ago (or more) and actually seem to think that the opinions expressed decades ago are still widely supported today.

  • 48. fiona64  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:38 am

    There is one super-duper zealous guy over on (a supportive, pro-equality site) who insists that NARTH saved his life and that he is Not Gay Anymore(TM) and can prove it because he's been married to a woman for about 9 months and even though he is still attracted to men, he "managed to develop" an attraction for her.

    Aside from my tremendous pity for his wife, and the fact that I can guarantee this marriage is headed for trouble (he's 23 years old …), he seriously peddles this nonsense as working. It's been pointed out repeatedly that NARTH and its "teachings" have been debunked, are not approved by reputable organizations, not supported by peer review, etc. He doesn't care; he is Not Gay Anymore(TM).

    As someone else on the site pointed out, so long as there are religious organizations that browbeat young GLBT people that they are Evil and Bad(TM), there will always be organizations like NARTH that take their money in exchange for providing a dubious "cure" — when, in fact, there is nothing broken at all.

    So much for my self-imposed sabbatical from the marriage equality boards … and trying to preserve my blood pressure.


  • 49. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Welcome back, Fiona. And you know that you can call us anytime of day or night when you need to talk.

  • 50. Randy  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:16 am

    I'm really glad there are all these extreme views on their side. Turns more people off than on. But I am a bit scared by the few it turns on. YIKES!

  • 51. ChrisQ  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:39 am

    Maggie is no longer on the tour I think. Bummer – I know we should always be peaceful, respectful and yadda yadda yadda, but wouldn't a 70s style replay have been something?

    (Just kidding. Sorta.)

  • 52. Bob  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:43 am

    one suggestion, I would like to advocate is to make attempts to change the use of the word hate, and instead use the word fear, I think that brings us closer to the reality of what is happening, they do not hate us, they fear us, , they are teaching or spreading fear, we are each blaming the other for hating , when in fact if we say we are afraid of each other, that may help our dialog.

    hate is the action or behavior that results from the emotion of fear,

  • 53. John  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:39 am

    good point

  • 54. Shannon  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:40 am

    VERY GOOD POINT. I *HATE* the use of the word "hate" in marriage equality efforts. Because I think it is true, most people opposed to gay marriage do not HATE us. Using that word against them only makes them more hostile to us, rather than us sticking to calm, reasoned arguments that might convince some who are in the middle.

  • 55. JonT  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:51 am

    @Bob, @Shannon –

    One one hand I would agree – there are a lot of, shall we say, 'anti-gay' people who do not really hate us, and maybe do not even fear us. They might just read that portion of the bible that appeals to them and say: "There – see? You are sinners, stop it!"

    Others maybe afraid – some straight guy on the street worried that some gay guy is 'checking him out'. Not hate, but probably uncomfortable.

    But at least from my perspective, when I read/hear the things brian fischer (google him!), "Porno Pete", Eugene D, Uganda's "eatin do poo poo" Sempra (sp?) and others of their ilk – I can hear nothing but outright hate.

    So yes, I am guilty of using the term 'haters' to generally refer to those that try very very hard to keep me alone, miserable, and in the closet. Sorry, that's just how I feel.

    I will continue to refer to them as haters, because the truth is, they've dedicated their careers (and sometimes their entire lives) to oppressing a certain class of people they find offensive (for whatever reason).

    That's not just fear. That's hate.

  • 56. Straight Grandmother  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:48 am

    Bob, it's a good point but then we couldn't have fun with this-H8ters 🙂

  • 57. Sandy954  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:21 am

    I think that it is true that anti gay marriage comes from and LEADS TO a general feeling of it's OK to pick on (hate) LGBTQ. That said, it may be too nuanced to understand that is the message.
    Arisha was called out for not correcting the use of "mom and a dad" repeatedly. I believe she was right to avoid the "defense", which is used over and over in many scenarios, like politics. Throw your opponent on the defense. While it is true this may be another untrue so stated as though it were "fact", the bigger point is asking a question about would the same domestication of heterosexual men through marriage come about in homosexual men. That was priceless and more effective to bring about a rational thought. There is a claim of no hate, when we know there IS HATE. I think it is worth evaluating whether it elicits a defensive response or a thought provoking response. I think we can agree, the desire is to "message" most efficiently.
    Planting a new seed for thought may be more efficient than the obviously knee jerk response to being called a hater.
    I know there is some compromising, but have you ever watched a debate where it descends into who is louder and come away with anything other than "my side" was right?

  • 58. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:46 am

    Oops forgot…Good Morning Brian and Louis.

  • 59. fiona64  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:40 am

    Hi, Louis!

  • 60. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:01 am

    COMMENTARY: The sorry lies spread by NOM

    The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is up to its old tricks, as usual.

    The non-profit was founded by conservatives in 2007 to fight against marriage equality. Since then, NOM has raised millions and millions of dollars to fund campaigns across the U.S. designed to defeat same-sex marriage, including California’s Proposition 8.

    This is the same group that is known for the now-infamous “Gathering Storm” television ad campaign, which used paid actors to portray “real people” who made outlandish claims that were pure fiction. The scare tactics were highly effective in persuading California voters who were on the fence about the marriage equality issue.

    NOM has come under intense scrutiny over the lack of transparency regarding its finances and its extensive donor list.

    Read More Here:

  • 61. Alan E.  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:16 am

    Dear Courage Campaign staff:

    When there is an update to the original post, could one of you please make a comment to that effect here? Many of us are following the comments through our email, and it would be nice to know when new stuff is up without having to check in or refresh every so often.



  • 62. adambink  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:31 am

    We will do our best, Alan.

  • 63. adambink  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:36 am

    Because we're working as fast as we can and can get swamped, it would be helpful if those of you in the commenter community would do so when you see it, as well. Thanks.

  • 64. Alan E.  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:38 am

    Thanks Adam! (and everyone else)

  • 65. Ronnie  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:21 am

    @ l8r_g8r

    Don't be so sure about that kitten idea….some of the anti-gays clearly hate kittens/cats as much as they hate LGBT & our Heterosexual supporters:


    : ( …….Ronnie

  • 66. Chris  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:31 am

    Yes, but it was all done lovingly and with concern for her moral well-being. They were offering to send her to heaven. What could be wrong with that? Do you guys have some problem with free speech and freedom of religion? Huh? Do you?

    This is why Christians everywhere have to fear for their lives. If the homosexual agenda had its way, decent God-fearing people wouldn't even be able to send death threats and dead animals to politicians any more.

  • 67. AndrewPDX  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:37 am

    But, didn't you hear? In the new ConservativeDoubleSpeak, a dead cat is the symbol for LOVE and UNDERSTANDING… Because we all know that NOM's supporters are incapable of fear and hate.
    (ok… Just typing that sarcasm made my stomach churn… How do these anti-fairness things-pretending-to-be-human preach their fear with a smile?)

    Love (our most powerful defense against fear),

  • 68. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:41 am

    I can see the headline now………..


    "My child is allergic to cats and those hateful 'Gays' tried to poison her with a KITTEN!!"

  • 69. jo lillis  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:47 am

    strive on, friends!! thanks. jo

  • 70. Brian + Zack Forever  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:50 am

    I hate how they treat us like objects. You cannot ban somebody from basic rights just because of sexuality. This is even more of an issue when you take into account marrige benefits and the like.

    Us gays love no differently than heterosexuals. If we cannot marry, why can they?

    The bible is an old book with no evidence of any word of it being true. So why do people take away our rights based off of fiction?

  • 71. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:33 am

    It's only fiction to a none believer.
    What I will say is that no ones civil rights should be determined by anothers religious beliefs.

  • 72. Alan E.  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:09 am

    The counter-protest to the Pride Parade in Jerusalem will not have real donkeys but cardboard ones instead. There is a great speech that is linked in the post that I'm sure Richard will appreciate. Here is a snippet:

    All human beings are created in the image of God and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect (kevod haberiyot). Every Jew is obligated to fulfill the entire range of mitzvot between person and person in relation to persons who are homosexual or have feelings of same sex attraction. Embarrassing, harassing or demeaning someone with a homosexual orientation or same-sex attraction is a violation of Torah prohibitions that embody the deepest values of Judaism…The question of whether sexual orientation is primarily genetic, or rather environmentally generated, is irrelevant to our obligation to treat human beings with same-sex attractions and orientations with dignity and respect.

  • 73. Mackenzie  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:15 am

    How cute, NOM got all of the church's old retired patrons to show up for a mid-week social, primarily to bash the sin out of the heatheness gays.

  • 74. adambink  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:35 am

    Hi all, Arisha has a new update posted above.

  • 75. Alan E.  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:43 am

    In other news, I learned a new term today, courtesy of Bob Battle: “homophobe-phobes”, meaning, people who are afraid of people who are afraid of gay people.

    That’s one phobia I’ll fess up to, anyone else with me?

    Me too, but only because my fear is rational and evidence-based. Case and point: Larry Adams, increase in hate-crimes towards LGBT people, comparison to criminals, Uganda "Kill the gays" bill (which some people are trying to change into Prison vs. Ex-Gay therapy), and the list goes on.

  • 76. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:50 am

    True and sad.

    What the NOMbies refuse to take responsibility for is creating a culture in which it is acceptable to treat heterosexuals (or, if they just want to call it behavior, heterosexual behaviors) as superior to homosexuals (or those who exhibit homosexual behaviors [like buying flowers for a same-sex spouse–SO GAY! /sarcasm]). By creating such a culture, it becomes acceptable to treat gays and lesbians as sub-human and encourages folks like Larry Adams to act on their irrational fears by attacking and/or killing gays and lesbians.

  • 77. Ronnie  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:45 am

    Arisha, I don't think he answered the questions at all…first of all answering a question with "are you" is not an answer. It's just a cop out…..i.e. No I'm not & "It's not me responsibility to provide evidence" (he's channeling the prop 8 D.I.)

    the rest of his "answers" are laughable….

    Thank you Arisha…I <3 U mucho…..mmmmmmmuah…<3…Ronnie

  • 78. PamC  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:45 am

    OK, I have an objection: Could people please stop referring to Providence as "an example of what NOT to do"? To summarize, well over 100 people marched and chanted peacefully, stood well apart from the NOMites, and held appropriate signs. QARI organized all this in a very short time. The videos that NOM has misused are of 2-3 folks who drove in from NYC and (in my opinion) hijacked the protest by distracting media coverage from the mass of Rhode Islanders. I spoke to one of them about this on this board, and he said he saw my point, but respectfully disagreed.

    I think we owe QARI a show of support–they've been getting their share of hate from NOM and gays for those snippets of video. Two police on either side of the podium (again, there was no stage!) did not see any need for crowd control measures or arrests.

    Just trying to give QARI some props for getting out the message. No one can control everyone, and I really don't think they owe BB anything, much less an apology. His hate speech, couched as it is in "polite language", still has ulterior motives: get rid of teh gay, either by reparativing them, keeping them second-class, or depressed, or downtrodden, until we fade away.

    Sorry; that ain't happenin' in my lifetime.

  • 79. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:48 am

    For anyone who haven't been following the "b4Marriage" tweets, here's one 🙂

    The Supreme Court said the answer to free speech is more free speech. We disagree and wished gays would go away. #NO4M

  • 80. PamC  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Right on the money, Kathleen, as usual! 🙂

  • 81. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:51 am

    I certainly haven't said it was an example of "what not to do." At most, I have said (1) it was not effective at getting our message (or any message) across and (2) it gave fuel to NOM. We have learned that it was a less than effective approach to confront the NOMbies and should strive to be less confrontational in order that our message be better conveyed.

  • 82. PamC  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:59 am

    I know, l8r_g8r, and I love your comments; you make much sense. I just know that QARI has been taking heat for actions that they neither planned or could control. There was so much else going on that day–smiling, happy, diverse crowd of gays & straights– that we could be so proud of–it just didn't make the news because of those few, who weren't from RI.

  • 83. Chris  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:07 am

    I've seen a number of people on here insisting that the only way to be heard is to be loud and obnoxious.

    They do a great disservice to all of us.

    Given how gleeful we are to point out all of NOM's out-of-control supporters, it goes without saying – and has been amply proven – that they are just as gleeful to point out ours.

    I've joked about having some of our people pose as NOM supporters and behave horribly. Reading these rants, it's crossed my mind that maybe somebody at NOM was thinking the same thing.

    The goal here is to present, not to vent.

  • 84. PamC  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:14 am

    I'm feeling like everyone is missing my point. I do not support the folks who vented in Providence. It was not planned, in fact, we were explicitly told to avoid NOMers, and keep a safe distance.

    But just because a few folks with tempers messed up, don't go hatin' on QARI. They are some good people! And they did a good thing by organizing an overall peaceful protest. Ray from MA–are you out there???

  • 85. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Just because NOM insists on focusing on the couple of people who shouted at BB at his podium, doesn't mean we should. There were a lot of wonderful supporters there; the counter-demonstration was much bigger than those couple of people.

  • 86. PamC  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:21 am

    @Chris–and I see a lot of people giving a ton of advice to Arisha, event organizers, other protesters, etc. Having had my share of herding cats in my day, I know that it is easier to advise than get everyone to consent. Much of the advice is excellent, but a lot is based on hindsight. The people who actually sat down and planned these things with little time, money and resources–kudos to them! They're putting themselves out there, sink or swim, and deserve our support.

  • 87. Bob  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:32 am

    18r-g8r and can you tell me simply , what is our message that could be better conveyed?

  • 88. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:32 am

    QARI did a great job and should be commended for their effort, and it is unfair of BB to single them out as an example of how all marriage equality proponents must believe it is okay to shout their message. BB says he hasn't heard anything from QARI re those individuals' actions. We need to pointedly ask if he has asked QARI about it. It's easy to say "I DESERVE AN APOLOGY!" to his followers and never actually confront the people he thinks he's owed an apology from.

  • 89. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:51 am


    For more of the message that could be better conveyed, see websites like (Rob Tisinai) or even the Box Turtle Bulletin. Read the Prop 8 trial transcripts. Those are the messages that are legally relevant, persuasive to the middle ground, and encouraging and uplifting to our community.

    Giving in to our own emotions of hurt and anger and turning them outward does not help our cause. It expresses a moral disapproval of the NOMbies and their beliefs without explaining from whence that moral disapproval derives. It hurts us by solidifying the hearts and minds of the NOMbies and their children. It hurts us by giving the NOMbies fodder to use in their campaign against marriage equality.

    The message, in sum, is that we all have the right to our own independent beliefs. However, we do NOT have the right to strip rights from others on the basis of our own beliefs.

  • 90. Straight Grandmother  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:00 am

    I beleive I shall always remember the chant in Madison Wisconsin…
    "Gay, Straight; Black. White; Marriage is a Civil Right."
    That still gives me goose bumps jsut thinking of it. And NOM heard the message. I think that was a very good message.

  • 91. Bob  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:08 am

    18r-g8r holding emotions like anger inward results in depression, these emotions need to find expression,,,,

    we already have the moral disaproval of the NOMERS, I for one am not looking for their moral approval , what you are advocating is to continue to hurt ourselves by turning the anger inward, so as not to inflame NOM.

    I have read all of the trial transcripts, and that is where the truth can be found in black and white,

    the message must be very clear and simple, read the transcripts, that is what we want,

  • 92. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:27 am

    Bob, I never advocated for turning emotion inward. But expressing those emotions in outbursts toward the NOMbies does not help us. I can't even imagine that those folks that "stormed the stage" [sic] felt good after what happened. I've gotten into a shouting match or two in my life and I never walk away thinking "Wow, that was a productive use of my time! I'm sure they all understand now."

    I'm not judging the behavior of showing an outburst of emotion to the opponents of marriage equality as right or wrong, good or bad. I'm judging it as effective or ineffective. However, if your goal is to show the NOMbies that they are not liked, not appreciated, not respected, and are shameful for their beliefs, then a shouting match would be effective. But I thought the goal was marriage equality for all?

  • 93. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:37 am

    I should clarify — I never meant to advocate for turning emotion inward. Just not expressing those emotions in outbursts toward the NOMbies.

  • 94. Bob  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:42 am

    18r-g8r If I remember correctly, the people responsible for the spontaneious outburst, came on previous threads to say they had no regrets for what happened, perhaps if you go back you could communicate directly with them about how they feel now, Vito even left his e-mail address if you would like to contact him. rather than us speculating about wether or not they have second thoughts about that.

    Vito even has a you tube video speaking to bb, have you seen it.

    Equality is the goal, the courts are being used to attain that goal, PR is important to bring peoples awarenss now, to that court case, because it was the one place that NOM had to dialog with us under oath, that was about as honest a dialog one could get from them, it's on record.

    hopefuly PR, will raise awarenss in the community so that educated people will try to understand what this is all about and read the record for themselves.

  • 95. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:09 am

    There's a keen difference between "feeling good" and "having no regrets."

    That said, what I am understanding from your posts is that you believe that we should be shouting down the NOM folks, using our anger to express our disapproval of them, and attempting to show them that their behavior (attempting to get their beliefs turned into law) are unacceptable.

    Is that correct?

    If so, the methods you advocate will work to achieve your short-term goal. But we do, unfortunately, still have to convince approximately 49% of the population that marriage equality won't hurt them in any way, whatsoever. When I advocate a more effective method of sharing our message that don't involve attempting to show disapproval to the NOMbies in a confrontational manner, I am solely attempting to move the hearts and minds of the middle folks. I'm referring to the folks who, when asked about marriage equality, claim to disagree, but who then respond to a similar question regarding "civil marriages like you get at the courthouse" favorably. They just don't understand. And they could understand if they were directed to Tisinai's site or took the time to read the trial transcripts. But they will close their hearts and minds if BB and his NOMbies get to them first with the images of the "angry homosexual" [sic].

    Anger is a motivating factors that get people up and moving. However, I believe it should be channeled to good and to uplifting the GLBT community. I don't believe it should be channeled toward expressing moral disapproval of NOMbies in a confrontational way.

    My favorite personal response when confronted by NOMbies telling ME that my side is full of hate? "Why yes, we do hate intolerance. Shouldn't you?"

  • 96. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:17 am

    I do not see asking our people to not behave like what we and the world witnessed in Providence is in anyway a slap in the face to QARI.
    It is a location where a rather nasty bit of PR took place…PR that I am very sorry to say reflects poorly on our side.
    The majority of what took place that day was wonderful…but lets not forget what DIDN'T go well.

  • 97. PamC  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:24 am

    "but lets not forget what DIDN'T go well."

    not much chance of that, now. It's burned into our consciousness. But it is easy to forget the good part of 2 hours, due to a 5 minute crappy incident.

  • 98. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:30 am

    I suppose that is true PamC…sad but true 🙁
    And just for the record I DO agree with what you're saying…90% of what happend that day was wonderful, beautiful, and very inspirational

  • 99. PamC  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:42 am

    Thanks, Mark, I truly appreciate that. I know that QARI reads these comments, and some of them sound like blame. I'm truly angry at Brian, not P8TT's, for blowing this out of proportion.

  • 100. Bob  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:58 am

    PR is PR, get over it, the fact that some of us are angry is a truth, I don't think that reflects badly on us, trying to contain the anger and keep it from spilling out, is simply not possible,

    The only way we are going to look good or be acceptable in their eyes, is to stop practising our sexuality, and humble ourselfves before them.

    the other thing that will make us look good to them is if we just go away quietly, and stop asking for our rights.

    by saying that a spontaneous outburst of anger reflects badly on us, is to give NOM the power and buy into their version of that event , in other words, ya bb, sorry bout that, , it is in fact saying that as humans we don't have the right to feel anger or express it , Talk about allowing the NOMERS to define us.

    Old Martin Luther during the reform, wrote a great thesis called SIN Boldly, in other words, don't be afraid to mess up, and don't be afraid to do it big time, what's the point of trying to be good, just sinning a little, the forgiveness is the same, this gives people the ability to be truly human, being human we are not perfect, if we even try to think we can be seen as perfect, you've joined the NOMERS screwed up thinking,

  • 101. Ronnie  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:23 am

    You know what NO!

    I will not fully denounce what went down in Providence, RI. People, must we forget that this is a Civil Rights movement. Brainless Brown Suit & Maggie G. show their lack of knowledge of American history every time they open their uneducated, Fascist mouths. People are angry & they don't get that & they don't even care. Civil Rights movements are not about picnics & parades. NOM & the anti-gays are advocating that the government control our personal lives based on their definitions through religious ideology. America is not a theocratic society it is secular one & NOM has no right to control or freedom of speech, expression & in some cases religion. They are not allowed to control how we express our relationships & enforce that through Laws that they would not otherwise want enforced upon them.

    They are selfish & heartless & quite frankly don't deserve half the respect that they are getting. They don't respect us, they constantly degrade, demean, insult, & offend not only us, but our own children & our heterosexual supporters both religious & non-religious. They disrespect & insult our families & have the nerve to demand that we don't reciprocate their gestures in the very least of a couple of people yelling at them, people carrying umbrellas & balloons, & a couple of Labrador Retrievers.Their arrogance is so deplorable that to even consider myself a part of the same species as Brian Brown & company makes me ashamed to call myself human.

    They ASSume that we are just going to allow them to control our personal lives based on their self-rightous, holier-then-thou "moral superiority" & their unacceptable ability to think that they have a right to define our lives according to their personal beliefs. They don't have that right & we will not let them. They need to learn that, accept it, & move on with their insignificant, meaningless lives.

    To sum it up….I will not be moved…<3…Ronnie

  • 102. JonT  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:54 am

    @Ronnie: 'You know what NO!'

    That sentiment gets a Standing O from me!

    Well said.

  • 103. Straight Grandmother  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:55 am

    I totally support all the Equality Supporters in Rhode Island!! In fact in a previous post to this one, (before I read this one) I said it was one of my favorite rallys. I think RI did a hell of a job. I said so at the time and I still beleive it. It was inspiring.

  • 104. Chris  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:27 am

    There are more options than (1) rioting and being ridiculous, and (2) hiding in the closet for fear of bothering someone.

    I think the most powerful displays of strength have been the couples with children, standing quietly with signs that speak for them. That is a reminder to everyone that the marriage issue is not about a bunch of young rebels looking for a clue. It is about the right to have a family and relationship that is recognized under American law.

    Like it or not, we have far more of an obligation to be civil because there is far more of an expectation that we won't be. Whereas the NOM people are savages like I have rarely seen, but they're older and religious and are probably seen as more stable.

    Getting upset and losing control does nothing to help anyone besides NOM.

  • 105. JonT  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:02 am

    @Chris: 'Getting upset and losing control does nothing to help anyone besides NOM.'

    I agree with you Chris – rioting and violence can never be the appropriate response. Actually, I think most all of us here could agree to that.

    But we've done nothing of the sort, despite their desperate attempts to make it seem that way.

    One thing is clear from their stops so far — no matter what form the protest takes (peaceful or in-your-face), they will spin it as those 'violent disgraceful homos wanna kill us!'. After all, that is the purpose of this whole nomo PR campaign.

    Attempting to modulate our behavior in terms of how they will spin it is completely pointless. Use whatever method gets the point across in the given situation/venue.

  • 106. Greg in OZ  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:08 am

    I have one word to say to re the Rhode Island 'incident'….
    Most of us (even those of us not from the US) agree that this was a defining moment in GLBTI history.
    That wasn't a bunch of Gays being polite. That was a bunch of us saying 'ENOUGH!'
    I admit, I'm of two minds re the actions that occured in Rhode Island – points can be made for both approaches, but I cant bring myself to 'condemn' Vito and the other person (sorry – not sure of her name) for doing what they did.
    We cant deny that we are angry about seeing this denial of civil rights, frustrated that the other side just refuses to see the truth because of a religious belief that they hold and (for most of us) we have now reached the point where we are saying 'enough' again! I'm not suprirsed that occasionally (and remember – this has only happened in ONE instance), folks lose their temper. We've put up with their 'hate' (though I like what a previous poster here said about hate vs fear!) for so long now, Im surprised that another 'stonewall' hasn't occured already.
    We are not asking for 'special treatment'. From what I can see, all that 'teh Gays'(TM) are asking for, is equal treatment, under a Civil system – not that their religious beliefs must alter to suite us.
    I really want to ask BB et al – do they
    WANT to live in a Theocracy? I'd love to hear their honest answer to that!
    Lots o' love to all
    Greg in Oz
    PS Hi Maggie, Brian and Louis.
    And Felyx – hope you get better soon xxxx

  • 107. Alyson  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    Speaking to Chris's point about an obligation to be civil … Just reminds me of the British and American Suffrage movement where many of the women had to pay extra attention to their attire and hats, to be 'appropriate'. Even as they were starved and beaten in prison.

    I think it's just how it goes and there is a place for us all. Those who 'don't fit in' or can't pass play a vital and courageous role every day, and those who are more mainstream and blend can have a different kind of impact and conversation. We can all just play to our strengths. That's one of the things I have loved about the lgbt community around me… We seem much better able to grasp and run with differences. Exceptions of course, we are all still learning. But more open to differences then this nom crowd but miles.

    Speaking of miles … A friend just introduced us to an artist from Portland. Search you tube for 'storm large vagina' if you want to admire the creativity, openness and sense of humour in this community!! Careful, you'll be humming it everywhere!

    In some of her crowd shots I can almost see BB and MG humming along. Maybe the rogue music director who snuck kd Lang into their line up can do something with this one! I think it's called 'my vagina is 8 miles wide' …. In case you weren't enticed enough to look it up.

  • 108. Bob  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:49 am

    18r-g8r keen difference, I like that term, that's a Newfie term, my partner is from Newfoundland, and he uses the word keen all the time,

    so as for feeling good, and no regrets, I suppose they could be different, but they could also go together, what I am suggesting is that you ask Vito and Heather about how they feel now, I'm not into speculating about their personal opinions.

    you also have taken a great liberty in suggesting you understand what I believe, same applies, ask me that, don't tell me what I believe.

    I am not making any suggestions about how anyone else should deal with their anger,

    That is up to each individual to decide for themselves, part of the value of a march or counter protest is that action alone can let out the frustration, without being in your face, as for the in your face stuff, it happens, when there is this much emotion involved, how could we get anywhere if we had no passion. Sometimes that passion gets expressed in unflattering ways, rather than look at Vito and Heather, look at bb, he was just as fired up, and just as quick to explode, get a viedeo of that.

    I agree that it's the middle folks who's attention we are seeking, those who have no vested interested that they are aware of, and have very little knowledge of the battle going on.
    Particularily educated people, but I disagree that we have to get them before NOM does, point being, education, self thinkers, who are capable of coming to their own conclusions,

    first PR, bring their attention to what this rucus is all about, engage them in the debate in such a way that they ahave a stake, i.e. democracy/theocracy, most people get that.

    and these folks in the middle can be made aware of the P8TT site to get information to make their own decisions,

  • 109. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Bob, it's an "L" like Later Gator, not the number one.

    I'm confused as to how I became the one telling people how to act. I would be happy to engage in a conversation with either Vito or Heather about whether they got warm fuzzies from confronting BB. But, to be honest, I'm rather lazy and won't be looking back to find the post with the e-mail address. I did, however, see the response video and it seemed angry and dismissive. That is absolutely fine and acceptable, but anger doesn't feel good to me.

    I will reiterate yet again that I have not said that Vito and his friends should not have done what they did. I have said only that there are different ways of getting our message across.

    You stated: you also have taken a great liberty in suggesting you understand what I believe, same applies, ask me that, don’t tell me what I believe.

    No, I stated what I thought you were trying to tell me, then I asked if that was correct. If that is not correct, I invited you to correct me.

    I understand that you are passionate about this issue, but I am not understanding your message. Are you saying that what Vito did is good and right? I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm also not making any judgment call whatsoever on whether it was good or right or bad or wrong.

    Or are you saying that we just shouldn't talk at all about what he did? I think that we need to open a dialogue about how to effectively convey our message. I assume (I know.. ASSume…) that by going to these rallies, marriage equality supporters are trying to convey a message. I also assumed that the message was an attempt to change hearts and minds. But, if the message is that the NOMbies are hateful, spiteful, and incapable of rational thought and should be shunned and should be ashamed of themselves, then the appropriate way to get the message across would be to shout at them, confront them, get in their faces, drown out their speeches.

    I am very clear that you're trying to get a message to me, but I'm not clear on what that message is. Please, share. I'm happy to converse.

  • 110. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:21 am

    I do think that at the heart of this debate is the question of what one is trying to accomplish with a particular demonstration/ public action. Someone wrote a really eloquent comment about this a few posts back. I don't know how to find it. But the upshot of the comment is that before taking action, it's important to decide what you're trying to accomplish.

    As I've said, I see these particular actions as part of the 'hearts & minds' campaign – not necessary directed at the people who attend NOM rallies; most of them will never change their minds – but directed at the people who happen by, or see the event reported in print and on TV. As such, I think a less 'in your face' approach is more effective.

    But others may see the purpose of these counter-demonstrations entirely differently, or they may believe that there is a better way to win hearts and minds. And ultimately, I defer to the people in their own state to decide what works best in their particular communities.

  • 111. Bob  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:04 am

    l8r-g8r, hope I got that right this time,

    thanks for your willingness to converse, I think we spend too much time discussing how to conduct ourselves, and not enough time clarifying what our message is.

    Clearly all these actions convey a message, in different ways, people marching in the streets says something, blogging passionatley on this site says something, but why are we all doing this??

    for many reasons, the two reasons that continually come through for me, are to shout NOM down, and the other to communicate a message to the middle folks,

    I don't recall us having a strategy, when we began the NOMtracker, other than to document the process live, and I think that is being accomplished, quite well, and in doing so this site has brought out a large group of supporters for equal marriage, which in itself is an accomplishment.

    The result being that you and I can dialog, and try to figure out what this is all about, and what we would like the results of these actions to look like,

    I'm not sure either of us can influence the outcome , first we're in a battle for equal rights to marriage, NOM is opposing us on that, we're having the priviledge to observe the action as it unfolds on the ground. Thanks to C.C.

    And yes I am right now just seeing RED, feeling RAGE, that this is actually happening, how did religion gain such a strangle hold on the most powerful countlry in the world. How is that possible,

    My rage preents me from articulating further, but I agree with someone else who posted that we should just ask NOM which religion should be in charge of Theocracy, and we'd see bloodshed between the religions like we've never seen before, RED RED RED, remins me of the movie There Will BE Blood, in whcih the preacher got bludgeoned to death, sorry but that's all I got, that' where I'm at right now,

    maybe another day I may be able to attmept to articulate a message,

  • 112. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:59 am

    Thanks Bob and Kathleen!

    I guess it really comes down to this:

    YES, we absolutely disapprove of bigotry and hatred.

    YES, we absolutely disapprove of having those people who spread bigotry and hatred, or at least make bigotry and hatred more acceptable, come to our states.

    YES, we hate intolerant people who do harm to us, our children, and our community.

    and YES, certain members of our community will express their anger and/or hatred toward certain members of your community.

    If we disapprove of their lifestyle choices, shouldn't we have just as much right to express disapproval as they do? I've said it before and I'll say it again — the right to free speech is not the right to speech free from opposition.

    We also wish to reach the hearts and minds of the individuals who are in the middle. Kathleen, I agree that it is up to the individual organizers what approach to take, but I do think it would be helpful if they (a) figured out what message they wanted to portray at that moment and (b) chose the most effective method for demonstrating that method based on the actions taken in the past.

  • 113. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    it would be helpful if they (a) figured out what message they wanted to portray at that moment and (b) chose the most effective method for demonstrating that method based on the actions taken in the past.

    Agreed. In case I wasn't clear, that was the main point of my comment.

  • 114. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:59 am

    More of b4marriage's tweets:

    Please Note: We also stand for a person's right to believe [insert belief] and not ever be questioned by the homosexuals. Thank you.

    I'm sorry, it seems we did not understand the meaning of "civil rights". Please excuse this interruption while we look that up.

    I am very sorry. We completely disagree with the definition of "civil rights". Our definition will be used henceforth

    We decided to rally at a church today. It's much easier to eliminate civil rights if you cloak it with religious disapproval.

    We have 73 marriage supporters on the lawn in front of a church built in 1973 (RT #signfromGod)

    We hear the gays are marching in the streets. We prefer to practice our free speech on private property.

    Our speaker did NOT "compare" gays to pedophiles and Hitler. He used a "metaphor"

    I learned in Sunday school that if you share something special, it becomes more special. Evidently that doesn't apply to marriage.

    Anyone with a Twitter account, consider following this account – it injects a bit of levity into the insanity.

  • 115. Chris  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:12 am

    That's like that fake BP twitter account. I love it.

    What's the link? I tried and it said the page didn't exist.

  • 116. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Oops. It's "be4marriage" Sorry about that:

  • 117. PamC  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:26 am

    these are wonderful, and help to give me perspective. Thanks, Kathleen!

  • 118. Rhonda  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:02 am

    I still say BB has a claymation mouth

  • 119. Timothy Kincaid  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:19 am

    <blockquote cite="Next, Darryl cited a recent “San Francisco study” – a study that in the last few days has become a common talking point for NOM – which claims to have studied the “sexual patterns of 566 gay male couples from the Bay Area.” The study, conducted by the Center for Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University (Darryl, by the way, couldn’t name the author of the study and was not prepared to discuss its statistical validity) concludes that '[m]any Bay Area boyfriends negotiate open relationships that allow sex with outsiders.' The study of gay couples also reported that 47 percent reported open relationships, 45 percent were monogamous and the remaining 8 percent disagreed about what they were.">

    Guys, it's important to know what this study says and what it doesn't say.

    First, it is not a "gay couples study". It was a study of HIV transmission within couples. It made no attempt to get a statistically valid sample and, indeed, went out of their way to make sure that their couples disproportionately overrepresented its target HIV study population: non-monogamous couples. (what good would it do to study HIV transmission in monogamous couples?)

    Half of the participants were HIV positive, the average earning power was half that in San Francisco and large percentages of their sample were unemployed. "Couples" was defined as "dating for at least three months".

    Read the full analysis at

    My conclusion at that time was:

    <blockquote cite="In short, those reporting on this study got it wrong. If there is any story here, it would be that a study of San Francisco bay area gay male couples, a sample which was highly skewed to include many participants who are less likely to value monogamy and which defined “couples” to include those who have been dating as little as three months, still found that half of them set monogamy as the agreement for their relationship.">

  • 120. Timothy Kincaid  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Okay so I can't work html on this site… The conclusion was:

    In short, those reporting on this study got it wrong. If there is any story here, it would be that a study of San Francisco bay area gay male couples, a sample which was highly skewed to include many participants who are less likely to value monogamy and which defined “couples” to include those who have been dating as little as three months, still found that half of them set monogamy as the agreement for their relationship.

  • 121. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:33 am

    Thanks for coming here to point this out. I had not seen your article at Box Turtle Bulletin and found it really informative.

  • 122. Chris B  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:19 am

    Yes, these people like to grab any study whatsoever and throw out results, without even analyzing what the scope of the study was. And once these falsehoods are out there, it's hard to control them.

    (I recently read a post where someone was quoting an AIDS statistic from 1988! He, of course, didn't mention the year. I looked it up. Talk about outdated statistics.)

    There was another study (or maybe it's this one, I am getting them all confused…"100% of gay men I polled said they were confused about all the studies of gay men") that the right was using to say that gay men were not monogamous. Turns out, being non-monogamous was a criteria for being included in the study, and they threw out the results of anyone over 30. So it was certainly not a good cross-section of people.

  • 123. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:33 am

    ”100% of gay men I polled said they were confused about all the studies of gay men”)


    Of course, this mis-use of scientific studies is hardly unique to this context.

    There is a well-publicized study on the benefits of long-term IV antibiotic therapy for treating Lyme Disease. The conclusion is simplified to: Long Term IV Therapy No Better Than Placebo. Of course, if you look at the study, the definition of "long term" was 30 days and most people I know who have benefited didn't begin to see results until at least 3 months, and usually much longer. It also didn't include anyone in the study who tested position for Lyme by PCR because they thought it would be unethical to withhold treatment (i.e., give placebo) to anyone who had a positive PCR test. Yet the study is used by insurance co's to deny payment of treatment for people who have positive PCR for Lyme.

    When relying on studies to draw a conclusion, people need to understand what a study DOES and, almost more importantly, DOESN'T demonstrate.

  • 124. Timothy Kincaid  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:23 am

    PLEASE: someone get the info to Arisha

  • 125. David  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:31 am

    Seriously, these NOM rallies look like AARP meetings. Maybe they should focus more on things like their teeth falling out or strengthing their trifocal perscriptions.

  • 126. AndrewPDX  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:39 am

    “Inter-racial marriage did nothing to redefine [the institution of] marriage.”

    Really? So Loving wasn't needed? That's good to know; I'll update my history book righ now (or just wait for the ones from Texas)…. I guess this should go between the 'Holocaust never happened' and the 'man never walked on the moon' entries.

    Just to check, Rosa Parks still exists in this new wooed they're creating, right?


  • 127. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:02 am

    1: Yes
    2: Yes
    3: Rosa who???


  • 128. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:20 am

    Actually, I think the counter-point that MG usually uses for this is something along the lines of: Prohibitions against inter-racial marriage were harmful to society because they kept the two races separate, rather than encouraging the social good of bringing the races together to be treated equally. Allowing two gay people to marry, however, serves no such social good.

    I may be incorrectly paraphrasing her…. but I think that was the gist of it. There are videos on the web of her engaging in formal debates on the issue of marriage equality. They're interesting, if for no other reason, to see how they respond to the arguments they encounter.

  • 129. AndrewPDX  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:59 am

    Hmmm… Ill have to look for those vids… Sounds like an almost logical thought (which would surprise me conning from these FearMongers), except for the fact that it's wrong, of course. 🙂
    But wouldnt that just go to show that “Inter-racial marriage did … redefine [the institution of] marriage"?

    From my time in the closet, I know how difficult it is to keep your cover story straight (pun intended)… With all of NONs inconsistencies, i have to conclude they are hiding their true nature too… And I'm afraid we already know their true identity… Sigh.

    and ps: @Kathleen, thanks for always bringing a level-headed and professional demeanor to this community 🙂

  • 130. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:07 am

    Thanks, Andrew. I try. 🙂

    I'll try to find the debate I watched. It actually happened sometime this year.

  • 131. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:27 am

    Here's the debate I remember watching:….

    It's between Maggie Gallagher and Pennsylvania State Senator Daylin Leach on March 24, 2010.

  • 132. Sagesse  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:02 am


    The debate you posted is long, but worth watching. In it you will see Maggie repeat her talking points over and over again. After a while, it becomes obvious that Sen Daylin, when asked a question, answers it… Maggie just keeps repeating her mantra. If she doesn't like the question that was asked, she answers a different one.

    You see it again when you watch Chuck Darryl in the interview with Arisha (just posted above). He's not as accomplished, and walked into a couple of Arisha's traps quite nicely.

  • 133. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Yes, Maggie does best when allowed to "preach" (i.e., give talks) or respond w/ sound bites. Her weakness is in debates where she is challenged by knowledgeable, intelligent people who are given adequate time to respond to her talking points. I think she's better at responding on the fly than Brian is, but she still doesn't know how to stray too far from her canned responses.

  • 134. Linda  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:40 am

    I'm not sure what the San Francisco study has to do with my right to marry. The implication is that 'homosexuals' are incapable of honoring a marriage commitment, and therefore they should not be allowed to enter into one.

    Well, I don't have to prove my worthiness to enjoy any of my Fundamental Rights as set forth by the Constitution of my country. After all, 50% of all (hetero) marriages end in divorce–pretty damning evidence on the side of heterosexuality, I'd say. But the fact is Fundamental Rights are guaranteed by our Constitution. We automatically have them. The issue is not whether or not I'm deserving of those rights; they are my birthright. The issue is what justification do they have for taking those rights away from me?

  • 135. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:49 am


  • 136. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:49 am


  • 137. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Well, I don’t have to prove my worthiness to enjoy any of my Fundamental Rights as set forth by the Constitution of my country.

    Well, actually, apparently, you do. But Eliot Spitzer, Jack Ryan, Mark Sanford, etc. etc. etc. don't have to.

  • 138. Sam  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:01 am

    There are so many reasons why this study is wrong.

  • 139. Bill  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:43 am

    60% of married heterosexual men have sex with women who are not their wives. 60%. So, I guess by heterosexual standards, us gays are WAY more monogamous than the heterosexuals. They hold US to a higher standard than they hold THEMSELVES.

    The difference seems to be that heterosexuals LIE about their adultery, while gay people tend to be more honest and open about it. Besides, how can heterosexuals deny us access to the institution of marriage, yet still try and hold us accountable to it's laws??? WTF is up with that? It's like denying a racial minority membership to a country club, but still charging them for a membership. It's just dumb.

    I wonder why nobody ever brings THAT up?


  • 140. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:50 am

    LOVE IT!!!

  • 141. adambink  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Just posted an update with two videos, folks.

  • 142. nightshayde  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:21 am

    No matter how unpleasant and discriminatory that particular church's teachings might be, I must say they have a really beautiful lawn.

  • 143. Brad Larsen  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:01 am

    Sorry if I have missed this posted somewhere else – but on another note – is there any word on when we'll hear a decision on the Prop 8 Trial from Judge Walker?

  • 144. JonT  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:15 am

    '…is there any word on when we’ll hear a decision on the Prop 8 Trial from Judge Walker'

    No, there's been a lot of speculating. I think the current thinking is that it will occur sometime mid-august, but he has no deadline or anything, so it could come at anytime after….NOW!


  • 145. Dave P.  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:53 am

    How about …. NOW?


    what about…



    : /

  • 146. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Checking in.

  • 147. adambink  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Hey folks, Arisha's discussion with Minnesota Family Council Communciations Director Chuck Darryl is posted as a video above.

  • 148. Timothy Kincaid  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:48 am

    Arisha, Arisha, Arisha,

    You let him get away with it. He kept talking about "the data" but the data shows that kids do NOT do better with a mom and a dad. They do better with two parents than one but he's just flat wrong.

  • 149. Dave in Maine  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:14 am

    DId i prescribe to this yet?

  • 150. paul  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    It was hard to sit through darrlyl's psycho-babble…but I endured…and came through it feeling like a Xanex might be in order. Arisha…you politely made a fool out of Chuck Darryl. I know it wasn't hard to do, but you never lost it even though he couldn't concisely answer even one of your questions. Congrats!
    Is this guy really a spokesman for some Family Values club? Well, once again I am reassured that if we just let them speak for themselves, they will take care of everything for us. We don't have to be "intolerant" or "hateful"…just sit back and let them talk. Whew, what a bunch of freekin' idiots.
    Thanks Arisha!!!

  • 151. Box Turtle Bulletin &raqu&hellip  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    […] to the Trial Tracker (thanks guys for being the most reliable source of info about NOM’s Tour of Mostly-Empty City […]

  • 152. mike  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    Is he flipping us off at 4:12?

  • 153. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    Who knows, but if we were playing NOM's game, we would capture that frame and spread it around the web as an example of how lewd and rude their representatives are.

  • 154. Jeff  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    You mean in this picture?


  • 155. Mike  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:00 am

    It was at very least an interesting faux pas worth noting. If I did that to my boss at work he would notice it.

  • 156. Sarah  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    May I just say, Arisha's interview with Chuck was awesome! I could see him sweat. Wonderful job!!

  • 157. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    How to express this in limited graphic detail…

    Listening to Chuck D. speak was like having a power drill burrowing into three key parts of my brain while resisting the urge to claw at my own or someone else's face. It's an early Hanukkah miracle that both my laptop screen and my forehead are still intact.

    Arisha, the more I see your interviews, the more I admire you for not currently being stuck in a jail cell for assault. I think what I've learned is that if I'm going to be an effective ally, I'd better take up meditation, and fast.

  • 158. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    Shalom, Ma'ash lom cha, Mikael! Nice to see other Jews on here. I will admit that I had to get my husband's help with the opening, as he is a rabbi, while I am only finishing up my ger, so still learning the language.
    Again, so nice to have you here as part of the P8TT family.

  • 159. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    Shalom Richard

  • 160. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    Thanks, LLB.

  • 161. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    Shalom Richard, and congrats on bagging a rabbi! That can't be easy. Don't tell him, but I really like milk and cheese together. Also don't tell him that I had to look up what that phrase meant.

    Here's hoping I'm a better ally than Jew!

  • 162. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    Thanks for your kind words, Mikael. I really do feel fortunate, although there are times I wonder if I truly deserve him, because there are times he seems too kind. And I hope that you are the kind of ally that you want to be, and in my book that makes you a very good Jew. Let us never forget that there was a very important civil rights group that started in a Jew's living room–the NAACP. I think we fight so valiantly against discrimination in an form because we have experienced it so cruelly for so long.

  • 163. matthew  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    this was a awesome site to see the counter EQUALITY demonstrators and they were KIND CONSIDERATE one said "have a great day!" emphatically as i passed!!! well you have democracy on the move in Saint Cloud people. And i attended the rally for marriage equality, i am out of work, and thats too bad but my spirits were so lifted…by thuis assembled crowd..a sight to see. And, i got to see an old friend my own age. 🙂 WAY TO GO EQUALITY MARCHERS YOU HEPED PAVE THE WAY TO A BETTER FUTURE FOR ALL OF US. And the technique, marching around town i like that best it is much more emotionallly moving than standing silently without anything to say by the downers…haha

  • 164. matthew  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    the "downers," people refers to: a monolithic smudgy set of sad uptight outright hateful, of gays, people, that ..although they are always found in churches, seem to need God`s love more than anyone, they certainly don`t need their biased self righteous egos more than God`s good love and spirit of grace, forgiveness, and TOLERATION, i mean, these NOM people would have crucified Christ over his hair, or something, or accused him of being a "fag" well we "fags" more correctly queers gays lesbians, youth and old have finally realized we are human beings, and believe me , they are too, but we are showing far far more of the biblical love and grace forgotten about by the NOM lock step crowd-the he "downers"

  • 165. Steve  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:50 am

    The interview at the end:
    It's disgusting how he constantly refers to non-existent bogus studies. Science has shown no such thing. Yet he brings it up like a dozen times.

    It should have been pointed out that there are at least two recent long-term studies that show that children of lesbian parents are at least as well – if not better – adjusted than the children of heterosexual parents.

  • 166. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:23 am

    In several of my posts above I think my opinion and message got a bit lost or misunderstood.
    I UNDERSTAND the anger…hell I'm as angry as the next person (LGBTand ally person that is)
    A year ago I was in a fist fight with a pationer / signature gatherer who was attempting to get signatures on REF 71 which would have canceled our states Domestic Partnership laws.
    I fully underrstand how at times our emotions get the best of us.

    My point is and was that we must TRY to not be violent, abusive, overly rude…ONLY because of how it will look to those we are trying to win over. Those people who claim to not know any Gay persons, and are on the fence about how to feel or vote on these issues.
    I am aware of the old saying 'No such thing as bad publicity'…I happen to strongly disagree with that.

    No good comes from turning would be allys off at the start if all we show them is the side of us the NOMbies continue to portray us to be like.
    The NOMbies are using the victim card because they can.

    By all means lets shout and chant and give em hell but not in such a way as to insight violence or the impression of such….that's all I'm saying.
    And it's just MY opinion….I'm a no body so doesn't really count for much in all of this anyway.

    I totally respect the opinions of all the other posters who I know disagree with me

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

    Mrk, there is one part of this post where I disagree with you, and that is calling yourself a nobody. You are SOMEBODY and I am glad to have this chance to get to know you through this site. As you say, we may not agree on everything that is discussed here on this site, but each and everyone here is somebody, and that includes you. I can understand why you may say you are a nobody, but while to some you may be one of millions, there is at least one who knows that you are one in a million. And I have really enjoyed your posts here. You have done what so many of the P8TT family have done–you have gotten me to think, and I really appreciate that.

  • 168. Mark M  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    Well thanks Richard…but compared to the people on the ground at these rallies I am a nobody.
    I'm just another keyboard activist……..

  • 169. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    At present so am I. But it definitely takes all of us, and I am quite sure that when things happen in your area, that you aren't just sitting idly by and letting people run all over you.

  • 170. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:24 am

    Morning Louis, Mags, Bry Bry

  • 171. Bob  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Goodmorning everyone, I feel less rage this morning, and so I wanted to say , Mark I don't disagree with you, and I'm not advocating violence, neither was Qari,

    I do disagree with asking them for an apology, I do think people could b asking Brian Brown for an apology, for his quick jump to flaming angery shouting, from the podium, from which he was delivering a message, Notice how similar the rage is in him, lyng so close to the surface he wasn't able to contain it, even as a speaker who should of had some training in that. He delivers a speach insighting rage,and shouting while he's doing it, Maggie would have been calmer and stepped aside, that's my opinion only. but I think she would have been cooler.

    Nom has successfully deflected the attention away from bb's rage and shouting from the podium.

    here's a suggestion, re results of the different approaches, (if we agree the goal is to reach the middle folks, and to do so by main stream media attention)

    What I keep asking during each rally, is where can I read about it in main stream news, Is it possible for us to use that as a way to gauge results of the actions. Main Stream Media coveragte, we could even go back over the rally's and see where we got the most main steam coverage.

    Next we could look at the way the main stream media spins that coverage, and in whose favour,

    l8r-g8r is that what you refer to as judging the actions by there effectiveness,?

  • 172. Mark M  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    I agree with you Bob…and apology is NOT something I would do either. If Bry Bry and Mags step up with an apology for Lynching Larry than MAYBE….but since that ain't ever gonna happen neither will one from us be forthcoming.

  • 173. Sandy954  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:36 am

    Arisha rocked! At the end, Darryl felt the truth coming through and said something like "this is what works" and looked for the exit. He was stating he chooses which study to use to support their reasoning for denying same sex marriage. That was AWESOME! The domestication of men does not seem to work for heterosexual men with some women thrown in, either. False equivalency.

    Also Mark M. in Seattle is absolutely right. People have EVERY RIGHT to be angry, but acting out anger is what will be used against us.This anger only works with those already on your "side" to show solidarity.

    At our post Prop 8 (huge) rally, we had some folks (one of whom I suspect was a "converted" transexual, being used for display) that were "being brave" with their Adam and Eve sign and literature in our midst. One person could not take it and took the sign and ripped it in half. This was the desired reaction, so they can "prove" how bad we are to deny them free speech.
    Thankfully, another person picked up the sign, apologized and returned it to them. Too late, if there was a camera going, they will use the violent property damage and denial of free speech to the advantage of anti gay folks, just like choosing which study to use.

    The clip with St Cloud's Justin has it correct, we do not wish to intimidate or provoke or interfere with THEIR right to free speech.

    We need to let everyone know, it is OK to be angry, but better for you and everyone else to control anger and channel it into something that helps, not hinder the cause.

    Exposing the misinformation and faulty conclusions from an unstable source of information and false equivalency is the best way to change hearts and minds.

    Being angry and acting violently or disrespectful does not get through, but reinforces a prejudice of someone that already has negative images and beliefs about you.

  • 174. Brittney  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:37 am

    I just watched the interview with chuck daryl….
    wow. I can't even count how many times his response to something was "children need a mother and father"
    okay, what makes you believe that? He couldn't really answer any of the questions that Arisha was asking him.
    All he could talk about was that "study" that he never gave any reference for. It's always the same argument with these people…The majority of what NOM is based on is religion. Now, the last time I checked this country was founded on the belief that there should always be seperation from church and state. I personally am not a religious person and neither is my partner, so most of what NOM says does not apply to us at all…We don't believe in the bible, so when you say "God condemns homosexuality!" It bears no meaning to us. Now, I do not look down upon or critisize anyone for what they believe in, most of my friends are christian.
    Oh, it also made me laugh when chuck said that "marriage domesticates [heterosexual] men" seriously? Approximately 50% of married women and 60% of married men will have an extramarital affair at some time in their marriage.
    This guy is hilarious. And another thing, gay couples are just as, if not more, committed to their partner than straight couples.

  • 175. david schorn  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:46 am

    Great Site…one event missed was that even our PFLAG organization called Pflag of St Cloud/cent Mn held a marriage equality rally at Wilson Park. 200 plus people showed up to listen to speakers ranging from teachers. minsters, students, grandparents , politicians and business people. Very passionate, positive and fun. Central Mn is not a red neck area and the elderly on down to elementary kids believe in standing up for what is right. I voices are finally being heard :))) Thank you for the coverage of the march.
    David Schorn President elect of Pflag

  • 176. Alan E.  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:02 am

    If you have pictures, video, a website posting, email blast, or whatever, please share!

  • 177. Straight Grandmother  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:56 am

    David, it is a shame that you couldn't have coordinate the two seperate events. I am so happy you posted and told us about the PFLAG event. If you send in the pics to Prop8Trial tracer I am sure they will post them. Or if you download them to a picture site like Flicker or phot bucket and put in the link to the pics I would enjoy seeing them. Thank YOU for standing up for Equality.

  • 178. NOM in Rochester, MN: Ret&hellip  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:43 am

    […] here!). If you missed yesterday’ s dueling rallies in St. Cloud, MN, you can find coverage here. You can also find coverage from the big rallies in St. Paul, including video of an especially […]

  • 179. Billy Pollina  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    Is Chuck Darryl aware of this study "Same-Sex Couples Match Heterosexual Couples In Performance As Adoptive Parents, UVA/GWU Study Finds"

  • 180. Sagesse  |  July 31, 2010 at 12:20 am

    Of course not. He was only aware of the study he couldn't quite cite, but firmly believed, because it was 'scientific', as a headline.

  • 181. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:03 am

    And even if he is aware of it, he calls it "junk science" because it doesn't agree with his homophobic POV.

  • 182. Sagesse  |  July 31, 2010 at 12:24 am

    Arisha has started to do it, and presumably will continue… when she cites a study she clearly references her source (not in footnote format, of course, but clearly enough to identify it). BB will continue to say 'can't comment, never heard of it', but he won't get a pass on the fact that it's out there.

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