Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

You asked, and NOM’s Brian Brown was forced to answer

NOM Tour Tracker Right-wing

By Adam Bink

This is a must-see video I had to highlight for you from this afternoon’s event in Rochester, MN. In fact, given the #NOMTurnoutFAIL in yet another parking lot, one could argue it’s the highlight:

In the video, Arisha puts forward several of the questions you asked in today’s open question thread and other places, including the role of religion in our government, what people say when they mean “a Christian nation”, and on whether Brown agrees with other speakers that gay people are “perverted”, “diseased”, “unfit parents”, have propensity to be pedophiles, or other such distasteful comments. Watch his response- he clearly gets uncomfortable with the latter question from Sagesse in today’s thread, and by the fact that speakers at his rally are saying such things.

Keep those questions coming, everyone, and we’ll continue to put Brian on the hot seat.


  • 1. Mark M  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:32 am

    He is SO good at talking out of both sides of his mouth…what a total A-hole
    Does he even listen to the crap he spews?

  • 2. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:34 am


  • 3. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:08 am

    Sublesbiansloveboiesing 🙂

    BTW, I didn't get an email notification about this blog entry being posted 🙁

  • 4. Alan E.  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:35 am


  • 5. Kathleen  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    I'll never catch up with all the comments – what was I thinking, being away from a computer all day?

  • 6. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:36 am


    Can't see the video here (youtube is blocked by work) & it won't load (or is having problems loading) on my phone.

  • 7. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Never mind — it loaded (finally) on my phone.

    I hadn't heard Brian Brown speak before. What a buffoon.

  • 8. AndrewPDX  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:50 am

    Yeah… Same restrictions here… Can somebody please post a transcript of his waffling answers for those of us who can't watch/listen to the videos?


  • 9. RebeccaRGB  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    I'd love to have transcripts just so I don't have to listen to these creatures speak. 😛

  • 10. Christoph  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:40 am

    I'm curious as to whether or not anyone has ever asked Brian or Maggie whether or not they have any gay friends, and whether or not they have, or would be willing to spend say a week with a gay family?
    It seems to me that neither one of them really know very much at all about the gay community in general!!
    I doubt that they really know or understand the harm they are doing to gay people in general!!

  • 11. rf  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:58 am

    I distinctly remember Gaggie, during that conservative summit she did with Andrew Sullivan and the british conservatives that were allegedly supporting gay rights (i can try to google it)–saying that she had several gay people in her organization that supported NOMs views. sullivan asked her to produce their names and she refused as they would be targeted and in danger….

  • 12. Sagesse  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:35 am

    Actually, at one point she said she wasn't going to out them because they'd never get a date again.

  • 13. Papa Foma  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:51 am

    I don't think Maggie or Brian really want to get to know gay people. Seems to me they just personal issues. Sorry for them.

  • 14. Papa Foma  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:53 am

    I think they just HAVE personal issues. That is why they can't make gay friends and why Maggie has a crappy hair stylist.

  • 15. Alan E.  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Thanks for the follow-through! It's great to be an involved community that demands answers, and to see our voices be channeled through Arisha makes this community involvement much stronger for us all =)

  • 16. Dave P.  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:49 am

    At the end, where he says that the speakers are entitled to say whatever they want about comparing gays to pedophiles etc., but "OUR" focus is on keeping marriage 1man + 1woman….

    A follow up question – who is "OUR"? Meaning NOM? NOM invited these people to speak, so does NOM endorse these statements? Or is NOM distancing themselves from these speakers who say these things and does NOM reject these statements? Which is it?

  • 17. Dave P.  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Oh yeah, BTW,

    Good job, Arisha!! Go get 'em!!

  • 18. Sarah  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:55 am

    A possible response to this would be:

    "So, if you have an open forum here, where speakers can talk as they wish about marriage (in)equality, can we have a spot on the agenda? I know you and I do not agree, but we still have our freedom of speech. Having us up there apparently does not imply any sort of endorsement of the message. So later, NOM can just say that they do not endorse our statements."

    Am I on the right track, here? You get the idea…

  • 19. Linda  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:21 am


  • 20. Anonygrl  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:30 am

    I like that one!

  • 21. l8r_g8r  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:55 am


  • 22. Alan E.  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:52 am

    He is bringing in people who are saying these things, thus endorsing the messages that purport. The speakers don't believe in SSM because they think that homosexuals are X Y and Z as mentioned by Arisha. By bringing these people to say SSM is bad is one thing, but you are also supporting the reasons why they think so when you combine all of these forces together.

    Also, as someone who believes what the Catholic church believes (as you said Brian), then you must also believe what the Pope has said about the gays. Dare him to call out the pope!

    Arisha, before you ask these questions, you should know what Brian is going to answer beforehand so you can be ready with poignant questions that point out the flaw in his logic. I'm aware that you don't have as much time to prepare, but maybe that's something we should be doing here when we get a more formal list together. You shouldn't ask a question to which you don't already know the answer and not be ready with "gotcha" questions to immediately follow. Many of us here are offering some of these followup questions and the flawed logic behind some of the answers. CC let's step up this game!

  • 23. Alan E.  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:57 am

    Here is an article from a fundy "news" site about calling out people who don't believe everything that their church tells them to:

    This is relevant for Brian who supposedly doesn't believe the same things about gays that his church and pope does.

  • 24. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:19 am

    Apparently, I'm missing something. Is there a video at that link? I'm just seeing that some Democratic senators apparently disagree with their churches' teachings on some matters, and that senators from both parties get together for prayer breakfasts.

    Is there more to the story?

  • 25. Alan E.  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:31 am

    There used to be more to it, but they cut the rest out.

  • 26. Mark M  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:05 am


  • 27. Steve  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:10 am

    I totally agree. It's one thing to ask this question and maybe be amused by the answers. It's so much better to take the answer, ask followup questions and completely destroy his line of argumentation.

  • 28. Adrenalin Tim  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:59 am

    Christoph's question ("Do you personally know any gay people?") is a good one.

    Here's another: Do you agree with Father so-and-so that oral and anal sex—even within the context of heterosexual marriages—is always immoral?

  • 29. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:05 am

    After watching Brian Brown Suit, if you feel yourself in need of a laugh, check this out:

    It has absolutely NOTHING to do with civil rights or religion or marriage equality — but it made me laugh so hard I couldn't breathe & I just had to share it with someone. =)

  • 30. bJason  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:57 am

    Oh that I could add a Pie Chart here of my love for this (and you for bringing it to my attention)!! RIght up my alley!

    <3 Jason

  • 31. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:23 am

    Yay! I've brightened at least a small part of someone's day!

    *happy chair dance*

  • 32. bJason  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:54 am

    @Nightshayde – more than… can't leave that website!! The missing cat one is my favorite so far! CAN'T STOP LAUGHING. Just when I need some comedy! How could you have known? (Permission Slip was pretty effin' funny, too)!

  • 33. Papa Foma  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:04 am

    I would love to see someone do a pie chart on the relevance of what Brian has to say.

    The logo however seems dead-on!

  • 34. Linda  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:22 am

    Loved it! I passed it on to my girlfriend who is a web designer. 🙂

  • 35. Sheryl  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    Thanks for posting this URL. I laughed so hard. It is good to laugh. sharing it with my son.

  • 36. Dave in CA  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:28 am

    Okay, so he's going to answer every question with "Our focus here is on protecting marriage, blah blah blah."

    Follow-up question:
    "Protecting marriage from what, exactly?'

    If he/she/they don't use the specific word "protect" marriage, they will probably use another word, like "preserve" marriage in its traditional meaning.

    Follow-up question:
    "Preserved in which format? That women are property? That women are not equal to their husbands?" etc. You know the drill here.

    It's clear they are going to stay on script by
    a) letting other people give their dirty, ugly, unpleasant speeches for them, while at the same time
    b) they themselves are only out to protect / preserve / uphold / traditional marriage.

    So either protected from what specifically, or preserved as which status?

  • 37. Chris B  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Yes, ask him what they are protecting marriage from? Does he honestly think that if gays are allowed to marry that straight people will suddenly stop getting married?

    (Like when interracial marriage was legalized, everyone stopped marrying people of their own color…)

  • 38. Sagesse  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:32 am

    OT this thread

    SLDN, HRC Launch “Countdown 2010” Grassroots Campaign
    Major push for ENDA and DADT Repeal over Congressional recess

    They are asking to put pressure on senators in states that are key to these votes.

    And subscribing

  • 39. Linda  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Oh, this is ridiculous! Brian, when you put a speaker in front of your podium, with your banner draped across it, you are endorsing everything that speaker says. That person is speaking FOR YOUR CAUSE!

    Every degrading comment made by those speakers can now be attributed to NOM.

    Brian, if you DON'T agree with those statements your guest speakers made, then you need to issue a statement to that affect.

  • 40. Paul in Minneapolis  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Better idea: NOM should vet these speaker before it presents them on its tour!

  • 41. Sagesse  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:47 am


    Otherwise, one could infer that NOM invited them to say the horrid things that NOM is thinking but cannot say out loud. Gets the message out.

    The man is a sleeze bucket.

  • 42. Roger  |  July 31, 2010 at 12:07 am

    That is exactly the point that should be hammered, and hammered hard. NOM invited these people to speak on their behalf. That invitation constitutes an endorsement of what they say.

  • 43. Linda  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:44 am

    People of all faiths are going to vote according to their beliefs. Of course! Separation of Church and State does not abridge that right. Separation of Church and State protects us from laws being innacted solely based on religious doctrine.

    Referring to our country as a Christian Nation when justifying a political cause is breeching that Separation. We don't legislate religion. Using scripture to justify a political cause is also a breech. People can use scripture in deciding how to vote; but legislation cannot be made solely on the basis of scripture. That's the difference.

  • 44. Joel  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:58 am

    "Democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on what's for dinner"

    I think that quote is attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Correct, please, if I'm wrong.

  • 45. Sarah  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:00 am

    I got the impression that he was just rambling on from a list of talking points about this. Almost like he did not really understand the question. And he never answered Arisha's probing about whether MLK was a government official. (BB's thoughts: "Oh dang, she's right… well, where can I turn now to make it look like we are carrying MLK's torch…")

  • 46. Adam  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:45 am

    If NOM's focus is simply on protecting or preserving traditional marriage, then why did NOM's tour divert to South Bend for the city counsil hearings considering an ordinance that would disallow discrimination against gays in the workplace? Is NOM's white washed agenda simply cover for the complete marginalization of homosexuals?

  • 47. Anonygrl  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:26 am

    They didn't, Adam. We did. We were told they were going to, but they did not go.

  • 48. Adam  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:45 am

    Good to know. Thank you.

  • 49. Adam  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Why have comments on NOMs blog suddenly declined?

  • 50. Adam  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Brian, you say that you do not endorce what the speakers are saying. OK, invite some other speakers who can provide some counter points to your arguments.

  • 51. Adam  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:11 am

    Brian, I noticed that you blogged about how your speaker was booed while praying the lords prayer. Or was he praying "our fathers"? The crowd was not booing God! Jjust a pharasaical speaker "preach praying."

    If you don't want your prayers booed, then my advice is to "get into your closet." As the biblical Daniel did, declining to pray in his window as the pharasees did, but in his closet with God privately.

    Its the oldest trick in the book to kill someone with kindness, be nice to them just to heap coals of fire on their head, or pat them on the head when you know they finds that to be humiliating. If you feel you can get a word in edgewise by wrapping your bigotted ideas up in a prayer, well, you can forget that right now.

  • 52. Adam  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:16 am

    Brian, nice to hear that you don't think homosexuals are perverted. What does that word mean anyway? Are you departing from what your faith teaches, or just pandering?

  • 53. Adam  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:17 am

    Come to think about it, is the Pope pandering as well?

  • 54. Anonygrl  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:25 am

    I am sorry to say it Arisha, but Brian owned you in that interview. You had an agenda, and he didn't let you get there. I've seen you do much better, and I know you can, so please understand that I don't mean to be mean or harsh, but just want to review what I saw.

    We know from his speeches what he is likely to talk about, so be prepared for that. Wilberforce is his way of getting away from MLK because we kept nailing him on civil rights and equal rights. Well, Wilberforce was fighting for freedom (and more rights) for slaves. NOM is fighting for less rights for LGBT folk. How do those equate?

    He wanted to talk about how NOM was all about protecting marriage. Be prepared that he is going to run back to that every time, and be prepared to nail him on his terms, because he is not going to let you nail him on yours. "Protecting marriage, it seems, is all about banning same sex marriage. Why is that?" Do get the phrase "banning same sex marriage" in if you can. It is on their list of talking points to avoid. Find out why this is the ONLY way that NOM seems to be "protecting marriage" on this tour. Have ANY of their speakers talked about encouraging couples who are considering living together to marry instead? Have ANY talked about counseling? Have ANY discussed pre-marital planning to help couples prepare for marriage? Have ANY speakers talked about ANYTHING except gender issues? Before you ask those questions, find out for sure if any have.

    We know what our focus here is. To beat them in this game, we need to know what theirs is, and will be, and be prepared to counter it on their terms. Make sure you know their talking points (which they graciously have posted for us on the NOM blog) inside and out, and can spit out our answers to those points without a thought.

    While it might be interesting to find out what he personally believes, it is more important to get what NOM believes.

    I commend you beyond belief for wading in there with our questions, but you have to understand that ours are some wish list things, that he will NOT give straight answers to. Don't ask any questions that can be turned around to make NOM look good or reasonable. And above all, if he drifts off the question and goes to one of his talking points, be prepared to steer him back. "Yes, that is nice, but it doesn't answer the question I asked. Let me rephrase…" and restate the original question in a way that precludes wherever he drifted to. "They can state their beliefs…" "Yes, they can, but that doesn't answer my question. Does NOM SUPPORT those beliefs?" "They are free to have their beliefs…" "Indeed, and I am not arguing that. I am simply asking that, whatever their stated beliefs are, do you think that NOM is indicating its support by letting them be aired at your rally? Does NOM believe that homosexuality is a sin? Just that simply, does NOM believe homosexuality is a sin?" "NOM believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman…" "Yes. And in stating that, and that same sex marriage should be banned, does NOM believe that homosexuality is a sin?" "NOM is about preserving marriage…" "It is a yes or no question Brian. I simply want to know NOM's position on homosexuality as a sin. Is homosexuality a sin?" When he gives you an answer, if possible, be ready to restate it for him, "So, unlike a good portion of your speakers, and possibly many of your supporters, NOM believes that homosexuality is NOT a sin?"

    And if he does answer a tough question, either with a solid yes or no, say "Thank you!" and get out before he can turn it around to something he wants to say. Which you know, and you have been good about at the end of interviews. Once you get to your point, get out while the getting is good! 🙂

    Also know that he is ready for any of the questions we posed in the question thread. He IS reading it, remember.

  • 55. Ray in MA  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:58 am

    "Brian owned you in that interview" … that is why he gets paid the big bucks… he's obviously consumed with this crap 24 hours a day. He's got his bullyness perfected (although he has not idea how ignorant he comes across.)

    Arisha, you did the best you could with this blabbering pile of sh!t.

    But Anonygrl may have some good tips for next time…

    Ohh! Is that you Brian? You're reading this too? Well, wake and get a dose of realtiy!

  • 56. Anonygrl  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:10 am

    I agree entirely that Arisha is doing an amazing job! I was just hoping to help some, even if it only sounded like criticism.

    Please understand, everyone who is on the ground doing the hard work while we sit around and back seat drive, we LOVE you and APPRECIATE you and want to support you as best we can!!

  • 57. Ray in MA  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:00 am

    Shhhhhhhhhhhhh! Anonygrl. Brian is reading… you're gonna give it all away!

  • 58. AndrewPDX  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    @Anonygrl, I read your comments as positive, constructive criticism. I hope Arisha and everyone else did too. I know I have learned some good points for any conversations I may have. Thanks!

    @Arisha, you really did do a good job interviewing Brian (hi Brian!); thank you for taking our off-the-cuff questions straight to the horse's mouth for us! It just looks that Brian appears to have had more practice trying to deflect honest answers with his half-truths. I have faith that you'll whip him next time 🙂


  • 59. Adam  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:26 am

    Brian, just to be clear, even if the vast majority of the world's population voted to deny gay people the right to marry, they would still burn in hell when its all over if they don't convert to Catholicism right? Baptists, Scientologists, Mormans, the whole lot, right?

  • 60. Ray in MA  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:49 am

    Well of course! I succinctly recall the nuns in parochial school sayng that Catholicism is the one true religion.

  • 61. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:56 am

    Isn't every religion the one true religion?

  • 62. l8r_g8r  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:09 am

    No, nightshayde. Just mine.

  • 63. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:17 am

    *smacks head* (doesn't say whose)

    Silly me!

  • 64. Steve  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:30 am

    And since every religion says that unbelievers go to hell, everyone goes to hell

  • 65. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:38 am

    That should make baking cookies easy… (won't have to go out of my way to find an oven).

  • 66. Adam  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:55 am

    And just to be clear this is the hell that Charles Spurgeon spoke about, right?

    Loosely quoting. . .

    "Behold the little girl, just a tender 12 or 13 it appears, see how her little feet dance on the firely hot floor of her little children's furnace in hell. See how she writhes in pain banging against the sides so as to nearly shake the horrible thing off its foundation. How wonderful that God showed her such mercy and took her in her youth knowing that she would only get worse in her disobedience to her parents. Had she lived longer, God would have had to turn up the fire even hotter.

    Gosh, im creeped out by my post, but this is what these people believe.

  • 67. Adam  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:33 am


    Thank you. I didn't want to say it, but Brian did very well with his technique during the interview and highlighting it here is something like NOM touting their "successful" rallys. Lets keep it real. Not every interview is going to be a run away success. I would take it down.

  • 68. Anonygrl  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:11 am

    I would leave it up. It's good to know what we need to fight against.

    Plus, WE don't censor over here… we do want them to speak their piece, so that we are able to address what they have to say.

  • 69. Adam  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:32 am

    I understand. Thanks.

  • 70. AndrewPDX  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    Brian (hi Brian) did do well during the interview; he's been practicing.

    But, I'd say keep the interview up. If we start censoring what we post of our own works, we are no better than Louis (Hi Louis!) and his by-invitation-only blog.

    Not every interview is going to be a run away success, but they aren't flat-out failures (like NOM's attendance numbers usually are), and show the work and commitment everyone has put into this project.

    We aren't the ones trying to hide from the truth, afterall.


  • 71. Sagesse  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Separation of church and state. He bounces back and forth between freedom of religion and separation of church and state as though they are the same thing. Religious leaders and religious organizations can SAY anything they like based on their beliefs. They don't have a right to make laws that impose those beliefs on others. And the IRS says that if they (directly) spend money to influence elections and legislation, they can lose their tax exempt status.

    Anti-gay positions of NOM's associates. Nice going Arisha. You made him squirm. They've always been associated with these folks, but not in such a public way.

  • 72. Adam  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:44 am


    You say that you do not approve the derogatory views and actions of many of your speakers and supporters, but, truthfully, don't you need each and every one of their votes, if you are to mobilize the "vast majority" of voters against gay, lesbian, and transgender people. Even Larry Adam's vote?

    Are you a regular Catholic, or a little Jesuit perhaps.

  • 73. l8r_g8r  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:50 am

    I can't believe how preposterous his arguments are. "I believe that gays and lesbians shouldn't be degraded as persons." but "There is something special about a union between a man and a woman."

    The only possible interpretation of that statement is that there is something inferior about a relationship between a same-sex couple when compared to the relationship of an opposite-sex couple.

    I want to make this very clear:

    That Is Degrading.

  • 74. David in Houston  |  July 31, 2010 at 5:29 am

    Someone should ask him these questions:
    "If there's something special about a union between a man and a woman, then why do those unions fail 50% of the time?"

    "You do realize that all of those failed marriages are caused by straight people, and have nothing to do with gay couples wanting to get married, right?"

    "So if your gay neighbors get married, how SPECIFICALLY does that make your straight marriage LESS special? …and if they didn't tell you that they had gotten married, how could it possibly effect you or your marriage?"

  • 75. l8r_g8r  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:53 am

    UGH! I'm so angry right now. How can he stand up there and say that he's going from state to state, traveling across the country on a tour to bring NOM's message to a large number of people, then claim that NONE OF THE SPEAKERS REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF NOM???





  • 76. John B.  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:53 am

    As others have pointed out, one of his major talking points is about "protecting marriage" and the follow-up question should always be, "protect it from what"? Don't let him wiggle out of this–ask for specifics, and ask for concrete examples from those few states where same-sex marriage is now allowed. A closely related follow-up question would be, "what kind of negative consequences has same-sex marriage had in Canada since it was allowed in 2005?" Now, he is likely to have some examples on hand but I'm willing to bet they're examples of Christians getting into some kind of legal trouble or other difficulty for not being allowed to use their religious beliefs to legally discriminate. And at that point, it's clear that this isn't about protecting marriage, it's about protecting Christians, and isn't that just "special rights"?

    (BTW I hesitate to post this here–maybe I'm being paranoid but it's quite possible that people from their side are reading these comments to prepare him and the other speakers.)

  • 77. Adam  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:57 am


    The people who tied Mattew Shephard to the fence, how do you think they would vote on marriage equality?

  • 78. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:08 am

    According to the right-wing whackos, Matthew Shepard's murder was merely a robbery gone bad and had nothing to do with his sexual orientation.

    The really safe escape for Brian on this question would be that the people who tied Matthew to the fence are convicted felons serving double-life sentences without the possibility of parole, and are legally not allowed to vote.

  • 79. Em  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:00 am

    *Being brave and actually watching the video for once, at the risk of having a visceral reaction… Comments to follow.*

    Subscribing. 🙂

  • 80. Adam  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:03 am


    Catholics and Christians have killed in the past, mostly heritics, but I think homosexuals fit most of the criteria. Do you think that gay people, their families, and their children have anything to fear?

    Is this because your religion has changed? or has society evolved to the point that religion's excesses have been checked?

  • 81. l8r_g8r  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:11 am

    I actually very much like the point of those questions, Adam. You know he's going to answer a resounding no to the first part and will have to explain why.

  • 82. Adam  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:13 am


    Your organizations moniker suggests that you are for marriage kinda like the American Heart Association is for the heart, right. Considering the wide range rnage of issues that seem to be on tour, had you considered becoming the National Organization for Marriage, Adoption, Ecumenical Outreach, and Equal Opportunity?

  • 83. Adam  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:21 am


    Just what is it about using the word "Ban" that makes you all take such a hit in the polls? Do you mean to say that simply using the word "Ban" can make people decide not to support traditional marriage?

    Well that makes them kinda wishy washy if you ask me. Maybe even a little Mamby Pamby.

    If they have to be converted with such particular language, maybe maybe they should think about it a little more seriously before voting to take away peoples rights, and marriages, and children!

  • 84. Anonygrl  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:22 am

    As to the concern about Brian reading over here, of course he is (Hi Brian, Hi Louis!) just like we are reading over there.

    As to watching what we say to not tip him off, I have a different, if somewhat pipe dreamish hope.

    I hope that some of what we write over here makes him think a little. Makes him squirm just a bit. Makes him a little uncomfortable with the shear numbers of people he is hurting, both adult and children, with his "you are not good enough to share this blessed union" stance.

    NONE of what we do actually hurts any of them. We are not looking to take anything away, change who they are, refuse them anything, even acknowledge us. We are just asking them to leave us alone and let us get married. They can sit back in their churches and say "ew ew ew ew evil evil evil" to their heart's content. They can preach sermons, refuse to perform ceremonies in their churches, basically live their lives EXACTLY as they had before. And maybe, someday, when someone Brian loves comes out as gay and wants to marry, he may reflect on what we have asked for here, look at the studies and facts that prove his position wrong, and regret his choices.

    So I will gladly take him coming in here to see what we are thinking…

  • 85. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:45 am

    One thing I know for sure is that if it turns out my little girl happens to be a lesbian, she'll know her Mommy was fighting for her rights from … well … from before she was even a twinkle in her parents' eyes. If she is straight, she'll know her Mommy has been fighting for her GLBT friends' (and I know she'll have GLBT friends) rights for longer than they've been alive. If she's somewhere inbetween… well, you get the picture.

    I've been telling her from very early on (she was four years old during the run-up to the Prop8 vote) that everyone should be free to love and marry the person he/she wants to, and that it's fine for men to love men, men to love women, women to love men, or women to love women.

  • 86. l8r_g8r  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    Nightshayde, when I was younger, I was visiting my aunt's house. My cousin, younger than I was, asked me if my dads were gay. I guess she knew they were her uncles, but never really connected that they were both my dads until that moment. I told her yes. Her eyes got all big and she asked "But I thought that was bad!"

    Now, I know my aunt (my dad's sister) is extremely tolerant and has definitely taught my cousin that it is absolutely okay to be gay. In fact, she got a little embarrassed by that statement and pulled her daughter aside and said, "Remember, we've talked about this. Being gay is fine, just like being straight is fine. It is okay for boys to love boys and it is okay for girls to love girls."

    But the stigma is out there, even if we teach our children, our families, that being gay is okay.

    So that is exactly what our opponents are afraid of. They're afraid they'll have the same situation, but instead of their little son or daughter saying "But I thought that was bad!" they'll say, "Oh, okay. Cool."

  • 87. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    She already has come home with a couple of heterosexist statements — I'm not sure if she got them from kids at school or where…

    She did have a couple of her female dolls "kiss" one another since there are no boy dolls around. I got a good laugh out of that — and praised her a lot.

  • 88. Mark M  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Well said Anonygrl!

  • 89. ChrisQ  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:40 am

    I don't know why you bother unless it is to try to catch him or something. It almost isn't about him or Maggie as (sorta) people anymore. It is about them putting laws, bans and bills in motion and us having to get rid of them in court. Like a race, we waste money and precious years of our lives in a sad little dance trying to convince one state at a time that we are not monstrous pedophiles or diseased sinners. This will go on and on and on until there is some definitive Supreme Court ruling (ie Roe – which these people are STILL trying to overturn.) That snarky smile and condescending tone while he drives a knife in our collective backs – it just makes me ill and sad. And it makes me furious that we even have to do this foolish exercise to attain the rights that should be ours as Americans with no question.

  • 90. Anonygrl  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:51 am

    I don't disagree, and it can be very disheartening…

    But the way I look at it is you don't win the war unless you fight the skirmishes. So we have to be prepared to slog through all this mud to get to the prize.

    It sucks, its hard, it makes us all want to throw up, but it has to be done every day. We need to stop some kid on the street and say "Hey, calling someone gay? It's kind of like me calling you fat. Not cool. Please don't." We have to paint signs even if we are the only ones reading them. We have to hold hands in public, even when people stare. We have to get out and yell our heads off occasionally. But maybe someone who would have not thought about it will do so. Maybe some kid will learn that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Maybe somebody's aunt will say "you know, nephew, even though your father is upset, I think you are ok!" rather than just staying quiet.

    And someday we will win that Supreme Court battle, because it is right, and because we didn't give up before we got there.

  • 91. AndrewPDX  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    Wow, Anonygrl! That is so great! Thinking that all this pain, all this angst, all our struggles, all our dashed dreams, all our love — it's not going to waste if 'maybe someone who would have not thought about it will do so.' It brings a tear to my eye. Thank you!


  • 92. Linda  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Why bother interviewing Brian? Frankly, I'm sick to death of his plastered smile and programmed sound-bites. In fact, I'm getting tired of giving them my attention. I'd rather see our own rallies and our own speakers. We are providing them with a lot of free press. JMHO

  • 93. Owen  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    I agree with that opinion. There's just no point with this robot.

    And if you ask him the rather salient questions Anonygirl posed, he'll probably just cut off the interview.

    We should be focusing on the ways we're getting our message out.

  • 94. Mark M  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    I agree! Let's stop putting him on camera and stroking his ego.
    I would LOVE to see more video of our people being interviewed. Telling their stories, showing their families, reminding NOM and the rest of the world what LOVE looks like.

  • 95. l8r_g8r  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:55 am

    I think one of our weak points actually is this argument regarding separation of church and state. If you'll notice, that argument was not actually used in the Prop 8 trial. Rather, each individual's religious views were respected, but there was an underlying meaning that Olson and Boies extracted — that according to their religion, opposite-sex couples are simply better.

    With regard to separation of church and state, if a law is enacted that has no secular purpose, that has the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, or results in excessive government entanglement with religion, then the law violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. My legal brain can find no way to push Prop 8 into that analysis.

    More specifically, if the opponents can find one secular reason (icky gheys make diseases), can show that it neither advances nor inhibits religion (the churches who perform same-sex marriages are not required to stop performing them and no person is indoctrinated into any specific religion due to this law), and can show no excessive entanglement (and this requires a whole lot of entanglement, like monitoring the program to ensure that no religion is involved, for example where the government provides funds to a church for an after-school program… the government would have to monitor to make sure that no religion was involved), then they can show that there is no violation of the Establishment Clause.

  • 96. Joel  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:06 pm

    I have no legal mind at all, but isn't it a violation of the establishment clause that federal government recognizes marriages performed by certain clergy, but not others? My dearest friends were married in CA by a duly ordained Rabbi (twice), yet the Feds don't recognize their marriage, even though they will recognize a straight marriage performed at the church up the street. That seems to me like the gov is establishing the superiority of one religion over another…

  • 97. Kathleen  |  July 31, 2010 at 4:35 am

    Neither the federal government nor the state governments are singling out certain clergy and refusing to recognize marriages performed by them. In your example above, the governments will recognize marriages performed by the rabbi as long as it's an os couple.

    As to marriages performed by clergy, the government doesn't recognize ANY marriage done by ANY clergy, unless the couple FIRST gets a government issued marriage license. Conversely, the government is willing to recognize marriages done by any clergy as long as the couple first gets a license from the state. So, in this way, it is treating all the religions the same.

    Further, the government is neutral on the question of religion once a couple has a marriage license. The couple can choose to have a religious ceremony or they can have a civil ceremony.

    So, the discrimination isn't about one religion vs. another, it is about how the STATE is determining who gets a marriage license.

    The question of the federal government recognizing the marriage gets into the question of whether or not DOMA is constitutional. Historically, the feds have always just deferred to the individual states to define who can get married and who is considered married, to determine whether a couple is married for federal purposes.

    But even with DOMA, the feds aren't singling out any particular clergy or any particular religion. They're just carving out an exception to which state recognized marriages they'll recognize, excluding those which are between two people of the same sex. And this exception applies whether or not the marriage was performed in a religious or civil ceremony, and if religious, without regard to which religion.

    So here again, the federal government is not favoring one religion over another; the discrimination is based on whether it is an os or ss couple.

  • 98. Adam  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    Ok, this isnt really very good or original, but its what I really want to know. And since I made a donation before going on my rant . . . I'm gonna ask.


    What have you done with Raman?

  • 99. sam  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    The fact as I see it is that the vast majority of animus toward us as gay people hinges entirely on the views people are taught through the religion they've chosen to belong to. Without a religious component there usually isn't a lot of reason to deny equality based on where someone falls on the spectrum of LGBT.

    Churches and religious institutions currently and always should have the right to decide who they will or won't marry, but this fact isn't brought up often enough. As an agnostic person with no religious views I don't want to married in a church or by a leader with religious beliefs that I don't agree with. As a homo I don't want to get married in a church or by a leader who doesn't believe in my inherent right to be equal. As an American I fully believe everyone has the right to believe as they want.

    I don't want to tell churches what they can or can't believe for the most part, and I don't want them telling my government for which I pay taxes how to treat the citizens of this country. And to me that's the point that keeps being missed.

  • 100. Linda  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    Sam–that is exactly the point; I agree. But try explaining that to these fundies and they give you that glazed-over look. Everything revolves around their religion; to the point that, in their minds, it is not possible to have morals or standards apart from religion–and more to the point–apart from the Bible. And as long as NOM is welcomed into the churches they don't have to have a rational defense. All they have to do is quote a few verses, and make a few (false) accusations, and the money rolls in. The only people demanding accountability from them is us!

  • 101. Sagesse  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:56 pm

    Perhaps the time has come to start quoting the Supreme Court at them. When [Father Becker] starts going on about how unnatural and depraved 'homosexual conduct' is, point out the Lawrence quote that says the fact that some people find conduct immoral is no reason to intrude on the private lives of gay people. That LGBT relationships are completely legal.

    When they start going on about adoption, point out that gay couples are able to adopt in all but a few states, and quote Judge Tauro's calm one sentence acceptance of the various professional studies that show children are no worse off with same sex parents. (And soon, we hope, Judge Walker as well :).)

    BB will foam at the mouth and rant about activist courts, but make the point that, despite their religious beliefs, which they are entitled to, society, the people, have accorded these rights to LGBT citizens.

  • 102. Linda  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see a debate. Enough of this interview stuff; poor Arisha can't say anything remotely challenging for fear of being accused of harassment! The only way NOM will be held accountable to explain and justify their position is in a debate format. And from what I've read on this site, there are a number of folks in our community who could go toe to toe with Brian and Maggie.

    I say neutral turf, equal status debates.

  • 103. AndrewPDX  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    That would be wonderful! Finally, a debate worth watching on TV! How can we get that to happen?


  • 104. Dave in CA  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    But the debate has already taken place – it was the Prop 8 trial. In that forum, they could not evade questions, they could not spin, they could not play PR 101. They had to respond directly to direct questions which were entered into trial as evidence. And which is why nearly all of the members of their debate team all bailed out before the trial even started. They can BS all they like about some imagined fear of intimidation but what really happened is obvious to anyone who followed the trial.

    The rest of this is amusing and entertaining, but it's already been demonstrated that they don't have answers for any of these questions.

    What was Walker's reaction to all this at trial? "Why did you only bring one witness?"

    Remember Cooper's famous words at closing? "We don't have evidence and we don't have to provide any." And in pre-trial, when asked how SSM would harm straight marriage, what was his answer way back then again? That's right: "Your Honor, I don't know."

    Their only witness said we would be more American on the day we permit SSM, and that the children of SSM would be better off if their parents' marriages were recognized and legal.

    So basically, the debate IS over. It's just a matter of time, although it may take a while. Even Maggie conceded that when she said she expects Judge Walker to rule against them.

    This is really just their last cynical attempt to collect some bucks before they go down the sinkhole. It's fun to document the embarrassment of their turnouts, but given their lack of performance at trial, the trend among the younger generation, the long arc of history which bends toward justice, and the steady stream of other countries going this way… it's over.

  • 105. Linda  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    Thank you, Dave. I guess I needed to hear that once again.

  • 106. Southern Bell  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    Yes, however, the debate aka Prop8 trial was only followed by those who knew to look. These people are already on our side. I think it is a matter of getting the attention of those 'on the fence' and what is difficult is explaining why OUR marriages matter so much that they should get involved. I feel it's almost a catch 22, our marriages wouldn't really matter to anyone else yet I think in order to win this we need a lot more allies and therefore have to 'prove' why they should care enough to visibly/physically support us.

    I feel that the best scenario of good coming out of this NOM tour is that other logical people will hear some of the conversation and have a change of heart and support us more visibly. I of course greatly appreciate how we've been able to follow the tour so closely and am grateful for those on the ground. I love knowing something is being done every day, even if it is that we are not backing down. I just wonder what impact this tour will really have in our gains of equality. It is so hard to be patient when something seems so obvious.

  • 107. Mark M  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Thank you Dave 🙂
    Very well said

  • 108. StraightForEquality  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:04 pm


  • 109. NetAmigo  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    I think that it helps to hit the religious right position with the science on the issue. All, and I reiterate all, the leading medical and mental health organizations in this country tell us homosexuality is a normal form of sexual orientation. Cite the Prop. 8 brief submitted by them. Are they really advocating that we turn to unqualified, ignorant and oftentimes prejudiced preachers and priests on this issue? Hit them over the head that the Bible literally advocates slavery, the rape of women, polygamy and child sacrifice. Cite the verses. Why don't they advocate those things? Why pick on gay people? And if you're talking to priests, ask if they don't think the Catholic Church has more to do dealing with their predator priests sexually molesting children than attacking gay parents and their children. That's a subject you'll find that they don't like to talk about – their lifestyle choice. I think these fanatics need to be backed up against the wall to defend their ignorance and bigotry.

  • 110. Mark M  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    Basic Rights Oregon sets out to change minds on gay marriage

  • 111. FirePuff  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    I have a question if he ever does do a second Q&A…

    One argument for pushing one man / one woman for marriage was to have a balanced marriage, as a two female couple would not have a father figure, or a two male couple would not have a mother figure.

    Does NOM endorse the idea of gender stereotypes? Or are they progressive in terms of gender equality? If they are for gender equality, then how would a "missing" mother or father figure "figure" in?

  • 112. Straight Ally #3008  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    Gahhhhh….. you've got to pin him down on the point that civil law extends certain recognitions and rights to couples, except same-sex couples. The same-sex partners are born with a certain orientation that makes marrying someone of the opposite sex irrelevant, and it clearly makes them the target of animus (this is why the "it's a choice" crowd is so vocal). Churches are free to keep things as "special" as they wish within their own ceremonies, not to mention that some churches already bless same-sex unions.

    OK, breathe….when I get ticked off at NOM, I just look at this graph. Ah, much better. 🙂

  • 113. Dave in CA  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    Your linked graph looks kind of like the long arc of history, and it's bending towards justice (hint to Brian: that's from MLK, in case you were wondering),

    Great graph! Thanks for showing that, Straight Ally!

  • 114. Straight Ally #3008  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    Well said, Dave; the MLK quote is apt. I hadn't shared the graph in a while, and I figured it was as good a time as any to share it anew. 🙂

  • 115. Dave in CA  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    Oh, and if they do stuff that gets under my skin, I go to

    and watch Dr. Tam give his…. uhm.. "evidence" again, and then watch their lawyer back-paddle away as fast as he can. That's always good for a laugh.

    Or as Rob Tisani described them in his video: "Not exactly liars… just not people who tell the truth."

  • 116. Linda  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:15 pm

    Why is it that the straight crowd are the experts regarding how/why we are NOT straight. This baffles me. They insist that I chose this; they insist that I need healing. And they 'comfort' me with the assurance that though my healing may take years I can enjoy the blessings of abstinence in the meantime.

    When I tell them that I didn't chose this; that I was born this way, they just shake their heads and tell me I'm 'misled'. They're the experts; after all, they're straight.

    The lack of logic is overwhelming!

  • 117. Dave in CA  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    The best answer I ever heard to that was this:

    "I didn't choose to be a homosexual; it chose me."

  • 118. Straight Ally #3008  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    They have so much invested in homosexuality being a choice because they can't bear to think of it as normal – plus, to accept orientation as an inherent characteristic is to accept that you're engaging in bigotry.

  • 119. Steve  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    Even if it were a choice: why should it matter?

    Legally, there is the suspect class issue. But then religion is also a protected class and indoctrination of children aside, that's clearly a protected class.

    Apart from that, if someone chooses to love someone of the same gender, Why does the reason matter so much? They are freaked out by thought no matter why.

  • 120. Steve  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:47 pm

    Oops. That should say "clearly a choice"

  • 121. Straight Ally #3008  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:33 pm

    Steve, I hear what you're saying, but I think the issue strongly impacts the arguments. First and foremost, it's just an accurate reflection of the situation – we are born with a certain sexual orientation. Second, to parse the "choice" argument from the other side a bit, it's really framed as "choice to be (what we consider) sinful." Take away the choice aspect and you're condemning someone for who they are, no better than racism or sexism (and listen to they way they present their arguments – it's not the same, it's not a civil rights issue). Third, it's important for the argument that, as civil laws stand in most states, you can't be afforded equal civil marriage rights because of something that is not under your control – it is, in essence, discrimination against a biological minority of the population. So bottom line, it's about how strong the ties are between anti-equality and simple bigotry and discrimination.

  • 122. AndrewPDX  |  July 31, 2010 at 3:18 am

    I would ask them, "Exactly, on what date, did you 'choose' to be heterosexual? What were your thought processes on making that decision that day? How did you approach telling your parents this news?"


  • 123. Paul in Minneapolis  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    There was some discussion earlier about separation of church and state. I just posted the following on NOM's site (not that I ever expect it to see the light of day there):

    I take issue with your claim that you "simply wish to pray to God for the preservation of His sacred institution."

    God and the sacred are within the realm of the church — not the state. Every religious institution is free to determine how, and to whom, it wishes to administer its sacraments. That includes the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

    Civil marriage has nothing to do with God, sacraments or any religious teaching. Rather, it is a civil contract into which two consenting adults freely enter. Access to civil marriage is not determined by adherence to any particular faith; atheists and theists alike may obtain civil marriage licenses.

    By injecting yourselves into the discussion of who should (and should not) be allowed access to CIVIL marriage, you belie not only your claim of merely wanting to pray, but also of wanting to pray for the preservation of how your religion defines marriage – an issue with which the state has never been involved.

    It is when you claim that you “simply wish to pray … for the preservation of [marriage]” – a religious act – but actively advocate that the state define civil marriage in a particular way – a civil act – that people rightfully question whether you are attempting to impose your faith on those who do not share it. More broadly, it brings into question the principle of separation of church and state as stated in the establishment and free exercise clauses of our federal constitution’s first amendment.

  • 124. Anonygrl  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:47 pm

    Very well said! Thank you!

  • 125. StraightForEquality  |  July 31, 2010 at 1:27 am

    Paul, I am rather late in commenting, but that was a wonderful statement. It makes a point that I don't see/hear often enough.

  • 126. Ronnie  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    Brian Brown is complete slime & makes me want to cover my mouth (possibly even smothering myself) so that none of is toxic waste gets in.

    Here's is the question that needs to be asked because every time I see someone post or say that all Homosexuals are about lust only, are 100% incapable of love; I get offended and I'm not even in a relationship. I believe that I am capable of loving another Man the way a man loves his wife. There is no difference. Love is not about what parts fit where & will this relationship make a baby. My sister can't get pregnant but she's still engaged to man. Her marriage is not going to produce a child. So that is moot.

    Q. Brian Brown, you said that there is something special in marriage between a way a man & a woman love each other. It has been said on the Protect Marriage: One Man One Woman Facebook page in which your own Louis Marinelli & an affiliated administrator has repeatedly said "2Men or 2Women are incapable of loving each other the same way a man & woman love each other. It is not about love it is about lust and nothing else. Therefore Homosexuals cannot get married because they are incapable of love". Do you believe that? Do you actually believe that 2Men or 2Women are incapable of loving each other in the way marriage is supposed to be about? & if so, don't you think that is degrading & demeaning of 2 peoples relationship who you don't even know?

    Feel free to change that & what not…but I had to put that out there because it is something that really pisses me off because it so judgmental, so degrading, so offensive, so insulting, so dehumanizing & Brian Brown nearly said it himself in that interview.


  • 127. Linda  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Ronnie–THANK YOU! That is exactly how I am feeling, too. It is so hurtful, isn't it? In a hetero relationship people automatically assume there is a deep, abiding love; but if it's a same sex relationship all people can think about is the sex. Well, guess what–we are just as capable of loving someone as our straight counterparts. Being gay isn't about the sex, it's about the emotional and psychological connections we have with people of the same sex instead of people of the opposite sex. We love just as completely as anyone else. We are just like everyone else! We meet, we connect, we fall in love, we want to commit. That's it. That's all we're striving for, here.

  • 128. Southern Bell  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Tell him if he needs proof that it's not just about sex, to give me a call. I haven't had sex in over 2 yrs and barely foreplay due to a myriad of issues…and I've been in an extremely loving, totally monogamous, and committed relationship for 3 yrs (with the SAME woman if that is not clear enough). I fully plan to marry this woman and we're not even sure if we can consummate that marriage. I'll drag up all my medical files and give all doctor contacts I can remember if it would get ppl to drop that line.

    This is not about sex and if it weren't such a private matter I would tell many people to can it bc I am a perfect living example of why that argument does not work. I don't like knowing the first thing ppl think of SS is the sex, I agree it is EXTREMELY degrading, and a slap in my face due to my situation.

  • 129. Ronnie  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    You're Welcome, Linda. & yes it is hurtful & the fact that Brian Brown says he thinks it is wrong to demean people who are LGBT but very nearly says that sentiment that I pointed out leads me to believe that he is in fact a 2faced liar. Not that we didn't already know that but this just proves it all the more.

    Side note/correction: I need to rephrase that part about my sister though…It's not impossible for her to have a baby just improbable. She's tried & it never takes. I don't want to divulge to much because it is a personal matter. But it is biological & scientific fact that the older a woman gets the harder it is to reproduce. Yes there are instances of women in their late 40's, 50's & even 60's (maybe older) getting pregnant but they are in the minority.

    on another note…"We are just like everyone else! We meet, we connect, we fall in love, we want to commit. That’s it."…..I just may put that on a shirt…. ; )


  • 130. Mark M  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Your passion is always so deep and so crystal clear Ronnie. Thank you!

  • 131. Ronnie  |  July 31, 2010 at 4:40 am

    @Mark M…..You're welcome….& Thank you….<3…Ronnie

  • 132. PamC  |  August 1, 2010 at 12:27 am

    Ronnie–thank you! This is perfect.

    I remember when my spouse choked up in tears in the middle of our wedding vows–the whole crowd responding "awwww…" –and then I choked up, too. That was a moment of love, tenderness and realization of our commitment to one another.

    Their statements are so hateful.

  • 133. Jeff  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Not sure what to make of this post on twitter…

    OneMan_OneWoman: Louis J. Marinelli at OneMan-OneWoman.Org is calling for Charlie Rangel to resign.

  • 134. Kathleen  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    If you don't have a twitter account, you can now follow be4marriage at "her" own facebook page:

    Latest tweets:
    Arrived in Des Moines. Gays get married here. People are looting, screaming, and killing all over the city as a result #chaos #trufax #no4m

    Seriously, it's chaos here in Des Moines. Society is in a tailspin. All the churches have been converted into brothels. #trufax #no4m


  • 135. PamC  |  August 1, 2010 at 12:30 am

    I love this woman! She's hilarious.

  • 136. Linda  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    My girlfriend lives in SC and I live in CA; now tell me our relationship is only about sex!

  • 137. Allison  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    Forgive me for my youth, but I still do not understand what exactly they are trying to protect marriage from. Hetero couples I know live in abusive situations, sexless marriages, childless marriages. Marriages absent of love. Marriages revolving around necessity. People who married for money, for power, and to stay in the country. Marriages where both parties go to church, sing loudly, and then come home and yell at each other even more loudly. Marriages where the children come home to empty homes and meals in a box. Marriages with infidelity, huge amounts of debt, and unhealthy lifestyles. Why isn't NOM trying to help them? If they care about protecting the sanctity of marriage and the children that are the product of the sacrament, shouldn't they be focusing on these issues? That they do not can only point to one conclusion – they don't care about the topic or sacrament of marriage, they care about keeping it from people they personally find distasteful.

    I am one of those people. A young professional, cute, happy. A good contributor to the community. By looking at me, Brian and his friends would never know I have a girlfriend. Another young professional, cute, active volunteer, loving family member, good citizen. We are both doing everything right…everything our (Catholic) parents, teachers, and government has asked us to do. At the end of a long week, I come home and cook her dinner. I do the laundry. She takes the dog out. We read the paper while we eat or chat about work. We go off to work on projects, read, clean, go for a walk, or watch a movie. Usually one of us falls asleep and the other turns off the TV and makes sure the door is locked. This is our life. As healthy as can be. We are happy, well-adjusted, appreciated by our employers, and loved by our families. Why try to protect an institution from us? This is what I never understand.

    Unfortunately for NOM, people who meet us begin to not understand either.

  • 138. Ray in MA  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:37 pm

    Wow!, we live in parallel worlds!!! I thought my husband and I were the only good and decent homosexual people on the whole planet!

    Are there others like us?!?!?

    Maybe we should let NOM know about us… I'll give Haggie a call right now!.

  • 139. John B.  |  July 31, 2010 at 12:17 am

    In truth, they aren't trying to protect marriage; they are trying to protect those with religious beliefs from having to recognize same-sex marriages in any way, and especially to protect their right to discriminate against gay couples however and whenever they want. This is why they have so much trouble saying exactly what they are protecting marriage from–because it's not about protection at all, it's about having SPECIAL RIGHTS (remember that term?) to use their religious beliefs to justify discrimination.

  • 140. Steve  |  July 31, 2010 at 12:27 am

    Remember the Prop8 trial, when their lawyer was asked how their marriages are threatened and he simply said "I don't know". And later he said that they made the best case they could.

  • 141. AndrewPDX  |  July 31, 2010 at 3:28 am

    Yeah, we've been trying to figure that out too… my best guess is that they're trying to protect their own source of income. Seriously. The leaders of NOM (Hi Maggie, Hi Brian) don't really care about truth and fairness and the constitution… they only care about their own bank accounts, like used car salesmen. Only, instead of pedaling lemons and junkers and gigantic interest rates… these guys sell Fear and Hate.


  • 142. Kathleen  |  July 31, 2010 at 5:05 am

    Wonderful post, Allison. Thank you.

  • 143. Dpeck  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:47 pm

    …. A brief segment on the evening news tonight – Starting today, same-sex marriages have begun in Argentina. Yay!

  • 144. Ray in MA  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:51 pm

    I think the challenge is to make questions very short and to the point… when the questions is too long, it gives the questionee too much time to compose a response. i.e., before finishing the question, the responder already knows the reply.

    A short version of Ronnie's Q above:

    Do you believe Homosexuals are incapable of love?


    Is the quality of love between a homosexual couple of lesser value than a heterosexula couple?

    uhhhhhhhh……. well………. ummmmmmmm…..

  • 145. Apricot  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    So lets see, NOM is trying to single out and prohibit the freedoms of a minority demographic of people and legally create second class citizens in America for the first time in 30 years – and they want to be seen as heroes for doing it. It's disgusting.

    By the way, If we were talking about folks that can't have children, Jews, redheaded people, or whoever we happen to not like then we wouldn't even be having a conversation. Saying that we should get rid of liberties because we think they're not 'good' enough or 'special' enough is a ridiculous thing to even humor with acknowledgement. Our country was founded specifically word for word against that kind of thinking and that kind of law.

  • 146. Sagesse  |  July 31, 2010 at 12:52 am

    Anyone see a South Park episode here…. Gingers and Gays form a coalition to support Marriage Equality.

    Sorry, need coffee, a little punchy this morning. Plus I have a soft spot for Gingers, as an oppressed minority.

  • 147. Anonygrl  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:05 am

    I am a redhead.

    I am a lefty too.

    And bisexual.

    I probably better just skip going back to the closet entirely and go lock myself up in a self-storage unit out in the swamps in New Jersey!


    Silly me. Please pass the coffee, Sagesse.

  • 148. Sagesse  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Anonygrl, how do you take it?

  • 149. Anonygrl  |  July 31, 2010 at 3:23 am

    In a cup. Other than that, whatever you are having works for me!


  • 150. Sagesse  |  July 31, 2010 at 12:07 am

    Updating: Prop 8 Decision Day (I'm going to call it) Celebrations planned in CA and elsewhere.

  • 151. Linda  |  July 31, 2010 at 1:09 am

    Thanks, Sagesse; I signed up.

  • 152. MJFargo  |  July 31, 2010 at 1:00 am

    This was their tactic at the trial. "We don't believe these things or we aren't expert on these things, but we sure give a forum for those people who say them or put them into pamphets or TV ads…." But we won't let you admit any of these things into evidence that we said them or promoted them because it would make us look like the bigots we so don't want to appear like. I had much more respect for the man with the sign with the nooses on it, who stood up and told the interviewer exactly what he believed than the NOM people who promote hate, but deny they promote it.

  • 153. Sagesse  |  July 31, 2010 at 1:09 am

    Actually, they didn't have any support to put into evidence because the Yes on 8 campaign was a PR effort to put out messages that would induce people to vote Yes. There is no requirement that what they said be 'true' or supported by evidence. Same holds true for the legislature. You can say anything you want in support of legislation… you don't have to be able to back up what you're saying. This comes out in the legislative history of DADT (for those who have the patience to read the transcripts of the recent trial). They ignored evidence they didn't like and accepted unsupported opinions and voted.

    That's why minority rights will be decided by the courts, where the facts have weight and PR spin does not.

  • 154. Linda  |  July 31, 2010 at 1:15 am

    Exactly! And David Boies spoke to this very thing in one of the interviews he gave. The courts are always the ones to decide minority rights. Elected officials vote to please their constituents, and then look to the courts to right their wrong. This is standard procedure.

  • 155. AndrewPDX  |  July 31, 2010 at 3:31 am

    YAY! Let's hear it for Checks and Balances! (Now, if we can just figure out how to balance the checks…)


  • 156. Anonygrl  |  July 31, 2010 at 1:54 am

    There is a good reason why, for the anti-gay religious community, that homosexuality must be a choice. This is terribly over simplified, but basically the way it works.

    Homosexuality, they say, is a sin.

    God created us. If God created us and made us homosexual, then he is creating sinners. God would not do that. God gave us all free will to choose whether or not to sin.

    Thus, homosexuality (a sin) must be a choice. And since God wants us not to sin, we must, they say, choose not to be homosexual.

    And they sincerely believe this, and believe that they can save us if only WE believe it. To our way of looking at it, they are delusional, but this is their sincere belief. Many of them mean us no harm, they simply do not and cannot (if their belief in God is to remain firm) understand the very great harm their beliefs do us. So they continue in the path of doing their best to help us and protect us from hell, despite the damages they cause, because they ARE, for the most part, loving people who just do not understand how wrong they are about us and our needs.

    What they really don't see, because they need their belief in God to stand firm, is the selfishness that they are perpetrating. And it may not be kind of us to even point that part of it out. These folks may not have much EXCEPT their faith, and trying to force them away from their faith is not the way to go.

    On the other hand, they must not, and in the end will not, be allowed to legislate on those religious convictions. I say they are free to believe whatever they need to in their own homes, in their churches, with their family and friends. I will not go into their lives and proselytize about my beliefs. However, if they bring their harmful, faith based issues "into the public square", I will firmly and bravely oppose them all the way. The public square is a place where law prevails, not biblical law, but civil law, and our civil law declares equality and equal protection for all. This means that while the anti-gay religionists are free to hold their beliefs, they are not free to impress them on the rest of us.

  • 157. StraightForEquality  |  July 31, 2010 at 6:40 am

    Anonygrl, very good analysis!

  • 158. Sagesse  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Thought for the day. I'm really looking forward to Des Moines, hoping the Equality side has a massive showing of what a marriage equality state looks like. And of course, Sioux City as well, if it can be more than another parking lot in a field whistle stop. Lots of loving couples, lots of happy families. Unfortunately, NOM will have its supporters out in force in Des Moines, since they're bent on having a DOMA amendment passed.

  • 159. Colon Cleansing&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Get Healthy With A Colon Cleanse…

    […]just below, are some totally unrelated sites to ours, however, they are definitely worth checking out[…]…

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