Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

You asked, and NOM’s Brian Brown was forced to answer (re-posted)

NOM Tour Tracker Right-wing

(Many folks did not receive their usual e-mail alert when this went up late yesterday, so re-posting it -Adam)

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. Kathleen  |  July 31, 2010 at 7:03 am

    Thanks for representin', folks!

  • 2. Ronnie  |  July 31, 2010 at 7:14 am

    I concur….<3…Ronnie

  • 3. JonT  |  July 31, 2010 at 7:25 am

    I am Grey. I stand between the Candle and the Star, between the Darkness and the Light.

    Hi Louis! Also subscribing. Will now watch some video!


  • 4. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 31, 2010 at 7:43 am


  • 5. Alan E.  |  July 31, 2010 at 7:19 am

    subscribing to this one too

  • 6. ΔΆΔ­Ε—îΔΌΔΊΔ™&  |  July 31, 2010 at 7:26 am


  • 7. Felyx  |  July 31, 2010 at 8:09 am

    I thought I would do some-scribing too. πŸ˜› Felyx

  • 8. Elliot  |  July 31, 2010 at 7:46 am


  • 9. JonT  |  July 31, 2010 at 7:47 am

    Interesting interview – a couple of comments.

    I do not believe anyone is saying that you cannot speak of your religious beliefs, or discuss them, etc.

    The issue with the separation of church and state means that a government cannot write/enforce laws based on religious beliefs. It's interesting to see how BB is (intentionally) missing this important distinction.

    It's one thing the believe being gay is wrong because of your religious beliefs. Quite another to use the force of government and law to enforce those beliefs on others.

    And you're right… Toward the end of the interview he was dancing a bit.

    On the one hand saying that religious people have an obligation to speak out against what they believe to be immoral sexual practices. On the other hand not willing to agree with the statements of his speakers, but not really disagreeing with them either.


  • 10. ChrisM  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    BB said that churches are allowed to expressing their opinions/views on social/civil issues and this should not jeopardize their tax exempt status. But what about when they donate large amounts of money to campaigns to put their opinions into law? What about when they fund political agendas (like the NOM Summer vacation of failed rallies tor)?

  • 11. Josh  |  August 1, 2010 at 12:41 am

    That's all nom and these guys do is dance around the real facts and refuse to answer directly and honestly.

    I'm disgusted at the constant stream of LIES flowing from the mouths of these supposedly christian people.

    They are constantly breaking the two commandments of lying and bearing false witness. Maybe they've heard the lies so many times they think they are truth and really are trying to do good, but I highly doubt it. They just keep covering the truth with their lies to keep the icky gay people out of the marriage club and to maintain the illusion that we're inferior.

  • 12. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 31, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Again, he is twisting what we have been saying about the separation of church and state. All we have been asking is that these people remember that one religion does not have the right to codify those beliefs into law for everyone else to have to live by. And can someone please explain to me how expanding the civil rights to marriage will redefine it to the point of weakening marriage? Or does NOM choose to ignore the fact that in the states which have granted full marriage equality the divorce rate has gone DOWN, while the marriage rate has gone UP?
    That is my next question for BB:
    You say that granting gays and lesbians the right to civil marriage will weaken the institution of marriage. If this is so, then how do you explain that in the states which have full marriage equality for all those who are of legal age to marry, the divorce rate has actually DECREASED, while the marriage rate has actually INCREASED?
    And how does wanting people to remember that we are not to codify the beliefs and tenets of one particular religion into law translate into not being allowed to take one's religious beliefs into the public square?

  • 13. PamC  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:39 pm

    Exactly, Richard. Codifying beliefs into law = theocracy.

  • 14. Andrew  |  July 31, 2010 at 8:14 am

    Not to be a sourpuss, but when do you think the judge will finally make his verdict? I love reading about the NOM tour and it's feeble lies, but I'm getting anxious. I obviously realize that you can't read the judges mind, but he's been taking such a long time…

  • 15. Kathleen  |  July 31, 2010 at 8:17 am

    No one knows for sure. David Boies said in an interview that he expected it mid-August.

    I know it seems like forever, but this isn't really an unusual amount of time for a decision like this.

  • 16. Felyx  |  July 31, 2010 at 8:35 am

    I for one am prepared to wait patient. I know that Judge Walker will rule in our favor. I want that he should take his time to write an airtight ruling. The more solid his ruling the less likely the appeal will go against us and the far more likely that laws across the nation will turn in our favor. Moreover, this ruling will go to the Supreme Court so it is vitally important that he take his time to do it airtight right.

    (And if you are lurking Lucius…er Louis, please please use your influence to get the case appealed to the supreme court. If you don't then it will take us even longer to make universal marriage the law of the land! So for the love of Gay God! Please get your people to appeal Walkers ruling all the way to the SC so that we can kick your sorry asses and laugh at your utter futile stupidity!!!)

    Sincerely, Felyx

  • 17. Josh  |  August 1, 2010 at 12:51 am

    I'm anxious too. I was thinking the same as Felyx and am hoping that Judge Walker is writing the best verdict possible and getting it totally right. It would seem easy with all the good stuff on our side and utter crap on their side, but he knows all the tricks of appeals and legal loopholes and has to write the ruling to deflect those.

    Can anyone answer whether he can consult with other judges/lawyers in writing his verdict?

  • 18. Anonygrl  |  August 1, 2010 at 5:49 am

    I believe a judge is free to seek advice on application of the law from whomever he pleases.

  • 19. Felyx  |  July 31, 2010 at 8:28 am

    I left a longer comment on the previous post that would have been better suited here but such is life.

    I would add to it that the interviewers should not be afraid to tell BS Brown that he is off topic or that is comment is irrelevant to the question. Giving an answer that has nothing to do with the question is a annoying way to avoid the question altogether.

    Be prepared to come back with a, 'Be that as it may, you still are avoiding the question.' or,

    'I see you are trying to avoid the question but I still would like to know…' etc.

    Succinctly repeating back the statement and requesting a confirmation is another good way to stay on topic.

    'So you believe that the Catholic religion should dictate US law?' or,

    'So are you saying that even if gays were married they would still be adulterers?' or,

    'So, if I understand you correctly, you think gays would not be promiscuous if they were allowed to partake of civil marriage?'

    Anyway you work it guys, (and you the most awesome Arisha), BS Brown, Mag-Hags and Lurking Louis really don't want to face any real issues. They do not really want to answer questions; they only want to score 'points'. It would take Barbara Walters, David Boies and Judge walker to get a straight answer out of any of these so-called 'straight and narrows' and even then you would inevitably hear the occasional 'Good God Man!'.

    So take it easy on yourselves and enjoy what you are doing. We love you all. And don't ever underestimate the entertainment value you provide us all by exposing BS and Mag-Hag for the NOM-nothings that they are!

    With such gratitude,

  • 20. PamC  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:41 pm

    @Felyx–hope you are doing well! Been thinking about you. πŸ™‚

  • 21. Felyx  |  August 1, 2010 at 10:14 am

    Hey PamC,

    I am doing better than ever. I have needed medical attention all my life. It is my gay family (Papa Foma and Kirill and the support of all of you) that made this all possible.

    I am back and I am ready to continue to do my part to change the world for the better.


  • 22. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 1, 2010 at 10:31 am

    Good! Now, what topping do you want on your recovery challah–poppy seeds or cinnamon/sugar blend?

  • 23. Josh  |  August 1, 2010 at 1:08 am

    Yes, you are amazing, Arisha!!

    How can you stay so calm sounding in front of these people? I wish I could be half as composed as you in these situations/conversations.

    Keep up the great work!

  • 24. Tracy  |  July 31, 2010 at 8:44 am

    Another question for Brian:

    If an independent scientific study were undertaken, and the findings showed that gay marriage does NOT negatively impact marriage, would you then stand up in SUPPORT of gay marriage on behalf of the children, whom David Blankenhorn testified would benefit from gay marriage?

  • 25. Tracy  |  July 31, 2010 at 8:45 am

    Surely, in states where gay marriage has been legalized, there is enough data to perform such a statistical study.

  • 26. Marlene  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:05 am

    There most likely have been studies made Tracy… and don't call me Shirley, that's my mom's name! πŸ˜‰

  • 27. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:14 am

    In fact, I remember seeing a post with a link to a review of the filings in Massachusetts which showed that the divorce rate has gone from nearly 70% DOWN to 4% and that the marriage rate has grown about 10 times what it was prior to the legalization of marriage equality.

  • 28. Tracy  |  July 31, 2010 at 8:47 am

    It would be nice to get him on record with such a statement, because someday, such a study will become publicized, and Brian will have to respond….

  • 29. Tracy  |  July 31, 2010 at 8:51 am

    One last comment on this, I promise! πŸ™‚ But if this is a marathon, as many have claimed, that takes strategy … and the NOM Tour has provided an unprecedented opportunity to get Brian and other NOM personnel ON RECORD. Plan ahead — get them to commit to something, anything, and in the future they may contradict themselves.

  • 30. Josh  |  August 1, 2010 at 1:13 am

    Oh they will have no problem going back on something they said before. They lie, twist, and contort everything to make us look inferior and unworthy of equality. They really are doing the devil's work and it's obvious by all thier dishonesty. They are misleading people with their lies to attain their goal.

    If it takes lies to support a goal, the goal must be evil.

  • 31. Felyx  |  July 31, 2010 at 8:52 am

    Begging for non-sequitur spin. BS's job depends on pleasing the puppet masters. He has lots of children that he can't possible take care of on his own.

    If he did respond it would be one of the following:

    1) I am not aware of any such study.
    2) The study was liberally biased.
    3) The study actually proved the opposite of what the conclusion says it proved.
    4) God didn't peer-review the study so it is completely invalid.


  • 32. Tracy  |  July 31, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Good point – On the other hand, your argument pretty much invalidates any question we could ask him, because his response would be similarly obtuse.

  • 33. Tracy  |  July 31, 2010 at 8:57 am

    Think about it from this standpoint though – it's a good bet that the community in support of gay marriage collectively represents the upper echelon of intelligentsia … surely we can devise a strategy that they cannot anticipate, nor wriggle out of with such obtuse statements as "the study actually proved the opposite of what the conclusion says it proved."

  • 34. Steve  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Aside from entirely ignoring it, the most common reply from these groups is "selectively cite certain portions of the study to come to a completely different conclusion than the one actually made"

  • 35. Tracy  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:16 am

    Steve, that is my point – we know what their response will be. We need to use that knowledge against them somehow … there is a difference between strategy and tactics. The tactical response is to make them look like bigots NOW — that's what we've been doing. But the equality movement appears to lack a long-term strategy … once the battle is won, how do we win the war?

  • 36. Steve  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:19 am


    The problem with this is that you assume these people are open to reason. But they are religious. All their opposition is ultimately grounded in religion. Faith is the very antithesis of reason.

    It's possible to use logic with them to a certain point, but if you back them into far enough into a corner, it comes down to "God did it", "God says so", "I have faith and don't need reason" and other variation of these things. It's simply impossible to use logic against these replies, because there are inherently illogical.

    At best, the result is "let's agree to disagree". Which, granted, would actually be a positive solution if it also means that they stop their politicking. But that is their whole raison d'être, so they won't give up.

  • 37. Tracy  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:30 am

    @ Steve

    I am not disputing the fact that certain people are lost causes. On the contrary, there are those people that you will NEVER win over. I am thinking of those on the fringe — the ones who think they are anti-gay, but might be open to reason. If you can force NOM into an unflattering light, those people may flip. You will never win over the die hard anti-gay individuals. At this point, the best way to win the WAR is to win over those individuals that can be swayed. THEY may have enough intelligence to see through such pathetic arguments as "God says so", in light of a convincing scientific study. Keep in mind that scientific studies have changed many things – the world's opinion on smoking, teen pregnancy, lack of education, drinking, drug use, etc. Many people are reasonable and are only looking for direction. NOM cannot provide that, in the end.

  • 38. Tracy  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:32 am

    And with all due respect, Steve, I happen to believe that Brian Brown will go to his grave opposing gay marriage. I am just proposing that we use his bigotry on camera to enlightening the more intelligent of his quasi-supporters.

  • 39. Steve  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:38 am

    Sure, the majority is somewhere in the middle and could probably be swayed. Standard Gauss curve as with many things. But who actually watchesthese videos? I think mostly pro-gay rights people who want a laugh at the extremists. The message is there, but it doesn't reach its targets.

    The only way to truly turn their arguments against them would be another format. Like an open debate, which would naturally require NOM's cooperation. Or maybe showing those videos at the counter-rallys. Just publishing this on the internet is nice, but it doesn't really accomplish that much.

  • 40. Felyx  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:48 am

    I would venture to say that the two of you are missing the point. Getting any of them to see reason is just ridiculous (as has been mentioned.)

    The point is to watch them go in circles chasing their illogical tails and allowing them to come up with bizarre circular answers and squirm as they try to avoid the issue. They know that to answer the questions honestly would look bad for them. They also know that we are not interested in hearing their faith based answered. So don't even try to get logic or rationality out of them. They already know what their religious views are. (And why you can't see that is just beyond them except for the fact that you are all deceived and bound for hell.)

    Think of Blankenhorn when you analyse the answers to these questions. In the end he had nothing to offer scientifically, logically or rationally… but Boies's 'Good God! Man!' will certainly live on long after B's stupidity dissipates into oblivion. Enjoy the entertainment value of NOM's busride to nowhere. Equality is coming rapidly. Let NOM serve as the comic relief during the anxious moments of waiting.

    Love, Felyx

  • 41. Tracy  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:53 am

    @ Steve

    This website has accomplished many things – it has informed the public about the truth of the Prop 8 trial. It has inspired celebrities to re-enact the trial for the American public. And then, it has attracted people like me — I am not gay, but I am transfixed by the fact that my country — my state — openly discriminates against my peers. I have, in other comments, claimed that freedom was once "redefined" with the passage of the emancipation proclamation. The "redefinition" of marriage can be similarly American, even in the sight of David Blankenhorn. In this day of the internet and the WWW, EVERY VOICE can launch a revolution. Every grain of truth may take seed and grow into a realization of the American ideal of freedom. I don't have the answers, and it's easy to cop out when the right is obstructive — but I can't concentrate on life until all are treated equally. And so I will continue to seek a strategic solution to this horrific wrong.

  • 42. Ann S.  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:54 am

    I want to see him say that he will respect the role of the judiciary in protecting rights. Because that's probably how those rights will come.

  • 43. Tracy  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:58 am

    @ Felyx

    With all due respect, as I mentioned there are some who are uneffected by reason. Granted — they will go to their graves believing what they believe. But in our society today, we can only gain by targeting those who have reason. There are some, and it doesn't take many. Remember Prop 8 passed by a narrow margin. I don't like feeling that I am fighting against you and Steve and others, when I am 100% in support of your cause. I was only trying to help, so I won't post again. I just hope that the pro-equality movement will take a strategic approach to winning this war. All my best —

  • 44. Steve  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:29 am

    Err, I didn't intend to be confrontational with you. Let alone get you to stop posting. Sorry if it came over that way. Please don't don't stop on my account.

    I don't disagree fundamentally with you. I completely see your point. We just have a different view of how effective this medium is. I don't think it reaches enough people. That's no reason to stop altogether though and maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there are plenty of uninvolved people who are reached by this.

  • 45. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:45 am

    And who knows–this site and all the postings could be the basis of a book or a documentary about the Prop H8 trial and its aftermath. So everybody here and any internal disagreements we have had will be very necessary to show just how hard this has hit all of us, and all the harm that is being done by the ones who oppose marriage equality.

  • 46. Felyx  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:54 am

    @ Tracy,
    Don't go! Your comments are thought provoking and well received. There is a great deal of truth in your words.

    I too was only offering another POV. Essentially I was agreeing that NOMmers are not interested in factual or authentic debate and that exposing their circular logic and avoidance tactics would be beneficial to those who like to think for themselves.

    I appreciate your contributions and encourage you to keep on.

    Love, Felyx

  • 47. Straight Grandmother  |  July 31, 2010 at 6:01 pm

    @Felyx- your line was the funniest of ALL
    4) God didn’t peer-review the study so it is completely invalid.

  • 48. Felyx  |  August 1, 2010 at 10:20 am


    (Considering all the other bizarre things they say, I though this sounded quite reasonable!)


  • 49. Anonygrl  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:24 pm

    I think the fact that studies of the children of same sex marriages fit the bill and they show no negative impact. Additionally, in states where same sex marriage has been legal for a while, marriage rates are up, divorce rates are down.

    And Brian knows this. His answer was "I don't follow all the studies…" the unspoken part being "because they don't agree with my position, but if they did, I would be able to quote you statistics and percentages down the three digits past the decimal point."

    So the trick is to be able to quote them to him.

  • 50. Tracy  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:10 am

    We know there have been studies done – I'm sure we saw the cream of the crop (at this point) during the Prop 8 trial. My only point is that, if this is a marathon – as many people rightly claim, then the goal right now should be trapping Brian Brown in a statement on camera that we know he will contradict later. The writers of this blog are clearly highly intelligent individuals. If you've ever played chess, that's what this is…. we need a gambit that will trap them in their own bigotry.

  • 51. Tracy  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:19 am

    This tour is half over — you may never get the opportunity again to get Brian Brown on your camera, answering your questions! I am just saying, USE THIS OPPORTUNITY to get something damning on record.

  • 52. Mark M  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:45 am

    I certainly understand what you're saying and what you're wanting…just not sure it"s possible. Now if we had a snap sharp David Boies type doing the interviewing maybe….
    However, nothing says we shouldn't at least TRY…and I honestly think Arisha is trying.
    With the right questions and the right phrasing…..Hmmmm

  • 53. Tracy  |  July 31, 2010 at 10:07 am

    I concede that Arisha has been appropriately diligent in confronting Brian. But so far, we have not elicited a response that could be used against him later…

  • 54. JonT  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:05 am

    'I am just saying, USE THIS OPPORTUNITY to get something damning on record.'

    The problem is, that BB and CO aren't stupid. As the above interview shows – they know how to dance. They also read this blog – we are open, they are not. Try posting to their blogs sometime.

    I see no way to 'get them into a corner', say arrange something so that BB blurts out 'Kill all the fags!'. That's just not going to happen.

    Came close with Lynch'n Larry, but the nomos disavowed any connection to him.

    It would be great to corner them like that – indeed that's the kind of thing they've tried to attach to us repeatedly – the Gay Attack Labradors(TM), and similar contrived outrages.

    Counting on that… Not gonna happen unless we become really lucky one day.

    But getting them to speak, and yes, to dance, works just as well in the long run. IMO only.

    And Tracy: '…so I won’t post again. I just hope that the pro-equality movement will take a strategic approach to winning this war. All my best –…'

    Don't stop posting or offering your opinions! As anyone here can tell you, we don't always agree amonst ourselves πŸ™‚ There have been many heated arguments among allies here.

    I think our diversity is what makes us strong, and what will enable us to win in the end. Post away! I demand it!


  • 55. Anonygrl  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:35 pm

    As far as Larry goes…

    I think the question there should be:

    "Your message that you support LGBT rights is not getting through, Brian. Larry, with his sign advocating gay genocide IS one of YOUR followers, whether you like it or not, and is certainly representative of the sentiments of many of your supporters. Given that you that you invite speakers to your rallies who call homosexuality sex a sin, who equate homosexuals with perversion and pedophilia, what are you doing to explain to your supporters that those attitudes are wrong, and that they should be supporting the rights of the LGBT community? Who at your rallies speaks FOR the LGBT community?"

  • 56. Ann S.  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:22 am

    I would like to hear BB's thoughts on the role of the judiciary in the US, and specifically in protecting the rights of the minority from the majority.

  • 57. Josh  |  August 1, 2010 at 2:06 am

    I imagine he'd say that GLBT people are not a real minority and deserve no "special" rights. He'd say they can change or made a choice to be GLBT and thus are not a protected class.

    What if we then follow up with the fact that there's no doubt that people choose their religion, yet religious identity is a protected class?

  • 58. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 1, 2010 at 4:34 am

    Josh, that blows me away.
    I am not a protected class because of who God made me yet they are a protected class merely for believing in something.
    I'm sorry but I think that is wrong.

  • 59. Ann S.  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:54 am

    Religion is protected under the First Amendment — different issue.

    I would like to hear how he justifies the majority voting on someone's civil rights.

    I know — he'll say only so-called "traditional marriage" is a civil right.

    I will be interested to hear what he says in Iowa about the court's decision there. I think that like many people he doesn't understand the appropriate role of the judiciary in our society.

    We are a constitutional democracy with a system of checks and balances. He likes to pretend we live in a pure democracy, and majority rules, about everything.

    Where was he in civics class???

  • 60. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 1, 2010 at 8:39 am

    A Ann S.–I don't think he took civics. he probably substituted basketball or football for civics. The only way he could graduate.

  • 61. Ann S.  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:33 am

    @Richard — LOL

    OTOH, how sad it is that so few understand our system of governance.

  • 62. Mark M  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:46 am


  • 63. Mark M  |  July 31, 2010 at 9:47 am

    sub shoppe

  • 64. Anonygrl  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:37 pm

    Ice Cream Shoppe!

  • 65. Dave in Maine  |  July 31, 2010 at 10:12 am

    More mail, please!

  • 66. Tracy  |  July 31, 2010 at 10:17 am

    It seems pretty clear that my involvement is undesired — and I didn't mean to impose. All my best to your cause – it means a lot to me that you succeed.

  • 67. Kathleen  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:12 am

    Tracy, if you haven't been around here long, you may not realize that people here frequently debate and disagree and, for the most part, do so without any hard feelings. I hope you don't misunderstand debate and disagreement with an opinion to mean that you're not welcome or that your involvement on the site isn't wanted.

  • 68. JonT  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:18 am

    @Tracy: 'It seems pretty clear that my involvement is undesired — and I didn’t mean to impose. All my best to your cause – it means a lot to me that you succeed.'

    Why do you say that?

    I saw you in a discussion with Steve, but I must admit – I could not understand what the heck you two were really arguing about.

    We are not the drones you will see on the nomo sites – following some prescribed script, questioning nothing.

    We all have different experiences, and different views.

    That's what I love about this community – if we were all identical, if we all believed the same things, had the same experiences… what would be the point?

    I'm sorry – I guess I am having difficulty understanding why you feel like you are not wanted here. Did I miss something?

  • 69. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:27 am

    Actually, Tracy, when we disagree with each other, all of us come out ahead, because each of us is then able to look more deeply into what we stand for and why we stand for it, and we are able to become stronger people as a result of being able to stretch our minds to accept new ideas. Please, continue posting here. And I would also ask that you go back and read the posts from the beginning of the P8TT site and look at all the times we have disagreed and how many of us have stayed around. This is a community, this is a family, and as such we will have our squabbles. Don't let your first disagreement with folks drive you away. Stick around and let's all celebrate the ruling together when it is handed down.

  • 70. Steve  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:35 am

    As I said above, I really, really didn't mean to be antagonistic towards you. The only thing we disagree about is how effective it is to point out BB's illogic in this format.

    And by "this format", I don't mean this very blog, but the format of internet videos. It's not completely ineffectual of course and there is no reason to quit while this is possible. I just think it doesn't reach really the masses. I'm not saying that there aren't some straight allies that can be won this way, but IMHO most people who watch this are already on our side.

  • 71. Ray in MA  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    What you sayin' girl??!?! You're very welcome to be here and you're making great contributions. Are you being insecure???

    DON'T GO!

  • 72. Matt  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:16 am

    My questions would be these:

    1: What, if any, legal recognitions and benefits should partnered same-sex couples be able to receive from the government?

    2: You clearly have your beliefs on the religious meaning of marriage, but why are you opposed to loving, committed people being able to formalize their relationship in a civil contract?

    3: Your group claims to be the victims in this debate and claim to be on the side of the civil rights movement , but when was the last time a person in the US experienced any of the following for being an adherent of christianity:
    1: Being denied a job
    2: Being fired from a job
    3: Being denied housing
    4: Being evicted from housing
    5: Being arrested
    6: Being denied health insurance
    7: Being denied the ability to adopt
    8: Being denied the ability to designate somebody as a legal benefactor
    9: Being denied the ability to grant somebody power of attorney
    10: Being excluded from visiting a sick partner in a hospital
    11: Being excluded from a dying partner's side
    12: Being able to have their marriage formally certified and recognized by the state

  • 73. Steve  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:39 am

    Careful about the job thing. There are a couple of cases right now where university professors or students have been fired from jobs or thrown out of courses because they publicly voiced anti-gay sentiments. Or the student who wanted to be counselor and – rightfully – got into trouble, because she said she can't treat gay clients due to her beliefs.

    They are in the wrong of course, but the Christians are already using them to show that they are victimized because of their beliefs. And they can't see that that's completely different from being fired because you're gay.

  • 74. Matt  |  August 1, 2010 at 10:17 am


    Thanks for the good reminders- those are certainly issues of discrimination, but it's also possible for an employer (or a college program) to claim a "bona fide occupational issue" on those.

  • 75. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  July 31, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    I think it is correct that we will NEVER change the minds of the core NOMers, the Religious Reich, and the Fundies. But, Prop 8 taught us one thing, it passed by a VERY narrow margin, that means that there were just enough undecided people, that their scare campaign pulled them off the fence to vote for it.

    THOSE are the people that we need to reach with grass roots programs and these interviews with BB, et al. Not to catch them in a contradiction, not to change their minds, but to change the minds of all those that think his arguments are at least reasonable. We need to push his arguments from reasonal, into absurd. We need to show THEM the holes in the fence that they were pulled off of, and show them how they can come back to reason.

    Debate on this forum helps to sharpen that focus, strengthen our strategy, and bolster our confidence.

    Oh, and I love Spell Checker!!!

  • 76. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 31, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    I love Spell Check also, but I don't rely totally on it because of words that sound alike but are not used in the same way. The words that another writer I know calls "Weasel Words."

  • 77. Mark M  |  August 1, 2010 at 1:28 am

    I love the passion our posters have….it is so obvious in their words…..could care less whether they get it all spelled right.

  • 78. celdd  |  July 31, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    An article by David Boies at SF Gate.

    Nothing new for us, but good to see our position and arguments in the Prop 8 trial re-asserted for the general public.

  • 79. Kathleen  |  July 31, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    On NOM's expected arrival in Atlanta, "Smoke and Mirrors" by Rev. Paul M. Turner (for the religiously inclined among us)

  • 80. Straight Ally #3008  |  July 31, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    I can't help but think about how different the world would be if most Christians were like Rev. Turner.

  • 81. JonT  |  August 1, 2010 at 8:05 am

    Heh, I agree. That's a church I would consider going to.

  • 82. Ray in MA  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    That article has an excellent rationale for what NOM is doing on this tour and why. You all must read it.

    Starts with:

    Rev. Eugene H. Peterson, who is a “Professor Emeritus” of Spiritual Theology at Regent College in Vancouver B.C. is the author of one of newer translations of the Bible called “The Message”, the Bible in contemporary language. In his introduction to the Old Testament book of Amos he writes:

    “More people are exploited and abused in the cause of religion then in any other way. Sex, money and power all take a back seat to religion as a source of evil. Religion is the most dangerous energy source known to humankind. The moment a person (or government or religion or organization) is convinced that god, is either ordering or sanctioning a cause or project, anything goes. The history worldwide of religion fueled hate, killing, and oppression is staggering.”

    and continues later with:

    We in the LGBTQ community must stop deceiving ourselves. This is not about “gay marriage”. This is about causing sufficient fear so as to control our soul, control the very essence of who we are as God’s people.


    We must confront and refute the blatant lies and fear mongering of these religious bigots. Now is not the time to sit quietly in the comfort of our homes while the LGBTQ people of the world continue to die, get beat to the point of death or drown out who they are in alcohol and drugs.

    Please read!

  • 83. Mark M  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Thanks Kathleen πŸ™‚

  • 84. Kathleen  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    You're welcome, Mark. I was thinking of you when I posted it.

  • 85. Bob  |  July 31, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    and please pay special attention to the last comment, when NOM arrives he will be there to meet them SHOUTING LOUDLY !!!!!!!! SHOUTING LOUDLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! without fear.

    he will be there to meet them SHOUTING LOUDLY!!!!!!!!!!! for nothing can seperate us from our master,

    have no fear of NOM, they are powerless if we take that stand

  • 86. Bob  |  July 31, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    He says as a pastor following these rallies on the web, it is impossible for him not to speak out, HELL SHOUT OUT!!!!!!!! thes rallies are nothing more than shock and awe to instill fear.

    (this is a preacher talking, these are the kind of messages I hear in affirming churches,) don't be afraid,

    Like Pam C. said on an earileir post religion is for those who are afraid of hell, spirituallity is for those of us who have been there, religion is undergoing another reformation, real christianity , true expression of it, is not couched in fear.

  • 87. Straight Grandmother  |  July 31, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    FINALLY, SOB, there is someone other than me and a handfull of others…
    Bob's comments – and please pay special attention to the last comment, when NOM arrives he will be there to meet them SHOUTING LOUDLY !!!!!!!! SHOUTING LOUDLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! without fear.

    he will be there to meet them SHOUTING LOUDLY!!!!!!!!!!! for nothing can seperate us from our master,

    have no fear of NOM, they are powerless if we take that stand

    No seperate off site counter rallys, SHOUT LOUDLY! Look them in the whites of their eyes. Do NOT let them get their message out, shout them down. Brian Brown does not own this debate, we do it is our lives and our rights that are getting trampled on. Brian Brown as specifically said that we should be more "civil" in the public square. of course that allows him and his invited speakers to speak. Brian Brown does nto get to make the rules for us. NOM is going to spin anything, and nothing, make your voice heard, it doesn't matter if we are the nicest most civil group in the world, NOM will still spin us.

    Kathleen this is an excellent article and thanks for bringing it to us. I read every word, it was inspiring.

    THIS is why I support Queer Rising, GetEqual and strong counter protestes right in NOM's face. Remember the chant from madison Wisconsin the BEST Protest chant in the world
    …Gay, Straight
    …Black, White
    …Marriage is a Civil Right

    March and chant that so loudly NOM can't be heard. And bring everyone you know with you, we need feet on the ground, your feet right in the public square. We need many many feet on the ground.

  • 88. Ray in MA  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    So then here's a question for Brian:

    Rev. Eugene H. Peterson, Professor Emeritus at Regent College in Vancouver has said that your Marriage Tour is not about “gay marriage”. It is about causing sufficient fear so as to control our soul, control the very essence of who we are as God’s people. How do you respond?

  • 89. Ray in MA  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    OOPs, that was Rev. Paul M. Turner is the Senior Pastor of Gentle Spirit Christian Church of Atlanta that said that, not Rev Peterson…

  • 90. Owen  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    Can we just…stop…talking to Brian Brown? Sick of him and the other NOMo's. They're robots with built-in talking points for everything.

    Focus on the equality side.

    I want to know what these equality groups are doing to advance our rights in each individual state.

  • 91. Ray in MA  |  July 31, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    How rude!

  • 92. PamC  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:53 pm

    Not necessarily rude…if he means "exhausted from listening to all of BB's endless ducking and weaving, twisted logic and hate & fear based smears," I sometimes feel the same way.

  • 93. Peter Blaise  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:05 am

    Agreed — the briefer our comments and replies, the more open they are to misinterpretation.

    I think Owen wants to see Prop8TrialTracker report on itslef and it's energies for positive, proactive things being done in each state for equal civil rights for all.

  • 94. Owen  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Peter and Pam, you are both right. Listening to Braun's endless obfuscation is tiresome and pointless.

    I indeed want to see what's happening in each state as a form of encouragement. The real battle is not in having little impromptu debates with Braun, but winning the hearts and minds of the people of each state where we don't have our rights.

    It'd be a much more constructive educational tool to show us how each state's leadership has chosen to tackle the core issues in the fight for equality.

  • 95. Franck  |  July 31, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    Erm, sadly I can't watch videos at all here. Any chance there is a transcript somewhere?

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1136 days, as of today.

  • 96. Peter Blaise  |  August 1, 2010 at 5:58 am

    Brian Brown, paraphrase, "… marriage between a man and a woman is special because they might have children, that's all he and NOM cares about … there's independent support for the diseases of gay lifestyles that NOM podium speakers talk about … he disavows yet accepts NOM podium speakers comments as personal but irrelevant to NOM goals of keeping marriage special … he quotes founding fathers about religion in the public sphere … he ignores separation of church and state questions diverting instead to saying that it would be denying religious voices in the public sphere … he claims Martin Luther King (!) and the civil rights movement was informed by religious beliefs, so NOM is just like the civil rights movement … [I'd be ROTFLMAO over that one if it weren't so sad] … declines to be diverted into complex discussions of religious rules (example offered – Muslim) becoming law for everyone …"

    Does anyone have more to share on what we got from this interview with anti-civil-rights slickster Brian Brown?

    Love and hugs,
    Peter Blaise

    PS — Franck, what do you mean by "… Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1,136 days, as of today …"

  • 97. Franck  |  August 1, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    Hello there and thanks.

    What I mean by that number is that I am in a bi-national same-sex couple and that, because of DOMA, I have no legal way to get reunited with my fiancé. Due to financial burdens and unfair immigration policies, it's been… well, 1137 days now that we became an item but never had an occasion to even see each other face to face. We had to keep our relationship alive through the internet, through phone calls and through snail mail, against all odds and despite the turmoil that befell my home country.

    As of now, we're still struggling hard for a solution – be it to finally be allowed to move in together, or at least to just spend some time physically together for once.

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1137 days, as of today.

  • 98. ns  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:26 pm

    A new question for BB: When you engage speakers for your tour, do you confirm with them that they will further your vision?

    If yes, why do they then say things that you do not support and, to quote you, "stray from the main issue"? If no, how do you choose your speakers then?

    And to combat BB's misinformation: Orthodox Jews are not a monolith who all agree with him. For example, some orthodox rabbi's just put out this statement, and there are rabbis who would not sign, both to the left and the right of the statement.

  • 99. Gary  |  July 31, 2010 at 11:35 pm

    it is simple. they use the religious folks to do the dirty work for them… they get up there bible in hand and say how bad we are.. while Maggie and Brian stand there saying "we don't hate gay people" … same as on their facebook page that they have nothing to do with *wink.

    They have a few religious fringe people that speak in tongues about how bad gay people are.. when in the background there sits Louis hidden behind an icon spitting out the hate. Then he changes his shirt to drive a bus around the country as a "3rd party employee" and has nothing to do with NOM… do they honestly think people can no longer think and figured out this circus act?

  • 100. Josh  |  August 1, 2010 at 12:15 am

    I want Brian to answer how gay couples getting married harms hetero marriages. He keeps saying that nom's purpose is to protect man/woman marriage. There is no legitimate state interest to exclude gay couples. It just comes down to they don't like gay people and so if they can be part of the marriage club, they think marriage is degraded.

    They aren't protecting anything real, just protecting the exclusion of gay couples from their club.

  • 101. Josh  |  August 1, 2010 at 12:22 am

    nom's mission is to protect the exclusion of gay couples from their marriage club for no legitimate purpose.

    They protect marriage from including gay couples because they think gay people are icky.

    It's like the whole segregation issue. If black people had to sit at the back of the bus, then white people could sit at the front, thus keeping their distance from the icky black people. I think it's the same mentality.

  • 102. Southern Bell  |  August 1, 2010 at 12:23 am

    There's an interesting NYT article on married couples who opt for long-term or indefinite separation instead of divorce due to the various financial perks of marriage that they are not willing to give up. They especially seem to opt for this route when they know they do not wish to remarry and therefore would not get these 'marriage perks' again.

    I'm not sure if any of the article could be used in questioning, but it's at least proof that many people opt for marriage and stay in marriage due to its financial 'perks.' This is more reason to either create something identical to marriage and just call it something different, or focus more on this issue than religion in political debates because it seems like financial discrepancies would be more obvious and have more evidence, and therefore harder to deny and cast aside. You can say, despite religious beliefs, not allowing SSM financially harms citizens and here is the proof. I know this is something similar to evidence they used in Prop8Trial and is just further evidence that the arguments proponents made are the ones that will have the most promise of working.

  • 103. Josh  |  August 1, 2010 at 12:31 am

    Will you point out to Brian that reducing the divorce rate would do much more to protect marriage than excluding gay couples? This has to be obvious since there are a lot more straight people than gay people and if half of marriages are ending in divorce, that has a lot more impact on the health of marriage than if all gay people get married.

    Please ask Brian why they are not working to reduce or ban divorce? If they really care about protecting marriage, that's where the real menace exists.

  • 104. Mark M  |  August 1, 2010 at 1:43 am

    'Bob’s comments – and please pay special attention to the last comment, when NOM arrives he will be there to meet them SHOUTING LOUDLY !!!!!!!! SHOUTING LOUDLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! without fear.'

    There is a difference in shouting out and shouting down.
    While I agree and completely support chants of joy and equality messages…SHOUTING OUT πŸ™‚

    Getting in their faces and screaming at them like in RI is amazingly counter productive as is completely evident but the continued way NOM is using it against us…..SHOUTING DOWN πŸ™


  • 105. Bob  |  August 1, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Mark, thanks for making the distinction, re SHOUTING, I agree and this is important, Rev. Turner, clarifiies, his shouting would be a joyous celebration of Rainbow peoples contribution , to society, diverstity,

    But we have cause to come to the street, we've been called there by NOM, we can make a joyful noise,

    This is a very crucial point in the evolution of Christianity, and Rainbow people, are presently at the forefront of exposing these issues.

    This will be more understood by those of us who are Christians, or are struggling with it in some way, you see he says that NOM is spouting off and standing up for the wrong message, which is FEAR based, Stemming from the original days when Roman Catholics ruled and where the only church, they espoused fear of god to keep people in line,

    With the advent of printing press and making the bible available to everyone, Martin Luther was able to read and study it for himself, he came to different conclusions, re this notion of fear of god, and called lthem on it.

    Rev Truners story, about the dying person who asked him what to expect is very revealing of this new understanding of Christianity, The preacher himself, nor the pope for that matter could tell the dying person what to expect on the other side,of lifes door, This is very important cosidering that for example the pope spends all his time here telling us if we practice homosexuality we will not enter heaven, Truth is he cannot say that becaukse he does not kinow or has no proof other than a false belief. In the end on our death bed the priest will admit this , but not before, he holds us captive in fear, to extract guiolt money in attempts at selling us salvation.

    Christians who experience the living God , do not have this fear. we are more like the dog who bounds through the door wagging our tails, happy to experience whatever is there. mind you also note this dog probably has never been beaten, he trusts his master, and is a happy dog, More difficult for those of us who have experienced gay bashing or abuse, or have bought into childhood of fear based teaching, Those of us willl enter the street in a more shy way, thinking NOM has some influence over us, and try to behave in a way acceptable to them.

    In order to come out into the street shouting joyfully we must first have streched our faith to the limiits , already testing God and what we were taught, so we have this new unwavering faith, A faith which is in a higher power, a faith beyond NOM, We go to the street with courage knowing our faith will be rewarded with LOVE, by overlooking the fear. By doing this for ourselves we do it for everyone, and have the ptoential to break the remaining chains of fear driven relidion, this is good for humanity.

    Hopefully theologians like rev Turner will tell us more, and maybe even lead us in a joyful noisy, celebration, culminating in a speach at a podium in which he could tell us more of this good news,

    As for bb and Maggie , they have no concern whatsoever in trying to make us fear for our souls, we are already written off. They work at instilling fear in their sheeple, because they really believe it is their duty to work for god and stamp out sin, if they fail at this task it is their sols that are at risk.

    Someone mentioned on another thread that bb is Catholic, and Maggie is Mormon, if this is true, when Maggie said she was not bb's keeper, she was speaking volumes. because Catholics and Mormons have a different version of god and heaven etc.

    Rainbow people could come to the street in a joyfull celebration, making noise, being heard, drawing a distinction between these two differing views of Christianity, that is our purpose. , with faith, looking for the goal which lies beyond NOM, a goal which NOM has no infulence over in any way.

    NOM is only an orinization founded by Mormons, funded by the Catholics to perpetuate fear.

    I wish it were a theologian who was fielding an interview with bb.

  • 106. PamC  |  August 1, 2010 at 5:42 am

    Bob, what you wrote made me recall this quote from St Augustine: "Love God and do as you please."

    Reminds me not to get all caught up in all of the thou shalt NOT's, and instead focus on what I can do positively, each moment. If my focus is on honoring the spirit in each person, then my actions will be just.

    NOM's mission is to remind people of things to be feared, rules to be followed, not relationships to be treasured and celebrated. They only serve to isolate people, not bring us into community.

    Personal note: I treasure this and all true communities, in large part because I know what the cost is to myself and my friends and family members who have been suicidal. My father and my mother each attempted suicide 2 years apart from each other; my father succeeded. My mother, thankfully, did not, but she has lived in anxiety and depression most of her days. I was 7 and 9 years old, respectively, and had a hard time with social anxiety and then depression, which I came by naturally. (I also inherited my father's good looks, intelligence and modesty, according to my wife!)

    After ending a hellish abusive marriage and coming into the light, I was delighted to meet and form a loving relationship with a woman for the first time in my life. Unfortunately, she was also very depressed and had a history of difficulty staying connected with people. We were together 3 years, and then she left me for other relationships. A little over 2 years later, I received a call at work; she, too, had taken her life.

    I owe a good deal of my ability to love and be loved to my teachers and one youth pastor in particular, and to the good friends I've had throughout. But without a gifted psychologist who saw all of my abandonment issues, I'm not sure I would have made it. I went into psychology after a career in education because I wanted to help those kids I saw slipping thru the cracks, who weren't learning because they had too much on their plates emotionally.

    My wife & I have spent 12 exceptionally happy, loving, trusting years together. We've worked thru the rough spots and weathered personal tragedies. When we renew our vows this Thursday, it will be based on all of our individual and shared histories and a commitment to growing and giving of ourselves.

    NOM and their ilk can try to dehumanize us all they want, but we all know the truth of our lived experiences, and that will never be taken away. However, I truly believe that now is the time for our civil rights to be publicly recognized.

  • 107. Bob  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:46 am

    PamC bless you and thanks for sharing, your story touches me to the very core of my being (Love connects us, nothing can seperate us)

    St Augustine's message is extremely important, because when we truly Love God, all our actions reflect that, our behaviour flows from that Love, and so all of it is pleasing . What we put out is what comes back to us. as you also have experienced,

    Let's be joyful dogs and wag our tails, knowing that some other pups having been bruised, beaten by their masters, when their door is opened they may come out growling and viscious, but knowing our own journey, we understand that their behaviour does not reflect on us, and in fact we know, our experience proves, that they too are capable to work their way through that journey of darkness and come to the light,

    A viscous dog just had a bad master, he needs to find a new one, and a join us in a sense of real community.

    There was also a time when I would not have rushed through the open door if I new my master was on the other side, and If he came to get me I would have growled and snarled and bit him. That time is past, for me, and so it will for others.

    Remember Gandhi, with his masses of people when they were confronted by the Britsh army on horseback, he instructed them alll to lay down, cautioning that the horses would not trample them, That's what you call faith in action, cause the masses obeyed, with only blind faith, laying theire on the ground while the horses reared and threw their riders. I want to imagine myself the first body lying in the path of the horses,

    We must have faith, NOM cannot hurt us, we will no longer be controlled by fear. "Love God and do as you Please"

  • 108. Straight Grandmother  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:48 am

    @PamC, please don't answer this if you are not comfortable with it, but I am curious to know if you have been blessed with children? You seem like you would make an awsome mom.

  • 109. Tracy  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:54 am

    PamC — What an amazing story. I think BB and MG could learn a great deal about life, love and loss from you. Comparatively speaking, I had a much more fortunate childhood. I have never faced discrimination – but I am loathe to enjoy that freedom while my peers are being so wronged. I think that rather than "protecting" marriage, Prop 8 and similar laws soils marriage. Prop 8 transformed marriage, which was a beautiful expression of love and commitment, into a prejudiced institution, a weapon to be wielded against the LGBT community to make them feel more like second class citizens. You are right – now is the time to win your civil rights.

  • 110. Bob  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:11 am

    @Tracy, you post in response to PamC's is what Ronnie would refer to as a standingO

  • 111. PamC  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:26 am

    No, SG, we have no children. But I've "parented" hundreds over the last 30 years! Thanks for your comment.

  • 112. Josh  |  August 1, 2010 at 1:56 am

    Can we give this report to BB and ask him to read it and then ask him questions on it at the next event? Give him a day or two to read it so he can't reply that he hasn't read it yet or that he's not familiar with it.

  • 113. Chris in Lathrop  |  August 1, 2010 at 2:02 am

    What I see is us getting nowhere with these Q&A sessions with BB. He's very well trained to avoid giving damning statements in such interviews -and- we're asking the wrong questions.

    Think about these questions from a "sidelines" or "undecided" point-of-view, because these people on the sidelines are the people who will end up swinging any votes across the country that have to do with our equality: has BB made any statements at any of NOM's rallies condemning LGBTs, homosexuality, gay rights, etc? Have any of NOM's speakers made any such statements? In any of Arisha's, or anyone else's, interviews of BB, has he said anything other than that NOM is simply defending "traditional" marriage?

    The last question is where we need to be pounding the living daylights out of BB & co. We need to be asking how–in detail, studies cited–allowing more people to get married will hurt the institution of marriage, hurt children, lead children to have a lesser upbringing, etc. We need to make him define this "something special" he keeps regurgitating about hetero-only marriages and make him explain how that would be undermined. That is the whole foundation of this hoax of a tour, and if it crumbles, so does the message crumble with it. Then BB & co. will be faced with the choice of showing their true agenda to the public, or packing it in and going home.

    We also keep trying to capitulate to BB when we ask questions such as : 'well, what LGBT rights DO you and NOM support?' They'll never answer with the truth, they'll always circle back around to 'we just don't want you folks getting married and ruining marriage for everyone' and, worst of all, it puts them in the driver's seat in regards to the distribution of human rights.

    Sorry if I ramble much. My wife and I performed the wedding ceremony last night for our friend's daughter and her partner. We *married* them, I don't care what the legality of it is! And it was such a beautiful event, through and through, with appx. 100 people shouting and cheering their support for the newlyweds, committing to help make their union universally recognized, that I'm terribly fired up this morning to kick all the stuffing out of the straw man BB & co. have built.

  • 114. Peter Blaise  |  August 1, 2010 at 5:44 am

    No one marries another couple — they marry themselves, each other. Officiators only officiate. The marriage is true and valid regardless of witnesses and officiators.

  • 115. Chris in Lathrop  |  August 1, 2010 at 10:11 pm

    Very true. Pride crept in there. Thanks for pointing it out. πŸ™‚

  • 116. Peter Blaise  |  August 1, 2010 at 5:41 am

    Missing from the dialog is WHY Brian Brown cares about other people's marriages.

    Q: How is a marriage between two other people bad for someone else's marriage?

    Q: Why does anyone care about other people's marriage?

    Missing from this interview was a direct inquiry into Brian Brown's thought and logic process, and why his concerns should be the concern of everyone's self government and the law.

    Q: Why should everyone's self government and the law care about Brian Brown's believes?

    I do note that Brian Brown has read quotable references to support his position, is very circumspect, and chooses his words carefully, for instance, pausing instead of saying "gay marriage" and rephrasing his answer on the fly as "redefining marriage".

    I notice he takes no responsibility for the speakers at the podium at NOM rallies as if what they say is personal and not representative of NOM.

    Q: If Brian Brown permits speakers at the podium at NOM rallies to speak their own mind separate from Brian Brown and NOM purposes, then would Brian Brown permit and invite others to speak, knowing that whatever is said doesn't have to represent NOM, so would guest speaker Arisha be acceptable to Brian Brown at the next NOM rally podium?

    Love and hugs,
    Peter Blaise
    Raised Catholic, and ashamed of Brian Brown's avowed Catholicism

  • 117. celdd  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:01 am

    How long do these NOM rallies last? From the few clips I've viewed, it seems that each speaker only speaks for 5 or 10 minutes at most. So I would assume the rally is less than 30 minutes overall.

    The Harvest Festivals etc. I assume last several hours, if not all day. So, does the length confirm that this is mostly a sham to provide media talking points?

  • 118. Tracy  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:36 am

    You have all been very kind and I am happy to take part in this community. I occasionally get a little too emotional and over-dramatic when it comes to this topic, as I'm sure many of you do as well! I have often wanted to post, but didn't feel I had much to add. But I have to say you are all great people here! I do hope this website gets more attention that we might now believe. A lot of people here deserve to have their views and feelings heard. Thanks for being tolerant of my occasional rants!

  • 119. Straight Grandmother  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:43 am

    Hey Tracy, Rant away, you are at the right spot for that.

  • 120. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 1, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Yes, you are. Just ask Ronnie. I think he is one of our champion ranters, if not the champion.

  • 121. Bob  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:03 am

    Tracy, this experience of a roller coaster ride of emotions, is what makes for a valued poster, if you can share from all extremes of the ride, especially taking the risk of being wrong, in order to bring us all closer to truth, it is painful to realize I have been on a rant, and humbling to continue posting through the ups and downs,

  • 122. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 1, 2010 at 8:35 am

    Tracy, I don't think we will ever know exactly how many hearts and minds have been changed by this site, because so many of our lurkers never post. I am glad you have come out of lurk mode.

  • 123. Straight Grandmother  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Why can't someone just take a video camera and aks people on the streets to be interviewed, in each city where NOM has a protest. Ask for married couples. Then jsut ask them one question and one question only, "If your neighbors down the street a gay or lesbian couple got married, how would that affect your marriage?" Only that question. And the interviewer should keep redirecting the person to answer the question, "How would it affect your marriage?"

  • 124. leo  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:27 am

    Shouldn't the question be posed to NOM that if the org doesn't believe homos are perverted, evil, sick, etc., as their rep said, than why do they allow speakers at their rallies to say so? They should be challenged to denounce these myths and slanders and be held accountable for their actions

  • 125. Matt  |  August 1, 2010 at 10:19 am

    Another question for Brian-

    If it's so important that adherents of your religion have their marriages recognized by the government, why is it not just as important for adherents of other religions with more liberal stances on marriage, such as Unitarian Universalist, UCC, Buddhist, reformed Judaism et al have THEIR marriages recognized as well?

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