Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

NOM-allied organization: Single-parent families? Oxymoron.

NOM Tour Tracker Right-wing Videos

by Adam Bink

HONK for "Traditional Marriage" signs among NOM supporters

This is the a photo of members of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property from the event in Harrisburg. Here’s an interview with two of the members:]


Or these:]

They’d? Is that a family?

NOM supporter: It’s half a family. <chuckles>

Anthony: But you said a family is one man, one woman, what if there is no man?

NOM supporter: What if there is no man? It’s half a family… the man that was part of that left, so the family isn’t really left.

Wait. Let’s see that one again:

Anthony: But you said a family is one man, one woman, what if there is no man?

NOM supporter: What if there is no man? It’s half a family.

I’m not selectively quoting anything, and this wasn’t just some random person with a sign, either. The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property is an organization with, according to Wikipedia, 135 staff members, claiming 120,000 members worldwide, and offices across the country. They were given a prominent space in which to demonstrate at the NOM’s Harrisburg event with their own outfits, banner and all. Given that those with opposing points of view were confined to the space across the street, and their prominence both as demonstrators and as an organization, it would be a fair point to say they were doing so under the auspices of NOM.

And under those auspices, they just called single-parent families an oxymoron.

UPDATE (8:13 PST): I want to pull out a comment from JuliaL:

So the wife of a serviceman, caring for their three children while the husband goes to war, is part of a family so long as the husband lives. When he dies heroically in the service of his country, she and the children no longer count as a family.

That’s what I’d like to know.


  • 1. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:45 am


  • 2. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:08 am

    As Bugs would say of that NOM supporter:

    "What a maroon!"

  • 3. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:13 am

    Traditions are a good thing to preserve when they still serve an important purpose in the society and do not discriminate against certain people for no real good reason.

  • 4. Dave in ME  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:36 am

    Those TFP people. "Property"?? I wonder if "tradition" includes the wife as being property.

    When there were in Maine, they said that they had left the women at home so that they'd be safe. We all thought it was interesting, these young men in red sashes, on the road and staying in hotel rooms together….

    I really wish that these people would keep their religion to themselves.


  • 5. JonT  |  August 16, 2010 at 5:17 am

    I need more network activity.

    And really? Half a family?

    I think this dumbass is running on half a brain.

  • 6. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 5:47 am

    You're being way too generous, JonT. He is actually functioning on just under one-half of one brain cell.

  • 7. Sagesse  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:01 am

    Eroding the foundation of their arguments, little by little. Their weakness is family.

    You cannot defend the ideal of 'a mommy and a daddy raising their biological children' without insulting many other families (including the extended family members who love them): single parent families, step families, adoptive families, foster families, childless couples… and the 220,000 children (2005 data) and probably more being raised by same sex couples, whether married, DP'd or unofficial in the US.

  • 8. Kate  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:27 am

    Grandparents raising their grandkids, too.

  • 9. JuliaL  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:02 am

    So the wife of a serviceman, caring for their three children while the husband goes to war, is part of a family so long as the husband lives. When he dies heroically in the service of his country, she and the children no longer count as a family.

    This is something that really needs publicizing, in a clear and simple way. You are looking for video clips to help conservative straight people understand the issues – here is one that would make an impression. An introduction that says here is an organization fighting gay marriage. When you support them, what else do you support? The view that a military widow and her children don't count as a family. Maybe with a take-away tagline saying "There's more than one kind of family."

    Dividing the opposition is pretty much always a good tactic.

  • 10. Bose  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:51 am

    I suspect it's equally scary to these folks to admit that women serve in the wars, women are breadwinners.

    By their "logic," a household with one bio-parent and other assorted family members (grandparents, in-laws, cousins) is also half a family. And, families of any structure are suspect if they reach beyond the nuclear unit to care deeply for, and be cared for by, friends or neighbors.

  • 11. Dave in ME  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:25 am

    Exactly, JuliaL!! Many people in California and Maine that voted to take away our right to marry the person we love aren't aware of these organization's real agenda. They talk about OUR agenda, but we aren't the ones who want to add MORE restrictions on marriages and relationships like the TFP and Concerned Women of America want to.

    I think a lot of Americans who are divorced, living together, and are single parents would be surprised to learn that these organizations that pushed these Yes votes have plans for them as well.

    Dave in Maine

  • 12. Anna Bryan  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:05 am

    I'm asking nicely. Can future videos PLEASE be uploaded to be compatible with mobile devices?

    How many gay guys do you know that DON'T have an iPhone?

  • 13. adambink  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:13 am

    Sure, if you can explain the best way to do that without lowering the quality of the content here.

  • 14. Alan E.  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:16 am

    I will look at my notes at work and see if I can find the best compromise. I would love to watch these on my commute too.

  • 15. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:19 am

    Soon to be free from mine. The only thing it's good for is

  • 16. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:31 am

    I don't have an iPhone, and neither does BZ. And videos don't work very well for either of us. All we can get is text of emails, or still photos. Thank you for bringing this up, Anna!

  • 17. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:34 am


    Stereotype much??????

  • 18. Michael  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:41 am

    I don't have an iPhone, nor will I ever.

  • 19. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:15 am

    I won't go back to AT&T after finding out that they support candidates who favor NOM's position, and have also contributed to anti-LGBTQQI campaigns. I think when our current contract runs out, we will be switching to CREDO mobile. Especially since they use Sprint, so we won't have to get new phones.

  • 20. draNgNon  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:47 am

    I'd be more happy about the notion of switching to CREDO mobile if they would agree NOT to send me a phone I don't need and DID support an Android phone

  • 21. Dave in ME  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:29 am

    This brings up an interesting point.

    There are candidates in this country that may not support us but are strong in other areas. Does that mean that we must automatically non support them? Or that we must take action against these candidates because they don't support us? I'm sure a lot of us are multi-issue people, but is it always about THIS issue?

    Dave in Maine

  • 22. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:29 am

    I will check the most recent mailing we got from them. I think that since Sprint is the service provider for them, that they do support Android. And our sign-up form had a box to check declining the phone if we already have one. Of course, we had two of those boxes on ours, since we have two lines.

  • 23. Michael  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:36 am

    As I've said in many other places, I'll stick with me $8.33 per month Motorola W490 not-a-smartphone which lets me make phone calls.

    In this case T-Mobile is a good thing.

  • 24. JonT  |  August 16, 2010 at 6:16 am

    No iphone for me either. If I ever get a 'smartphone' it will not be an iphone. Probably Android based 🙂 I prefer a more open platform.

  • 25. Chris B  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:17 am

    These videos seem to be from YouTube. There's a YouTube app in the iPhone. So iPhone users can view these videos at Equality On Trial's YouTube page:

    Or these direct links to the videos might help:

    From what I can tell, there is little control over what format YouTube converts them to when uploading.

  • 26. Alan E.  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:35 am

    iMovie gives you options for saving when uploading to Youtube.

  • 27. Jeff  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:50 am

    YouTube automatically males them into mobile versions – but, it takes time for that to happen. So be pacient and they will work on your phone eventually (usually within a couple hours and sometimes longer). There is nothing those posting can do either, it's a YouTube issue.

  • 28. Jeff  |  August 16, 2010 at 5:45 am

    That should read makes not males LOL.

  • 29. Wolfinlv  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:51 am

    I do not have an I phone… I have a t-mobile blur and can watch any video on youtube…

  • 30. MJFargo  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:07 am

    Rigid precepts and an inability to use ones imagination are some of the hallmarks of dogma. It's (again trite to say) one of the side effects of brainwashing and surrendering your critical thinking to someone else.

  • 31. Zachary  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:12 am

    Very revealing little clip, but I think Anthony should pushed a little further. What if the man or woman of the house dies? Do the surviving members of the household lose their family status then?

  • 32. Zachary  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:16 am

    Darn. That should read: "Should have pushed".

  • 33. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:17 am

    It wouldn't matter. They don't give a damn.

  • 34. Zachary  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:23 am

    Eh, I think he might've backpedaled on that one.

    But even if he didn't, it would've been useful to have his apathetic or insensitive response on camera.

  • 35. James Sweet  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:25 am

    So… same-sex couples are two half-families then?

    Perhaps NOM is using some sort of unusual mathematical system where 1/2 + 1/2 does not necessarily add up to 1.

  • 36. AndrewPDX  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Well, with they did head-counts during their Tour-de-Farce, 1/2 + 1/2 = i.

    After all, we’re not ‘real people’, they have been quoted saying, so of course we would an imaginary family.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 37. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 5:13 am

    Nice. A math nerd joke. I like.

  • 38. Franck  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:01 pm

    A math nerd joke and a French pun. (I like)&sup2;

  • 39. Bob Miller  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:29 am

    I visited the web site of the group. It is interesting / amusing / scarry that they have these training camps for what appear to bee teen boys that have a "medivial knight / crusades theme to them. Knights, games, visits from knights templar actors, awarding blesssings from the church and pledging to honor the knights traditon. That seems to be where they get the red sash in the picture.
    Wasn't there some other youth organisations with similar "theme" campaigns in Germany before WW2?

  • 40. BradK  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:47 am

    Hitler youth indeed!

    I dunno about the red sashes though. Seems like they should be selling cookies instead of intolerance wearing those.

  • 41. AndrewPDX  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:50 am

    Careful! Please don't insult Ann's Girl Scout troop like that 🙂

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 42. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:59 am

    LOL, thanks for defending us, Andrew! No offense taken, I'm sure!

  • 43. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 5:40 am

    Besides, the GSA's uniforms have always been so very classy. And I love the new ones that I saw previewed in the papers.

  • 44. Rebecca  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Ugh, I just looked at this guy's organization on wikipedia. Apparently one of the signs of "revolution" they are fighting against is "The 'Enlightenment' and the French Revolution and its rejection of temporal authority, in particular the King and nobility. "

    So these guys also think we should all be subject to the authority of a king??

    It really does seem like their theme is an attempt to make this kind of hatred and bogotry fall into the world of fantasy chivalry.

    If they really want to be knights, they should just go to the Renaissance Faire! They can wave their flags and swords all they want there.

  • 45. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:58 am

    Rebecca, these guys will never go to a RenFaire. They would actually have to treat us like humans there, because there are quite a few of us who go to RenFaires.

  • 46. StraightForEquality  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:44 am

    From Wikipedia:" The American TFP promotes the values of Christianity, and opposes liberal and egalitarian ideas, policies, and trends in both society as a whole and in the Catholic Church."

    That sounds like an un-American subversive organization to me. The Constitution guarantees some of the things they actively oppose.

    I wonder what the Tea Party thinks of them, since the Tea Party has been pushing support of the Constitution (which means their interpretation or chosen parts of it).

  • 47. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:21 am

    Hey, Girl Scouts sell cookies, and Girl Scouts USA does not discriminate. We're completely separate from the Boy Scouts. Please don't compare us to those sash-wearing idiots.


  • 48. BradK  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:28 am

    No offense to the G.S.A. intended! My point was that the sashes don't look very menacing (in spite of the Griffin), especially in contrast to their "message" — which is very frightening indeed.

  • 49. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:33 am

    None taken, I'm sure! 🙂

  • 50. Bob  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:43 am

    @Ann S. so glad to hear that, you mean there are actually out Lesbians, in the upper end of the organization, acting as role models. do you know any personally,

  • 51. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:49 am

    @Bob, I have met some at Council office who I would guess are lesbians, but it would be wrong of me to ask, wouldn't it? I don't know any of the people at Council will enough to find out. Troop leaders, for the most part, are parents of girls in the troop. I don't happen to know of any who are lesbians.

    The official position of GSUSA is that there is to be no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I can tellyou that with assurance.

  • 52. Bob  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:58 am

    @Ann S. thanks for the feedback, the real definitive answer may come from someone on this site, any Rainbow women have experience with Girl Scouts???

    so glad that it's in your official position statement,,"no discrimination based on sexual orientatiion" why are women so ahead of men on these issues?

  • 53. Dave in ME  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:31 am

    Actually, some of those guys look pretty cute in their sashes!

    Dave in Maine

  • 54. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:15 am

    @Bob, I hope you see the subsequent answers in this thread about the Girl Scouts. Thanks, CeeVee!

  • 55. Bob  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    got the message Ann, amazing how this site works, thanks CeeVee

  • 56. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:29 am

    That is how they operate. It is just like Louis saying that it isn't a marriage unless I say it is a marriage. These folks are saying you aren't a family unless we say you are a family.
    They want this country to be run according to their rules, according to their interpretation of a book that has been so mistranslated, misquoted, misinterpreted, and so taken out of context that it isn't funny.
    I would be willing to bet that none of them knows the history and cultures of the lands in which the biblical writers lived. they know nothing about the eras in which it was written, they know nothing of the sociological, cultural, and other aspects of the way life was back then.
    And all through this tour of NOM's they showed their ignorance of these things over and over again. They have repeatedly shown that they are mostly sheep who will blindly follow their leaders because they have been so thoroughly indoctrinated from the beginning of their lives to do so,
    They have not been allowed to think for themselves, they have had no real education in civics or critical thinking, they have never been given the basic elements of scientific research principles, not have they been giving an accurate overview and education regarding the Constitution and its purposes.
    I truly feel sorry for them. They have such a surprise waiting for them when they reach whatever version of the afterlife they are envisioning.

  • 57. Breaking the Silence  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:04 am

    How true, Richard.

  • 58. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:32 am

    Nothing new, but a satisfying read:
    "Viewpoint: Walker: Judicial Activist, or Just Doing His Job?"

  • 59. bJason  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:48 am

    Would love to read but don't want to register.

  • 60. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:50 am

    Sorry. Forgot that it requires (free) registration. I'll see if I can find it somewhere else – sometimes these pieces get picked up on blogs.

  • 61. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:05 am

    Good suggestion. It's inspiring to read.

  • 62. Dom  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:35 am

    Back in my conservative days, I actually went to a few events with TFP. They're nuts! I think a good number of them are in the closet, just like most conservative homophobes. I was one of them, thank God I accepted myself for who I am. I'm not saying this guy is one, but he certainly sounds like I used to.

  • 63. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:28 am

    Thank you for this, Dom. I always enjoy hearing from people who have abandoned Religious Right organizations, it gives me hope for the future.

  • 64. Straight Grandmother  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Come Out, Come Out, where ever you are, LOL.
    Sorry Don I just couldn't resist. If I remmeber right I think you said you were 74 years old, aren't you glad we are not living in the 50's & 60's.

    True fact- I graduated from High School in 1972. I never even knew about gay/lesbian/bi/transgender until after I graduated from high school.

    I was over 18 years old before I even heard about it. I was rather shocked about it actually and was talking with my future husband about it. He offered to take me to a bar that featured Drag Queens. OMG! I'll never forget sitting in this dark bar in Chicago watching the performers and making my husband swear over and over that the performer was a man. I just couldn't beleive it, they looked just like women. My jaw was on the floor. I think that was the first time I ever met/saw someone who was for sure gay. My husband was quite the dashing young Frenchman living on Rush street in Chicago with money to burn, when he was young. Oh those were the days.

  • 65. Cat  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:36 am

    People like the guy in the video don't care if what they say is true or false, right or wrong. It's about winning the argument in debate club. They grew up in an anti-equality environment, and that's the viewpoint they've been selected to defend. And so they will, without considering the big picture. They just want to score points for their club, but at some point they'll start believing what they say and become true bigots (as in the true meaning of the word: obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinion).

    I agree that interviewing these people and asking them the tough questions will cause some of them to slip up big time (i.e. say what they really think), and can be used to inform and persuade the moderates to support marriage equality. The narrow-minded people are beyond saving, unless they somehow have to help out in a same-sex family for a year, and see it for what it really is. Words are not going to be sufficient.

    In my mind I already have this commercial running: These people want to forbid same-sex couples from marrying because they believe in "traditional marriage destined for procreation". Next they will make IVF illegal. Then, they will ban adaption, and marriage of loving couples who cannot have a baby. Divorce is a sin, so that'll be forbidden too. These people think your marriage is not as good as theirs, your family is less worthy than theirs. Don't let them get away with that. Support Marriage Equality. Because every marriage is different, but all deserve the same protection under the law.

  • 66. Chris B  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:33 am

    Right. If these people grew up in the same environment I did, then everything is black-and-white, right-or-wrong. They have never had to confront any difficult decisions in life. They don't have to think, they just quote what they have been told all their life. Anyone who had sex outside of marriage was bad, unwed mother was bad, divorce was bad, etc. They can cling to 'marriage is for life and no one should ever get divorced" because they have never had to face the reality of a man beating his wife, or that even "nice girls" can be pressured into sex, etc.

  • 67. draNgNon  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:52 am

    I have seen this type at clinic defenses. they all say this, about the badness of sex outside of marriage. they are almost always young men.

    the best attack I have found on these guys – the young men – is two questions:

    1) are you married?
    – the answer is almost always no

    2) are you a virgin?
    – they usually sputter here.

  • 68. Ed  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:56 am

    Oh Damn! one of their regional offices is in my hometown, Lafayette Louisiana…..

    Yes, I'm ashamed.

    Something else to be ashamed of in south Louisiana, about 2 weeks ago, friend of mine and his boyfriend went to this upscale restaurant in Baton Rouge, whereupon being seated, the host asked them if they were a couple. Thinking nothing of it, they responded honestly. They were then told, 'we don't serve your kind here, ya'll are going to have to leave'.

    Bigotry is alive and well in the south….


  • 69. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:17 am

    Morning, Ed. Hope all is well for you guys.

  • 70. Straight Grandmother  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:33 am

    Oh my F*ing Gawd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    TWO WEEKS Ago???????
    Two weeks ago, huh?
    This blows my mind, simply blows it.

    You ought to put that as a letter to the Editor in the Local paper. Talk about not being able to sit at the lunch counter………………….

  • 71. Straight Grandmother  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:36 am

    Ed, pleae name the restaurant, we need to pass this on to the local GLBT organizations as well as perhaps the ACLU.
    Spomebody needs to do a sting operation with the Managing editor of the local paper adn or tv stations.

    Come on back and name the restaurant. Name them! I bet I could get them kicked out of the National Restaurant Association if they are a memeber.

  • 72. JonT  |  August 16, 2010 at 6:26 am

    I agree Ed. Name the restaurant, location, time etc. Bigotry does not like the light, and you really should shine a light on this 'upscale' place….

  • 73. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:58 am

    UPDATE: Appellants' (Proponents') REPLY in Support of Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal.

  • 74. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:37 am

    According to the comments below, I'll refrain from reading it. Everyone seems annoyed, and rightfully so. I don't have any tolerance for the fools who've positioned themselves to be our opponents. They disgust me.

    May the Ninth throw a legal dagger to them.

  • 75. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:41 am

    The Ninth may not need to. From what I have read so far, especially their initial request for a permanent stay, they have inserted the daggers themselves, and not only in their feet.

  • 76. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:03 am

    Just started to read it – the first paragraph and I'm already pissed off.

    As I mentioned before, I'm not going to be around for a while this afternoon, so if the decision comes in during that time… well, I'm sure it will be widely reported. 🙂 And I'm sure the court will post it at its website. I'll follow up with an upload to Scribd later in the day.

  • 77. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:06 am

    Thanks for the update. Have a nice day.

  • 78. Sagesse  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:12 am

    My reaction to the first paragraph: completely over the top. Hope they lose it completely in the next 14 pages.

  • 79. Alan E.  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Again with the channeling! We are so lucky to live in a state that tells us how, when, where, and with whom to engage in procreative sexual relations.

  • 80. Alan E.  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:17 am

    State Supreme Court =/= Federal Court system

  • 81. Alan E.  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:26 am

    I am reading a wordy version of "Let the people vote!"

  • 82. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:30 am

    But only if they vote NOM's way. Wait and see. when there is a state which puts an initiative on the ballot to grant full marriage equality and it passes, NOM will be the first in line to file a lawsuit in the federal court to have it overturned. So much for "Let the people vote" then.

  • 83. HunterR.  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:27 am

    Thank you for the link! I just skip work today to follow the events here at P8tt. Where these people get their ideas from?
    "procreative risks posed by sexual relationships between men and women."
    So we are prevented from the institution of marriage so heterosexuals can behave properly? My nephew's girlfriend just got pregnant they are not married, but they will get force to get married (and that is another story). They might have a point now that I think about this particular situation. It just never occurred to me that marriage was about entering a "forced" contract and then again arranged marriages still exist, no?
    Guess then we are fighting for a "better idea of marriage"

  • 84. Alan E.  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:29 am

    They brought up Lawrence v. Texas, but they did not respond to the point that Olsen brought up in the trial. One basic civil right (marriage) is being denied to a class of people because of their participation in another basic civil right (the entire trial of L v. T).

  • 85. Sagesse  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:30 am

    "Further,Cleburne makes clear that a minority group is politically powerless for purposes of equal protection analysis only if it has “no ability to attract the at- tention of the lawmakers.”

    I've been meaning to ask this ever since the trial. How can the ability to 'attract the attention of lawmakers' remotely be construed as political power? Any minority mathematically lacks the political power to pass or block legislation or a ballot initiative. Politicians will take a meeting with anyone, and hopeless legislation is proposed all the time. Surely the inability to influence legislation; to prevent legislation that damages their interests, or to enlist support for legislation that protects their interests, is what determines political power.

    Is this really binding precedent?

  • 86. Michael in Oregon  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:34 am

    Incredible…………………………………Something tells me that Mr. Olson and Mr. Boise are sharpening their white feather quills………………………………..

  • 87. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:33 am

    That is the attention Cleburne is referring to. A minority is politically powerless when said minority cannot get enough attention from their elected officials to get positive, affirming legislation passed that will protect them from harm. But then, we all know how good NOMbies are with the twisting of facts to suit their perverse purposes.

  • 88. Sagesse  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:40 am

    Conculsion: Judge Walker and his 80 findings of fact got it SOOOO ALLLLL wrong. [More stamping of little feet].

  • 89. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:05 am

    Barely started to read, already they're talking about channeling procreation — again.


  • 90. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:18 am

    Hmm, they are actually arguing that if they do not have standing, then Walker's decision must be vacated. I admit I do not know what the effect would be of vacating the decision. You would think that if no one with standing is willing to defend the darn proposition that it should fall — yet here are the proponents arguing for vacating Walker's decision. I am puzzled.

  • 91. Anna Bryan  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:41 am

    There was a live controversy in the original trial. The AG was prevented from issuing marriage licenses due to Prop 8, and the Plaintiffs sued him. A trial was required whether the AG chose to defend himself or not. Judge Walker merely allowed the proponents to present a case alongside the AG as they had different perspectives.

    I've only actually seen this "there shouldn't have been a trial" suggestion is from that professor at UC Davis, who it turns out, supported Proposition 8 (surprise!)

  • 92. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:46 am

    @Anna, but the AG did not defend. If no one with standing is willing to defend, can there be a live case or controversy? I feel as though I am missing something.

    Here is the conclusion of the SCOTUS ruling in Arizonans for Official English: "For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court with directions that the action be dismissed by the District Court."

    The District Court was to dismiss the action. Is it then as though the case never happened?

    I last studied Civil Procedure about 30 years ago, and it was definitely not my favorite subject. Now it is suddenly interesting to me.

  • 93. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:52 am

    But in AOE, wasn't the case mooted because the plaintiff in the case no longer had standing? It's not the plaintiffs in Perry who don't have standing. As Anna says, there was a live case or controversy at the trial level – Plaintiffs were/are being harmed by enforcement of Prop 8. That seems an important distinction, but since I know so little about procedural matters, I don't know if it's a legally significant one.

  • 94. Anonygrl  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:05 am

    If the defendent intervenors had no standing in Walker's courtroom (they did, he ruled. He also said this would not confer the same for any other court and it would have to be decided separately. Which is where we are now, silly NOMbies) then the Plaintiffs won.

  • 95. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:07 am

    @Kathleen, yes, it was mooted because the plaintiff had voluntarily left her job. Different situation.

    Still, I am left wondering what the effect is if Walker's decision should be vacated. It seems to me that the logical effect — no one with standing is willing to defend — is that we should win, and yet I get the feeling that may not be so. For if there is no case or controversy, how can there be a ruling? And if there is no ruling, I fear we may be back where we started.

    Again, I am no expert on this, just ruminating in my uninformed way.

  • 96. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:15 am

    It seems to me that if there is no one with standing to defend the suit in District Court, then there must be some kind of directed verdict, or summary judgment, or whatever the appropriate term is for the procedure at that point. I know that law doesn't always seem logical to people, but I can't imagine that it would tolerate a situation where plaintiffs, with a legitimate claim for harm, have no way to seek recourse in the courts.

  • 97. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:31 am

    @Kathleen, that's what I would think also. I have to go back to wondering why proponents seem to be arguing for Walker's decision to be vacated.

  • 98. Breaking the Silence  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:54 am

    I agree, Kathleen. Caveat that I'm no expert, myself notwithstanding, it seems to me that following "no one with standing attempted to defend it, therefore, it must stand" logic would amount to an admission/surrender to the notion that if enough fear/bias mongering can be brought (bought?) to bear upon the minds of the populace (of ballot-initiative States at least) to get inherently wrong things (if you will) made law via such an imperfect system, those wrongs either must be granted the credibility inherent in being defended by the State or another entity worthy of being considered to have standing, or else they must stand until and unless remedied by the same process that made them law.

    Between the strain on credulity that represents and the strain involved in trying to put that thought into coherent writing– Argh! Brain cramp!

  • 99. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:21 am

    Kathleen, if it comes in before you get back, I can upload it to my scribd account if you want.

  • 100. AndrewPDX  |  August 16, 2010 at 5:30 am

    If the case does get appealed to 9CC, and they agree with the full broad interpretation, then Oregon's ban on equality would also be marked as Unconstitutional and thrown out (along with the rest of the district), right?

    Or, even if the 9CC says it applies to just California, then it could be used as a 'binding precedent' for Oregon et al?

    Or, if the 9CC reverses Walker's ruling, then the plaintiffs could take it to the Supremes, where it could then affect the entire country?

    So, could the whole 'vacated' thing be an attempt to minimize the damage? The proponents now realize they are going to lose big-time, and they want to keep the loss to just the one state?

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 101. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 6:03 am

    If that were the case, then why didn't they just let the deadline for their response go by without even giving a response? Why didn't they just shake hands and leave after Judge Walker handed down his decision? If they want to limit this to one state, and limit the decision to being persuasive argument rather than binding precedent, then the thing for them to have done is to not appeal.

  • 102. Bob  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Great interview, showing the real value of this opportunity, of the NOM tour stuff, to challenge peoples thinking.

    Anyone sitting at home, with a daughter unmarried raising a child on her own, will take it further, i.e. does that mean a single parent household should not recieve family benefits. As it is at the present time, we actually have more gov't resources in place to support and aid that family, If you follow this guys trail of thought, we should remove those benefits, and not view a single mom and child as a family, so in fact they would be punished and thus be more amenable to be pushed or channedled into getting the father, that would complete the requirements to form the family and everything would be okay,

    Sort of what baby Roy's mother was attempting to do, I guess it wasfor the wrong reasons and that's why mom's boyfriend killed him.

    Oh but of course, it als follows that the man that would complete and form that family would be a member of the red sash club, and he would automaticallly be aware of his responibilities as a father and provider. Then maybe the red sashes could in their medieval round table and knights thing, train young men to be the knights in shining armour, en masse to come to the young damsels rescue, riding into her dismal sorrry life and saving her so that they all live happily ever after, wonder if we could do some research on the red sash guys, bet they're trained to seek out only virgins, and would shun these single mom's, reinforcing the demize of the family, which is not a family, let those people live in dismal poverty, which they often do,

    President Obama, has been sited as the worst president ever for encouraging this twisted relationship between church and state, he has actually endorsed and gives tax free money to the churches to do welfare work in their communities.

    So the churches and red sash guys are already well positiioned to fulfill their ideals, that is part of the reason there was such and outcry against universal health care, which is crucial to single mom's and broken families, Churches say, welfare, and health care are not needed cause if people are channeled by the churches, God will take care of us all. and the church will enforce God's plan, kid you not, Obama has enlisted the resources of the church to carry out that function for his gov't. he was very naive in doing that, it has never been done before, kind of sounds doable, but we are seeing the great WRONG and harm, in giving the churches that authority.

  • 103. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:48 am

    What are your sources for this information?
    When did Obama or his administration begin working with churches?

  • 104. Bob  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:27 am

    you're joking right??? just google Obama faith based initiatives………scary stuff

  • 105. fiona64  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:40 am

    Um, Bob?

    The Office of Faith-Based Initiatives was started by George W. Bush. Pres. Obama allowed it to remain (which I think is an enormous mistake) … but it's not HIS project.

    Let's put the blame where it should go, okay?


  • 106. Bob  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:51 am

    thanks for the correction Fiona, new someone would come to the rescue on this issue,

    however it sarted, It is Obama's baby now, he deserves the blame, for feeding it. He is commander in chief, it is His Project, He is backing it.

    Obama has to own it eat it wear it, until he ends it. scary stuff.

    Obama's admistration knowingly gives tax free dollars to churches to carry out their mission, not the sates.

  • 107. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:57 am

    Not scary at all… me at least.
    Being a man of faith is not in of itself scary…it's how that faith can be warped and twisted to hurt others. That's when it becomes scary, and I see nothing like that from this administration.
    I saw LOTS of that from the Bush admin

  • 108. Straight Grandmother  |  August 16, 2010 at 5:14 am

    Bob, if memory serves me right, i believe it was W Bush who created the mechanism for churches to receive Federal money to implement Federal "lifting people up from the bottom rungs of society" programs. It was W first. I believe I am correct on this. Something like "Faith Bases initiatives" I rember my having a discussion with my mother about it, and Lordy she hated Bush, but she agreed with him, that the churches are already in local communities and can probably do it cheaper. I'm pretty sure it was W Bush who started this.

  • 109. Bob  |  August 16, 2010 at 6:44 am

    there was much controversy about this during the election, and after the election, Obama expanded this program, and created a position in the white house to manage it.
    a major part of the controversy was during the Bush admin, there was discrimination agains LGBT , in the programs using those tax free dollars, Obama hasn't done anything of significance to change that, other than say each case will be reiviewed individually,

    Bush started it, Obama expanded it. creating a situation where the Churches now stand in line for gov't funding, and the gov't gets to play favorites with the churches. oh sure they have a whole new dept. to shuffle the paper and do the smoke and mirrors thing, but it is just to much like doing business with the devil. for those power bases to be exchanging the peoples money.

  • 110. Episcopal Bear  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:16 am

    "What about ‘em? That’s not a family."

    That snot-nosed punk doesn't know a DAMNED THING about what a "family" truly is!

  • 111. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:27 am

    That is exactly right. In fact, he doesn't even look old enough to shave or have a driver's license. But he "knows" what a family is!?! Where do they get these folks?

  • 112. Chris B  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:20 am

    I am assuming the "Property" part of "Defense of Tradition, Family and Property" refer to wives, since traditionally wives were viewed as the husband's property?

  • 113. Ed  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:23 am

    Just read the document, and what I got out of it, besides it being a fluff piece, was the prop 8 proponents are throwing a tantrum, stomping their feet and crying, ala a toddler…..

    Doubt it will hold up.


  • 114. Breaking the Silence  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:56 am

    Glad to hear that, Ed. I don't have the intestinal fortitude to read their attempts at argument right now, and am just hoping for now that my mental image of these people sitting down and exclaiming "we have to come up with SOMETHING that sounds based somewhere in law!!" is accurate.

  • 115. fiona64  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:42 am

    I had to stop, myself.


  • 116. Kate  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:27 am

    OK, legal pals; please chime in and tell me if they have anything here. It just plain makes me sick reading their stuff — and I tend to get worried when I see what they think are all their legal ducks nicely lined up. Are we still OK?

  • 117. OldCoastie  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:59 am

    IANAL, but it seems like they are arguing against themselves…

    I think "temper tantrum" is a good description… but I'll wait for the lawyers to chime in.

  • 118. Mike  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Next time someone talks about people marrying animals, I want the interviewer to say something along the lines of "Are animals rational, tax-paying citizens guaranteed the same rights as you and me?" They never seem to rebut this ridiculous claim.

  • 119. Joel  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:45 am

    I usually just tell 'em that if their dog can give legal, informed consent, then they should either 1) contact David Letterman and have their bitch on "Stupid Pet Tricks or 2) have their medications reevaluated

  • 120. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:49 am

    Gonna start using that myself 🙂

  • 121. HunterR.  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:01 am

    And if marriage's goal is to control the "procreative risks posed by sexual relationships between men and women" shouldn't be more prudent then to criminalize heterosexual sexual relationships? It should be required for straight couples to wear chastity devices so THEY in their immoral ways can't get pregnant.

  • 122. Breaking the Silence  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Strikes me as strange because a variety of birth control measures, the day after pill, sexual activities other than vaginal intercourse, and well-informed and personally chosen abortion or abstinence all seem far more realistic, reasonable, and practical than "the institution of marriage" in "managing the procreative risks posed by sexual relationships between men and women." Oops, my bad. Those things only exist in the real world, not in the world of the proponents, nor the world they're trying so very hard to force upon the rest of us.

  • 123. fiona64  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:42 am

    Don't forget: many of the proponents of Prop 8 are not only profoundly anti-choice for religious reasons, but equally profoundly anti-contraception.


    (Who has had enough of religious-based misogyny to last a lifetime, thanks …)

  • 124. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:02 am

    I hope a stay is denied, but the SCOTUS finds a way to allow the case to proceed. These assholes deserve to be crushed at the SCOTUS level.

  • 125. Joel  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:15 am

    My first and very uninformed opinions of this doc:
    1. It is difficult to read, in contrast to the Plaintiffs' which even I, as someone with no legal training at all, found eminently comprehensible.
    2. The seem to have gotten around the 15 page limit imposed by the court by putting forth half their case is half-sized font, single spaced footnotes.
    3. They seem, once again, to be attempting to enter new evidence.
    4. If they had turned this in as a high school English class essay, the teacher would have given them a big fat "F".
    5. It's very whiny

  • 126. Anonygrl  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:59 am

    I think my favorite part of your true remarks is the last one. "It's very whiny." That made me laugh. Thanks!

  • 127. Straight Grandmother  |  August 16, 2010 at 5:27 am

    What the Defendents continue to pursue is that THEY get to define Marriage. If you read the Findings of Fact from Walker he goes by our expert Dr Nancy Cott (Harvard Prof adn studied the History of Marriage in America for 10 years) defined and that is, the "States purpose of Marriage is to create stable households"

    They are not allowed to change the Findings of Fact and that is all they are trying in all their Appeals to do. They are trying to get higher Courts to ignore the findings of fact and they jsut keep repeating "Their" definition of marriage (ad nausum I might add).

    They had thier day in Court and they lost, IMHO they do not get a re-trial on what the definition of marriage is, That was already established in the first trial (and the Courts accepted definition is not their definition).

    So I think the higher Courts are just going to take an ink pen and draw a line through each of their sentences that include the "Traditional" definition of Marriage.

    That is all they are trying to do in their Appeals, re try the Definition of Marriage and I don't think theya re allowed to do that. Layman's interpertation.

    Someone please show me where they demonstrated that they will be harmed because at a minimum they must be able to show harm, personally.

  • 128. carlwillis  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Some white hoods and bedsheets sure would go nicely with those red sashes…

  • 129. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:30 am

    About all I can say for them is that at least they don't hide their painfully smug faces….

  • 130. Christian  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:24 am

    I had a little chuckle from this comment from the Prop8 folks' filing. In regards to the plaintiffs admitting that "30% of lesbians and 13% of men experience meaningful choice about their sexual orientation. … Such statistics would be unthinkable for any class that the Supreme Court has recognized as suspect."

    Is my thinking incorrect in that religion is a suspect class that deserves special protections? I am not a hugely religious person, but I thought which religion to practice was a choice. So are the proponents cherry picking what to state is true again?

  • 131. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:27 am

    Religion is protected by the First Amendment. It's in its own category.

  • 132. Wolfinlv  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:59 am

    Ok so religion is protected under it's own category… so we have established religions MCC UCC et al that would gladly grant us marriage… by preventing the recognition of these marriages the government is prescribing how we practice our religion is it not?

  • 133. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:09 am

    No argument from me on that one.

  • 134. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:18 am

    Yes, they are. that is part of their normal tactic in everything.

  • 135. Sheryl  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:28 am

    Oh, that young man has no idea what a real family is. wonder if both of his parents are still living. Will, when one parent dies, his family no longer be a family. Will he no longer refer to family members as his family. Say he marries and, for some unfortunate reason, he is left as a single father, will he not consider he and his child/children as a family. Somehow I rather doubt that when it involve him directly he will consider his once family as half a family.

    I agree with the poster that interviews like this need to be seen everywhere. People need to know who and what they are really supporting.

  • 136. Sagesse  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:29 am

    This interview with BB in Atlanta is well worth watching. If the embed doesn't work, I'll post the link.

    [youtube =]

  • 137. Sagesse  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:30 am

    If at first you don't succeed

  • 138. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:44 am

    Why doesn't anyone ever challenge Brian on the issue of children? If he's trying to prevent ss marriage because it encourages a 'less than ideal' family structure of raising children, then does he object to gay couples adopting? Does he disapprove of gay people having access to methods of assisted fertility like ivf, donor sperm, etc?

    Get him to admit that either he disapproves of gay people raising children and wants that stopped, or if not, then denying marriage to ss parents HURTS children, not helps them.

  • 139. HunterR.  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:32 am

    and the pieces keep on falling. Bellow a well thought article by Rusell Blackford, in response to Ross Douthat article in the New York Times.

    "But hang on. Douthat is entitled to honour his particular sexual ideal as much as he likes. Let him have a lifelong monogamous heterosexual marriage involving children. Fine. May his children grow up healthy and happy. Doubtless there are many other individuals who honour the same ideal, expressing it in their life plans and projects. Well, let them.

    But nothing prevents that. On the other hand, the state now permits “fornication” and “adultery”, and it recognises marriages that are deliberately childless, marriages that are open or involve other polyamorous arrangements (I could tell you plenty of stories just from the science fiction community in, say, the US), and doubtless all sorts of other things that I can’t even begin to imagine. It also permits procreation outside of marriage, and has abolished old notions of “illegitimacy”.

    Marriage takes many forms, in modern societies, and is used in many different ways by many people with many diverse ideals. I doubt that there is much sense continuing to have a state-recognised status called “marriage” anymore, but insofar as we go on doing this the status has become extremely malleable. And again, this is a good thing. We are not all cut from the same template; we are all different, as individuals, and we should, as far as possible, be free to live in accordance with our varied conceptions of the good.

    image 3If same-sex marriages obtain recognition from the state, that won’t prevent anyone from living in accordance with the ideal that Douthat espouses. But it’s not good enough for Douthat to say that this is an attractive ideal that “we” should honour.

    Whether “we”, as individuals, want to honour it is up to “us” as individuals. If somebody wants to live in accordance with a sexual ideal of lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual fecundity … she should be free to do so. But she has no claim on the rest of us that her sexual ideal gets some special advantage from the state in competition with the many other the alternatives that are on offer. Yes, we as individuals can choose the ideal that Douthat loves so much. Douthat himself can, well, do whatever he likes, provided he doesn’t harm others.

    But as for whether the state should give such a sexual ideal some special honour … why? In a pluralist society it is not the role of the state to give special honour to one or the other of the many different ideals (sexual or otherwise) that are legitimately available to people, and which, in effect, compete for our adherence. The state should allow people as far as possible to live in accordance with their diverse views of the good; it should not honour one particular group’s view of the good and, by implication, stigmatise another’s.

    Of course, Douthat is welcome to argue that there is some good secular reason not to provide for same-sex marriage because, for example, it will cause suffering, or because it will lead to social breakdown and civil chaos. But he hasn’t even attempted to put an argument of that kind. His argument is, instead, the illiberal one that the state should give its backing to his particular, entirely optional, sexual ideal. But why the hell should it?

    That’s why it’s a pathetic attempt to oppose same-sex marriage. When an intelligent conservative who opposes same-sex marriage looks at the issue squarely, he has to concede that the usual arguments relied on by his allies are rubbish. What’s more, he clearly has no viable argument based on secular concerns, such as concerns about harms to worldly interests. Surely he’d put an argument like that if he had one: he knows that recognising same-sex marriages will not lead to suffering or chaos.

    Douthat is left with a bare plea that the state should honour his favourite sexual ideal over others that compete with it. Sorry, sir, but that’s pathetic. "

  • 140. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:37 am

    So not to be disagreeable here but why are we all focusing on what one young man said as if he were speaking for all of NOM and all of American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property?
    Do we even know for a fact that what he is saying is the official platform of their organization?

    Sounds rather hypocritical of us. We would never say that the words of any one of 'our' people should be taken as speaking for ALL of us in the LGBT community.
    Just seems rather petty of us to focus on this like we are.
    I agree this young man is WAY out of line, and sadly mistaken in his views….but he is just one man.
    Now I understand they are featured predominately at the rally, which lends itself to the view that they indeed speak for NOM.
    If NOM were to interview one of our more 'fringe' people I have little doubt they could and would find something just as off base to focus on.

    Just saying……..

  • 141. Wolfinlv  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:16 am

    No we would not say that one person speaks for all of us and reflects on all of us… BUT you know what they do. Every time someone speaks that is GLBT they speak for all of us. If they are inarticulate we are all inarticulate to the person they are speaking to. That is the way the human mind works.
    That is why there are stereotypes and I know everyone hates that word but it's the way things are. And fighting against that is actually what's hurting us. WE need to be a WE not an I to get this done. WE need to disseminate information so that WE are all on the same page with the same message. Whether we are Leather men/women, Dykes, Girls, Boys, Bears, Cubs, Lesbians, Drag Queens WE need to be on the same page with the same message almost as if we are saying it from memory. Yes we can use our own words but it needs to essentially be identical.
    There are still those in the GLBT community that say "I don't think we need marriage choose a different word" They don't understand that there can be no separate but equal.

    And what you are calling "'fringe' People" started our movement. Look at Stonewall, look at pride parades when they were more than parties when they were protests. Look at the marches that happened in DC… YOU SAW LEATHER and YOU SAW DRAG EVERYWHERE! THEY are our core. They have organizations that can rival any that you can name. They are the ones that stood up when others that were non fringe were trying to blend in and "pass". Leather Men/Women and Drag Queens are our strength for you to put them to the fringe is wrong and offensive. WE can not do that!

  • 142. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:50 am

    Excuse me? You have no idea who or what I am calling 'fringe people'….I am not and was not referring to leather men/women nor drag queens.
    By fringe I meant someone outside the core groups working at these rallies.
    I didn't ask for a leason in gay history (I've lived it) …
    I asked a simple question…one that you did not even come close to answering or addressing.
    I asked why we would consider the words of this one young man to be that of official position for either NOM or the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property.
    My question still stands.
    Why are we focusing so much on the words of one young man who clearly doesn't understand or knows what he is talking about?

  • 143. Wolfinlv  |  August 16, 2010 at 5:01 am

    Fine I'll answer it bluntly. Because he is there representing that group and therefore should be able to answer for that groups positions if not then he should refer questions to a senior member of the group. And since he is their representative that we spoke with and since he did not refer us to someone else that makes him their spokesperson and they, since he is representing them there, are responsible for and are reflected in what he says and does. A group's message is what it's member's state it to be and what a member states while in the groups attire, uniform or carrying sign of that group.

  • 144. HunterR.  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:49 am

    and another thing (blood pressure going up) why I -as a single gay guy – should pay more taxes to support heterosexuals irresponsible sexual behavior?

  • 145. Cat  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:54 am

    The proponent's reply is pretty hard to read, but my impression on what they want to say is this:

    Walker was wrong on all 80 facts, including:
    1. Marriage hasn't changed over the last 2000 year
    2. The only true purpose of marriage is a) produce babies, or if that's not possible b) a platform for having sex, and keeping the sperm of the man from spreading to unmarried women.
    3. Some gays can change their sexual orientation, so we don't need to concern ourselves with the majority that can't.

    And additionally:
    4. The State must define marriage as the majority of the people want to define it. Votes trump constitution anytime (when we're right).
    5. The governor and attorney general are stupid because we think they're wrong.
    6. The plaintiffs have no standing because we think they're wrong.
    7. We have standing because we had the right to intervene, and we're right.

    I must admit there's a whole bunch of legal combat in the document that I have no clue about. IANAL…

  • 146. Wolfinlv  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:54 am

    Someone needs to ask these people with the big sign saying God's Marriage = 1 man 1 woman… what about all those biblical instances of 1 man multiple women?

  • 147. BradK  |  August 16, 2010 at 5:07 am

    I'll let Betty Bowers will explain that for you:

  • 148. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 7:59 am

    Actually, Blankenhorn answered that quite nicely – he said it's just 1 man and 1 woman ….. at a time. Yep. He really said that – under oath.

  • 149. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Yeah, that was some really weird testimony. Even with polygamy, each "marriage" involved only the man and whichever of his wives was in the marriage in question, or something. Mind-boggling.

  • 150. Chris B  |  August 16, 2010 at 8:29 am

    If you haven't had a chance to wade through the Prop 8 ruling, there's an abridged audio version here: . I listened to it as I did some work around the house and mowed my lawn (electric lawn mower, relatively quiet).

    By "abridged" it means all the references to transcripts and exhibits have been removed, so you can just hear the meat of the ruling. (the link will take you to a page to show you an example of what has been excluded from the audio). But it still is about 2.25 hours.

  • 151. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:30 am

    I think Blankenhorn was having an out of body experience at that moment, the result of having been Boiesed for too long.

  • 152. HunterR.  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:15 am

    Beware gays and lesbians this is what Patrick J. Buchanan sees in the constitution!

    " Thomas Jefferson, equated homosexual acts with rape and wrote that male homosexuals (they used the term sodomites in that time) should be castrated and lesbians should have a hole cut into their noses. "

    By that assertion am I a Lesbian since I already have a hole in my nose?

  • 153. Andrew  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:24 am

    I just took a look at that. At the time, execution was standard for all gay men and women. By far, castration and a nose hole are far less severe. In essence, Thomas Jefferson was the first Gay Rights advocate in a time when tolerance was at an all-time low. He may not have gone so far as we have today, but he did not want to kill homosexuals as was standard for the times.

  • 154. HunterR.  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Thank you Andrew,
    Your insightful note reminded me that that sad part of history. It is sad to know that many life's were taken that way……

  • 155. Steve  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:44 am

    He was talking about a half-inch hole. Which basically means cutting the whole nose off.

    However, he wasn't referring to homosexuality in particular, but to all kinds of undesired sexual behavior. Whatever one may understand under the term "sodomy". That also explains why he seemingly talks about lesbians, although punishment of female homosexuality was historically very rare.

  • 156. Straight Grandmother  |  August 16, 2010 at 6:02 am

    I'll agree that Thomas Jefferson, a key creator or our Constituition was a good critical thinker, a logician, and observer of people.

    Perhaps he should have stuck to that instead of social commentary, being as he was a slave owner and all…

    Clearly NONE of our illustrious Forefathers were perfect as they permitted, more than permitted they state sanctioned slavery.

  • 157. Chris B  |  August 16, 2010 at 8:23 am

    Like many Christians and the Bible, conservatives like to pick and choose the things about Jefferson that they agree with and preach them as dogma, but then ignore the parts they disagree with.

    I doubt anyone except rich, white republican males want to go back to 18th century America. Things were really perfect for them back then, weren't they?

    Aren't the conservatives trying to remove any reference to Jefferson from history books?

  • 158. HunterR.  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:23 am

    For real? Seriously? And this guy was a GOP candidate for the Presidency of the USA……

    "Up to today, Walker is the only federal judge to see in same-sex marriage a constitutional right. And what is the origin of this right? Supporters of Walker's decision cite the Declaration of Independence about our "inalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

    But that same declaration says we were endowed with those rights by our Creator. When did the Creator indicate that among these rights was for homosexuals to have their unions recognized as marriages?

    The author of that declaration, Thomas Jefferson, equated homosexual acts with rape and wrote that male homosexuals (they used the term sodomites in that time) should be castrated and lesbians should have a hole cut into their noses.

    Undeniably, homosexuals have the same constitutional rights of free speech, peaceable assembly and trial by jury. But what the judge has done is declare the life choices and lifestyles of gays and lesbians to be equal to the life choice of married men and women.

    This is nothing but Walker's personal opinion.

    But he is declaring it to be the only rational conclusion that can be reached. And having reached it, he has seized upon a phrase in the 14th Amendment, "equal protection," distorted its meaning and dictated that this means his view and his values henceforth are the law in California, the voters be damned.

    And what the judge dismisses and rejects as irrational is a conviction rooted in the history of the human race, biblical truth, natural law and basic common sense. For, in recent decades, male homosexuality has been linked to enteric diseases, hepatitis, AIDS and early death.

    Historically, from the late Roman Empire to Weimar, flagrant homosexuality has been associated with sick societies, decadent cultures and dying civilizations. Today would appear to be no exception.….

  • 159. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Wow. No wonder Mr. Buchanan isn't on Rachel's show anyone. At least he's honest about his prejudice. Wow.

  • 160. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:33 am

    Pat Buchanan is a racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic moron.

  • 161. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:25 am

    I know Kathleen has to be off the list now (sob!), but this notice just came from the 9th Circuit: Docket Text:
    Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Tamar Pachter for – Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. Date of service: 08/16/2010. [7440829] (TP)

    What does it mean, please?

    It's pins and needles time again…..

  • 162. Andrew  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:38 am

    It sounds like the Deputy Attorney General arrived at the 9th Circuit, likely meaning there is a housekeeping issue to address. Then again, it could be something far bigger and more important, but that is unlikely at this time.

  • 163. Sagesse  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:48 am

    Probably just authorizing Tamar Pachter as another representative of the AG Brown's office who is able to communicate with the 9th Circuit court on this matter. Appearance includes the ability to efile documents.

  • 164. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:55 am

    What Sagesse said. This Dept. Atty General is now considered the lead council to represent AG Brown. Procedurally, it's just housekeeping. I have no idea if there is something significant in having this particular attorney appear. I doubt it, but I don't know.

  • 165. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Forgot to subscribe….

  • 166. LD  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:43 am

    What are people's current thoughts on whether this will actually go to the Supreme Court? What scenario(s) would lead to this case not getting there? Is it only if the 9th Cir. finds NOM has no standing to appeal?

  • 167. Wolfinlv  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:53 am

    Unless the NOM people are found to have standing it won't even go to the 9th Cir. If they are found to have standing then it is likely to end up going to the SCOTUS.

  • 168. Andrew  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:59 am

    Just to clarify, NOM (National Organization for Marriage) and are two different groups. NOM is running the Summer Tour for Marriage while is involved.

    But Wolfinlv is right. If the proponents are found to have standing, it is likely to make it to SCOTUS, but otherwise it won't be reviewed by the 9th circuit.

  • 169. Wolfinlv  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:54 am

    The only other way is if the Governor or AG of CA change their minds.

  • 170. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 16, 2010 at 5:29 am

    Doubt that will happen as both have openly stated they wish to see marriage resume.

  • 171. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 6:00 am

    But is there a chance they will come back to the case as defendants, in order to make sure it proceeds so that the decision can be upheld at a higher level, and thus become binding precedent and be of even more benefit?

  • 172. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 16, 2010 at 6:43 am

    We could but hope Rich!

  • 173. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:35 am

    Yes, we can. And I try to be like Harvey Milk and give 'em hope! After all, isn't hope a better thing to give people than despair?

  • 174. Gery Weisschadel  |  August 16, 2010 at 6:16 am

    Ya know… back when I was a young 33, I proposed to a woman a year or two older. In dating, I told her I'd been to bed with more guys than I had fingers or toes for, and I could count the women I'd been with on one hand with fingers left over.

    She told me all about her alcoholism, drug use, and promiscuity.

    Then, we got married, GOD married because we were both going to a fundamentalist church and GOD was agonna heal us.

    Guess what?

    Ten years later it was over. We procreated a daughter who lives with me, but her mother and I are still friends. And in talking about it all, we both agreed friends is ALL we should have been.

    She'd like a b/f / partner who's senstive like me, and I'd like my first bf/partner (though I 'm not holding my breath).

    All this to say, I DID the Opposite Gender Marriage thing and believed that I could be EX gay (I was so repressed sexually I STILL have issues and I"m 54 and it ain't lookin' good).

    Ex gays and their cheerleaders, and the Rabid Right, and the Fear Mongerors, and the Fudgin' Fundies are shameless, stare you in the eyes without blinking, liars.

    What they profess to stand for is SO far from the truth, that they wouldn't know the Truth if it offered to buy them coffee.

    That's my name htere and I am QUITE happy to go on public record and label them as perveyors of misinformation, promotes of hate, cheats, swindlers, self serving, unempathetic and represent the dark side of human nature.

    Every tear, every cry, every moan, every broken heart, and every death of a GLTB person; especially the youth, those tossed out of their loving Christian homes et al; I lay at their doorstep, and the blood of those persecuted and dead forever stains their hands.

    I'd say shame on them, but they don't have the conscience to feel shame. They are pathalogical to the extreme and are content to let the broken hears, and bodies mount every higher and higher.

    Death is too good for them.

    Yup, I'm angry.

  • 175. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 6:35 am

    Gery, I'm so sorry for all the pain you went through and still have. Hugs to you.

  • 176. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 16, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Big hugs my brother….I know your pain and feel it deeply ever day of my life.
    You are NOT alone in any of this….always remember that

  • 177. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 8:50 am

    Gery, I know where you are coming from, and I know your pain. Welcome to the P8TT family. Stick around and allow yourself to become an active part of it, whatever level of activity your life allows you, and we will do all we can to help you heal. At 54, there is still hope. After all, you are still on this side of the dirt. I see hope in the fact that you actually came here and posted. That took a lot of courage on your part. BRAVO!!!!! And if you are on Fb, you can find most of us, possibly even all of us there in the Prop 8 Trial Trackers group. That will give you another way to contact us in addition to this one. Looking forward to hearing more from you.

  • 178. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    BIG HUGS – wish I could give you real hugs. Thank you so much for sharing your very moving story. My heart is heavy for all the pain that has been so needlessly inflected on our community. And the worst of it is the kind that calls itself caring but isn’t. xoxoxo

  • 179. Josiah  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:15 pm

    Gery, please allow me to apologize on behalf of all those who have abused, insulted and hurt you while using (misusing) the name of Christ. Your anger is justified. The Church has sinned against our LGBTQI siblings, and continues to do so. Some of us are working to change hearts, minds, policies and practices within various Christian denominations, to varying degrees of success. But that does not make up for centuries of persecution, hatred and cruelty.

    I feel it is the responsibility of all who would bear the name "Christian" to accept responsibility for the wrongs done in that name. So, on behalf of my coreligionists, both those who understand the extent of God's love and grace and those who have yet to learn, I apologize.

  • 180. David from Sandy Uta  |  August 16, 2010 at 7:36 am

    Members of the Ku Klux Klan wear white robes and pointy hats.

    Members of the ASDTFP wear some kind of red half-robe with gold bling.

    (Mormons have their special jammies.)

    Why do fringe groups wear special clothing? Are their fear-mongering lies less stooopid because they use an icon from British heraldry? Or do they want us to know that they are fashion week rejects and deserving only of our mockery and scorn. . . LOL

    Sandy UT

  • 181. zak  |  August 16, 2010 at 7:42 am

    this s why capes went out of style

  • 182. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 8:44 am

    UPDATE: Order granting stay pending appeal. Also sets new expedited schedule for appeal.

  • 183. CeeVee  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:38 am

    An out lesbian friend of mine was involved with the GSA in an upper-level administrative role and was open with them about her partner and their children. She didn't leave the GSA because of any anti-gay sentiment, she just pursued another career route.

  • 184. DK  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:39 am

    I went to the website of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property . They are Catholics. Ugh. I was raised Catholic and went to a Jesuit-run university. I found the Jesuits refreshingly non-conformist and pro-liberal values such as those taught in liberation theology, but of course they're not particularly in good standing with the current Pope. Nonetheless they taught me to never buy into something without questioning it, and now I am a severely lapsed Catholic (can I say ex-Catholic and proud of it!?). I admire good work and charity but can NOT buy into the patriarchal and incredibly narrowminded dogma of the Catholic Church…or laypeople like this group. Read what they support–it is scarey how ignorant and backward this group is. They are anti equality (anti SSM, anti "the homosexual agenda for the military", even anti environmental responsibility). Gah! I want to scream sometimes.

    Left coast straight liberal currently living in CT and waiting for my home state to catch up!

  • 185. Josiah  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:23 pm

    My wife, who is 100% of Irish descent, describes herself as "ethnically Catholic", but has no truck with the authoritarian structures and backward policies of today's Catholic Church.

    If you live near New Haven, DK, you might like to check out Christ Church Episcopal on Broadway and Elm Streets (across from the Yale Bookstore); we were members there when we lived in Connecticut. It's an open and affirming church, with several LGBT clergy members; the liturgy is very "high church" (incense, bells, glorious choral music), but the political stance is very liberal (pro-gay, anti-war) and there's a strong emphasis on service (Christ Church runs New Haven's largest soup kitchen, and has several other programs for the homeless).

  • 186. DK  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    Thanks Josiah, I'm about 90 minutes from New Haven, but I'm glad to hear you found a welcoming church.

  • 187. Twin-Skies  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    Fellow Jesuit-educated dude here from Manila.

    And just like you, I ended up leaving the faith because SJ's taught me better than to be blindly obedient to dogma.

  • 188. Franck  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    Raised Catholic here too, and I went to Madagascar's largest Jesuit school. For the funny anecdote, my parents credit them for turning me gay by fiercely keeping girls away from their male students.

    I never was a firm believer, even when studying there. I only went to please my parents. Same goes for going to Church afterwards, and joining a choir. But let me tell you how the Church itself gave me all reasons to quit:

    Our old priest retired and was replaced by a younger one. The new priest immediately showed serious ego problems and antagonized a lot of people. When he went after the choir, I took upon myself to denounce his behavior to the archdiocese.

    My reward? I was forced to apologize for "slandering" him. Since I refused, the choir severed all ties with me. Too bad for them, the priest still went after them and effectively shut down the choir.

    After that I worked to help my mother, who by then had become the victim of a campaign of vilification from the priest (he read my parents' divorce papers during mass to expose her "adulterous" ways!). He handed us our best weapon though, when my mother eventually took a photo of him having an affair with a local woman.

    After the priest was reassigned elsewhere, the choir attempted to get me back. I flatly refused. I had never had much interest in them to begin with, and they had to stab me in the back for trying to help them. I never went to Church again after that, and neither did the rest of my family (despite my parents still being religious – I guess they went the Anne Rice way).

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1154 days, as of today.

  • 189. CeeVee  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:41 am

    woops…tried to reply to thread #49 and got an error message. Anyway, the previous comment about the Girl Scouts of America was more fitting to the previous poster.

  • 190. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    They’ve granted the stay. 🙁 I’ll get the document up ASAP

  • 191. sweetpeasimluv  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:54 am

    Hi, My wife and i r also waiting 2 c what happens because I am a U.S. citizen and she is a Italain citizen. We were married in Canada. We r basically screwd!! We wanted to live and work in the U.S. but with this issue of being binational it is economically difficult. We r missing family holidays, obligations to our children whom r not yet 21 so they can not sponsor my wife. we r looking 4 every possible way and we just feel screwd with no way out except Canada. any ideas will be much appriciated!!! My wife is gona b 45 this yr and does not qualify 4 any of the work visa's as she does not have a degree yet she has a deploma (like a certificate) but not a degree. College is way 2 expensive all she wants to do is start her own business but if she has 2 go 2 college there goes the business she wants to save not waist the money on what she already knows life experience she worked with her x boyfriends family renting out vacation flats 4 over 15 yrs. she also worked @ a 5 * hotel as assistant manager but performs managerial duties on a daily basis but thats not good enough!!! My wife & I wana get back home 2 our family, friends & commitments.

  • 192. Ann S.  |  August 17, 2010 at 2:00 am

    I'm so sorry you have to be apart. Unfortunately, this case alone will not affect US immigration policy.

  • 193. You inspired today’&hellip  |  August 17, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    […] You can use the content we’ve posted here on the blog, like yesterday’s NOM supporter saying single-parent families are oxymorons, or the day before with the man in Harrisburg obsessed with […]

  • 194. Ronnie  |  November 6, 2010 at 7:32 am

    subscribing so so so late to this thread…a lot of the threads got buried in my email… all I will say is NOM supporters are oxyMORONS…….rofl…..<3…Ronnie

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