Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Videos: Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs confronts NOM’s Brian Brown, Harry Jackson, and other coverage from DC

NOM Tour Tracker Right-wing Videos

by Adam Bink

Well, have I got some videos (and other coverage) for you. We have our videos uploaded from the NOM and “The Big Commit” Freedom Plaza rallies in DC. Here are some barnburners along with other coverage:

  • First and foremost, Courage Campaign Founder and Chair Rick Jacobs confronts NOM President Brian Brown. The results are pretty epic:]

  • He
    • Because we can’t end the NOM tour without one more video of Christian theocrats spouting their interpretation of God’s will, here you go:]

    • <a
      • I didn’t find time to post this before the event, but Kate Clinton’s giving Maggie a talking-to, via GetEqual, is pretty funny.

      • You Councilmember Marion Barry told a crowd, “We want to be moral, and moral leaders. I’m a politician who is moral, standing on the moral compass of God.”

        Yes, this is the same Barry who was arrested for smoking crack cocaine, when he was in a hotel room with a woman 15 years his junior while he was married to someone else.

        Openly gay D.C. Councilmember David Catania said in reply, “I want to do what Marion Barry has done four times. I want to get married.”

        If you’ve seen any other noteworthy coverage, feel free to leave in the comments.


  • 1. Ann S.  |  August 17, 2010 at 5:31 am

    Pretty please, may I have more mail?

  • 2. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 17, 2010 at 5:33 am


  • 3. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 17, 2010 at 5:45 am

    “One Man, One Woman” Rally!

  • 4. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 17, 2010 at 5:49 am

    One Man, One Woman rally photo is great…love it!

  • 5. Felyx  |  August 17, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Ahhh Hahahaha!!! Funny Pic!!! We all suspected it had come to that!!! Felyx

  • 6. Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 5:52 am


  • 7. JonT  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:14 am

    TCP port 25 on my firewall is bored.


  • 8. Dave P.  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Love that photo! Can you Photoshop a few tumbleweeds into it? Maybe add a soundtrack with crickets? : )

  • 9. bJason  |  August 17, 2010 at 10:00 am

    @JonT for the comment "TCP port 25 on my firewall is bored."…

    You SO just turned me on.

  • 10. Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 10:04 am

    Ooo. Is it possible two of my favorite P8TTers are making a love match here? (sorry, hopeless romantic)

  • 11. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 17, 2010 at 10:21 am

    @ Kathleen. I don't think it would be the first time we have seen love blossom on P8TT. Right, Felyx & Kirille?

  • 12. JonT  |  August 17, 2010 at 11:36 am

    @bJason: Haha! Excellent. I do get tired of the usual 'subscribing' sometimes. Wondered if anyone would get that.

    Glad there are fellow programmers/network geeks here 🙂

  • 13. JonT  |  August 17, 2010 at 11:43 am

    @Richard, @Kathleen: Oh stop you two 🙂

  • 14. Todd  |  August 17, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    Awesome, ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ!


  • 15. adani  |  March 1, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    Excellent job ! Your web page has supplied me the majority of the strategies I wanted .

  • 16. Alan E.  |  August 17, 2010 at 5:44 am

    Me too. I don't have enough to read for my commute home. (My boss is also getting a little suspicious about the yellow wrapper on this site…)

  • 17. Dave in ME  |  August 17, 2010 at 7:01 am

    Tell me more, please!


  • 18. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 17, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Kate Clinton is funny. Embrace your Extinction…lol

  • 19. PDD  |  August 17, 2010 at 5:41 am

    HA HA HA on Barry quotes!

  • 20. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 17, 2010 at 5:56 am

    Will read this thoroughly later, and look at the videos. Trying to find a better mood.

  • 21. Trish  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:00 am

    You know, the minister that married me to my wife in 2003 said we were married. That's also what my marriage license says from 2008. But if BB doesn't want to believe that I'm married, he's free to believe that. But if he believes that I'll never be married regardless what the State does, then why does it matter what the State does?

  • 22. Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:15 am

    That was our conclusion when Louis started blogging about how, no matter what the state does, ss marriages aren't marriages. We all conceded all we want is state recognition, not NOM's acceptance, so figured they could all pack up and go home. 🙂

  • 23. BradK  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:33 am

    Good point! If a valid marriage license issued by a state still does not constitute a marriage in their tiny little minds, then why bother with the multi-million $$$ campaigns to prevent it?

    Hypocrisy abounds.

  • 24. carpoolcookie  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:14 am

    Wow. "Our United States government is under satanic power" (???) Really? Don't they INSTITUTIONALIZE people for rambling on about that stuff on the sidewalk?

    (PS: have changed my username because there's already a Kathleen here….and I am not match for her insights! So it's Carpool Cookie from here on in.)

  • 25. carpoolcookie  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:15 am

    Ooooh….my little avatar showed up, too! I think. (I'm nearsighted and it's on the tiny side.)

  • 26. Dave P.  |  August 17, 2010 at 7:49 am

    Yup, it's there, and you look maaaahvelous!

  • 27. BradK  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:37 am

    What's that old saying that when you talk to God it's called prayer but when He talks back it's schizophrenia?

    With this crowd though I'm afraid it's just profound ignorance. Could anything more really be expected from them when they look up to a demagogue like Harry Jackson for guidance?

  • 28. Anonygrl  |  August 17, 2010 at 11:23 am

    The whole bit she did about "I've seen what it has done to the black communities…" was straight out of his speech… so obviously he has given that one before.

    Probably repeatedly.


  • 29. AndrewPDX  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:18 am

    subscribin'… will have to watch the vids later.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 30. Bob  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:22 am

    carpoolcookie, well done, small but revealing enough to make you really want to see more, cute!!!! avatar, and a new handle, wooohooo , welcome

  • 31. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:38 am

    Can't wait to watch these vids and look at all the pix when I get home this evening.
    Maybe it will help put me in a better mood….been really really sad for a couple days now 🙁


  • 32. Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:45 am

    Hugs for Mark. xoxo

  • 33. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:49 am

    Thanks sweetie 🙂

  • 34. Marlene  |  August 17, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    Big hugs and a little grope on the butt… 😉

  • 35. Sean  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:38 am

    See, this is why I could never do any of the stuff you guys do. I couldn't follow these people around and interview them and listen to them spout hate speech after hate speech and then claim "God Almighty" is on their side. I just couldn't do it. Not without screaming, at least.

  • 36. Carpool Cookie  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    I'm with you, Sean. I'd last half a day…..MAYBE! Then, the crockery would start flying.

  • 37. Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    Oh, please, NO! Not the crockery! (I collect pottery and mid-century modern tableware 🙂 ).

  • 38. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 17, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    Kathleen, you would probably LOVE all the Watt pottery my mother-in-law has. She collects their Apple pattern. I just think it is beautiful!

  • 39. Felyx  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:38 am

    I am not a Psychiatrist, so I do not diagnose… but I am an RN, so I do take note of signs and symptoms… (Three guess as to whom the signs point!!!)

    What Are the Symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

    In many cases, people with narcissistic personality disorder:

    Are self-centered and boastful

    Seek constant attention and admiration

    Consider themselves better than others

    Exaggerate their talents and achievements

    Believe that they are entitled to special treatment

    Are easily hurt but may not show it

    Set unrealistic goals

    May take advantage of others to achieve their goals
    Other common traits of narcissistic personality disorder include the following:

    Preoccupation with fantasies that focus on unlimited success, power, intelligence, beauty, or love

    Belief that he or she is "special" and unique, and can only be understood by other special people

    Expectation that others will automatically go along with what he or she wants

    Inability to recognize or identify with the feelings, needs, and viewpoints of others

    Envy of others or a belief that others are envious of him or her

    Hypersensitivity to insults (real or imagined), criticism, or defeat, possibly reacting with rage, shame and humiliation

    Arrogant behavior and/or attitude

    It is the inability to empathize with others that is most evident in his personality… I just want to point out that this is the kind of person with whom one, literally, cannot argue. Even debate is not possible. This is why I feel so confident that we will prevail. It is because those who act like this do not represent the vast majority of people on this earth.

    Felyx – I am not a Catholic or a Christian per se, but I do have faith!

  • 40. bJason  |  August 17, 2010 at 10:09 am

    This is AWESOME and made me consider that my last boyfriend may not have simply been a sociopath but also a narcissist. Does the DSM put these together in any way?

    <3 Jason

  • 41. Felyx  |  August 17, 2010 at 11:45 pm

    I too had what may have been somewhat of a Narcissist boyfriend early on in my life… the important part is not to 'diagnose' the other person as it does nothing for either you or that person. The important thing is to be aware of the signs (of any number of psychological phenomena) and learn how to deal with them in a healthy and productive way. For instance… realize that trying to have a civil or logical debate with some people will not be productive. Instead listen to their point of view and simply present yours… no debating.

    Even more productive is to look within yourself to find out what makes YOU tick! We all have some of these traits. Recognizing them, learning about them and dealing with them will help YOU become happier and healthier. If the other guy doesn't do that then sure it is everyone's loss, but we have to either deal with it or, if possible, let it go and move on to that which is productive.

    Taking the high road and dealing with real facts and scientific inquiry will win in the long run. Working on ourselves will create the healing we need. (After all, Rekers et als are just the more damaged part of our community.)

    I love you all and I just wanted to show that there are real reasons behind the insanity that are sometimes near impossible to discover. Fighting it is stressful and rarely as productive as the more boring method of understanding and dealing with it. but understanding goes a long way to not repeating the same mistakes.



  • 42. Franck  |  August 17, 2010 at 11:58 pm

    Awww gee, thanks, Felyx. I've just managed to diagnose myself with NPD (all but three of these traits apply to me – I think). I am doomed! 😉

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1153 days, as of today.

  • 43. Felyx  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:28 am

    @ Jason
    Actually the DSM in fact does indicate that many of these conditions are multidimensional and overlap quite a bit. Once again it does more good to learn about the conditions and understand how to deal with them.

    @ Franck
    LOL You're funny! Yes we all have some of these traits.

    They are in fact normal characteristics of just about all humans and are not in any way an indication of poor mental health. The difference lies in how it affects ones life. Even if the traits are constant and profound, they are still not indicators of mental health challenges until they start to interfere with the life of the individual or the lives of others. If an individual sees others becoming distant (loss of friends, partners, job etc.) then there is a problem. If the life and livelihood of the individual depends on their mental challenges they face then it is a severe problem that usually ends badly! (Sure it may seem good now, but time has a way of evening the odds! Seriously disturbed haters may get a great deal of attention early on, but many of them end their lives in obscurity and severe depression. It is not good for them or for society.)

    Once again, diagnosing yourself or others is counterproductive and pretty much useless. Recognizing traits and dealing with them (if they become problems) leads to wellbeing.


    Oh… and if there are any other personality disordered NOMmers still lurking then… Hi Louis! Hi Brian!

  • 44. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    As Phil Plait said, "How do you point out not being rational to someone who's not being rational?"

  • 45. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:45 am

    Wow, the Christian Theocrat is angry. Mercy!

    She needs to go get saved again! She truly HATES us and doesn't even see the evil inside her.

  • 46. carpoolcookie  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:47 am

    As we discuss protest in various ways at various times, I like what this animator did with the famous speech from "Network"

  • 47. Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 7:03 am

    One of the great monologues in cinema history. Nicely done video.

    (my son works in motion graphic design)

  • 48. carpoolcookie  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:13 am

    I love the vid, too! I think my boss in the next room is wondering what my watching it 5 times is building up to. He might be barrackading his door.

    I just noticed the way the screen kind of moves in and out in the video matches the speaker's breathing. When Peter Finch gets upset, the screen moves in and out more!

    Creative : ) I'm glad your son has an interesting job!

  • 49. bJason  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:49 am

    Graphics were stunning. Very powerful. This guy should go far!

  • 50. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 17, 2010 at 9:08 am

    NOw you guys have got me wanting to find out if redbox has Network so we can watch it this evening. Wasn't Jane Fonda in that also?

  • 51. Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 9:33 am

    Faye Dunaway. (maybe you're thinking of China Syndrome?)

  • 52. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 17, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Thank you, Kathleen. See, once again, I learned something here at P8TT. Somebody should really check into gaining some sort of accreditation for this site that could help some of us gain needed college credits.

  • 53. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    Richard: Interestingly, you are not far off in that Jane Fonda was the other actress approached for "Network". In the 1970's, Fonda and Dunaway were the two primary female "dramatic" stars, who generally duked it out with Julie Christie for big budget roles. (The parts all three passed on generally trickled down to Candice Bergen and Ellen Burstyn.) In fact, Fonda tried to pull out of the Oscar-winning "Klute" and get herself replaced in it by Dunaway! (It's hard to believe, but Fonda froze up at the last minute and thought she wasn't physically alluring enough to play a high-priced call girl! I think it is Fonda's finest performance.)

  • 54. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 17, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    And, Carpool Kathleen, this is just my opinion, and you ar anyone else can interject your own and I will not get upset, but I personally think Jane Fonda, while a nice looking young lady, only got better looking as she got older. She was very attractive in Klute, but looked even better in 9 to 5, where she also showed that she could do comedy as well as drama.

  • 55. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    Reminds of this great animation of a Harvey Milk speech:

  • 56. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    I give up on embedding. Here.

  • 57. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:18 pm

  • 58. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    Straight Ally, here is a little secret…

    in the URL window, where you see the http://www.blah, just copy that url

    control c on windows
    command c on mac

    and then just paste the url in here where you type, the video will show up

    the only time you can't do that is pasting urls to channels

    so you need to make sure that in that url window, after you see /watch?v= << and then the letter-number combo of the video


  • 59. JonT  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    Thanks for that. Seriously.

  • 60. Carpool Cookie  |  August 17, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    Richard: Jane Fonda DID get even better in every department as she grew up. She's an amazing actress and American. Her talent is very fluid, and touchingly, sensually human. Dunaway was always more of a chilly goddess (though she came down to earth in Barfly) and this limited her as she matured. We need a variety of performers, though. I prefer Fonda as an actress, and Dunaway as an old-fashioned star.

  • 61. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 17, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    And that ice goddess persona served Faye very well when she played Joan Crawford in Mommie Dearest, didn't it?

  • 62. Ann S.  |  August 17, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    And in "The Handmaid's Tale".

  • 63. Sheryl Carver  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:49 am

    Watching the video of Brian Brown & Rick, it just shows yet again that the best defense they have when asked a very pointed question that he cannot answer rationally, he just talks about what he wants to, ignoring the question.

    What a waste of time for Rick, except that it served to provide more proof of NOM's ignorance.

  • 64. LavenderLiberal  |  August 17, 2010 at 7:01 am

    Brian Brown, you are one duplicitous lady. You dare to whine about the children of your cohorts being filmed at your hatefests, after your dirtiest trick of all: lifting news video of the San Francisco wedding and exploiting the children of SSM supporters — who DEMANDED you stop using footage of their children — in one of your Prop H8 TV ads.

    Why, I might call you many nasty names, but I am afraid of inadvertently insulting certain barn animals.

  • 65. carpoolcookie  |  August 17, 2010 at 7:28 am

    I don't know how it's possible to have a straightforward conversation with any of those zealots. It's like trying to speak rationally with a crack addict.

  • 66. Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 7:29 am

    ACLU sues over yet more discrimination by a school in Mississippi. IIRC, Attorney Christine Sun also represented Constance McMillan:

  • 67. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 17, 2010 at 7:32 am

    You do remember correctly. Christine Sun was the lead attorney for the ACLU in Constance McMillan's case. So, Mississippi still does not want to move from the 15th Century to the 21st century. Why am i NOT surprised?

  • 68. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 17, 2010 at 7:31 am

    Quote from an NPR, from a San Francisco couple: "Our tuxedos are going back into the closet, but we're not."

  • 69. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 17, 2010 at 7:32 am

    ETA: an NPR story that, as usual, gave too much validity to the pro-8 side, for example, interpreting the appellate court's decision as indicating that their side had a case, no mention of the standing issue. *sigh*

  • 70. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 17, 2010 at 7:37 am

    Quite a few points covered in this article…

    How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Proposition 8 Lawsuit

    Excerpt from Article: "For instance, the Ninth Circuit might uphold Perry but narrowly, applying its ruling to only to California, based on its unique facts. The Golden State legislature has voted twice to gender-neutralize marriage; the state’s top court has ruled that, under California’s constitution, marriage should be open to same-sex pairs. (And in the six months after that ruling, roughly 18,000 same-sex couples were granted marriage licenses, putting a lot of “facts on the ground.”) And Judge Walker carefully establishes, based on evidence offered at trial, that the Prop 8 campaign was religiously motivated and explicitly hostile to lesbians and gay men, so the Ninth Circuit could rule that Prop 8 campaign was too close to Colorado’s antigay Amendment 2 in Romer v. Evans—and that voters can’t overrule their top court and legislature based only on animus. Or it could rule that the state’s top court must be the final authority within that state on such essential questions as sex discrimination, minority rights, and due process—although other states can make different decisions. Or it could rule that since California has a domestic partnership scheme that is marriage in everything but name (a big distinction, but that’s another discussion), voters may not rule marriage out only to tell lesbians and gay men that they’re not as good as their heterosexual siblings.

    Similarly, the Ninth Circuit could uphold Prop 8 and reject same-sex marriage, on any of the points above—but in a way that confines its Plessy v. Ferguson ruling to California."

    Read full article here:

  • 71. Joel  |  August 17, 2010 at 9:05 am

    One thing the article didn't mention is the federal standing of the couples who hold a valid CA marriage license, should the two MA cases go well for us. Won't the feds have to recognize those marriages, as well as those in states that are still issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

  • 72. Leo  |  August 17, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    <cite>None of my sources believe that Justice Kennedy, expected to be the swing vote, would sign a broad opinion in either direction. A Perry decision could conceivably stand for the idea that each state can define marriage for itself.</cite>

    How would that not be a broad decision? (What could possibly be worse?) Absent a federal constitutional amendment, I don't think there's any serious suggestion that SCOTUS might forbid states from legalizing same-sex marriage.

  • 73. Sheryl  |  August 17, 2010 at 7:44 am

    Don't know why I keep watching these interviews. Guess it is because I want to know exactly what everyone else is commenting on.

    I did find it amusing the Brian went off about a commercial against the Mormons and how they are a minority and have experienced discrimination throughout their short history. Sorry, Brian, but when the Leaders started urging members to donate to support Prop 8, they opened themselves up for this. Member donations helped produce those misleading ads that were all over and those ridiculous and outraging signs that people held up at street corners. And, if you really believe your own religion, then you don't believe that us Mormons are Christians but you certainly don't mind the donations supporting you.

    Love the way BB managed to not answer questions directly (or even at all).

  • 74. carpoolcookie  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:20 am


    They get me very depressed! I can't watch people like that for too long because steam starts coming out of my ears, and everything they say is just so UNFAIR.

    I think I'd lose it more, like this newscaster with Shirley Phelps Roper (of the Westboro Baptist Church)

  • 75. bJason  |  August 17, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Holy (sorry) SH!T! and on Fox to boot.

  • 76. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    I don't know who said it–was it Orwell?–"by the age of forty you have the face you deserve." Shirley Phelps Roper has the face she deserves. Fortunately, it has many broad surfaces for easy slapping.

    Why does media gives these people coverage? They wouldn't accomplish anything if the media just turned their back on these haters.

  • 77. JonT  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    @Elizabeth Oakes: 'Shirley Phelps Roper has the face she deserves. Fortunately, it has many broad surfaces for easy slapping.'


  • 78. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:58 pm

    @ JonT: actually, that was mean, but her mouth made me mad. I recalled after I posted that one of Phelps’ sons who escaped the family reported the severe physical abuse that was heaped on them all….Fred was truly a sociopath:

    So–sorry Shirley. I regret Fred’s sick violence against you all, and I regret that you were inculcated with hate as a result. Maybe some day the mask will fall and compassion will be an option.

  • 79. Santa Barbara Mom  |  August 17, 2010 at 11:47 am

    Well said, Sheryl 🙂 One of my younger Facebook friends keeps posting the latest news and I just send him a personal message explaining more of the facts of the case……………educating, educating, educating. He's the younger brother of our current bishop.

  • 80. JonT  |  August 17, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    @carpoolcookie: Wow. I saved this one for last.

    Just, wow. Thanks.

  • 81. Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Brian says marriage is the only deeply personal relationship the state regulates? What about adoption of children? … or deciding to sever parental rights when the state decides it's in the best interest of the children? Or how about deciding child custody issues in a divorce? Are child-parent relationships not deeply personal?

  • 82. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    Exactly. I was hoping Rick would mention that.

  • 83. Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 7:59 am

    Brian is a weenie.
    (Calling him a dick would bestow more respect than he deserves)

  • 84. Joel  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Calling him a weenie disrespects hot dogs, though.

  • 85. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 17, 2010 at 9:10 am

    And dachshunds. After all, we do affectionately call them "weenie dogs".

  • 86. Marlene  |  August 17, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    We can always go British and call him a wanker…

  • 87. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    Well, if we are going to the British now, there is also the fact that Brian really isn't even worth a toss!

  • 88. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:10 am

    This article brings up some points why the Prop 8 supporters would want to lose this appeal at the 9th – just to get this to the Supreme Court. I am not going to excerpt or quote it, as it's kind of all over the map. Some funny points though.

    How to Keep Up on Prop. 8

  • 89. Ann S.  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:35 am

    LOL, very humorous writing. Please, it gives a shout-out to this site.

  • 90. Ann S.  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:35 am

    I meant to write "Plus" it gives us a shout-out. Oops.

  • 91. Alan E.  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Answers? What answers? That’s my answer: there are way too few answers!

  • 92. Ray in MA  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Rick Jacobs confronts NOM President Brian Brown in front of a dumpster.

    Did Brian Brown crawl out of it for the 'discussion'?

  • 93. Kate  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:50 am

    OK……. do I have it right that if the stay had been lifted and the Plaintiffs were thus able to marry (sort of like the first gay shotgun marriage, where they had to get married….) that the entire case would then be thrown out as irrelevant?? If so, then (I can't believe I'm going to say this), "Hurray for the stay!"

  • 94. Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:56 am

    I think Proponents argued that (1) if the stay wasn't put in place, Plaintiffs would get married and moot the case, thus depriving Proponents of the chance to appeal and (2) the stay should be granted because Plaintiffs had no set plans to marry, so suffered no harm.

    In other words, Proponents should get a stay if Plaintiffs plan to marry or if Plaintiffs don't plan to marry. Neat, huh?

    what maroons.

  • 95. bJason  |  August 17, 2010 at 10:17 am

    I would say Ultra-maroons.

  • 96. Reader  |  August 17, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Hate to say it, but Brian Brown held his own. The questioning wasn't very well thought-out and Brown was never forced to say anything beyond his talking points.

  • 97. Trish  |  August 17, 2010 at 9:17 am

    That's kind of the point. He never does say anything beyond his talking points. In sticking solely to his talking points, he avoids answering any question. I have never seen anyone able to actually get BB to answer any question. So, the video shows just how far BB will go to avoid answering anything.

  • 98. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 17, 2010 at 9:17 am

    I got a different take on it. Brian was startled, and looked like a deer caught in headlights when he found out it was Rick…

    Brian sounded like the child who sticks their fingers in their ears when they don't want to hear the truth…brian babbled about the ad, but all I kept hearing was la la la la.

  • 99. JonT  |  August 17, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Oh, don't hate to say it. Of course BB doesn't stray from his talking points, that's why he's got this job.

    Though he did stumble (I thought) over the biblical definition of marriage 🙂 Backed out pretty quickly, but was funny to see.

  • 100. Paul in Minneapolis  |  August 17, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Did I hear Brainless say that the state can issue any piece of paper it wants?

    Well, that's all we're asking for, right?

    So, besides looking like he's about to explode so hard that he lands on the moon, what's B.S. Brown's problem?

  • 101. bJason  |  August 17, 2010 at 9:58 am

    OK, I may get blasted for this. No one else has said it (indeed, no one may agree with me) but here I go.

    ***Please remember, I am one of us*** This is just my opinion.

    I watched both interviews with Rick (I DO love you and what you've done and could not begin to thank you enough for it). Objectively speaking (as much as is possible), I don't think these videos do us any favors.

    The first thing that jumped out at me was that the edit cuts could easily be construed as preemptive of something the other side was about to say that might "make us look bad" or lend favor to their argument and that the edits were done to control for that. This may not be the case but they do look really bad.

    Second. It has to be nearly impossible to listen to the constant spouting of rote messaging – I don't know that I could do it – but, in not allowing the interviewees to finish their rants Rick comes off as an antagonist. I actually felt sympathy for BB and Rev. What's-His-Bigot – pretty sobering (which I don't like 🙂 ). No, they didn't answer the questions or if they did,they were wrong. But jumping on them in mid-tirade plays as combative. Perhaps let them finish then politely point out that “while I understand that this is a sound bite you enjoy espousing, that did not answer my question” – then give the full-court press.

    Watch the first two videos on this post again (“or for the first time” – h/t to 'The Bird Cage') and tell me if I am wrong or just being over-sensitive.

    Again – all the love for Rick and what you guys are doing. Just my observations.

  • 102. Reader  |  August 17, 2010 at 10:06 am

    Agreed. These types of interviews are not Rick's forte.

  • 103. Reader  |  August 17, 2010 at 10:11 am

    Also, it doesn't help us to frame questions that are so blatantly biased. "Are you afraid of the American people?" "Are the courts outside of the American system?" Those aren't tough questions that create good video.

  • 104. bJason  |  August 17, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Again, to me, combative.

  • 105. Leo  |  August 17, 2010 at 11:08 am

    I thought the question about existing gay parents with children was a good one, if Rick actually insisted on Brian answering it.
    "They're not really married" => "Be that as it may, what do you think the state should do about them and their children?"
    "We believe the best environment for a child is a mother and a father" => "Yeah, you believe that, so what do you think should be done in this case?"
    Whether he says "we should take the kids away and look for opposite-sex adoptive parents" or "the state should give them benefits, just not call it a marriage" that would have been a good result.

  • 106. JonT  |  August 17, 2010 at 11:41 am

    Damn you bJason!

    Actually I agree mostly. The BB interview – well I can understand it since BB would not actually answer the questions posed to him. I could understand Rick not wanting to listen to the spiel over again as we have all heard this same crap before.

    The bishop interview though – it seemed like the first half was basically trying to 'rub it in' the bishop's face.

    It wasn't until the end of the interview that things seemed to get more interesting (which I commented on in another post).

  • 107. Mark M  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    I agree completely…on all points.
    Love ya Rick, but these were not at all helpful should they be viewed by someone on the fence we would no doubt lose them to 'the dark side'

  • 108. Adam G.  |  August 17, 2010 at 10:01 am

    Subscribing… and Will Phillips is going to be President someday. I can almost guarantee it.

  • 109. Keith  |  August 17, 2010 at 10:35 am

    The more I think about it, the more I want no part of their marriages. Do I really want my relationship labeled in the same way as these morons? Marriage is already in shambles and maybe the gay community should pursue a different course. As long as we get all the same rights maybe we should be termed something even better like:

    "Happily joined together in a loving relationship; unlike married people"


    I mean really, is it marriage that we really want or the same benefits that come with their so called marriages? Gays have always been a colorful bunch so maybe we should define our own relationships in a colorful way that reflects our relationships. Is it really marriage? gag

  • 110. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    Reading all the trial transcripts and decisions, briefs, etc. actually gave me a much DEEPER appreciation for marriage. And of course the issue at stake for many people who don't have a partner (including teenagers coming down the pike) is that everyone should have the option to marry, whether they want to right at this particular moment in time or not. If people want to "define their own relationships in a colorful way," Fine. Or if they want to get married instead, Fine. It's nice to have options.

  • 111. Keith  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:44 am

    But marriage is a relic of days gone by. I mean it's a contract, how ugly is that between two loving people? Look at marriage today, many people want no part of it and those who do, don't uphold their contract by a large margin. I was thinking along the lines of something we can define ourselves. Something that will reflect our commitments of love, unity, and harmony. Something better than marriage. Something that even straight people would want. We have the chance of redefining relationships and essentially making "marriages" obsolete. I understand the equality part and yes I want equality too, but I will have to think about entering into a marriage with my partner. He wants to marry badly but I would like to define our love in a different way. However, in the end, I will most likely just be married.

  • 112. Mark M  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    I want equality Keith…and in this case Equality's name IS marriage. Separate but equal is NOT equal

  • 113. AndrewPDX  |  August 18, 2010 at 10:21 am

    Thinking on this…
    I believe not only should we keep marriage around, but that there is a cure for the institution of marriage — Equality.
    I believe that we are the ones who will be able to fix this.
    You know what the NOMzies are really afraid of? That we will show them up, show them how it's really done!

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 114. JonT  |  August 17, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Guess I'll watch each of the videos now, and possibly comment on them. First up, Rick and Brian interview:

    First, I found it interesting how Brian never answered the question Rick asked regarding the lack of commenting on his site. Ha.

    His claims of the victimization of the Mormon church also rang a bit hollow to me. Please Brian, tell me the story of oh… say an 11 year old boy (or two) who hangs himself in the closet one day because all the kids at school are calling him 'Mormon'.

    What was also interesting was around the 7:50 mark when Rick mentioned the 'true' marriage ideal as told in the bible. Polygamy. Interesting how he (Brian) tried to dance around it, saying it was a 'mistake' in marriage. Ha! So much for absolute truth of biblical law.

    And.. he really loves that 'marriage is only for pro-creation' thing – can't stop talking about it. It's all they have.

    "The state can give out whatever certificate it wants…" Ha, so as was discussed so many threads ago, if he does not really care what marriage certificates the state passes out to signify marriage, then why are we all here?

    If he thinks a gay marriage isn't really a marriage (but the state says it is), who gives a crap what BB thinks? I sure won't.

  • 115. Leo  |  August 17, 2010 at 11:17 am

    I think he would say that the state can, but shouldn't.

  • 116. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    Speaking of young people killing themselves over the guilt trips heaped on them by Evangelical Christians for being gay or lesbian, a GREAT documentary is For the Bible Tells Me So. I made ME cry…and by now I'm rather jaded.

  • 117. Carpool Cookie  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    In last sentence I meant "IT made me cry", not "I made me cry." Also, am trying to get my user name consistant, as there's already a great Kathleen here : )

  • 118. JonT  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    Thanks Carpool Kathleen/Cookie, I've added this to my netflix Q.

  • 119. JonT  |  August 17, 2010 at 11:15 am

    Harry Jackson. Takes awhile for that video to get up to speed, but the bishop states that his concern is 'multi-generational'. I think that gave it away for me.

    His concern is really the continuing reduction that religious dogma is having on society. SSM is simply another nail in that coffin.

    This is all I got out of that interview 🙂

  • 120. JonT  |  August 17, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    The christian theocrats video. Hard to hear over the NOM speakers on the PA system. I could hardly hear Arisha at all (I'm assuming that was Arisha?)

    BTW: in case I haven't mentioned it before, thank you *very* much Arisha for having the strength to listen to this bullshit over the last month. Like others have mentioned here, I'm not sure I could have.

    The second woman didn't seem to be really making any sense at all. The first woman actually seemed quite convinced that being gay was just simply wrong.

    The third woman. Well, she's just nuts 🙂 I noticed how people seemed to come around and try to 'move her on'. Funny how she kept going on about the natural order of things. A black and a white person getting married was perfectly natural in her view, but two men or two women? Nope.

    It's a little before my time, but I was under the impression that before Loving v. Virginia that a black person and a white person getting married was *definitely* not the natural order. Didn't people point to the bible and say things like "if the races were meant to mix, they wouldn't have been placed on separate continents"?

    The bible (well their interpretation of it) is undeniable. Period – end of discussion.

    You cannot argue with 'true believers' like this. It's good to know how they "think" though.

    As she kept saying as they walked away: "We're done! We're done!".

    One can only hope.

  • 121. JonT  |  August 17, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Will Philips. What can you say?

    I would've been scared shitless delivering a speech publicly at his age. He seemed to actually enjoy it.

    I hope he goes far 🙂

  • 122. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 17, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    I foresee Will Philips either becoming President of the United States, or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And you can bet the hole against the doughnut that his decisions and rulings will be well-thought-out, very plainly written and very articulate, as well as easy for the layman to understand.

  • 123. JonT  |  August 17, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Richard – yes. And I give a big hug to his parents for supporting him. Hopefully he is an example of future generations to come.

  • 124. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    JonT–I honestly believe he is. I see the same sentiments with our grandchildren and their friends, and they are within Will's age group. I will never forget how handsome he looked when he received his Lambda Award. And he did seem to be a bit stunned by it. He just has the right attitude. He says that this is the right thing to do, and that he is not doing anything more than anyone is supposed to do. Between his openness and his honest humility, he will go a long way. And yes, if I ever get to meet Will and his parents, I am going to thank all of them.

  • 125. truthspew  |  August 17, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    That video of Brown was great. He tries like all hell to deflect answering questions that cause him discomfort.

    Only problem is that he fails miserably.

  • 126. Tomato  |  August 17, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Will Phillips!

    Unitarian kids (and their parents) ROCK!

  • 127. Carpool Cookie  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    (proudly struts up and down thread, again)

    I was raised Unitarian!

  • 128. Tomato  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    I am a Unitarian, my wife and I were married in Starr King's church in SF, by UU minister Rev. Greg Stewart, and if anyone from NOM wants to say to my face that MY marriage is invalid, they first have several hundred years of catching up to do! (google Rev. Stewart, he and UUSF have been very active in all the Prop 8 stuff and his picture has been in the media many times) I adore Rev. Stewart, and being married by him was an incredible honor.

  • 129. Ann S.  |  August 17, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    I was raised UU also, but haven't been a church-goer in many years. I have this mentioned already, but I am going to tell it again — the day in 2008 my brother and BIL got married at SF City Hall, a number of women from a UU church were there handing out cupcakes, many decorated with a pair of Teddy Grahams as wedding toppers. Such a lovely gesture.

  • 130. Brandon Broehl-Phife  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    If I was able to ask BB and the NOMbies one question, it would be this:

    Your general counsel, Andy Pugno, said “California voters spoke clearly on Prop 8, and we’re glad to see their votes will remain valid while the legal challenges work their way up through the courts. Invalidating the people’s vote based on just one judge’s opinion would not have been appropriate, and would have shaken the people’s confidence in our elections and the right to vote itself,” so I ask you, what about the vote of 3 judges? How about 9 judges? Where do we draw the line and when is it finally acceptable for any number of judges – be that 1, 3 or 9, to decide what is constitutionally permissible?

    Just my .02

    Brandon in SF

  • 131. Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    They would probably answer – When the Supreme Court votes…. until they lose with the Supreme Court. 🙂

    Part of their modus operandi is moving the goal posts.

  • 132. Brandon Broehl-Phife  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    "Those damn activist supreme courters!"

    That would be the day

  • 133. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    No, it would be more like 'those dang liberal activist judges…what tyranny'

  • 134. JonT  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    Yes… the goal posts will always be moving won't they.

    When Marriage Equality is voted on my the majority and wins (and it will eventually), it will suddenly become wrong. And the nomos will head to the courts, the legislature, to whatever they can use to keep us down.

    They will never give up, and neither will we.

  • 135. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    So this case was just practice for them, wasn't it? NO wonder they didn't bring whoever they consider to be the brightest and the best to this one. This one is only the first battle, and only a scrimmage at that.
    Well, this is one gay Heb who won't give up, either.

  • 136. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    @Richard, no…this was the real thing, and they disillusioned themselves into believing they had brought the best case in the world..EVER.

    I truly believe they brought the best they could scrounge up to the forefront on this matter. They didn't, don't and will never have a real case against us…unless 'hate the gay' could ever be used.

  • 137. Leo  |  August 17, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    Jon, I have no doubt that the majority will eventually support marriage equality, but it may well never get to vote for it. Compare with interracial marriages: by the time the majority supported them, SCOTUS had taken the question off the table. Nobody gets to vote for or against them today.

  • 138. JonT  |  August 17, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    @Leo: '…by the time the majority supported them, SCOTUS had taken the question off the table.'

    True – I guess at this point I'm thinking that popular opinion is outrunning the current views of the Supreme Court.

    Either way – we will win eventually.

    Let's keep the hope anyway 🙂

  • 139. Carpool Cookie  |  August 17, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    I agree the defense did the best they could at trial. Unfortunately for them, as we saw, they had next to no credible writings or evidence to draw on.

    The plaintiffs presented scores of experts from Oxford, etc. The defendents brought two…both of whom where discredited by the court. Their side completely relies on the emotions of fear and hate (and religious exctasy), and they have no factual basis to fall back on. They cannot present more credible evidence because it simply isn't there…the basis of their "moral objections" are just old wives' tales about some non-existant boogey-man/other.

  • 140. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    With the NOMbies, the only time the judges are doing their jobs is when they vote the way the NOMbies want the vote to go. In other words, when a judge upholds the Constitution and does not rely solely on the very same interpretation of whatever version of scripture or scripture passage taken out of context that NOM is using, then the judge is taking away civil rights. When that same judge votes in their favor however, he or she is doing the right thing and doing the job he or she was appointed to do.
    But then, nobody ever said the NOMbies were good with logic and critical thinking.

  • 141. Straight Grandmother  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    I was uplifted watching the video of Rick Jacobs talking with Brian S Brown. I felt that Rick was directly taking my case, Straight Grandmother and the situation with my grandchildren, to Brian S Brown for an answer. And he didn't get one.

    Brian Brown never did answer about the disadvantages to children of GLBTs (and GLBTs in some states are allowed to co-adopt) when their parents can't get married. What about OUR children???? Brian Brown at one point started to reply but then backed out real quick and reverted to his dogma.

    THANK YOU RICK JACOBS FOR TALKING ABOUT OUR CHILDREN AND THE INEQUITY THEY SUFFER., NOM and their ilk always always always throw out, "We have to protect our children" as a scare tactict. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I REMEMBER ANYONE DIRECTLY GOING IN DEPTH TO TALK ABOUT ***OUR*** CHILDREN, we have children too.

    Please keep it up, make someone give you an answer to your question.

  • 142. Straight Grandmother  |  August 17, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    When interviewing any wingnut on the Reason for OS only marriage is Pro-Creation-

    I what our expert Dr. Nancy Cott said and Judge walker quoted is


    BELOW .pdf File of Verdict Page 13
    Plaintiffs and proponents presented expert testimony on
    the meaning of marriage. Historian Nancy Cott testified about the
    public institution of marriage and the state’s interest in
    recognizing and regulating marriages. Tr 185:9-13. She explained
    that marriage is “a couple’s choice to live with each other, to
    remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on
    their own feelings about one another, and their agreement to join
    in an economic partnership and support one another in terms of the
    material needs of life.” Tr 201:9-14. The state’s primary purpose
    in regulating marriage is to create stable households. Tr 222:13-

  • 143. Scott  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:10 am

    Godsloths would be a great name for a band.

  • 144. ebohlman  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    Yes, this is the same Barry who was arrested for smoking crack cocaine, when he was in a hotel room with a woman 15 years his junior while he was married to someone else.

    The same Barry who was one of the very few politicians to have a boy band make fun of him publicly;

  • 145. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2011 at 3:23 am

    subscribing way late…I was at the Big Commit….met so many awesome people…made some new friends…hearing all the speakers was empowering…so glad I decided not to go to NOM's failed but ominous hate rally….toxic is not a strong enough word for them….just saying…..<3…Ronnie

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