Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

NOM’s strategy of hypocrisy

NOM Exposed Right-wing

by Rob Tisinai

The National Organization for Marriage has a long history of not saying what they mean. For instance, on their website they advise their followers:

Language to avoid at all costs: “Ban same-sex marriage.” Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”

It’s startling, the admission that they don’t want say the one thing they’re devoted to doing. Want to know another rank example of their hypocrisy? Their claim that they’re protecting the rights of voters in each state against evil activist judges.

  • “[T]his case is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court,” Maggie Gallagher says,”where the right of states to define marriage as being between one man and one woman will be affirmed.”
  • “The gay activists don’t care about our right to home rule and right to vote on marriage,” NOM claims in a D.C. election mailer.
  • NOM’s new radio ad says, “[Candidate for governor] Tom Emmer believes that Minnesota voters should have the final say on marriage, just as voters in 31 other states have done.”

See, they’re not against gay marriage, they’re just protecting the rights of local voters to decide things locally.

Except they’re not.

Maggie supports this version of a federal marriage amendment:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

If Maggie were sincere, she’d favor an amendment that allows each state to set its own terms on marriage. But the amendment above does exactly the opposite. It forbids the voters of each state from doing this. If enough red states got behind the amendment, they could dictate marriage policy for the entire country. Even if every California voter supported marriage equality, it wouldn’t matter: California still couldn’t legalize same-sex marriage.

Here’s what NOM and I (and most of you, I bet) have in common: We don’t believe the voters in a state should decide whether we have the right to marry in that state. The difference, though, is that we don’t deceive people by pretending otherwise.

All NOM really wants is to kill our right to marry — by any means possible. When they claim (as they so often do) that they’re standing up for the right of voters to control marriage in their own state, they’re lying. And all we have to do is ask, “Then why are you pushing a Constitutional amendment to strip voters of that right?”

By the way, I posted this in a comment on NOM’s blog (screen shot here). Naturally, they “moderated” it out of existence. God forbid their supporters should learn of their hypocrisy.


  • 1. tschnei3  |  September 6, 2010 at 1:36 am

    Wonderful. Whenever I feel down about progress, I think I will come here to lift my spirits. It is empowering to know that the opposition doesn't have solid ground from which to propagate lies.

  • 2. Rhie  |  September 6, 2010 at 7:13 am

    That's absolutely true. I've read and watched pretty much every piece of the trial and their argument boils down to "we don't need evidence that gay marriage is bad! It's just obvious!" That, obviously, didn't go over well.

    I am actually glad they are using the "redefine marriage" argument. It's easy to refute. We've redefined marriage hundreds of times in our history. Why is this any different? Oh, because the Right hates gay people? Well…then.

    It also makes it easy to separate the maybes from the hardliners. Maybes will listen and discuss and perhaps be persuaded with logic and court cases.

  • 3. AndrewPDX  |  September 6, 2010 at 1:40 am

    <cite>they don’t want say the one thing they’re devoted to doing….All NOM really wants is to kill our right to marry — by any means possible. </cite>

    Actually, from how Brian was involved in <del>reparative</del> reprogramming therapies, how NOM has spoken up against an ex-gay group losing their tax-exempt status in New Zealand, and how Maggie has gone on radio to say that "homosexulaity is unfortunate" and that we need to "learn to control our homosexuality"…
    It seems apparent to me that NOM wants more than just to remove our rights to marry… they want to remove our rights to exist!

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 4. draNgNon  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:28 am

    did you ever really believe otherwise?

  • 5. Don in Texas  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:41 am

    Anti-abortion, anti-gay: Terrorism that works!

  • 6. Bennett  |  September 6, 2010 at 5:34 am

    I just dont get it. Why would anyone struggling for equal rights, support the killing of unborn human babies? Do I have to support this, please dont make me choose.

  • 7. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  September 6, 2010 at 5:51 am

    @Bennett: This is a difficult discussion to have in this forum, however, the way I see it, the equality comes to the woman's right to chose for herself what her reproductive decisions will be. They go to her freedom to make the choice that she feels is best, without being pressured by anyone else's religious views on the matter.

  • 8. Bennett  |  September 6, 2010 at 6:06 am

    The only support I can muster for what is called choice is something like pragmatism.

  • 9. Ray in MA  |  September 6, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Don, that was a powerful article…

    An excerpt:

    "In my opinion, a lot of people should be called to account — from religious leaders who preach that homosexuals should die, to right-wing talk-show hosts who do anti-gay rabble-rousing, to police and prosecutors who deny equal justice to our victims. And to conservative judges like Texas's Jack Hampton, who refused to impose the maximum sentence on two young men who murdered a gay man. He told the press: "I put prostitutes and gays at about the same level, and I'd be hard pressed to give someone life for killing a prostitute."

    Yet right-wing religious leaders continue to put a fierce effort into whipping up that frenzy of hate for LGBT people. If anything, our recent successes on the civil-rights front (like same-sex marriage legalized in several states) have made them more bloodthirsty than ever."

  • 10. BK  |  September 6, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    @Don: I support wholeheartedly the right of GLBT people to marry who they love; I cannot, however, support abortion. My problem with abortion is that it is killing unborn children. Fetuses are growing humans, albeit small and very young.

  • 11. Linda  |  September 6, 2010 at 2:38 pm


    Here's a different perspective on the abortion issue.

    A few years ago a woman I worked with was pregnant. She and her husband were thrilled! But, in her 5th or 6th month tests revealed that her unborn child had a birth defect–his vital organs were growing outside his body. There was no way he would live after birth.

    My friend was faced with the heart-wrenching decision–would she carry her son to term, give birth to him, only to see him die moments later. Or would she go throught the procedure to deliver her son early; too early for him to be viable.

    Not all abortions are done simply as a convenient way out of an unwanted pregnancy. The pro-choice advocates are saying that it should be left up to each woman to make that decision, because often there are extenuating circumstances that deserve to be considered.

  • 12. Rebecca  |  September 7, 2010 at 12:54 am

    @Bennett and BK

    If you believe that abortion is morally or ethically wrong, that's fine. If you, a partner or a loved one gets pregnant and chooses not to have an abortion for those reasons, that's fine too.

    But the whole point of being pro-choice is jist that: the coice. Arisha said it very well in a previous article. To paraphrase, she said, I'm pro-life for myself, but pro-choice for everyone else.

    Pro-choice means everyone has the option to decide based on their own moral views.

  • 13. fiona64  |  September 7, 2010 at 1:53 am

    Bennett, you are free to believe/approve of whatever you like. No one will gainsay you, but not everyone has to agree with you either.

    Being pro-choice means supporting a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body — including the choice to gestate a pregnancy, regardless of how it occurs. Being pro-choice means believing that a woman is smart enough to know her circumstances better than some stranger might. Being pro-choice means believing that a woman has a right to self-determination. That's what I think, anyway.


  • 14. Bennett  |  September 7, 2010 at 4:22 am

    Great! So when they discover the right gene, this whole gay thing can be nipped in the bud right?

    No Fiona, I'm not a troll. I'm here, I'm Queer, I'm not pro-choice, get used to it.

    I also don't bring it up unless someone else enterjects it into this forum. See number 5, oh yeah, this one.

  • 15. Bennett  |  September 7, 2010 at 4:40 am

    Linda, I understand your example. I wouldnt know what to say to this individual or even what I would do. Maybe it would be most compasionate to terminate the pregnancy.

  • 16. Ann S.  |  September 7, 2010 at 4:45 am

    @Bennett, that is why it is so important for abortion to stay safe and legal. Because of the terrorism wreaked on abortion providers in this country, it has become extremely difficult for many women to find providers, even in such heartbreaking situations such as these.

  • 17. fiona64  |  September 7, 2010 at 5:34 am

    Thank you for your clarification, Bennett.

    I always appreciate seeing someone who will never be impacted by a pregnancy (i.e., a man) telling women what they should do with their bodies. It tells me what they think of womens' decision-making capacities and, in fact, what they think of women in general.

    I support your right to think what you will, Bennett. However, I lack the hubris to pretend that I know some stranger's circumstances and thus can dictate what she does with her own body.


  • 18. Linda  |  September 7, 2010 at 6:23 am

    Bennett–It was a heartbreaking situation, to be sure. I am just so glad that my friend had the right to make the decision for herself.

  • 19. Bennett  |  September 7, 2010 at 8:40 am

    A man! You mean that source of child support payments that doesn't get a say in whether his child lives or dies?

    Not the man. Not the baby. Not even the OB/GYN (Comment 119) gets to choose. Just the woman who can be trusted. Gay people can't get married. Gay people can't adopt children. Gay people can't have job security. Catholics can't run adoption agencies. Christian's can't be OB/GYNs. What? A little something for everyone, thats always nice.

    Fiona, compromise is all that ever positively affects this issue, so maybe pro-life and pro-choice are just adopted terms that influence the right compromise over time. My views lean conservative on this issue, but I have moderated over time out of compassion, pragmatism, and a sincere desire for compromise, to prevent the worst abortion practices.

    My whole point was to counteract the impression that all gay rights activists are also pro choice. I don't think any of us benefit from that assumption.

    Hopefully this forum can stay on topic, but if not, I might have to come out of my closet again.

  • 20. fiona64  |  September 7, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Bennett, I'll tell you what.

    As soon as it's the man's body assuming all of the health risks of pregnancy ( many of them permanent, up to and including death), I'll be happy to consider his input.

    Until then, I will trust the woman to know what is best for her and her situation. No one, not even the OB/GYN, can force her to terminate a pregnancy — even a doomed one. If that's what she wants to do, I support her. And if she wants to do something else, I support her.

    Until you are a woman facing that decision (and yes, I have been in that position — and guess what else? I used to be rabidly anti-choice), then you have no god-damned idea. It's just platitudes about a non-existent infant that you have romanticized in your head, as if a fetus is some kind of fully-formed baby doll that just gets bigger.


    BTW, I am sure that you have harsh words for the hundreds of thousands of deadbeat baby-daddies, who disappear the minute there's a + sign on the little stick, right? Right?


  • 21. fiona64  |  September 7, 2010 at 8:52 am

    PS to Bennett:

    There is a case going through the courts about a rapist demanding visitation rights of his victim — because she chose not to terminate a pregnancy, and he "wants a relationship" with the child.….

    I support her right to gestate that pregnancy. However, this is the natural outgrowth of the anti-choice movement, as well as the so-called "father's rights" movement.

    I respect your right to your opinion and your beliefs. However, I do *not* respect the implication that women are just too stupid to know their own circumstances, health, etc., and that the "father" has a right to decide what happens to a woman's body more than she does. That smacks of coverture laws, and I thought we were beyond that.

    I am constantly surprised when I see misogyny in the GLBT community. 🙁


  • 22. Bennett  |  September 7, 2010 at 10:07 am

    So, if a particular preganacy poses no risk, the baby daddy isn't a rapist, or a dead beat, the baby doesn't carry a downs, misogyny, or gay gene, carrying to term won't cause pain and suffering from a terrible unfortunate birth defect, it's not a morning after pill situation, and the mother is intelligent enough to know all of this, but just selfish enough to choos to have her recently discovered nearly fully gestated human baby killed rather than risk a career setback or be inconvenienced in anyway, I guess you would support that too. Well, your no longer rabidly anti choice. You've come a long way baby!

    I understand you're writing a book?

  • 23. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 7, 2010 at 10:15 am

    @ Bennett: I honestly think that unless men are willing to become pregnant and carry the child to term, that none of us has any right at all to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. And when we try to do so, that only proves that we are as misogynistic as the radical CINO's who are trying to return us to an age where women died because the only abortions available were the backstreet coat hanger abortions which led to severe septicemia. And no, I do NOT feel that the rapist had a right to try and infect the rest of his victim's life simply because she chose to carry the baby to term. Perhaps you should read up on the history of human rights a bit. NO one who is pro-choice is trying to force doctors to perform abortions. At the same time, if a doctor is going to do abortions for heterosexual women, then that same doctor should perform abortions for all women who come into his or her office regardless of sexual orientation. To do otherwise is the same as an orthopedic surgeon refusing to repair my fractured wrist because I am left handed, while still doing the same procedure on someone who is right handed.

  • 24. Ann S.  |  September 7, 2010 at 10:59 am

    @Bennett, it is illegal to abort a healthy near full-term baby. To suggest that it is legal does no service to your argument.

  • 25. Bennett  |  September 7, 2010 at 11:17 am

    I am just a moderate pragmatic liberal who doesn't support unrestricted choice as the basis for abortion.

    What are you? A partial birth abortion radical?

    I just learned that misogynist means "showing a distrust of woman" which isn't so bad. I'm not mad. But to be fair, please understand that I don't trust men either.

    Here is a happy thought. All babies go to heaven, right? Maybe that is better than being raised by some mothers.

    Goodnight everyone.

  • 26. Bennett  |  September 7, 2010 at 11:23 am

    Is this true? Good to know. Do you consider this a good thing? Or just the misogynists getting one over on yall?

  • 27. Ann S.  |  September 7, 2010 at 11:27 am

    Bennett, I don't care to become more embroiled in an off-topic debate than I already am. I will say, however, that you're awfully opposed to something that you don't seem to know some of the basic facts about.

  • 28. anonygrl  |  September 6, 2010 at 1:42 am

    It astounds me that NOM doesn't see its own hypocrisy for what it is. Totally aside from the fact that they have never managed to explain why they care AT ALL about homosexual marriage, since it does not, in any way, affect their lives, they continue to lie about what they are doing, why they are doing it, and how they plan to accomplish it.

    Nothing of what they say seems to hang in any kind of believable pattern, yet they persist in their one goal, which is the one they don't want to talk about, of course, banning gay marriage.

    They have to know they are lying. They MUST. No one could possibly be that stupid and still remember to breathe in and out 6 times a minute.

  • 29. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:35 am

    They know they're lying and they're PROUD of their lying, because it's working, persuading others to parrot their views and vote the way they say. It's not hypocrisy at all; it is (as Paul points out below) tactics. Just like advertising cereal to get sales up….don't talk about the outrageous sugar content, say NO CHOLESTEROL!! Make it sound like a good thing that gays are being oppressed and deprived of civil rights!!

    Except what they're selling here isn't cereal, it's making the good ol' US of A a theocracy, with them as the heads of the Senate Committee on Sin and Retribution. Don't underestimate them–this is just one facet of a decades-long campaign to install the religious right as the permanent leadership everywhere. They feel the ends justify their means–not hypocrisy but strategy to reach that goal.

  • 30. Lora  |  September 6, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    I have asked numerous times how my marriage affects anyone else…I've never been given an answer, ever!

  • 31. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 6, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    Except for the friend who went back to her own marriage being reminded of the love for her husband because she was part of your wedding and saw the love you and your wife share. And I may be wrong, but to me, when people leave our weddings with a renewed commitment to their own marriage because our weddings reminded them of the reasons they married their husbands and wives in the first place, that is a good thing, because it strengthens the institution of marriage and makes marriage even more special.

  • 32. Shlee  |  September 6, 2010 at 1:46 am

    I don't comment often, but this post gets at something I've been thinking about for awhile.

    How is NOM going to spin it when the voters start supporting same sex marriage? I mean their tag line has been 'let the people vote' for so long, what are they going to say when letting the people vote means gays and lesbians get the right to marry? And that seems to be the trend, more and more people are supporting same sex marriage in the polls. I'll be interested to see Brian Brown try to talk his way out of that one.

    <3 Shlee

  • 33. Ann S.  |  September 6, 2010 at 1:55 am

    Shlee, I have asked some of the pro-discrimination folks who've wandered in here that same question — what will they do when the voters want equality? None has ever answered.

  • 34. Johan de Vries  |  September 6, 2010 at 2:31 am

    Actually, I asked that question on the NOM blog a while ago as well. Much like Rob's comment, it was moderated "out of existence". It is frustrating how NOM is so obvious in their denial of being homophobic, but I am sure that people will at some point see NOM's true colors.

    With the ever increasing support for gay rights, at some point in the future, people will look back at this whole SSM debate and wonder what the fuss is about. NOM will be in the books as one of the last organisations for their homophobic rallying. I'm sure they must will be proud of their legacy…

  • 35. Tracy  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:10 am

    I think their tagline will change to something else — you know, homosexuality is corrupting the youth of America (evidence: look at all the votes in favor of it!) — Supreme Court, please step in and save the people from themselves!

  • 36. Heather Sheridan  |  September 6, 2010 at 8:22 am

    Oh well if they try to use that argument the defense would be nice and simple you have to be 18 years old in the US to vote, and at the age of 18 you are considered an adult in the eyes of the law. If at 18 they are old enough to go off and fight and die for this country than they are old enough and mature enough to make their own determinations in their lives. HOOAH!!

    Former Army here.

  • 37. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:34 am

    @Shlee, I think Rob said it above in his post, their answer is they are starting the process to make a US Constitutional amendment to ban the ability of states to vote on SSM. They DO see the writing on the wall, and are hedging their bet by starting to work at the national level now.

  • 38. Sagesse  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:05 am

    I suppose their logic is – "it's only five states plus DC and we need to act now to roll it back because the activist judges are out of control".

    Doesn't change the fact that it takes a 2/3 majority of the House and the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment, and then 75% of the states have to ratify within a (20 year period? – unclear how that works) .

    No matter who is President, and who is in control of the House and the Senate, it would never pass. Also known as a 'dog whistle', it is a meaningless threat that is used to energize their supporters.

  • 39. Kathleen  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:14 am

    There's no constitutionally required time limit on ratifying a constitutional amendment. But there have been time limits spelled out in the amendment itself.

  • 40. Sagesse  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:27 am


    "There’s no constitutionally required time limit on ratifying a constitutional amendment. But there have been time limits spelled out in the amendment itself."

    Thank you. A long time, during which public opinion will continue to change. The Federal Marriage Amendment is a pipe dream, unless the tide of this culture war changes in a big way.

  • 41. Paul in Minneapolis  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:58 am

    Shlee, they're only for "letting the people vote" as long as people vote the "right way." As soon as people start voting the "wrong way," NOM will sing a different tune.

    NOM currently has the luxury of seeming reasonable — "all we ask is that the people get to vote" — knowing that they will likely get the result they desire. But their shortsightedness of relying on that tactic, which will backfire on them eventually, will bite them in the ass. Hard. And I can't wait to see that happen!

    It will be amusing to watch NOM defend "letting the people vote" in "red" states while simultaneously trying to prevent such votes in "blue" states. Their hypocrisy will be even more glaring than it is now!

  • 42. Don in Texas  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:01 am


    The people already have decided. They did so by their sovereign act in ratifying the 14th amendment and its commands for due process and equality under law, anything in the laws or constitutions of the states notwithstanding.

    This is why the NOM arguments don't hold water and Judge Walker determined that in his opinion.

  • 43. Sagesse  |  September 6, 2010 at 1:49 am

    Does anyone know what Propaganda School these folks all go to? I'd love (but hate) to audit the class.

    Where do you learn that when Judge Walker writes (paraphrase): "It is unconstitutional to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry," they can instantly produce a sentence that says (paraphrase): "One activist judge says the Constitution can strip from us the right to traditional marriage." Do they take a course in "Logical Fallacies and how to Construct Them 101?"

    How does the mind create a sentence like that and not realize that it's a lie, that it does not flow from the words that were written?

  • 44. Tracy  |  September 6, 2010 at 2:55 am

    Answer: They know it's a lie, and they specifically formulated it to anger those who hate "activist judges" (i.e., those who make decisions they don't like regarding equality and civil rights), to gird those who actually believe there is anything "traditional" about today's version of heterosexual marriage, to frighten those who think the Constitution can grow fangs and attack us, and to win over those who never bothered to read the ruling.

  • 45. Tracy  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:01 am

    Result: A mindless mob of cultish zombies swaying to a primitive drum beat and speaking in tongues. Thanks to some great detective work by P8TT, we know the mob is rapidly shrinking, and one day Lou Engle will be left preaching to an empty field of grass.

  • 46. Paul in Minneapolis  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:00 am

    Not only do they know it's a lie, they don't care. The ends justify the means.

  • 47. Carpool Cookie  |  September 6, 2010 at 5:54 am

    What helps them get away with such violently contradictory statements is the fact that the general public does not read legal briefs, decisions, etc.

    The general public doesn't know exactly what the h%ll the original ruling said….but relies on interpreters. Like NOM.

    They're also not under oath, so they can say whatever they want. And to a great extent, they're telling their followers exactly what they want to hear….so who amongst the people NOM cares anything about is going to complain?

  • 48. Tracy  |  September 6, 2010 at 6:50 am

    Well, many of these are people who allowed the church to tell them how to interpret the Bible for almost 2000 years. Why do we expect them to start thinking for themselves? There is a vacuum there in the reasoning centers of their brains that people like Lou Engle and Maggie Gallagher will always be there to fill. 🙁

  • 49. elliom  |  September 6, 2010 at 1:50 am


    They say they want to "debate," and "have a national discussion," but whenever someone disagrees with them, they "moderate" the post off the site.

    Debates have a pro and con back and forth. When you silence on side, it isn't debate, it's retoric.

  • 50. Bill  |  September 6, 2010 at 1:55 am

    What kind of people are capable of this type of treatment of the very gay offspring they themselves created?

    It is rather laughable that those who seek to abuse, degrade and brutalize all of the gay children that heterosexuals themselves created seem to think that they have ANYTHING to say about morality, love or honor.

  • 51. Kate  |  September 6, 2010 at 2:16 am

    We need to make signs: "We ARE your children."

  • 52. Tracy  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:03 am

    We've tried that. Apparently, they must believe that all homosexuals came from immaculate conception. Oh, wait a minute….

  • 53. Carpool Cookie  |  September 6, 2010 at 5:57 am

    Have they ever pondered why, If being gay is a choice, people who were supposedly born straight would "choose" to be gay? They seem to have some fantasy that sex between same sex persons is addictive in some way.

  • 54. Dee  |  September 6, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    "They seem to have some fantasy that sex between same sex persons is addictive in some way."

    I think you're on to something. They might actually be a little jealous & probably wonder everyday consciously or subconsciously what they are missing. It explains why they keep thinking about sex/behavior rather than love and emotions of the reality.

    Same-sex sex is like a drug i guess & we all just lack the will power to give it up & we are so caught up in the lust.

    I need them to stop trying to understand why i am and just accept that I am & I deserve rights

  • 55. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 6, 2010 at 2:08 am

    And as NOM has shown through their actions, and by not distancing themselves from Lynching Larry and others like him, they will NOT stop at stripping us of the right to civil marriage, but will continue on until we are all rounded up in extermination camps. That is NOM's ultimate goal, just like that of Fred Phelps, Lou Engle, Sharron Angle, Michelle Bachmann, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, James Dobson, Peter Sprigg, Porno Pete LaBarbera, and the others out there who hold them up as heroes.

  • 56. Kathleen  |  September 6, 2010 at 2:13 am


  • 57. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:55 am

    Taking the husband off and away camping for a couple days. You have my email address should anything Earth shattering happen.
    See you all on Thursday

  • 58. Kathleen  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:06 am

    Hope you have a great time!

  • 59. Jeremy  |  September 6, 2010 at 2:39 am

    This was a funny video I saw. My pardons if it's made the rounds already.

    <3 jeremy

  • 60. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 6, 2010 at 2:49 am

    That's okay, Jeremy. In fact, it was an early post of Rob Tisinai just a few days ago. You should see the comments on that thread!

  • 61. DazedWheels  |  September 6, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Checking in and subscribing. Hi everyone.

  • 62. GraciesDaddy  |  September 6, 2010 at 2:52 am

    Every time you comment to their lies, throw in the word "miscegenation" or allude to "anti-miscegenation laws" that were eliminated by the Loving v. Virginia decision.

    Any word over 2 syllables and spelled correctly just confuses them and they start to sputter. It's a beautiful sight.

  • 63. Fred  |  September 6, 2010 at 2:52 am

    In the first place, no one is proposing the alteration of heterosexual marriage at all. Heterosexuals may still marry (and divorce) at will – entirely unaffected by the institution of gay marriage. No change there – not even one whit. Marriage today isn’t at all like what it was two millennia or even two centuries ago.
    The changes in marriage have been broad and fundamental, so what are traditionalists really trying to defend? What is “traditional” about modern marriage?
    Most of these changes have moved power in marriage away from the families and to the couples, as well as making women more equal. Let’s look at just a few of the most significant changes in marriage in the West over the past centuries *Legalization of divorce; *Criminalization of marital rape (and recognition that the concept even exists); *legalization of contraception; *Legalization of interracial marriage; *Recognition of women’s right to own property in a marriage;* *Elimination of dowries; *Elimination of parents’ right to choose or reject their children’s mates; *Elimination of childhood marriages and betrothals;*Elimination of polygamy ;*Existence of large numbers of unmarried people; *Women not taking the last names of their husbands ;*Changing emphasis from money and property to love and personal fulfillment.
    Why was it acceptable in the past to make so many reforms in the nature of marriage that ultimately benefited heterosexuals and women, but not acceptable now to make one reform that benefits gays?
    Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history. But by the 19th century, humankind had realized the evils of that institution, and abolished its legal status. So what happened to tradition?

  • 64. Tomato  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Is Maggie Gallagher married? Did she take her husband's name? (I thought I read somewhere that she is married, but refused to take his name. Very traditional…)

  • 65. Ann S.  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:26 am

    It's true she's married and hasn't taken her husband's name.

  • 66. anonygrl  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:31 am

    She is married. A former unwed mother, she married Raman Srivastav in 1993 and has two children.

    But with a name like that, who in her middle America "they ain't like us, they must be terrorists!" base would support her? So she doesn't use it.

  • 67. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Her husband's name is Srivistav, and not only has she not taken his name, she won't wear a wedding ring. Plus have you noticed that we never see Mr. Srivistav?

  • 68. Bill  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Her husband is a Hindu man. He worships a wooden statue.

    It would not be useful to Maggie Gallagher to trot him out in public, so she doesn't.

    Otherwise, her followers would be calling for constitutional amendments against HER husband.

  • 69. Michelle Evans  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:30 am

    She leaves her husband on a hook in the closet so he won't get out and "disturb" people who only believe in "traditional" marriage (read that as white people only marrying white people). She is a truly psychotic and pathetic old lady.

  • 70. Tracy  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:44 am

    I have to wonder if her husband was an immigrant when she married him. Has anyone found any info on that? I only ask because, according to Nancy Cott, traditional marriage policy in the early 1900s stated that American women who married noncitizens would lose their citizenship.

    Just asking.

  • 71. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 6, 2010 at 5:02 am

    And Maggie has an "activist judge" to be grateful to for the fact that her marriage is legal! That is why I truly wish she would just sit down, shut up, and let me have the same rights for my marriage! Hypocritical useless piece of imitation humanity!

  • 72. Tracy  |  September 6, 2010 at 5:19 am

    @Richard, her greatest weakness is that mouth of hers. The more she opens it, the more @!^% comes out, and her credibility is being eroded as we speak.

  • 73. Tracy  |  September 6, 2010 at 5:21 am

    And to the moderators, by "@!^%" I do mean "garbage", of course.

  • 74. Jennifer Gail  |  September 6, 2010 at 7:48 am

    @ Bill at 11:26 Her husband is a Hindu man. He worships a wooden statue.

    Point of clarification – Hindus 'worship' the various statues that represent their deities the same way Christians 'worship' the cross. They are symbols, not idols. A focus of intention and attention to what they represent, not inherently the thing represented/symbolized.

    However, your point certainly holds. Many people do not get (or have never even thought about) that the map is not the territory, and the dominionist/christianist mindset is certainly not going to recognize Hindu practice as a valid path.

    And that is probably exactly what you were saying in short-form 🙂

  • 75. Bennett  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:31 am

    Do not forget elimination of the notation "illigitimate" on the birth certificates of children born without the benefit of married parents.

  • 76. Carpool Cookie  |  September 6, 2010 at 6:01 am

    "The changes in marriage have been broad and fundamental, so what are traditionalists really trying to defend? What is “traditional” about modern marriage?"

    Oh no no no no NO…….no one in that camp is going to crack a history book. Come on!

  • 77. truthspew  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:31 am

    Not so much lying as committing the sin of omission. That's a biggie in Catholicism too. And that is precisely what NOM, the Mormons and the Catholics are doing.

  • 78. Bennett  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:35 am

    They are classic Jesuits, the "the end justifies the means" wing. "also the wing of the caths that brought us the rack."

  • 79. Bennett  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Also, Christians can lie if they have no moral duty not to. As in to the home invader asking do you have any kids hiding in any closets? Ok, I'm ok with that. Don't expect any truth when they are inciting the American public to war against us. After all, who has a moral duty of truth in a time of war? It's all justified. Without lies, they would have to surrender.

  • 80. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:41 am

    It's called, "lying for the Lord" and it's an accepted practice as long as you lie to achieve the ends of the organization and not to anyone in authority in your organization. It's actively advocated in some sectors.

  • 81. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:33 am

    It's struck me as rather bizarre and a bit scary that both Islam and Christianity seem to be all about political control of 'the people', and the people's money.

  • 82. Steve  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:51 am

    All organized religion is about controlling peoples' lives. Some more so than others obviously. Christianity and Islam are just the biggest religions in the world and so get the most attention. But Judaism for example isn't really any different in that regards.

    The only one I'd call relatively harmless for the most part is Buddhism.

  • 83. Linda  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:34 am

    You know what? The bottom line is they need someone to hate, and we are the perfect choice.

    This isn't really about marriage; this is about turning America into a Christian Theocracy. But in order to be successful in that effort they had to come up with one common abhorrence that would cut through all the denominational and even Judeo/Christian conflicts. They found unification in their common hatred of us.

    And so now we are the scapegoat; we are the epitome of what it is to live in a nation that has 'turned its back on God'. We are the enemy; we are the evil. And if they can squash us into non-existence then they will have saved America.

    This is the message that is being sent out. This is what will fuel the election campaigns. "Our nation must turn back to God" they say. "America was founded on Christian principles" they say. "What kind of society have we allowed to form where God fearing people can't even vote their conscience? They have no say in what is being taught to their children? Churches are forced to perform same sex marriages? Businesses who stand up for traditional values are boycotted; private citizens are threatened for daring to speak out against wickedness…."

    And here it is–"Come November, we will reclaim America!" there's the rallying cry. And we are at the top of their list of things to 'clean up' once they get back into control.

    No, it won't stop at marriage rights. Their ultimate goal is to put us back in the mental hospitals and jail cells; and certainly back into our closets.

  • 84. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:39 am

    And LInda, that is how it started in Nazi Germany. First they tried to hide us, tried to shove us into closets. When that didn't work, they began gathering us up and giving us free train rides to the death camps. They came for the queers even before they came for the Jews. And they took our allies to the death camps along with us. That is why there were so many who were NOT Jewish who were exterminated by the Nazi regime. Every group they went after, they had to take the supporters of that group. And it is starting again, here in America.

  • 85. Bennett  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:14 am

    Look at all the free flowing hate that appears in the comment sections of mainstream news media for almost any type of news story. Is American a tenderbox ready to ignite once the right figure emerges to head up the final solution?

  • 86. Sagesse  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:15 am

    Hmmm. 6+ million people in California voted No on 8. They're going to need more trains :).

  • 87. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:57 am

    They would conscript the entire AmTrak service, along with all of the privately owned freight train services. That is how they would have enough trains for their final solution.

  • 88. Lora  |  September 6, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    "They came first for the Communists,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and by that time no one was left to speak up."

  • 89. Sagesse  |  September 6, 2010 at 10:33 pm


    "Then they came for me
    and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

    And we should never forget this. If discrimination is ok, then the target doesn't matter.

  • 90. Shelly & Simie 4  |  September 6, 2010 at 11:32 pm

    that is excatly what i said but soooo much better lol thanx Richard 4 this!!! I wrote 2 president Oboma weather he gets it or not is a different story but i did and it was ok but urs is AWESOME!!!! thanx again i think if we right to our legislaters & other government officals it would be a good idea. We need to have the vid that took apart nom as an add 4 t.v. perios and we need to add it to our fb, twitter among other sites we visit along with sending these to friends and family. We gota spread the word b4 these scare tactics start 2 work. Have a good day!!

  • 91. Bennett  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:09 am

    If churches unwelcomed their divorced and remarried members, who would pay the light bill?

  • 92. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Er….they just annul the light bill?? 🙂

  • 93. Dee  |  September 6, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    What they fail to accept even the Founding Fathers of America don't fit this Christianity they believe. a good number of them were Deists which is definitely based on belief being a personal journey & that secularism should prevail or they wouldn't have penned "separation of church & state".

  • 94. Paul in Minneapolis  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:13 am

    “The gay activists don’t care about our right to home rule…"

    NOM’s new radio ad says, “[Candidate for governor] Tom Emmer believes that Minnesota voters should have the final say on marriage, just as voters in 31 other states have done.”

    Home rule?

    Does The Maggot live in Minnesota?

    NO, thankfully, she does NOT!

    Given her feelings about "home rule," why is she injecting herself into my state's gubernatorial election? Why is she polluting Minnesota's airways with her foul lies and distortions?

    What right do she and her hateful organization claim trying to influence election results of jurisdictions in which she does not reside?

  • 95. Bennett  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:20 am

    She doesn't. Neither do I. Thats why I dontated to Jerry Brown's Cali campaign. I am a Texan. How can I interfere in Minnesota's politics?

    Please, can you really trust people in other states to work out what invitably will affect what happens in my state?

  • 96. draNgNon  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:34 am

    now, we could really rumble about how Texas affects what happens in other states.

  • 97. Bennett  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:50 am

    Is the Bill White vs Tammany Hall governor's race being followed outside of Texas? Rick Perry makes Meg Whitman look like . . . Damn, cant think anything, maybe im not really, well, you know . . .

  • 98. Bennett  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:24 am

    When it come to issues of equality. I love to interfere. i just can't interfere enough!

  • 99. Paul in Minneapolis  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:33 am

    With both Tom Emmer and Michele Barfmann running, feel free to interfere as much as you want here in Minnesota!

    You can interfere by donating to Tom Horner, Mark Dayton, Terryl Clark and Jim Meffert.

    And yes, I "interfered" by donating to No in H8 (more than once). Then again, I never said anything about "home rule."

    : )

  • 100. Tomato  |  September 6, 2010 at 5:50 am

    Here's an efficient way to interfere:

  • 101. Andrew Adaro  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:23 am

    I don't know why, I guess I've seen Maggie Gallagher too few times, but whenever I try and picture her, I can only picture Barefoot Contesssa…

  • 102. Bennett  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Lets just say, Maggie isn't reparative thearpy material.

  • 103. Ed  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Don't insult Ina gartner like that 🙂
    She has many gay people on her show, which makes me want to believe (hopefully) that she is an ally.

  • 104. Carpool Cookie  |  September 6, 2010 at 6:06 am

    That's so tue…I've spotted the resemblance, too!

    The Barefoot Contessa has much better clothes, though. And she doesn't dish out putrified hate.

  • 105. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 6, 2010 at 7:35 am

    And of the recipes that a friend of mine has made, that I have sampled, she is an excellent cook!

  • 106. Carpool Cookie  |  September 6, 2010 at 11:22 am

    Yes….there was a pounded chicken breast recipe of hers, dredged in parmesean cheese and breadcrumbs that was good, and not too hard. You served it on a bed of arugula.

  • 107. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 6, 2010 at 11:40 am

    That was one of them. Talk about divine! of course, the recipe was slightly modified by spritzing olive oil on the arugula.

  • 108. Carpool Cookie  |  September 6, 2010 at 11:48 am

    Oh my goodness! We are psychically connected by RECIPES!

    (Or else, maybe that particular book was just a bestseller….more probable.)

  • 109. Carpool Cookie  |  September 6, 2010 at 11:53 am

    This is the best, easy meatball recipe, BTW. It by that kind of trampy vixen chef from TV, Nagella Lawson (or some such name.)



    9 oz. ground pork
    9 oz. ground beef
    1 egg
    2 tablespoons freshly grated Parmesan cheese
    1 garlic clove, minced
    1 teaspoon dried oregano
    3 tablespoons fine breadcrumbs
    Good grind of black pepper
    1-teaspoon salt

    Mix all ingredients in a bowl, roll into small balls.

    Either gently fry in olive oil, or submerge in tomato sauce and simmer for 20 minutes with lid partially covered.

  • 110. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 6, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    So, Cookie, is this your contribution to the P8TT Family Cookbook? If so, feel free to add more to the collection!

  • 111. Fulton  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:40 am

    For any interested in pulling apart the rhetoric of NOM, I recommend Mythologies, by Roland Barthes. It is a difficult read, but he demonstrates how people like NOM can strip a concept or image of history for political manipulation.

    As Laurie Anderson put it, in Buddhist thought, there is the thing and there is the word for the thing…which is one thing too many.

    In Mythologies, there is the thing and there is the word for the thing and then there is the image of the word for the thing stripped of all history.

    Such is 'traditional marriage' to NOM.

  • 112. Kathleen  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:50 am

    Nice! A Laurie Anderson reference. 🙂

  • 113. Carpool Cookie  |  September 6, 2010 at 6:20 am

    Hey, 80's people….Over here!

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    coo coo it's cold outside. coo coo it's cold outside. ooo coo coo.

    don't forget your mittens.

    hey pal! how do I get to town from here? and he said: well just take a right where they're building that new shopping mall, go straight past where they're going to put in the freeway, take a left at what's going to be the new sports center, and keep going until you hit the place where they're kind of building that drive-in bank.

    you can't miss it. and I said: this must be the place.

    ooo coo coo. golden cities. golden towns. golden cities. golden towns.

    and long cars in long lines and the big signs and they all say: hallelujah. yodellayheehoo. every man for himself.

    ooo coo coo. golden cities. golden towns.

    thanks for the ride.

    big science. hallelujah. big science. yodellayheeh

    you know, I think we should put some mountains here. otherwise, what are all the characters going to fall off of? and what about stairs?

    yodellayheehoo. ooo coo coo.

    here's a man who lives a life of anger. everywhere he goes he stays a stranger.

    howdy, stranger. mind if I smoke?

    and he said: every man, every man for himself. every man, every man for himself.

    all in favor say aye.

    big science. hallelujah. big science. layheehoo.

    hey professor! could you turn out the lights? let's roll the film.

    big science. hallelujah.

    every man, every man for himself.

    big science.



  • 114. robtish  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Hey guy, I found another article from Maggie that makes it even clearer that she does NOT want to let the voters of each state decide:

  • 115. Tracy  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Wow — there is some shockingly disgusting hypocrisy going on in this article. It's so un-American, it's sickening.

  • 116. Carpool Cookie  |  September 6, 2010 at 6:22 am

    What's unAmerican about lying in politics?

  • 117. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 6, 2010 at 5:09 am

    There's your next P8TT post, Rob!

  • 118. Tracy  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:46 am

    One thing I find fascinating is that an ongoing public poll on Fox News has 70+% of people saying that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. It is encouraging in a way, considering what one usually finds on Fox News.

  • 119. Bennett  |  September 6, 2010 at 4:55 am

    You mean other than blonds and (I just can t say it) No offense to blonds, have a few hightlights myself.

  • 120. Regan DuCasse  |  September 6, 2010 at 5:03 am

    As many court decisions have shown, the latest Prop. 8 one being no exception: discriminating against gay citizens actually denies more than marriage and it's attendant protections.
    Many other rights are damaged in the process. What NOM and others fail to argue, or even mention, is that gay couples have the same restrictions and requirements as hetero couples.
    Therefore the definition of marriage and it's purpose ISN'T altered profoundly or at all.

    What IS redefined is the couple. And it's STILL a couple, and by the same standards as OTHER couples.

    Most importantly though, gay couples through being married, are the ones being protected FROM people like MG and BB.
    Prop. 8, as also demonstrated in court, doesn't protect actual marriages, couples, the definition or children. It's a standard that doesn't change anything for the man/woman model.

    In effect, Prop. 8 isn't doing anything but interfering in the free association of gay people all over again.
    Added together, NONE of what ban supporters want upheld in the law, are legal taken separately.

    I'd consider this closer to the issue of contraception. Catholics and whatever religion that forbids it, cannot ban it for other citizens. It's a necessary part of one's freedom to plan for a family, one's medical care and one's private needs. Period.

    However, no Catholic can say that it's use restricts an individual Catholic's religious freedom. They can't say that it's use is unhealthy at large, so therefore the government can ban it for everyone, regardless of whether it's successfully being used or not.

    Same could be said for marriage too. Obviously some people don't choose it. Some are monumentally bad at it. And no one is restricted as to how many tries at it, regardless of those reasons.

    Contraception is a matter of choice, AND a matter of simple status for some of us. But each couple whether they choose it or not, still has the choice regardless of another person's religious restriction to it.

    If NOM were to come at heteros for use of contraception like they do at gay people for marriage, they wouldn't last a day. Let alone if it were something put to a popular vote.
    It was the courts too eventually, that ruled on the use of contraception.

    If gay people weren't around, MG and BB would be the most irrelevant losers on the planet.
    If it weren't for gay people, they'd really have no reason to get up in the morning, would they?

  • 121. Bennett  |  September 6, 2010 at 5:18 am

    Don't underestimate the power of ice cream to get Maggie up in the morning.

  • 122. draNgNon  |  September 6, 2010 at 5:39 am

    no Catholic can say that it’s use restricts an individual Catholic’s religious freedom.

    of course they do. what are you talking about? Catholics run a large number of hospitals. they will claim – they have claimed – that providing reproductive health services contrary to their beliefs is restricting their religious freedom.

    "providing reproductive health services" means BOTH stuff like providing morning after pills to a patient who had a condom break on her AND fertility/artificial insemination to a lesbian couple. I don't have the references handy but these scenarios have definitely gone to court in the lat few years.

  • 123. Bennett  |  September 6, 2010 at 5:53 am

    Why should a doctor be required to perform an abortion? Or a pharmacis to fill prescriptions for a "morning after" pill. Dont we have enough health care providers to allow a little freedom in whether we choose to be a party to murder or not?

    Isnt this playing into that fake doctors rhetoric about "being forced to choose between my faith and my job."

    Or that sniveling counciling student that won't complete the curiculum for the degree program offered in the University of her choice because she can't assist gay couples with relationship issues?

  • 124. Bennett  |  September 6, 2010 at 5:57 am

    Im sorry, i cannot perform an abortion for you. I dont believe that is the best choice for your or your baby.

    Im sorry, gay realationship are not my area of expertise. I just dont get them well enought to help you.

    Im sorry, this institution requires all student to complete the curriculum, perhaps you should tranfer your credits to Liberty University for the completion of your degree.

    I see no inconsistency in these statements.

  • 125. anonygrl  |  September 6, 2010 at 6:51 am

    Doctors can choose not to do certain procedures. They cannot, however, choose to do those procedures for some people and not for others based on non-medical issues.

    The case that went to court was one where a doctor who did artificial insemination for heterosexual women refused to do so for a lesbian woman BECAUSE she was lesbian. NOM wants to turn that into "Catholic doctors will be forced to do abortions! Ahhhh!" which is patently false. A doctor who does not do abortions does NOT do abortions. Period. No one would ask her to.

    It is the same twisted nonsense as "Gay Marriage will be forced on you!" and "Churches could lose their non-profit status if they don't perform gay marriages!"

    Because, you know, THAT is what I truly want Maggie. I want to sue the Pope and require him to marry you to me.

    Just writing that makes me want to go take a shower. Ewww.

  • 126. Heather Sheridan  |  September 6, 2010 at 8:57 am


    I am running to grab the disinfectant and scrub brush hurry up and strip and hop in the shower, you may catch something just from the mental image of that.

  • 127. Ray in MA  |  September 6, 2010 at 10:52 am

    Thanx for clarifying reality for 'her'.

  • 128. fiona64  |  September 7, 2010 at 1:59 am

    If you are a pharmacist, it is your job to fill legal prescriptions. If you cannot do that, don't become a pharmacist.

    If you are an OB/GYN, part of your job may be to perform an abortion. If you cannot do that, choose another medical specialty.

    If you are a troll, Bennett, get lost.


  • 129. fern  |  September 6, 2010 at 10:12 am

    From Belgium, I know SSM will happen probably sooner than you think, I also feel a little sorry for you guys & gals you in America initiated the women liberation and gay movement and were copied in Europe France,
    Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium and it seems that gay fared well in Belgium if not better than in the U.S., women's lib too, but not that much.
    You in the U.S. have a problem with freedom of speech and a certain approach and or view of the law.
    In Europe a guy like Glenn Beck might be allowed to come up with a speech, but certainly not in a place equivalent to where MLK gave his speech, plus it would never show on TV or on the radio.
    I myself have always been against censorship of any form but watching the yes on prop8 I've come to think that censorship is needed dys-mis information lying on TV and the airwaves is a crime that is what I think.
    Post Scriptum: (latin) written later which is what P.S. means.

    P.S.: I'm only through close to half a bottle of rum and have had it. It's 2 am my time, but when I was young 25 and worked as a bartender for the National Security agency and military intelligence (?? if there is such a thing) I could clean a bottle and a half of Chivas and still talk intelligently to intelligence people, that and smoking dope with the low class pfc's, you can all eat my shorts it was over thirty years ago and no one's gonna go after me.
    I feel sorry for you people SSM shoulda been on years ago.

  • 130. Carpool Cookie  |  September 6, 2010 at 11:37 am

    Maybe it's because there's so many different countries that comprise Europe, and so much commerce and socializing between them, that the residents for the most part got used to the idea of diversity more easily than we have here in the U.S.?

  • 131. Steve  |  September 7, 2010 at 4:38 am

    There is still a fair amount or rivalry going on. Most lighthearted though. Like Canada vs the US.
    But many central European country struggle with diversity in the area of immigration. There is a great amount of strife concerning muslim immigrants. Not so much about the religion itself, but about social integration.

    The reason why this is less of an issue in Europe is simply because religion plays no role in everyday life. There is less religion in countries like Sweden (which has a state religion!) than in the US which has church-state separation on the paper. Even in traditionally very Catholic countries like Spain and Portugal, it stays mostly in the churches. Both have legalized same-sex marriage. Many people only go to church for baptisms, weddings, funerals and on big holidays like Easter and Christmas.
    The most religious countries are Italy and Poland. The Catholic Church has a scary amount of influence in the latter.

  • 132. Ray in MA  |  September 6, 2010 at 10:55 am

    Here's a toast to you, fern! Have a cookie with that rum, too!

  • 133. Carpool Cookie  |  September 6, 2010 at 11:41 am

    Oh noes! My "computer googles" are slipping on again.

    I thought you just wrote, "Here's a toast to you, femme!"

  • 134. Michael  |  September 6, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    Strident anti-gay pressure group NOM's goal goes far beyond killing our right to marry. They are against civil unions; they support the fraud of "ex-gay" therapy and believe it should be tax-exempt just like religious beliefs; they support the virulent, vicious anti-gay propaganda from WND. Aftter they ban same-sex marriage and eliminate civil unions, they come after the rest of our rights and eventually our lives, all the while hiding it behind soothing words like "tradition" and "people's right to vote."

  • 135. Starcraft 2 Build order &&hellip  |  September 6, 2010 at 10:21 pm

    […] NOM's strategy of hypocrisy « Prop 8 Trial Tracker […]

  • 136. Shelly & Simie 4  |  September 6, 2010 at 10:29 pm

    WOW seams like we gota get people outs this spell!!! I say we flood their site with posts about their hypocrisy. We need to ask the serious questions about their reasons. It is all biblical not political. to many people vote on their side of religion not basic human right!!! We need to change this political reasons need to be specific what we feel is a human right not based on our morals or religous background. We need to do more interviews with these nut jobs and educate them on reality!!! We need to ask the serious questions that we all post. Not the little things like so what did you all do with the left over water? But, more to the point why do you feel that this rally failed? we know why because church is seperate from state!!!!

  • 137. JAG  |  September 7, 2010 at 5:32 am

    FREEP! Do as the Freepers did on polls. Have every pro marriage equality person send the EXACT same short query to the NOM site and flood it to overload and short cirquit. Make them "moderate" themselves into oblivion.

  • 138. SFBay  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:43 am

    A federal judge in Ca has ruled DADT unconstitutional. I'll get a link soon as I can.

  • 139. SFBay  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:45 am

    Hears a link to Huffpo

  • 140. NOM’s strategy of hypoc&hellip  |  September 23, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    […] favorite claims — that they’re protecting voters’ rights — is just a deceitful pose. NOM has another argument: They defend religious liberty against intolerant gays. Let’s see […]

  • 141. Online games&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Get it…

    […]Here is another great site[…]…

  • 142. dual-driver-earbuds&hellip  |  May 22, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    Stream TV on PV…

    […] You are able to leave a reply, or trackback from your own blog. Read even more via the original source[…]…

  • 143. natural remedies for kidney stones in men  |  June 18, 2013 at 4:38 am

    My brother recommended I might like this blog. He was once
    entirely right. This submit actually made my day. You can not imagine
    just how much time I had spent for this information!
    Thank you!

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