Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

NOM paints with a broad brush so much it could open a gallery

NOM Exposed NOM Tour Tracker-California Right-wing

By Adam Bink

Here’s Jennifer Roback-Morse of the Ruth Institute, who joined the NOM/Vota Tus Valores tour at a recent stop, going off on a tear regarding on marriage and abortion:

The first thing I’ll say is that she’s much more of a dynamic speaker than Alfonso. The second is that I don’t even know where to start with this:

Everybody who reads Genesis, everybody – Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Mormon – supported Prop 8!

Most people do not realize that Obama is the most pro-abortion President we have ever had!

Those who believe that need to come together to work together for this great opportunity, to work together for this great vision, so that young people have something to look forward to besides casual hook-ups, and one divorce after another. Because that’s what we’re looking forward to unless we do something about it.

My physician told me I have to keep my blood pressure in check, so I’ll let you do the rant analysis. I will say I’ve read Genesis and here’s one person who thinks she’s full of it regarding her interpretation.

The other thing I would say is Alfonso’s nonsense at the beginning about Latinos “voting our values”. Well, here’s one Latino quoted in the KPBS piece on Monday’s stop who disagrees:

But not everyone in the crowd accepted the Vote Your Values message.

“I’m a Latina. I want the same things that everybody else wants, I want to be able to make choices, I want the freedom to marry who I want to marry,” said Phyllis Lozano, a field organizer and a critic of this and other campaigns trying to get the Latino vote.

“So you know, to target me and to say that these are the traditional Latino values — well, that doesn’t mean that we’re all the same.”

That “dink” you hear is our own Phyllis Lozano hitting the nail on the head. Go Phyllis!

Someday NOM will realize that painting Latino/a people and religious folks, or even folks who’ve read the Bible or Torah or Qur’an and aren’t religious, with a broad brush, and telling them “here’s what your values are, now on your way you go!” can be more offensive than helpful.

And by the way, where’s Brian Brown? I thought he was joining this party. Did he back out when he saw what a mess this tour is?


  • 1. Lesbians Love Boies  |  October 6, 2010 at 3:32 am

    Skpping my Lou

  • 2. Ann S.  |  October 6, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Lou, Lou, skipping my Lou

  • 3. Kathleen  |  October 6, 2010 at 3:36 am

    I'm just along for the skip

  • 4. StraightForEquality  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:02 am

    Skipping the skip.

  • 5. JonT  |  October 6, 2010 at 11:40 am

    I just like to watch people skip. Ahem.

  • 6. Lesbians Love Boies  |  October 6, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Is Jennifer Roback-Morse hiding her tinfoil had under her halo horns?

  • 7. Lesbians Love Boies  |  October 6, 2010 at 3:34 am

    had = hat

  • 8. Tomato  |  October 6, 2010 at 11:54 am

    I am amazed at the ignorance of the "Ruth Institute."

    Ruth and Naomi are a devoted lesbian couple in the bible. I'm sure you've all heard this at a wedding at some point: “Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!” (Ruth 1:16-17)

    That is Ruth, swearing her love and devotion to her beloved Naomi. Used in heterosexual marriage ceremonies. One woman to another woman.

    The Ruth Institute is going against the word of God. Every single thing they promote is diametrically opposed to the word of Our Lord in the book of Ruth.

    Ruth and Naomi defy community standards, and stay together instead of returning to their parents' families. They support each other. When Ruth enters a marriage of convenience and has a son, that son is declared by the community to be the son of Naomi as Ruth's spouse; in the same way the child of a husband is declared to be his son as the mother's spouse.

    The Ruth Institute is spitting upon the word and teachings of God.

    (and Jennifer Roback-Morse doesn't even have the balls to take her husband's name without a hyphen. How can that show any respect?)

  • 9. Ronnie  |  October 6, 2010 at 3:36 am

    The Ruth Institute stands for…..

    Rude Ugly Theocratic Homophobic Institute

    ; I …Ronnie

  • 10. Ann S.  |  October 6, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Jennifer Roback-Morse — what a maroon, and what a liar.

    What is this fear-mongering BS about abortion being throughout the Health Care Reform act? What about the Stupak Amendment? Liar.

    What is this fear-mongering BS about teachers taking kids out of schools to get abortions without telling the parents? Liar.

  • 11. Jonathan H  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:58 am

    "What is this fear-mongering BS about teachers taking kids out of schools to get abortions without telling the parents?"

    You know, I've met some parents whose kids I could totally get behind doing this for.

    That should fill my horribly depressing quota for the week.

  • 12. Ann S.  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:09 am

    Heck, yeah, there are kids I would do this for. I'm not a teacher, though, I'm a horrible, blood-sucking lawyer, so they would expect it of me I suppose.

    The "teachers are helping your kids get secret abortions" thing feeds into some tea partiers' meme of "socialist government schools are indoctrinating your kids".

  • 13. Rhie  |  October 6, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Yea. I am very much on the fence about it parental notice. I think that, in general, parents are responsible for children's medical care. However, there are many parents who aren't responsible about it, who hurt children by disallowing them to get proper medical care or have access to proper information.

  • 14. fiona64  |  October 6, 2010 at 7:51 am

    IMO, we need to keep parental notification off of the table for a variety of reasons. How do we protect the young woman who is pregnant by a family member, for example? And judicial bypass? Give me a break. By the time a young woman's case comes up on the docket, assuming she even gets a pro-choice judge, oftentimes it's a moot question because of how much time as passed.

    We need to make sure there are laws to protect those kids whose parents *aren't* as good as we would like them to be, in other words.


  • 15. Ann S.  |  October 6, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Fiona, I am with you. I have a teenaged daughter and I hope that if she needed to she would come to me for help, but I know many stories of young women who never will go to parents for this sort of thing. This was also on the CA ballot in 2008 and I voted NO.

  • 16. Tomato  |  October 6, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    I had the experience of a 13 year old girl who was impregnated by her father.

    Informing her parents would (I've no doubt) have resulted in her death at his hands. Luckily, she had a miscarriage.

    Would Jennifer Roback-No-Re-Morse have approved of the pregnancy, since it was the result of a heterosexual union?

  • 17. Rhie  |  October 6, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    Fiona & Ann S –

    I agree those are powerful arguments. I would also think that a child who has a good relationship with their parents would feel comfortable to alert their parents to their situation and ask their opinion about an abortion or not.

    So, it seems I am in favor of not alerting the parents. It protects those who were hurt at family's hands. And, after thinking about it, I really don't see how it subverts parental rights where they deserve it.

  • 18. Anonygrl  |  October 6, 2010 at 3:42 am

    I'd like to know how she got cookies planted in EVERY SINGLE BIBLE ON THE PLANET that tracks readership and their voting habits.

    Because that is a programmer I want on MY side.

  • 19. elliom  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:53 am

    I'll get right on that….what flavor of cookies would you like? I make a nice lemon-ginger that has a bit of zip to it….

  • 20. Anonygrl  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:57 am

    Ooh, sounds lovely! With a nice cup of hot cocoa, and a fire in the fire place… and maybe a cat, curled up next to me on the couch… and some snow brushing gently down the window pane (on the outside, of course)….

    Happy place!

    Wait… what were we talking about again?

  • 21. elliom  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:04 am

    I forgot….stopped paying attention after I read "cookies" :>

  • 22. Lesbians Love Boies  |  October 6, 2010 at 3:43 am

    Minn. pastor challenges Nienstedt's DVD campaign

    A Minnesota pastor, in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, has sharply criticized the campaign against same-sex marriage spearheaded by his archbishop, John C. Nienstedt, of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

    Fr. Michael Tegeder, 62, pastor of St. Edward Parish, Bloomington, took issue with the content of a 18-minute DVD sent by Minnesota bishops to more than 400,000 Catholics throughout the state. "The premise of the DVD," wrote Tegeder, in a letter published Oct. 2 by the Star-Tribune, "is that same-sex couples and their committed relationships are a grave threat to marriage."

    The real threat to marriage, the pastor argued, is poverty, citing an earlier report on the effects of the economic downturn on marriage.

    "In every serious study, poverty is the top reason for marital breakdowns," wrote Tegeder. "It is very hard to make the case that a small percentage of the population who bond with members of their own sex and seek to live in a committed relationship with members of their own sex could have anything but a positive effect on the general population's appreciation of stable, faithful, life-giving unions."


  • 23. Dave T  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:02 am

    Oops. He's gonna get excommunicated.

  • 24. Bob  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:04 am

    @Fr Michael, thanks for telling the truth, which begs the question, why spend millions attacking gays, when they could be fighting poverty with that money. very good arguement. the cycle of poverty promotes tension resulting in marital breakdown and DIVORCE. which is the real threat to marriage.

    And thank you for standing up especially because you do so with the awareness that it quiet possibliy could result in ex-communication.

    You give me hope that pastors like you can speak up from inside the church, and also knowing if it results in ex-communication, then you choose that over perpetuating the bullying and lies.

    The pressure is on the churches and hero;s like you will break , their ability to continue the lie. A broken church is a healthy thing, put another way the church is the body of christ, which has been broken for you.

    Once we stop pretending their is perfection, and really look at how things are broke, we can begin to restore and heal. Not one of us is perfect. not one. not even the church.

    This action is recieved as a gift of truth and love, in the face of evil, and shows deep spiritual reflection and a connection with divine truth, Your statement is proof there is HOPE

  • 25. Rev. Will Fisher  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:17 am


  • 26. Tomato  |  October 6, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    Fr. Michael Tegeder is one of my new heroes.

  • 27. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:40 am

    Fabulous! Way to go Fr. Michael Tegeder!….thanks for article LLB!

  • 28. Kate  |  October 6, 2010 at 3:44 am

    "Be fruitful and multiply." Yeah, just what this planet needs.

  • 29. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:54 am

    I've finally "met" the infamous Ruth from Ruth Institute…wow…just wow….major head-shaking video.

  • 30. Rhie  |  October 6, 2010 at 7:46 am

    Oh? How did that go? Do tell!

  • 31. Tomato  |  October 6, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    Ruth (of the Bible, whom I assumed Ruth Institute is named after) was a lesbian, in a committed lesbian relationship with Naomi. (See the Book of Ruth and… )

    If "Ruth" is a modern day person, I want to know more.

  • 32. Anonygrl  |  October 6, 2010 at 3:45 am

    Does anyone know if the bus made it to the Panorama mall? And if so, what reception they got there? Or is it to early for a report back on that yet?

  • 33. James Sweet  |  October 6, 2010 at 3:50 am

    The statement is especially stupid, because not only is it true that those who read and believe Genesis did not necessarily support Prop 8, there are plenty of us who have read it and don't believe it.

    Apparently she's not aware of this recent news…

  • 34. Judy  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:05 am

    I agree. I am an atheist, converted because I did study Genesis. And the rest of the bible, and historical truths, and other religions. The more I read and learn, the more atheist I become.

    She's just a mouthy mom.

  • 35. Ann S.  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:25 am

    I took that test a few days ago. Perfect score. I haven't belonged to a church since I left high school.

  • 36. Lynn E  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:14 am

    I got 15 out of 15. Not bad for a Catholic!

    But then I did study for the priesthood, and know that Genesis is not a literal history. Joseph Campbell warned about confusing the "words" for the "message." What a delicious irony that the Catholic Bishops have failed in their mission to teach.

  • 37. Anonygrl  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:03 am

    14 out of 15. I guess I was hampered by being the daughter of a minister? 🙂

  • 38. Lesbians Love Boies  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:07 am

    I won't even take the test. I flunked bible camp when I was 12~

  • 39. fiona64  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:17 am

    14/15. I missed the last question, in re: the so-called "Great Revival."


  • 40. fiona64  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:18 am

    Should add that I walked away from church for more than 20 years, was a practicing Wiccan during the majority of that time, and only sporadically attend my local MCC congregation (much more sporadically since my beloved pastor left).


  • 41. elliom  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:28 am

    Missed the last one too, so 14/15.

    Raised Lutheran (ELCA), but consider myself an "intellectual Buddhist."

  • 42. Ronnie  |  October 6, 2010 at 3:59 am

    Ellen on Anderson Cooper 360 last night…. <3…Ronnie

  • 43. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:25 am

    Awesome video Ronnie! Helps revive me after the stunning (meaning I was shocked and need to be resuscitated) Ruth Institute and sickening crowd agreement video. Yuck!

  • 44. Ericinsandiego  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:00 am

    The fact that some organization somewhere (regardless of how loony) granted this nutcase a doctorate is just plainly offensive….there are others of us who worked their butts off to earn our doctorates, usually for some sort of field that helps everyone in the world (in my case, cancer research). Exactly how is she helping progress of everyone? I don't even address myself as Dr……yet she uses that same title to pull rank and authority over the ignorant sheep that she preaches to… F*cking waste….

  • 45. Kathleen  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:14 am

    A quick check on the googles reveals she has a PhD in Economics from University of Rochester. Uh, yeah, that qualifies her as an expert in marriage and the role of women. Alan Greenspan is the first person I think of when looking for information on marriage. :/

  • 46. Bob  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:10 am

    actually considering the pastors remarks above, re poverty being the threat to marriage, an economics degree could be very helpful, of course if would require the holder of such to have the right intiention in using that knowledge, in the proper way.
    Instead of misusing the letters she has earned to weild power.

  • 47. Rhie  |  October 6, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Oh wow~ that's awesome! It's thanks to people like you my Very Awesome Grandma ™ is still around :).

  • 48. phillykarl  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:03 am

    OT, but there are four stances on abortion and the role the government should play:

    Pro-abortion and anti-choice. Believe that some pregnancies should NOT be brought to term, and believe the government should enforce this policy.

    Pro-abortion and pro-choice. Believe that some pregnancies should NOT be brought to term, but believe that the decision lies with the woman.

    Pro-life and pro-choice. Believe that abortions should only be performed in the most extreme circumstances ( if ever), but believe that the decision lies with the woman.

    Pro-life and anti-choice. Believe that abortions should only be performed in the most extreme circumstances ( if ever), and believe the government should enforce that policy.

    My understanding of Barack Obama is that he is pro-life and pro-choice. Like most people.

  • 49. Anonygrl  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:16 am

    Who believes that the government should force abortions on anyone?

    Your analysis confuses me quite a bit.

  • 50. elliom  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:57 am

    China, for one.

  • 51. elliom  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:58 am

    For that matter, the Chinese also perform forced steralizations on ppl who have "unregistered" children

  • 52. Anonygrl  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:04 am

    Fair enough… I was thinking "in this country" but did not say it. But ok. Thanks!


  • 53. elliom  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:08 am

    Just one more reminder that, while things are tough here, there're other places a LOT worse.

  • 54. Rhie  |  October 6, 2010 at 8:10 am

    I think they were laying out four possibilities. I'm perfectly ok with the pro-life/pro-choice and pro-abortion/pro-choice.

    Really, any stance that says "I believe and act in accordance with x but know that you have a right to believe and act in accordance with y" is usually ok with me.

  • 55. phillykarl  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Thank you, Eliom, for answering Anonygrl's question while I was out. And thank you, Anonygrl, for the amazing work you have done here on this site. I love reading your posts!

  • 56. elliom  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:36 am

    any time! :>

  • 57. Anonygrl  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:57 am

    Thank you!

    And I think I get what you were saying with your post… I was thrown off by the term "pro-abortion" which doesn't seem to be what anybody is here. What you meant was "in favor of allowing abortions as requested" or "against allowing abortion except for very limited circumstances" and "in favor of the government ruling on the availability of abortion" or "in favor of personal decision".

    Now I get it. Obama is personally against abortions except for where medically necessary, but in favor of the ultimate decision on when to have one resting with the woman.

  • 58. Lesbians Love Boies  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Homophobia hurts straight men, too
    The suicide of college freshman Tyler Clementi painfully spotlights the dire consequences of homophobic bullying on gay men. But a homophobic culture that condemns male affection and emotion as "gay" hurts all men – and our culture at large.

    In the 1986 movie Stand By Me, an adult protagonist – played by Richard Dreyfuss – looks back wistfully on the friendships he formed in his youth. “I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve,” he muses. “Does anyone?”

    For most American men, the sad answer is “no.” In surveys, men report that they rarely sustain intimate, long-standing friendships with other males after childhood. And the reason might surprise you: According to a large body of research, they’re afraid of being seen as gay.


  • 59. Rhie  |  October 6, 2010 at 8:19 am

    Yup. It's part of a larger problem of gender role assignment. "real" men act a certain way, and if they don't they must be gay or otherwise "wrong" (to these people at least).

  • 60. Lesbians Love Boies  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:07 am

    They updated their tour page…lol

    Wednesday, October 6:

    * 10:00 AM – TBA
    * 11:30 AM – Los Angeles (Los Angeles) – Olvera Street

  • 61. Linda  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:19 am

    I'm guessing they didn't get a huge turn-out for the 10:00 am–TBA stop. Must have been breakfast. :-/

  • 62. Anonygrl  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:20 am

    LOL We know that TBA means "we are skipping this one and going out to eat, but we'll leave it on the calendar to LOOK like we did something. Then if someone asks later, we will claim that we talked to people… and just not say that what we said was 'may I have another glass of Pepsi, please?' "

    I kind of wish they had another couple of weeks on their schedule so we could make sure they ALL ended up as TBAs.

  • 63. Anonygrl  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:18 am

    Any news about their last stop?

  • 64. Judy  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:16 am

    Doctor, yeah right.

    Ph.D. in economics from the University of Rochester

  • 65. adambink  |  October 6, 2010 at 7:32 am

    Alright, alright, to be fair, my ex was a PhD in economics, and I'm a U of R alum myself. But yeah, I didn't hear him going around asking people to address him with the prefix "Dr."

  • 66. Paul in Canada  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:17 am

    Oh, dear, God.

  • 67. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:28 am


  • 68. Sagesse  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:18 am


    NOM's entire world view is based on very broad, crude, outdated stereotypes, which are for the most part stalled in 1965. Stereotypes of family, stereotypes of LGBT people, stereotypes of people of faith. Using those oversimplified caricatures, they can say with absolute certainty what is true, and right, and wrong.

  • 69. Bill  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:18 am

    This is, by FAR, one of the most OFFENSIVE articles about us EVER.

    How this hate speech can be attributed to 'God' simply floors me.

  • 70. Anonygrl  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:35 am

    VILE. That is all I can say. Written by a person I would hesitate to classify as human.

  • 71. Bill  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:38 am

    I have forwarded it to Rachel Maddow and a couple of other media contacts.

    This is nothing more than hate speech. Wrapped in a god-bow.

    This is why gay kids are killing themselves.


  • 72. Ann S.  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:43 am

    The man can't spell, his graphics are laughable, and he's wrapped it all up in glorification of suffering that might(?) make sense to Catholics (I rather doubt it) but makes no sense to me at all.

  • 73. Bill  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:48 am

    Believe it or not, a WOMAN wrote this.

  • 74. Richard A. Walter (s  |  October 6, 2010 at 4:26 am

    I am a Jew, my husband is a Lubavitcher rabbi. We will be making our marriage legal the Friday before Thanksgiving. We have both studied not only Genesis, but the entire Torah, and the other writings of the Jewish prophets and so forth–the writings commonly referred to as the Old Testament and the Deuterocanonicals. And we both support equality. How dare this woman from the Ruth Institute try to paint us with her warped, perverted, distorted so-called values? And, Phyllis, YOU ROCK!

  • 75. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:10 am

    You and your rabbi ROCK! Powerfully said Richard.

    p.s. did you you sign up to get one of Ruth's bumper stickers! Her pitch for bumper stickers cause me to spray my lunch all over my keyboard…

  • 76. AndrewPDX  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:16 am

    So, if they have the Ruth Institute which goes against pretty much everything that Ruth was about… I think we should form a Naomi Institute that is true to their Biblical relationship 🙂

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 77. Tomato  |  October 6, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Allow me to push this link just one. more. time.

    (well, I might do it again, because I think it's so delicious that the Ruth Institute totally goes against everything Our Lord said in the Book of Ruth.)

  • 78. Kate  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:23 am

    RONNIE: They're discussing your Freedom Fighters site over at the One Man/One Woman NOM FB page and saying you've blocked them.

  • 79. Ronnie  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:46 am

    LOL…One person who just joined FF4E decided to block all of them from reading her comment or seeing her account….One troll name Bonnie Parker (troll name alert!!!) joined FF4E & started posting all those anti-gay talking points. She would not answer any questions just more trolling attempts…her account was started on sept 24th & even though ever 5 seconds she changed her profile picture she said they were her even though none of them were the same person in the photo she says is her & her boyfriend….she was warned 3 times by the FF4E admin…started annoying people & she got banned.

    The Freedom Fighters for Equality admins have only banned a few people:

    1) anti-gay guy who directly attacked me calling my derogatory anti-gay epithets & more.
    2) anti-gay guy who was from an anti-gay page & was just posting trolling comments.
    3) anti-gay chick who was going around giving people orders, offending people & when they asked for an apology she would not & continued with anti-gay talking points…..someone also posted a picture of her family & went ape-shite…the admin allowed her request & removed it & changed the page rules because of the situation…stating that we can not post other peoples personal pictures or screenshots of their personal accounts.
    4) a pro-Equality member who apparently threatened to post the home address & phone number of the anti-gay woman mentioned in #3.
    5) an anti-gay troll who was posting anti-gay epithets
    6) the troll chick i mentioned in the beginning of the this reply
    7) then there was a few fake accounts

    Nobody is being blocked who either was warned or violated Facebook TOS…..they are so fraking pathetic…little cry babies…all they do on the anti-gay pages is block, ban, a delete….hypocrites…. : I …Ronnie

  • 80. Paul in Canada  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:32 am

    Does the USA, or various States, not have hate speech laws?

  • 81. Kathleen  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:36 am

    No, we don't, really – not in the same way Canada does. The First Amendment guarantees of free speech, while not absolute (e.g., libel, slander, incite to violence, etc.) is a fairly robust right.

  • 82. Bob  |  October 6, 2010 at 7:49 am

    We have freedom of speech in Canada too, also which we value very hightly as a robust right. (unless I'm really living in a dream world, help me here Sagesse)

    We all have the right to speak freely, and speak out agianst gov't wrongs, or any other, but the line stops at hate,

    We have the right to speak our minds and disagree, but if we couch that in a way that insights hatred, you've crossed the line, personally, I value that line of stopping at insiting hatred ,as much as I do the free speach.

  • 83. Kathleen  |  October 6, 2010 at 8:01 am

    I understand that, Bob. But the fact is that the laws are different in the two countries. The US has a much more broad protection of speech. You might recall the warning Ann Coulter received ahead of her speech at University of Ottowa:

  • 84. Ann S.  |  October 6, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Bob, US law draws that line between free speech rights and hate speech in a somewhat different place than Canada law does. As I understand it much more speech is banned in Canada than would be in the US.

  • 85. Bob  |  October 6, 2010 at 8:49 am

    Thanks Kathleen, I remember that warning to Ann Coulter, and thanks too Ann S. for your comments, "much more speech is banned in Canada than the U.S."

    I guess the question is where to draw the line, and to really look at weather or not it's necessary to the freedom of speach to allow it to include hate speach.

    Can people feel the freedom to express themelves while drawing the line at hatred. Or better question, do Canadians want to expand the right of free speach so they can express hatred to others.

    That line has been crossed before, and that exact arguement was used, for his reason of inciting hatred, it was to jews, he wanted to have the right to do that, the people basically said no.

    Perhaps it is necessary to allow hate speach so as not to infringe on anyones right to express themselves freely without consderation or forthought about how it affects others. And maybe we are kidding ourselves by being sensitive to it that it somehow it doesn't exist, But I prefer to think that we are even more aware of it, and it is part of our ongoing struggle to maintain our goal of PEACE,

  • 86. Sagesse  |  October 6, 2010 at 10:24 am

    As I understand the Canadian law, it accepts the notion that there can be limits on free speech, and characterizes those limits as 'speech' (spoken or written or interwebs) intended to incite hatred of a particular group. In practice, not much has been held to be sufficiently hateful to be judged as hate speech, but I personally don't have a problem with the concept. I could live in a world without websites advocating killing doctors who perform abortions, for example. The notion of any such curbs are strongly resisted in the US, and there is no law that applies to hate speech. Both countries have laws against hate crimes (actual violence).

  • 87. Ann S.  |  October 6, 2010 at 10:54 am

    I actually do think it's important to keep the current system for the most part, hateful as we all find some of that speech. First of all, it's helpful to know who's thinking stuff like that. Second of all, we know how some people cry about how their rights are being infringed to say what they want if LGBT rights of various kinds are put in place. And it's excellent to be able to say, "No, your rights are not being infringed. You can still say whatever you want." It is people's actions we generally hold them accountable for.

    I realize words can hurt as much as actions, but in the current US system, with the value so many people put on their individual liberties, I think it is helpful to be able to point to those as rights that are absolutely still there.

  • 88. Bob  |  October 6, 2010 at 11:50 am

    @Ann S yes words can hurt as much as actions, that's the whole point being made in the recent rash of teen suicides,

    curbing hate speech does not infringe on individual liberties, we still highly value, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness., what kind of person enjoins his individual liberty with the right to spew hatred.

    are you implying my rights are somehow less, because I agree to relinquish the right to incite hatred., I see it as a responsibility I accept to enrich my rights.

    and the rainbow people (LGBT) have been quiet successful at establishing rights in this current system, I think it assisted us.

    guess you're right about one thing, allowing freedom to express hatred let's you know who's thinking it!!!! and that's become pretty obvious by all the toxic stuff we've exposed ourselves to , perhaps one gets decensitized and begins to see it as okay or even necessary in order to
    ensure those rights are absolutely still there.

    I'm wondering though if you bought the package, i.e. your rights are absolute, and the proof is that you allow others to express their hatred towards you.

  • 89. Ann S.  |  October 6, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    Bob, I am not implying anything about your rights. My post was meant more as a commentary on the current state of US politics than anything else.

    I do not stand quietly by and let others express hate around me, no.

    If my words have offended you, I apologize, but it was not my intent to offend in any way or make any implications about your rights being somehow less. Canadian and US politics are simply different.

  • 90. Bob  |  October 6, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    @ann S, your words didn't offend me, I appreciate the dialog, this is of course a very touchy subject at the present time, and I just think it's good to hash it out once in a while,

    just watched the Phelps protest on the news, again they're taking up the issue in the courts, decision hopeful in the spring, We alredy know the Phelps position, is it appropriate for them to publicize it in such a directly hateful way, right now their right to be vocal loudly speaking hate (which is an action) trumps a families right to grieve. I'm glad the courts are revisiting that issue.

    Ann there is also anothe thread where the college is looking at imposing legislation to help curb bullying, and that involves speech.

    No offense implied, either in my comments, re our differing laws, but it is interesting to know how we feel about the differences and how they work or don't in each case.

  • 91. Ann S.  |  October 7, 2010 at 1:55 am

    Bob, I'm glad that I did not offend you. As to the Phelps — are their protests and speeches appropriate? Of course not. Are they legal? That is of course a different question. From what I know about US free speech laws, and I am no expert, I tend to think that they are legal. I may be wrong. I am pleased that the US Supreme Court is going to provide more guidance on this and specifically on the Phelpses' type of speech.

  • 92. Bob  |  October 6, 2010 at 10:45 am

    I concur Sagesse, I don't have a problem with the concept of curbing freedom of speech at hatred, the intention being to prevent the actual end result being (actual violence)

    I also agree there doesn't seem to be much of an issue around this.

    Suppose the only people that would have a poblem with curbing hate speech are those that use it to motivate their base, i.e. religious right, NOM etc.

  • 93. Kathleen  |  October 6, 2010 at 5:56 am

    Another teaching aid available, this time a film from the Southern Poverty Law Center

    It's free to schools. I'm guessing it might be available free to PFLAG chapters, etc., too. There's a link in the article to the ordering page.

  • 94. Rhie  |  October 6, 2010 at 8:34 am

    I read that as at first…

    That's really cool 🙂

  • 95. Lesbians Love Boies  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:17 am

    Someone needs to Contact the reporter at the Washington Post and tell them how many TOTAL real people came out to see the Vota Bus…

  • 96. Anonygrl  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:34 am

    I posted a comment encouraging readers to check out our first hand reporting on the tour.

  • 97. Lesbians Love Boies  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:19 am

    They removed that picture they were illegally using…

  • 98. Lesbians Love Boies  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:21 am

    A tweet I just read: Mildred Loving wasn't denied marriage. She was free to marry – someone of her same race.

  • 99. Ronnie  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:26 am

    wow…. : / …Ronnie

  • 100. Ann S.  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Someone wants to turn back the clock to 1967, then?

    Mildred and Richard Loving were also free to marry and leave Virginia and their family and friends forever. That was actually the term under which their jail sentence was suspended.

    They left the state but missed their families and friends and returned.

  • 101. Buffy  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:22 am

    They really do live in this delusional little world where everybody is a heterosexual Christian who believes/thinks/acts exactly like they do. They think if they keep repeating their little mantras it will become reality.

  • 102. Rhie  |  October 6, 2010 at 8:37 am

    Yea, I learned when I was about three that covering my ears and chanting didn't make the world go away.

    Why haven't these people?

  • 103. Lesbians Love Boies  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:24 am

    National Organization for Marriage, What Are You Hiding?

    After historic rulings this summer challenging marriage discrimination in California and Massachusetts and two national polls showing majority support for the freedom to marry, Maggie Gallagher's National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is scrambling.

    Never much more than a shell-group to funnel massive amounts of money from concealed sources into important political battleground states, NOM's declared budget has swelled from $500,000 to $10 million in just three years (not counting the role it played in battles such as Prop 8 in California and the assault on the freedom to marry in Maine). But NOM's efforts to shovel no-questions-asked money into partisan and anti-gay campaigns in states such as Rhode Island, Iowa, California, New York, Minnesota, and Maine continue hitting one persistent barrier: the sunshine laws that protect voters by ensuring transparent elections.

    NOM's strategy to subvert campaign-finance disclosure and clean election laws is to unleash a wave of controversial lawsuits. Putting aside the irony of NOM turning to the courts to strike down laws that ensure a fair and clean election, given its pattern of complaining about so-called "activist" courts whenever judges strike down discrimination, NOM just doesn't want to play by the rules.


  • 104. Ronnie  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:26 am

    cross posting from my post on Freedom Fighters for Equality:

    ‘Closet burning was a hate crime’

    "Gay rights activists at UCT are up in arms about ongoing prejudice on campus after a symbol intended to highlight prejudice against gay people and to promote gay rights was burnt down…..

    The symbol – a closet – had been on display for less than 12 hours when it was torched on Monday night."

    (me) Somebody set a pro-LGBT statue on fire. One that has been defaced w/anti-gay graffiti in the past, but if this was to happen to a religious statue, say one that belongs to a known anti-gay Christian, they would cry persecution & they are the ones being attacked.."LGBT people aren't' being persecuted" the anti-gay's say..please..AS IF!!!!

    This occurred at UCT (University of Cape Town) in South Africa….. : ( ….Ronnie

  • 105. Ronnie  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Here is a report about a rally just held at Stonewall posted by the admin for Freedom Fighters FB page…I may be going to a march planned on Saturday & a Charity Dance at Stonewall for Queer Rising…..<3…Ronnie:…!

  • 106. Lesbians Love Boies  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:46 am

    This guy is so hateful. He is all about homosexuality, it's all he talks about.

    Hon. James David Manning, PhD asks why would you promote Homosexuality and Muslim lifestyles if you did not want your children to be one.

  • 107. Bob  |  October 6, 2010 at 8:15 am

    James David Manning, must be happy slavery was abolished, how many white folks have said they would not want their kids to be black, or sit at the same counter as them, or attend the same school.

    Now that he got his, he turns around and bullies others, and good that he does cause he exposes the truth about what we are up against, he's a hard core Republican, he's pro holy war, for the Catholic Church, to abolish Muslims, he actually belieives his religious belief is superior to others, and that his religion is capable of dominating the world, starting with U.SA. getting rid of homosexuality at the same time.

    The U.S.of America, has a global reputation as being a bully, invading other countries for centuries, this is the speak from the religious right that fuels the war machine, onward christian soldiers, marching as to war. for the Pope.

    Obama is on our side folks, he has to be in order to be slandered in this speach, see what he's up against, a well financed campaign with alll the power and money,

    But Obama and the dems. if they work hard enough will get the support of the masses, that will be our vote, what will NOM say when the people have voted and they didn't win.

    This man is the voice of evil, that will run America if Obama doesn't win, We have to vote for a man we're pissed off at. or face something worse.

  • 108. Ronnie  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:58 am

    Another anti-gay act of vandalism…..….

    Anti-gay graffiti and dent found on Jersey City councilwoman's car; she sees link to City Council's appointment last week of openly gay attorney to fill at-large seat
    Wednesday, October 06, 2010

    Lopez said yesterday that Saturday night she attended a congratulations event for Radames "Ray" Velazquez, the former freeholder who is now the city's first openly gay council rep.

    The following morning, Lopez says, she noticed a large dent on the driver's side front fender as well as the words "GAY FU" written in ball-point black marker. The SUV has a city seal on both sides of the vehicle.

    "They should be ashamed of themselves," Lopez said yesterday. "There are some sick people in the city, and it was not a nice thing to do."

    "They're not going to intimidate me," she added.

    (me) GOOD FOR YOU!!!…Stand strong Councilwoman Lopez….

    "Of course I'm saddened," he said yesterday. "I don't believe it's representative of Jersey City because the reaction I've gotten has been nothing but that of support and love." ~ Radames "Ray" Velazquez

    Steven Goldstein, CEO of the state advocacy organization Garden State Equality, called the act horrifying.

    "It demonstrates that Jersey City has so much more work to do in embracing our gay brothers and sisters," Goldstein said.

    Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy, who nominated Velazquez to the post, called the incident "another illustration of the closed-minded hatred of some segments of our society toward others."

    (me) exactly….well stated Mr. Mayor Healy….

    "This comes from a sad mentality," she said. "It was not an intelligent person who did this." ~ Jersey City Councilwoman Nidia Lopez

    (me) nose…ball…right on target…splash…into the tank…

    side note…NOM is on a little "tour' targeting the Latino/Hispanic American community promoting their notion of what is considered "family values"…while here in NJ two members of the Latino/Hispanic American community are being harassed with non-family values (festered by NOM's little fascist & hateful agenda) for 1) being Gay…& 2) being supportive of someone who is Gay….

    I'm sorry but who is persecuting who?….face hits palms so hard there might actually be a bruise….. : I …Ronnie

  • 109. bJason  |  October 6, 2010 at 6:59 am

    Here's my question to our Legal Eagles: How do we initiate Civil Suits for wrongful death (think the Ron Goldberg family in the OJ Simpson case)?

    There are now, what, six/seven in the last several weeks.

    I see something like this:

    Dead Suit against
    Tyler Clementi NOM
    Raymond Chase Focus on the Family
    Justin Aaberg The Ruth Institute
    Billy Lucas Americans for Truth
    Asher Brown Concerned Women for America
    Seth Walsh Traditional Values Coalition

    There has to be a way to make these cases.


  • 110. bJason  |  October 6, 2010 at 7:01 am

    didn't space the way I wanted but you get the picture

    Why have we no edit button, again?

  • 111. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  October 6, 2010 at 9:18 am

    I agree bJason…suits like this should be possible. I would also like to file a class action suit against 'them' for all the pain and suffering they have caused and continue to cause the LGBT community.

  • 112. Bob  |  October 6, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    bJason, I'm with ya, what I've learned from my free speech lesson above, they can say what they want, but action is a crime, the action is the deaths, we have to connect the dots to what motivated them…………wonder if we'll have to wait until it's a celebrity who dies, and the media is all over it?

  • 113. Rae  |  October 6, 2010 at 7:17 am

    I would like to see religion/church back in the closet. Only to be talked about on Sundays amongst "their selves". They use their faith as a weapon………and it kills people.

  • 114. Kate  |  October 6, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Ok, here's what I don't understand. Doesn't the painting of their emblems on the sides of the Fiorina tour bus already show they are violating tax laws? Do they have to actually verbalize said violation before the IRS takes notice?

  • 115. fiona64  |  October 6, 2010 at 7:26 am

    The first step, as far as I can tell,is filing a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission.

    More in another post, so I don't get hung up in moderation.


  • 116. fiona64  |  October 6, 2010 at 7:27 am

    Here is the statute about how 501c(3) charities may not campaign for a candidate:,,id=122887,…


  • 117. AndrewPDX  |  October 6, 2010 at 7:53 am

    except, according to NOM's website, they are a "501(c)(4) organization with QNC status"… whatever that means. They also point out that any donations to NOM are not tax-deductible.

    Does that make a difference?

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 118. Bob  |  October 6, 2010 at 8:22 am

    if donationsto NOM are not tax deductible, that's how they get around it, the church feeds them the money, which is already tax free,,,,,,,,noooo are there corporate donors too??

  • 119. Lesbians Love Boies  |  October 6, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Bob you hit the NAIL ON THE HEAD!

    That's why NOM doesn't want their donor lists to get out. The donors are probably writing off their donations to NOM and will get hit big if the IRS get's their hands on the lists.

    Time to fight to get all of those lists public!

  • 120. fiona64  |  October 6, 2010 at 9:18 am


    Quote: The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f). For further information regarding political and lobbying activities of section 501(c) organizations, see Election Year Issues, Political Campaign and Lobbying Activities of IRC 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) Organizations, and Revenue Ruling 2004-6.

    So, um, yeah. The mere fact that they have Fiorina's name on the bus, and are touring to try to get her elected? Violates their charter.


  • 121. adambink  |  October 6, 2010 at 7:33 am

    Funny that, see the post above this one.

  • 122. Kate  |  October 6, 2010 at 7:36 am

    ADAM! We need an update for today and last night.

  • 123. Lesbians Love Boies  |  October 6, 2010 at 7:37 am

    I second Kate's request for an update on the final two stops

  • 124. Randy  |  October 6, 2010 at 9:53 am

    I've read the Torah, the Christian Bible AND the Qu'ran. Still hasn't made me believe in their God. May the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you with His Noodly Appendage. (The First Commandment of FSMism is "Don't Be A Dick.")

  • 125. Bob  |  October 6, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    well I haven't read the Torah or the Qu'ran, but I'm pretty sure I've read almost everything on this site, and this is where I learned about the Church of Bob, (major philosophy, do as little as possible) or something like that.

    I am christian, but definetly God is being questioned by me personally, so she better get her act together. The clocks ticking for me, and I have no urgency to figure it all out, and kind of happy for the space and freedom I've created by letting go of all the crap I thought was true.

    Most valuable lesson from Straight Grandmother, you don't know what you don't know, and that leaves room for being open to discovery.

    A mind closed by belief, is a hinderance to appreciation of Gods handiwork in the diversity of nature.

  • 126. bluprntguy  |  October 6, 2010 at 11:23 am

    Since Ms. Morse is *actually* an ex-economics professor, you will excuse me if i don't take her "expert" status on marriage and family very seriously, right?

  • 127. One step too far: NOMR&hellip  |  October 6, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    […] few hours ago I wrote about Jennifer Roback-Morse’s appearance on the NOM California tour. Here’s the video […]

  • 128. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  December 8, 2011 at 7:50 am

    […] Roback Morse, the founder and President of the anti-gay Ruth Institute (who we encountered here while Arisha et al were following the NOM bus tour in California), will be liveblogging the trial […]

  • 129. date a sugar daddy  |  April 17, 2014 at 6:46 pm

    Everything is very open with a very clear explanation off the challenges.
    It was definitely informative. Your website is extremely helpful.
    Thanks for sharing!

    my weblog; date a sugar daddy

  • 130. Deborah Garcia  |  May 5, 2014 at 4:17 pm

    This article presents clear idea for the new people of blogging, that
    really how to do blogging and site-building.

    Here is my weblog :: Deborah Garcia

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