Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

20 hard questions Brian Brown needs to answer

NOM Exposed NOM Tour Tracker-Iowa Right-wing

By Eden James

The Courage team has been brainstorming some questions for NOM President Brian Brown to answer while he’s on their “Judge Bus” tour in Iowa this week. Arisha will do her best to ask these questions if she gets the opportunity.

We’ve got 13 questions so far — maybe you can help us come up with seven more?

1) Brian, you live in New Jersey right? What makes you a more qualified advocate on Iowa’s courts than, say, someone who actually lives in Iowa?

2) If someone from Iowa spent $500,000 putting ads on in your hometown telling your neighbors your family was immoral and second class while driving around your neighborhood with a similar message on the side of a bus, would you be OK with that?

3) Why haven’t you apologized for your actions that led to a Courage Campaign videographer being threatened with arrest, undermining his first amendment rights in Annapolis, Maryland, this summer? The Annapolis Chief of Police apologized — why didn’t you?

4) Will you apologize for NOM’s California Tour organizers assaulting a member of our staff in Santa Ana, California, this summer?

5) Where do you get all your money? Seriously, according to campaign finance reports, 857 people gave you more than $400,000. That means someone wrote some big checks. Who were they?

6) In 2008, letters surfaced confirming that Andy Pugno, who you are spending over $100,000 to support in California’s AD 5, wrote letters blackmailing businesses who had given to pro-equality organizations, if they did not given an equally large gift to the “Yes on 8” campaign. Do you condone that type of conduct? Since your support of Pugno implies that you condone this conduct, isn’t it hypocritical for you not to release your donor lists?

7) Especially in this economy, what would you say to a homeless person who didn’t get clothed or fed by a charity group like the Knights of Columbus so they could give a multi-million gift for NOM, which was then used to pay your salary and take away the rights of loving, committed families?

8) Which number is higher—the amount you’re spending on advertising this election cycle, or the amount you are spending on lawyers trying to evade compliance with election and tax laws?

9) Jennifer Roback Morse, who works for NOM’s Ruth Institute, recently admitted to a Michigan paper that she “blurred the lines” of her tax-exempt status for her actions on behalf of candidates for elected office. Should she be punished for that, or is NOM above the law?

10) After Courage and HRC announced that the Ruth Institute had violated its tax-exempt status, which you denied, you removed a press release from your website announcing Jennifer Roback Morse’s support for Carly Fiorina. Isn’t that an admission of guilt on your part?

11) Do you believe gay people are second-class citizens? What about second-class parents? Or second-class soldiers?

12) Do you think that gay teens who are outed think of themselves as second class? Do you think that contributes to their higher propensity for suicide? What would you do about it?

13) Millions of Americans of all faith backgrounds support marriage equality. Why do NOM’s supporters call for killing gay people, or restricting their ability to be teachers, adopt children, or serve in the military, citing the Bible as their rationale?

What questions do you have for Brian Brown and NOM? Share them in the comments and we’ll try to get to a hard 20.


  • 1. Mark  |  October 26, 2010 at 2:50 am

    "How can an organization that claims to value traditional religious values, make judgments against entire groups of people, when the Bible clearly states that only God himself has this right?"

  • 2. Ann S.  |  October 26, 2010 at 2:54 am


  • 3. JonT  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:15 am

  • 4. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:00 am


  • 5. Chris B  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:17 am

    Here's a question:

    "NOM came to Iowa claiming that judges had no right to overrule laws enacted by legislatures–and should be removed for doing that. However, how do you explain that just a few days ago, NOM asked a judge in Buffalo, NY to do EXACTLY what you came here to complain about: to overrule election finance laws for the benefit of NOM?"

  • 6. Rhie  |  October 26, 2010 at 7:56 am


  • 7. Jonathan H  |  October 26, 2010 at 10:46 am

    I have a bad feeling that commenting in this thread will leave me saying lots of "Oh, that's a good one!" and nothing more. Subbing anyways.

  • 8. Alan E.  |  October 26, 2010 at 2:55 am

    Another post. More stuff to read. When will I be able to fit work into my schedule?!

  • 9. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:08 am

    LOL, one advantage of not having a job at the moment.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 10. Bob D.  |  October 26, 2010 at 2:58 am

    I would ask: given that many of your supporters feel that marriage is a religious institution with no applicability in the secular world, why are none of NOM's efforts going toward eliminating marriage rights where one or both parties are: a) atheists; b) agnostics; c) pagans; d) non-Christian or non-Jewish?

    In particular, what efforts has NOM made to stem or prevent divorce in the marriages you DO support?

    Finally, if you truly believe that all children deserve a mother and a father, what efforts is NOM making to ensure that all orphaned children are adopted? In the case where a parent dies, what should happen to the children since they will no longer have either a mother or a father?

  • 11. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:09 am

    EXACTINGLY BOB! This is what immediately came to mind….

  • 12. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:28 am

    ie this part "…..a) atheists; b) agnostics; c) pagans; d) non-Christian or non-Jewish?"

  • 13. fiona64  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:11 am

    Corollary to this:

    Since NOM claims that marriage is about procreation, will you also be seeking to judicially annul marriages between people who are infertile, post-fertile or childfree, and to prevent those people from being permitted to wed?

  • 14. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:14 am

    ditto! (sorry Fiona that you have been discriminated this way….I saw your other post.)

  • 15. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:19 am

    …side note: your comment make me think "when is the last time I visited MY parents"…. : /

  • 16. GreenEyedLilo  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:02 am

    As a bisexual Pagan woman married to an atheist woman, as well as a sister and friend to Pagans and atheists of all sexual orientations, I'm more than a little afraid that religious minorities' mixed-sex marriages would be next!

  • 17. [email protected]  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Bob, I don't doubt that NOM, or at least their supporters, will come after MY ability to have a legally valid marriage within my own religion (Paganism), because many of them have told me to my face that they don't believe that my religion is a "valid" religion, and that because my religion has no prohibitions about what does and does not constitute or define roles within a marriage, than marriages officiated within my religion are, to them, "invalid"! What, I wonder, is to prevent them from declaring that they shouldn't be forced to accept that pagan marriages are "real marriages"?

  • 18. AndrewPDX  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:11 am

    <cite>What, I wonder, is to prevent them from declaring that they shouldn’t be forced to accept that pagan marriages are “real marriages”?</cite>

    Within their church's walls and private ceremonies and records: nothing. But then, who would want to be recognized in that manner?

    Within the public sector and the laws and civil marriage: the Freedom of Religion clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

    That is, until they turn even more Orwellian and act out Animal Farm.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 19. [email protected]  |  October 26, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    Yes, Andrew, but I can easily see them trying to exploit a loop-hole of some sort, such as the fact that the gov't shouldn't issue a marriage license to Pagans.

  • 20. Bennett  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:06 am

    I like this question as asked too, but I ususally think in terms of this revision.
    If you truly believe that all children deserve a mother and a father, why are you focusing your efforts on discriminating against gay people, a group which largely does not tend to procreate, but does in certain instances provide at least 1 mother or 1 father to children who might otherwise have none at all.

  • 21. Rhie  |  October 26, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Or, what effort are they making to be sure that no child is born who isn't wanted? Why aren't they pushing for proper sex ed in school? For insurance to cover birth control and abortion?

  • 22. Sagesse  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:00 am

    Yet again, subscribing.

  • 23. Ronnie  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:08 am


  • 24. Kathleen  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:10 am


  • 25. Mark Dunlop  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:11 am

    When a gay teen commits suicide because of your hate campaign, do you tfeel he slightest bit of guilt?

  • 26. Steve  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:11 am

    I would ask: Brian, are you gay?

  • 27. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:15 am

    AMEN STEVE!!!!!!!

  • 28. sara  |  October 26, 2010 at 12:06 pm


  • 29. BK  |  October 27, 2010 at 1:02 am

    Ha! Watch; this NOM deal is all a part of his trying the ex-gay program. One of his projects. 😉

  • 30. Alan E.  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Dear Brian,

    When a judge uses a scientific basis to determine that same-sex couples are similarly situated and have the same outcomes in their children as opposite-sex couples, why would you focus on the sex of the parents, contrary to the solid facts that show that the sex of the parents don't matter?

    Why would you make it so that children of same-sex couples don't receive the same level of benefits as other children?

    If you are so concerned with children, why do you claim that domestic partnerships or civil unions are good enough, but then fight against domestic partner/civil union benefits?

  • 31. Rebecca  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:39 am

    Alan, I think your third question hits the nail on the head. It completely exposes that their motivation is hate and bigotry, not any actual concern for the institution of marriage.

    In at least 2 recent public cases (Hawaii and Wisconsin), an elected official has worked against civil unions and domestic partnerships because they feel they're too close to "real" marriage.

    If NOM wasn't totally full of $#@%, they would be putting money towards getting civil unions and domestic partnerships nationwide.

    Arisha, please ask the loonies about this one!

  • 32. [email protected]  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:53 am

    Rebecca, Maggie Gallagher has declared, publicly, that she thinks that CUs and DPs "erode the status" or marriage! And, according to NOMExposed, she opposes *all* rights for Gays (period).

  • 33. [email protected]  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:50 am

    Alan, NOM's rote response would likely be (if I may play Devil's advocate) that, 1.) "children need both a mother AND a father; and 2.) Gay couples with kids *can* protect them to the degree of heterosexual parents! They just have to find alternate routs through the legal system, rather than re-defining marriage and inventing a right that isn't there. *groan*

  • 34. Richard A. Walter (s  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:26 am

    1) Brian, since when does your first amendment right to exercise your faith in the privacy of your own home give you the right to run your organization as a political action committee to take away my first amendment rights to practice my Judaism as I feel led by HaShem to exercise that faith?

  • 35. JayeinMD  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:27 am

    Why can't you buy a new suit? That brown one is fugly.

  • 36. Peter  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Can you please explain why it is healthier for a child's upbringing to be shuffled from one foster home to another to another and finally being left on their own at 18 rather than be adopted into a family with two loving and caring parents?

  • 37. Joe  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:36 am

    Video for number 13, it amazes me that Mosaic law is still used to argue against homosexuality. With all the other laws that are completely ignored.

    The Catholic church even promotes sex during a woman's period as a for of natural family planning. In mosaic law the punishment for that is exile, which also means those people would go to hell.

  • 38. Richard A. Walter (s  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:46 am

    There is also the fact that what is called the Mosaic law is actually sectioned out into what is sin and what is for being considered spiritually clean when you go to the temple to present your offerings and sacrifices. And what has been left out of the very references they use to condemn being gay is that the passages in the Levitical law (which was primarily for the Levitical priesthood) is that the prohibition against men lying with men was actually because of a pagan fertility ritual that required those who were not gay to lie with a temple prostitute of the same gender and have sex in order to guarantee a bountiful crop in the nursery as well as in the field. That particular law had more to do with avoiding prostitution than it had to do with loving, committed relationships between two gay men or two gay women.
    They also very conveniently forget that King Saul told David (the shepherd son of Jesse of the tribe of Benjamin, who would later be King of Israel) that he was David's father-in-law twice–once due to the fact that David was married to King Saul's daughter for the purpose of having children, and also because David was married to Saul's son Jonathan (this relationship was for love). David even wrote some of his Psalms about Jonathan and the love they shared.
    And before anyone who is new to this board questions this, I want to take this time to point out that my husband (will be legal next month!) is a Lubavitcher rabbi who received his training and ordination at the yeshiva in Crown Heights/Kensington.

  • 39. Rhie  |  October 26, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Oh wow. I didn't know any of that. That's very interesting! Can you give me some sources or verses or Bible books I should be reading to get more information?

  • 40. Richard A. Walter (s  |  October 26, 2010 at 11:56 am

    I will have to ask the rabbi for those. Some of the references are in the related Talmudic and other books, and the ones we have here are in Hebrew, and I am still in kindergarten with that [articular area of linguistics. My "traffic Yiddish", on the other hand….

  • 41. Rhie  |  October 27, 2010 at 11:34 am

    If you do ask that would be great. I know you have a lot going on so take your time 🙂

    I am just curious, is all.

  • 42. The Mad Sotsman  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:38 am

    Brian, given that you use the Bible as your main evidence against gays, does that mean you believe everything in the Bible is the literal word of God and that God's word trumps man's law in all cases?

    If the answer is no, then the questions are (a) so what separates the bits you enforce from the bits you don't enforce and (b) how do we know your interpretation is valid?

    If the answer is yes, then the questions are (a) so it's OK to stone an adulteress to death? and (b) slavery is OK then? and more, of course.

    Cheers, Neil.

  • 43. Ronnie  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:40 am

    Brian Brown, why do you allow known advocates of murder, violence, & imprisonment of LGBT Americans post on your Destroy..I mean "Protect" Marriage: One Man, One Woman Facebook page? Why do you allow said people to call LGBT people derogatory terms & comparisons publicly on that page? Why do you allow said people to make fun of LGBT kids & teens who have committed suicide as well as their grieving family & friends?…..

    You have an entire thread on that page dedicated to making fun of the Purple Your Profile & National Wear Purple Day in remembrance of those who have committed suicide not just for LGBT kids & perceived to be LGBT kids but heterosexual kids as well such as Phoebe Prince…..Do you think that reflects well on your "organization"? Do you think that makes you look like "good & moral people"?

    Just a little hint: The answer's do not revolve around… "We don't hate Gay people", "Love the sinner, not the sin", "Let the people vote", "The Bible says so", & they especially do not in any way what-so-ever revolve around "Shut up, you are persecuting me"….<3…Ronnie

  • 44. Gaydad05  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Mr Brown, since your religion is the driving force behind your organization, would you mind producing your god so that he can confirm that your version of all things earthly is in line with his godly ideals? And if you can't schedule yours, will you get another religion's god, since none of them have made an appearance since, uhm, ever?

  • 45. Papa Foma  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:32 am

    Considering the vast number of individuals that assure us that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ the Saviour one would think that this would not be such a daunting request.

  • 46. Rhie  |  October 26, 2010 at 11:49 am

    Most of those individuals don't know Jesus name when it's said in anything but English or anything about his history and teaching.

  • 47. fiona64  |  October 27, 2010 at 1:48 am

    That's no joke. When I refer to Rabbi Yeshua ben Yussef, way too many "Christians" ask who I mean, and when I tell them, they say something like "It's disrespectful of you not to call him Jesus, since that was his name."

    Me: "No, it wasn't. It was Yeshua, which correctly translates to Joshua. You're using a Latinate derivative. But you can go ahead and think me disrespectful."

    Them: "But you called him a Rabbi. He was Christian."

    Me (suppressing giant UGH sound): "No, he was Jewish. And a teacher. Hence, Rabbi."

    I wish I were making that up — and that it had only happened once.

    They really foam at the mouth when I point out that he was a radical.


  • 48. Rhie  |  October 27, 2010 at 11:51 am

    I know you aren't kidding as I have had similarly stupid conversations. I do actually know people who think that the KJV Protestant is the original and best Bible.

    I have also met people who are protestant and haven't a clue what that means. They don't know who the original protesters where or even why they were protesting.

    I also grew up being asked if I was "Catholic or Christian".

    *headpillow* (They aren't worth the ache that would come from a *headdesk*)

  • 49. Rhie  |  October 27, 2010 at 11:52 am

    Who they WERE not WHERE. Edit button PLEASE?

  • 50. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:46 am

    Dear Brian,

    Thank you for talking to Arisha and for making the effort to at least being civil toward her (unlike the Vota troupe).

    I'm VERY curious how it is that you can join forces with other Christian groups, especially those of the Mormon faith, when doctrinally they are quite deviant to catholic belief? I don't see you protesting Mormon temples trying to restrict their right to practice religion the way they choose.

    I would invite you to apply the same tolerance toward my family that you show toward non-Catholics. I love my partner and children as much as any parent/spouse could! Please stop hurting my family just because you have a different marriage "religion" than I do.



  • 51. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:57 am

    P.S. who chose the bus color?

  • 52. Alan E.  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:25 am

    It's the Purple Nurple.

  • 53. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:29 am

    LOLROLF! 😀

  • 54. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:32 am

  • 55. Alan E.  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:37 am

    I like the Tips and Warnings section:

    Giving a purple nurple can be considered assault. Consider the consequences before giving a purple nurple. Stick to friends who won't mind the good natured ribbing and expect retaliation.
    Beware that giving a purple nurple to a female can be considered sexual assault due to the private nature of the female breast.

  • 56. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:37 am

    P.N. – it's a bully tactic! appropriate for the NOBIES to have a "purple-nurple-bully-bus"

  • 57. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:38 am

    LOL Alan – must be "politically correct" when using PN !

  • 58. Alan E.  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:41 am

    The other thing about the Purple Nurple–aside from the bus color and bullying–is that it involves a lot of twisting, like the logic and facts the people on the bus are twisting for their own needs.

  • 59. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:56 am

    Clever!! My gosh your purple nurple thing has caused me the serious case of the giggles… (didn't help that right after I read Fiona's advise to an obtuse writer…advising him/her to use care when consummating marriage to a lamp….gasping in attempt to gain any composure)

  • 60. GreenEyedLilo  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:56 am

    Several questions along the same theme:

    What message do you believe your organization is sending to those children who are currently being raised by gay, lesbian, and/or bisexual parents? How do you think their public schools should respond to these families' concerns? How would you handle it if your own child insulted a child because s/he was being raised by a same-sex couple? Do you believe these children should be taken away from their parents (even if one parent is biological)?

  • 61. Adrenalin Tim  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:57 am


    Do you know any (openly) gay people?

    During the NOM tour, one of your official speakers (the Catholic priest—don't recall his name at the moment) said that oral and anal sex, even within the context of heterosexual marriages, is always immoral. Do you agree with him?

  • 62. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  October 26, 2010 at 3:59 am

    Mr. Brown, how is what you are doing and advocating any different than what the Islamic extremists are doing in their countries? Namely, the ruling governments being controlled by religious leaders and their teachings/beliefs.
    Do you not agree that theocracies are a bad thing, or is that only true of non-Christian theocracies?

  • 63. John B.  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:05 am

    14. Does the fact that the Iowa Supreme Court decision was uninamous make you stop and think at all? How about the fact that two of the justices were appointed by a Republican?

    15. In several states you're trying to get NOM exempted from campaign finance laws that any other political group has to follow. Doesn't this look an awful lot like "special rights"? If you're going into a state to lobby or campaign for or against a candidate or issue, shouldn't you follow that state's laws?

    16. Would you support civil unions that give all the rights and responsibilities of marriage without calling it by that name?

    17. If the majority of residents of a state were okay with same-sex marriage, would it be okay with you or would you continue to try to overturn it by any means possible?

    18. Why are you devoting so much time, energy, and money towards preventing gay people from getting married, rather than towards keeping straight people from getting divorced?

  • 64. John B.  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:18 am

    Oops, almost forgot:

    19. Why doesn't Maggie Gallagher Srivastav use her married name if "traditional marriage" is so important to her?

  • 65. Tracy  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:16 am

    I would rephrase number 17 to read: If Iowans vote Yes, Yes, Yes, will you accept that and leave them alone?

  • 66. nightshayde  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:05 am

    1. Why do you try to imply that people who support marriage equality are against "traditional" marriage? Do you think that people who support same-sex couples' right to wed oppose opposite-sex couples' right to do the same?

    There are many of us out here in happy, fulfilling "traditional" marriages who think our GLBT friends, neighbors, co-workers, and family members should have exactly the same rights we enjoy.

    2. Wouldn't it make more sense to call your organization the "National Organization for Some Marriage," or the "National Organization for Heterosexual Marriage?" It seems to me that something called the "National Organization for Marriage" should support marriage equality.

    3. Do you believe your right to discriminate against others is embedded in the Constitution? Why do you feel that your right to discriminate is more important than someone else's right to live a life free of discrimination?

    4. Do you believe that churches and other religious institutions that support marriage equality are just as pleasing in the Lord's eyes as churches and other religious institutions that promote discrimination based on sexual orientation?

    5. If one of your children happens to have been born gay, will you support his/her right to marry his/her soulmate?

  • 67. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:20 am

    Great question (#2) nighshayde!

  • 68. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:20 am

    sorry typo'd your name ; )

  • 69. nightshayde  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:24 am

    It's all good, Gregory. Just don't call me late to dinner. =)

  • 70. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:34 am


  • 71. nightshayde  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:48 am

    6. What do you think about the "It Gets Better" project?

    7. Do you think your church's teachings about sexual relationships, family, reproductive rights, and sexual orientation should be applied to everyone, or should they just be applied to people who share your church's beliefs?

    8. What would it take to get you to believe that sexual orientation is determined by nature rather than by nurture?

    9. Do you think all people are created equal, or do you believe some people are more equal than others?

    10. What do you believe the role of an independent judiciary should be? If judges find a discriminatory law to be unconstitutional, should they just keep their mouths shut and allow discrimination to continue as long as it's ok with a majority of voters?

    11. Do you think court cases regarding marriage equality should be judged solely on the evidence presented in court (as with most court cases), or do you think non-evidenciary factors should apply?

    I'm sure I'll have more soon…

  • 72. nightshayde  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:56 am

    12. Do you think a heterosexual couple married in a civil ceremony (i.e. one with no religious component) is just as "married" as a heterosexual couple married in a religious ceremony?

    13. Do you think a same-sex couple married in a religious ceremony is just as "married" as a heterosexual couple married in the same religious institution with the same type of ceremony?

    14. In states where marriage equality is law, do you think that a straight couple and a gay couple wed in identical ceremonies (whether religious or civil) are just as married as one another?

  • 73. nightshayde  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:59 am

    I must be butter, 'cause I'm on a roll!

    15. If/when the SCOTUS finds that laws barring same-sex marriage are unconstitutional & mandates full marriage equality, how will you and your organization react?

  • 74. Papa Foma  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:18 am

    "So do fundamentalists believe in majority rights or minority rights? The answer is, apparently, neither. They’ll pull whichever argument suits them out of its file when necessary, … They have
    a big double standard that basically says, “Whatever I want is right.” The rest is rationalization, and as flexible and multi-directional as a reed blowing in the wind."

    Page 117

  • 75. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:22 am

    digging my way through TheAuthoritarians.pdf–thx for providing reference!

  • 76. Felyx  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:47 am

    Phenomenal read! If everyone here read the document I think none of these questions would be asked in the first place. It's like asking a tiger if he supports vegetarians… no matter how many times or in how many ways the questions are asked, a tiger is still going to attack and kill you just because he sees you as food.

    This religious reasoning is based on fear and (shock of shocks!!!) prejudice. (112-113) A mind full of fear cannot think rationally or logically. Altemeyer was very clear when he pointed this out on page 115.

    "Noll observes that “American evangelicals are not exemplary for their thinking, and they have not been so for several generations.” He points out that evangelicals support dozens of theological seminaries, scores of colleges, and hundreds of radio stations, but not a single research university. “In the United States he writes, it is simply impossible to be, with integrity, both evangelical and intellectual.” “Modern American evangelicals have failed notably in sustaining serious intellectual life.”"

    This heckling of Brian Brown and NOM may be a quickie feel good thrill but it solves nothing and brings precious little understanding of ourselves or others.


    (Still a problem with the site… I have to change the name and email every time.)

  • 77. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:24 am

    @ Felyx so far what I have gained from this post is a fantastic list of "talking points" I can present to those in my circle of influence who ARE willing to listen to me and discuss these issues.

    It seems natural to find questions to ask Brian…..I would challenge everyone here to try come up with valid questions for Brian to ask us in support PROP 8! Put it to the Dubois test who said as an experienced adjudicator he can usually argue both sides of the case….with Prop8, there is only one side to argue.

  • 78. Felyx  |  October 26, 2010 at 7:05 am


    Thanks for reading. The more we understand why people are the way they are, the better we will be at making change.


    You are very right. After reading this book I realize that reacting to NOM is near wasted energy. Sheeple have already found their god(s) and masters. We want to talk to those who do love and can use reason and intelligence to change.

  • 79. Bob  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:29 am

    Felyx makes a great point learned from The Authoritarians,, "this heckling of BB and NOM, may be a quickie feel good thrill but it solves nothing and brings precious little understanding of ourselves or others"

    I really doubt any of the questions asked of them do anything other than give us somewhere to channel our anger, and maybe our energy could be better spent organizing and getting in the trenches to bring out the votes for the upcoming election.

    Perhaps that is the real goal of the NOM tour, have us chase them around especially know that we need to be talking and sharing about our goals and what we have at stake and in common with other minorities across America, like need for the basic needs of living, health care, food, jobs, etc.

    To share these concerns with Latino's and those marginalized by poverty, NOM and their ilk are pro welfare, and push it as communism, if there was a better social network these groups would feel more secure in finding a voice, and that's why these social programs threaten NOM.

    Perhaps this time would be better spent on building coalitions, and knocking on doors talking to people, training ourselves to reach out, not with our own agenda, but listening to the Latinos who where told not to vote, and see how they feel and what they want, and help them get it.

    This third tour comes at a crucial time, all the questions in the world wouldn't affect a change in willful and successful , ignorance and bigotry promoting fear, perhaps our time is not well spent on attacking the leaders, but connecting and communicating with their followers.

  • 80. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Thank you Bob for mentioning other minority challenges, specifically the Hispanic community… we can do MUCH better treating each other better…The Platinum Rule "Do unto others as they would like it done unto them"

  • 81. Diane  |  October 27, 2010 at 12:35 am

    Debate is often not about changing your opponent's mind, but rather about forcing as many facts as possible to the surface, for the sake of the audience. That's all this is–the wording of the proposed questions is generally such that answering them will require Brown to be honest about NOM's hypocrisy, dishonesty and arrogance, or to dissemble to a degree that it will be clear he's just a bigot grabbing at straws. And that is good stuff to have when you're trying to reach people who ARE still open-minded.

  • 82. [email protected]  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:40 am

    I have WAY too many questions to directly ask NOM, such as…

    1.) NOM's alleged mission statement is "to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it" (source:…. What about the vast religions that populate this planet and endorse Marriage Equality? Some include the Native American cultures, Wicca, the Chuckchi Gay shamans, and denominations throughout Judeo-Christian religions. Does NOM regard these "faith communities" as mere inconsequential aberrations not worth discussing?

    2.) NOM claims that the Gay community is seeking to "re-define traditional marriage", and that cultures and societies all over the world have allegedly recognized that marriage is about the rights oif children to be nurtured and known by/ know their biological parents. Why does NOM insist on re-writing the historical record? The impetus for marriage stems from an epoch when women were property, not people. Marriages were chiefly arranged, not to produce children out of love (which is a Western fantasy), but to ensure that the head male had an heir to pass on his property and titles to. To underscore that women were property, it was common for a so-called "wife" to be buried alive with her "husband" after he died along with the rest of his valuable property. And, if marriage was really about "the rights of children", than why are there numerous cultures that cast out unwanted children after birth (usually for health reasons or a deformity), because they would be a drain on precious societal resources. The historical record is clear, and historians do not approve of how Maggie Gallagher and NOM are misrepresenting a fantasy as though it were an established fact!

    Even the Anthropological Association of America (the largest such group in the world) has denounced NOM's claims as junk, based upon over 100 years of anthropological research and historical data. In fact, they released a policy statement opposing any attempt to codify an anti-gay "Marriage Amendment" into the Constitution.

    3.) If I were to an average heterosexual couple that Civil Marriage had nothing to do with them, and that their rights were only "alleged" (as Maggie Gallagher assures us), they would be offended and disgusted! Care to comment? What makes you think this? Aren't you really promoting a form of fascism?

  • 83. AndrewPDX  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:57 am

    Mr. Brown, if your organization values the First Amendment and the Freedom of Religion, why do you sponsor laws that block the Religious Freedom of the Unitatians, Epicopals, United Church of Christ, Metropolitan Church of Christ, and many other organizations whose doctrines include the desire to bless same-sex couples within the bonds of holy matrimony?

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 84. [email protected]  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:27 am

    Likely, his response would be that he's not stopping them from performing something purely symbolic and NON-legal! Though, I've often asked NOMers that, if marriage is soooo important to them and so meaningful, than why not merely get a purely symbolic and non-legal marriage? They never *did* give me an answer.

  • 85. Nicole A.  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:57 am

    I am DYING to ask the sweat hog…oops, I mean Brian Brown about this alleged "right to vote on marriage" he keeps writing about in his weekly emails. I am unaware of a law (federal or state) or legal precedent that gives anyone the "right to vote on marriage." Can you ask him where that is written or affirmed by a court?

  • 86. nightshayde  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:00 am

    … or where his right to vote on rights for any minority group is defined in the Constitution.

  • 87. Papa Foma  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:06 am

    I answered this above… page 117.

  • 88. Ed  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:04 am

    Here's one. I'd love for a family (doesn't matter if its a gay or lesbian couple) who has a son or daughter who's in their early teens, to ask Brian (or maggie, or tony…) to explain to their children exactly why they are not allowed to get married.
    It's very easy to talk behind a podium, or to argue back and forth with adults. Lets see them explain their positions to the actual children.

    Ed in South Bend

  • 89. Felyx  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:04 am

    Just because it is funny…

    "Hence I was not surprised to read on December 3, 2006 that Bishop Adoyo, the head of the Pentecostal Church in Kenya, wants the National Museum in Nairobi to place its priceless collection of hominid fossils in a back room where the public cannot see them. He explained that these fossils support the theory of evolution, which his religion opposes. The bishop threatened to organize protests to force the museum to comply if it did not agree to his request. The bishop’s message seems crystal clear: We don’t believe this, so we don’t want the public to see the evidence that we are wrong."

    Funny but not surprising… after all, look at how much money, time and effort NOM goes to in order to protest 'those other people'.

    Page 152

  • 90. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:46 am

    not so funny… but certainly how many leaders "think"

    Mormon example:

  • 91. Felyx  |  October 26, 2010 at 7:13 am

    And yet we are somehow incredulous that LDS, Catholics and other religious advocate a revised use of the US Constitution. Using the examples in the article, you would have some whack job claiming the US Constitution never gave rights to women and blacks much less gays! (Oh wait…)

  • 92. Santa Barbara Mom  |  October 26, 2010 at 10:13 am

    We are therefore obliged to give preference to and protect all that is represented in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we have made covenants to do it…."

    Yea, and there is not ONE reference to same sex attraction in our modern day scriptures. There is NOTHING in our doctrine that relates to this; it is ALL policy. So what the heck are they trying to protect!!! Certainly not the doctrine of the church, and it is my goal to spread the word in what ever way that I can.

  • 93. Bob  |  October 26, 2010 at 10:31 am

    Santa Barbara Mom, woot woot to you love your insight and your energy, spread the word, however you can, it takes people like you first of all to question and explore in order to find and expose those differences between doctrine and policy, sending Love

  • 94. Gregory in SLC  |  October 26, 2010 at 11:27 am


  • 95. Felyx  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:14 am

    Page 121

    "We shouldn’t underestimate the importance of dogmatism to the fundamentalist, even though it sometimes seems to surpass understanding. As noted in the last chapter, it takes no effort to be dogmatic, and you don’t need to know very much to insist you’re right and nothing can possibly change your mind. As well, dogmatism gives the joy and comfort of certainty, which fundamentalists cherish."

  • 96. Ed Cortes  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:20 am

    I have one: Since same-sex families are denied equal rights and benefits, how much of a tax credit should they get? Also, when someone claims that tax credit, how will they prove that they are gay?

  • 97. Felyx  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:25 am

    Page 154

    "Some highly religious people are outraged that atheists would publicly declare their lack of faith. Accordingly many of the people who belong to atheist associations hide their beliefs from most others, knowing from experience it could affect their employment, membership in other clubs, and social connections. It reminds me of the reaction of many high RWAs when homosexuals began to come out: “Don’t these people know they’re supposed to be ashamed of what they are?” That in turn reminded me of the reaction of many White supremists to the civil rights movement: “Don’t these n—— know they’re inferior and should never be treated as our equals?” Fortunately, eventually, minorities can overcome these reactions."

  • 98. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:26 am

    All very good questions. Awaiting the post(s) where BS does his usual double-speak and never gives an answer.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 99. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:54 am

    Hi Sheryl! Here is a more hopeful article for you 😀

    ((Hugs!)) Gregory

  • 100. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  October 26, 2010 at 7:36 am

    Thanks, Gregory, definitely a more uplifting article. However, I think the first one had some very valid points, and, while it was discussing the LDS church, I think it applies to many religions who have some items in their past that they would like to have forgotten.

    What is amazing me is that the LDS Church is starting to be more open with some of its history — The Mountain Meadow Massacre, for example.

    Our prophets are humans and for them to be viewed as anything but men is not a good thing. They are probably as close to perfect as a person can be, but they are not perfect, they bring to their leadership their own beliefs about issues (such as Boyd K. and his recent speech).

    I have been impressed with Elder Uchtdorf in his speeches that I have heard.

    Whether I will live to see the day or not, I believe it will happen that gays and their families will worship along side heterosexuals and their families in the LDS Church.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 101. Richard A. Walter (s  |  October 26, 2010 at 9:14 am

    "Whether I will live to see the day or not, I believe it will happen that gays and their families will worship along side heterosexuals and their families in the LDS Church."

    Sheryl, all I can say to this is what BZ and I say to express a desire that something will come to pass, and that is this:

    "From your mouth to God's ear!"

  • 102. Gregory in SLC  |  October 26, 2010 at 9:53 am

    : D

  • 103. Gregory in SLC  |  October 26, 2010 at 10:08 am

    @ Sheryl
    Thank you for your taking time to read both! I' I too have been impressed with Elder Uchtdorf from first time I heard him. I appreciate that he was a Boing 747 pilot, coupled with his International background lends me to think he is highly educated and less biased in all areas.

    My dear partner, a return missionary, who's father spent a lifetime in the church educational system in North and South America, likes the way this apostle presents himself as well. We were both feeling pretty discouraged at the increasing local anti-gay, anti-Hispanic movement because of upcoming Republican platforms and Boyd K. Packer's talk..until we read/heard Elder D's msg. It seems to me his talk has helped locals manage better their conflict of "living the gospel" w/out condemning LGBT persons….and as a result, the whole atmosphere around us improved…. I may no longer be a church member, but Utah is a collective society so a BIG THANKS to Elder Uchtdorf for making the air in Salt Lake City easier to breathe!

  • 104. Santa Barbara Mom  |  October 26, 2010 at 10:21 am

    My husband and I love listening to Elder Uchtdorf! I truly belief that "he gets it".

  • 105. Gregory in SLC  |  October 26, 2010 at 11:23 am

    Hi SBM and Hubby! 😀

  • 106. Felyx  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:32 am

    Good News on page 154!!! (For those who are soured on Organized Religion…

    "This is just one example of how organized religion is slowly dying in the Western world. In Europe, polls reveal, hardly anyone goes to church every week any more. The United States, with about 32% of its adult population regularly attending weekly services, is one of the most “religious” countries in the West. See Bob Altemeyer, “The Decline of Organized Religion in Western Civilization,” The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2004, 14, 77-89."

  • 107. AndrewPDX  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:43 am

    If judges are "black-robed" activists who need to be removed, then why does your organization go running to them to try to hide their politicking and circumvent state laws? Doesn't that sound more like a whiny spoiled child who goes crying to Mommy when Daddy said no? (and yes, the use of opposite-sex parents is on purpose)

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 108. Felyx  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:46 am

    Damning!!! So very Damning!!!

    "Shortfalls in Fundamentalists’ Behavior: Hypocrisy

    Ronald J. Sider, … observed that, despite Jesus’ unequivocal stand on the permanence of marriage, evangelical Christians divorce as often as others do. And despite Jesus’ great concern for the poor, the political agenda of prominent evangelical political movements rarely includes justice for the impoverished. The number of unmarried couples living together jumped more in the Bible Belt during the 1990s, Sider pointed out, than in the nation as a whole. Of the evangelical youth who took a “True Love Waits” pledge to abstain from intercourse until marriage, 88% broke it, he reported. Evangelicals proved more likely to object to having African-American neighbors than any other religious group. He reminded his readers that many evangelical leaders either opposed the civil rights movement or else said nothing. And “saved” men were reported just as likely to use pornography, and to physically abuse their wives, as “unsaved” men."

    Page 131

  • 109. the lone ranger  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:51 am

    Not to be the fly in the soup here, but I don't really see the point of posting this list of questions like this. Realistically, Brian isn't going to answer any of them, and even if he had a fair-minded bone in his body (and maybe he does, given Arisha's earlier post about how they even hugged at the airport), most of these questions are worded in such a way to be leading or self-incriminating. If I were him I wouldn't consider answering most of them, even if I silently acknowledged a few truths therein.

    Don't get me wrong… I'm a huge (but largely silent) P8TT supporter, and I definitely think NOM is a sinister organization. And, I also certainly understand the frustration of having to deal with these close-minded people. But we have to remember to always take the higher road… that our purpose here is to offer objective, logical arguments to counter the misleading and fallacious statements of the anti-equality side. Posts like this list of questions might make us feel better, but they don't really advance our cause. While I don't disagree with the intent of these questions, in tone I'd say that in the best case, some of them are barely objective, and in the worst case, they're just petty. We have righteousness on our side, but we shouldn't let it degenerate into self-righteousness.

    I'm personally a huge fan of Rob's matter-of-fact videos and think that's the tone we should strive for in these posts… present the facts, and demonstrate why NOM's "facts" are wrong. OK, a little ridicule of NOM might be warranted on occasion (& it probably does our collective soul good), but ever since the Prop 8 trial ended I've noticed an increasing number of posts here that are simply snarky and seem more like schoolyard banter. There are a lot of important things going on out there in the realm of gay rights, and we're so close to success in many regards. I have no doubt that our great P8TT writers and contributors can offer us some wonderful insights and commentary on these history-making events. As time allows, I'll try to contribute as well.

  • 110. Felyx  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:53 am

    This is sooooo worth the read!

    "Attitudes toward homosexuals have become markedly more tolerant and accepting in North America in a very short period of time. When I asked students what had affected their attitudes toward gays and lesbians, personally knowing a homosexual proved the most positive influence (as I reported in chapter 2) and the scientific evidence indicating sexual orientation may have biological determinants (as mentioned in chapter 3) finished second. But in third place came, “I have been turned off by anti-homosexual people.”26 Virulent opposition to homosexual causes may, in the long run, backfire and hurt the opposers and benefit their intended targets, especially when the attackers claim they are acting
    on moral grounds and actually “love the sinner” they are smiting."

    26 See Bob Altemeyer, “Changes in Attitudes toward Homosexuals,” 2001, Journal of Homosexuals, 42, 63-75.

    NOM children can grow up hating their smiteful parents!

    (PS: We have our own journal!!! 😛 )

    Pages 132-133

  • 111. New  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:54 am

    James Dobson is making pre-election Robocalls.
    I came home to find what I consider an outrageous message on my answering machine.
    These people appear to belong to a faith based group called "Family Talk" as Dobson invites people from Judeo-Christian faith to visit and spread a website called "Voter's guide" among pastors and congregations.
    The message was funded by the National Organization for Marriage Education Fund.
    Were's the separation between church and state?

    [youtube =]

  • 112. Richard A. Walter (s  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:02 am

    According to the NOMbies and the rest of their extremist, pseudo-religious, pseudo-conservative, pseudo-family ilk, the separation of church and state does not exist, and never has. Talk about rewriting history!

  • 113. [email protected]  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:58 am

    Another Q:

    In a debate with Toby (his last name escapes me) on CNN, why did Maggie Gallagher declare that she is "okay" with Civil Unions when she has also stated that CUs and DPs 'erode the status" of marriage, and that NOM was presently waging an anti-Gay campaign seeking to overturn Washington state's new 'everything but marriage" CU law? Why did Maggie, in this instance, lie to the American public on national TV? Shouldn't NOM be more honest in the public s[here and declare that they not only oppose Marriage Equality, but *also* Civil Unions as well? Gallagher has even penned a rather odd article in which she reflects on a question asked by a NOM supporter who wanted to know why Maggie doesn't do the "PC"-thing and support CUs as an alternative to marriage. Gallagher didn't give the response she gave; instead, however, Maggie explains that if she had thought of it at that time, she would have whipped out her birth certificate and said, "This is what makes me free…though I may or may not die free!"

    Also, why does Gallagher and NOM perpetuate the implication via fear-mongering that NOM and their supporter's alleged 'religious freedoms" is predicated on the oppression of the Gay community's civil rights?

  • 114. The Hammer  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:59 am

    Mr. Brown, how do you reconcile lying with your religious beliefs? Do you feel it's okay to lie about the facts as long as you can say a Hail Mary three times and be absolved of sin?

  • 115. [email protected]  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:01 am

    Here's another bad ass Q:

    Do you think that what you are advocating is harmful to Gay people? According to the APA over successive reports, even a recent article published this year in the academic "Journal of Counseling" so-called "marriage amendments" are psychologically harmful to the psychic well-being of Gay people, causing PTSD, as well as depression in most instances.

  • 116. [email protected]  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:05 am

    Why did Maggie Gallagher declare, on a Catholic radio program, that heterosexual supporters of Marriage Equality are committing a sin?

  • 117. Jim  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:05 am

    Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) has 12 chapters in Iowa. What message would you like to deliver to the Iowa parents of gays and lesbians?

  • 118. [email protected]  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:09 am

    Why is NOM's and Maggie Gallagher's position that Gay people should try and acquire equality by ensuring that existing laws work to protect the Gay community when NOM would only fight against those attempts, as well as their record has shown? Why does NOM insistently lie to the American people on national television?

  • 119. Anonygrl  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:12 am

    In all of the jurisdictions now permitting same sex marriage, either domestic or abroad, your dire predictions on the failure of the institute of marriage have been proven false. There are no jumps in the rates of divorce or out of wedlock births, no fall off in the number of marriages, in fact, in many places, there have been positive effects on heterosexual marriage following the legalization of same sex marriage. How can you justify your continuing claims of the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage when absolutely none of it is coming to pass?

  • 120. [email protected]  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:35 am

    Well, according to Gallagher, we need to wait 2 or more generations of growing up with Marriage equality to see the ill effects!

  • 121. nightshayde  |  October 26, 2010 at 7:15 am

    Of course, if kids are breeding at 15 or 16 rather than waiting until they're in their 30s to reproduce, those generations come about more quickly.

    I have a friend whose mother was a grandma at the age of 34. I didn't even become a mother until 35.

  • 122. Kathleen  |  October 26, 2010 at 7:50 am

    My grandmother became a grandparent at age 31 and a great grandmother at age 46.

  • 123. Kate  |  October 26, 2010 at 7:52 am

    And I say a damned good thing, too; otherwise, we'd still be waiting for Kathleen to come along.

  • 124. Kathleen  |  October 26, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Awww. xoxox

  • 125. [email protected]  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:14 am

    Why does Maggie Gallagher insistently imply through her various articles and speeches over the years that she wants a culture that endorses and allows discrimination against gay people allowed in the public realm so long as all that is required of the person doing to discrimination is to invoke his or her"religion"?

  • 126. Kathleen  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:16 am

    Ask Brian Brown to comment on being told by Peter Yarrow, Noel Paul Stookey and John Mellencamp to stop using their music and ask if he (Brian Brown) intends to stop associating supporters of equality with NOM's bigoted message.

    As an aside, you could suggest that Ted Nugent would likely be happy to record a version of "This Land Is Your Land" that NOM et al can use at rallies.

  • 127. Joel  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:19 am

    Why are you and your organization so diligent in demonizing people whose actions and behaviors have no discernible impact on your own life? If you hated Brussels sprouts, would you become an anti-Brussels sprouts activist? Would you try to pass legislation outlawing Brussels sprouts?

    Why do you discount any faith other than your own?

    Are you aware that enacting marriage equality will NOT impact the number of heterosexuals who marry and/or have children?

    What would you say to a five year old child who asks you "Why don't you want my parents to be able to get married?"

  • 128. [email protected]  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:42 am

    In response to your third Q, Joel, NOM is well aware of this. Rather, they want heterosexuals to feel a sense of "pride" in being only a limited sect that meets the qualifications of those who can legally marry. After all, according to Gallagher, even CUs and DDPs 'erodes the status" of marriage!

  • 129. Anonygrl  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:21 am

    What would you do if one of your children came out to you and said he was gay? Further, what would you do if that same son told you he loved someone so deeply that he wished to marry him?

  • 130. Anonygrl  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:28 am

    You've seen us. You've met us. You've heard about our families, our children, the rights we are denied, the struggles we face trying to care for each other because of your work. You know that we are reviled, beaten, excluded, harrassed, bullied and killed by the people who pay your salary. Do you truly believe that your words and your campaigns cause no harm?

  • 131. Jim  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Do you think the religious right is ever wrong?

  • 132. Jim  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:32 am

    Do you think citizens should be allowed to vote on whether to retain or fire federal judges?

  • 133. Papa Foma  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:46 am

    To understand why religious type people have no guilt read pages 133-134.

    'God forgives me so I can do whatever I want.' In a nutshell.

  • 134. Papa Foma  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:47 am

    It is useless to use the Bible when talking to Fundamentalists according to Altemeyer because most do not even read it.

    Page 136

  • 135. Papa Foma  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:51 am

    What Ronnie keeps saying… (Read more to find the actual factual Nazi-like connection! Page 140)

    "Summary: So What Does All This Amount To?

    … They are highly submissive to established authority, aggressive in the name of that authority, and conventional to the point of insisting everyone should behave as their authorities decide. They are fearful and self-righteous and have a lot of hostility in them that they readily direct toward various out-groups. They are easily incited, easily led, rather un-inclined to think for themselves, largely impervious to facts and reason, and rely instead on social support to maintain their beliefs. They bring strong loyalty to their in-groups, have thick-walled, highly compartmentalized minds, use a lot of double standards in their judgments, are surprisingly unprincipled at times, and are often hypocrites.

    But they are also Teflon-coated when it comes to guilt. They are blind to themselves, ethnocentric and prejudiced, and as closed-minded as they are narrowminded. They can be woefully uninformed about things they oppose, but they prefer ignorance and want to make others become as ignorant as they. They are also surprisingly uninformed about the things they say they believe in, and deep, deep, deep down inside many of them have secret doubts about their core belief. But they are very happy, highly giving, and quite zealous. In fact, they are about the only zealous people around nowadays in North America, which explains a lot of their success in their endless (and necessary) pursuit of converts."

  • 136. Richard A. Walter (s  |  October 26, 2010 at 6:55 am

    And those few who do never bother to study the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, Chaldean, and koine Greek in which this book was written, nor do they bother doing a thorough study of the history and culture of the oriental regions in which it was written, and in which the events listed there took place. One of the biggest evidences of this is all the pictures you see that their painters have done of Rabbi Yoshua ben Yosef of Nazareth. Anyone of the ancestry of this man could never in a million years have passed himself or herself off as what we call white. Nor would that person have had the slim WASP-ish nose so often portrayed in those paintings. The painting JJ did on Good Times was closer to reality.

  • 137. fiona64  |  October 26, 2010 at 7:06 am

    ROFLOL … we did a roleplaying exercise with our local Marriage Equality group once. We drew lots to see who would play the pro-equality person and the anti-equality person, so that people could practice their talking points.

    When I drew the anti-equality lot, and my character was one of those "it's in the Bible" types, I came out with chapter and verse on my side.

    The pastor who was observing said, flat-out, that I knew the Bible better than any anti-equality person who would ever use that argument — because they generally just know "it's in there somewhere, and so it's bad."

    My husband's translation of the matter: "They don't have to actually know their scriptures; they just have to believe whatever their minister told them was in it."


  • 138. Gregory in SLC  |  October 26, 2010 at 10:13 am

    Good thread Papa Foma , Richard and Fiona! Thank you!

  • 139. Bryan Del Rizzo  |  October 26, 2010 at 7:05 am

    Seriously, why do we care what their response is? Why do we continue to spend so much ink and time wondering what they think?

    We already know what they think. They are bigots through and through. Religious bigots to boot.

    Their opinions don't matter. The only thing that matters is that their ilk must be identified for what they truly are and what they truly represent. Bigotry.

  • 140. fiona64  |  October 26, 2010 at 7:08 am

    While it is true that you can never change the mind of the zealot, part of what we are about here is to get the "moveable middle" to put on their critical thinking caps and look at the illogic of the NOMbies.


  • 141. Lodi Gal  |  October 26, 2010 at 8:28 am

    I think there is one shot at changing their mind. Based on the research it looks like they have an Achilles Heel–their absolute need to feel "normal" or "average". There was a study published last week that 2/3 of the public believes that fundamentalist churches are directly responsible for the rash of gay teen suicides. I used that in talking to a hater at work today–"The public at large views you as responsible for killing children." You should have seen the look on his face. He had no comeback. We need to make them feel far outside of the mainstream. They hate that.

  • 142. Felyx  |  October 26, 2010 at 9:17 am

    Awesome comment Lodi. That is the kind of thing we need to hear. Actual ways to make significant improvements. Coming out as gay and pointing out public opinion are two ways to make the change we need.

    Thank you!

  • 143. Gregory in SLC  |  October 26, 2010 at 11:19 am

    GUILT (about responsible for suicides) can be a motivator to change zealot minds…

    As guilt has never worked on me, it took something MUCH more powerful to "convert" me to accept LGBTQQ relationships and families as equal to all others….the power of LOVE.

    I met my hubby and instantly all the years of Evergreen, church, family socialization melted away. I finally KNEW what true love was…that mysterious romantic, heart-aching thing that had previously eluded me…..that wonder that I had been looking for in ALL the wrong places…

    Love for a child, brother, sister, daughter, son, neighbor, friend can change minds…. what better example of this than our dear Mormon Moms, Arisha or other allies. So far, the only persons from "the other side" that will even listen to me are those I show compassion, understanding, acceptance and love towards. I feel our attorney's Ted Olson and David Debois operate from a place of love and this is why we are winning in the court room.

    Love to all –

    p.s.s. – or there's always "The Hundred Monkey Effect" that migh work on Nombies (wink! wink!)

  • 144. Bob  |  October 26, 2010 at 9:04 am

    so the route we''re taking to get at the moveable middle is to confront NOM, follow them around and ask questions with hopes of getting the answers in the main stream media, because otherwise, we're only going to see the video on this site.

    Are there othes ways of connecting with the moveable middle?

    I like Lodi Gal's example of talking points in her workplace.

    that answers nightshades observation "People in their day-to -day lives, are never expected or encouraged to question what's being taught to them" (only if we don't confront them there, and ask questions)

    How bout some info on grassroots campaigns which the Obama camp is famous for, joining in on the ground floor , manning phones and talking to people, knocking on doors,

    At the present time CC has done an amazing job of exosing NOM and there partners, but this close to election time, more people need to be underground, in the trenches, actually identifying the "moveable middle" and devising alliances and providing means to help these people get to the polling booths, The Democrats are working on mass donations, $3 dollars a pop, can you imagine how many people that takes, to compete against the big dollars fo the business tycoons, and Catholic Churches from around the globe pouring their money secretly into buying America.

    grassroots old fashioned, in your street in your nieghbourhood, it would be good to focus there how many days till the election?????

    could we get some reporting on people who are volunteering in their communities at the polling booths for the election?

  • 145. Richard A. Walter (s  |  October 26, 2010 at 9:49 am

    Bob, if you want a grassroots organization to get in contact with, go to and sign up as a local organizer. You will be very glad you did.

  • 146. Bob  |  October 26, 2010 at 10:20 am

    great response Richard, wow what an amazing job they've done with the website, I e-mailed see what I can do from Canada.

    I'm asking if there are any similar type intiatives to get people working on the election campaigns. any from this site.

    woot woot to feedequality, amazing, ongoing service waiting to hear back from them. all of you did an amazing job

  • 147. nightshayde  |  October 26, 2010 at 7:13 am

    We care because we hope that with enough questioning, they'll pop out a response that somehow contrasts their talking points. We want them to stop and think about the meanings of the things they're saying rather than just giving lip service to whatever canned responses they have.

    We want to point out that the way they think is not the ONLY way to think … and we want to point out to those who blindly follow them that what they think isn't the ONLY way to think.

    People who, in their day-to-day lives, are never expected or encouraged to question what's being taught to them (i.e. kids in anti-equality church-based schools, but others as well) grow up simply accepting that whatever their parents/teachers/clergy has told them must be true. They're taught that their beliefs aren't to be questioned — and that everyone believes what they're supposed to believe. Once they encounter other people with other viewpoints and other experiences, they have to decide whether to stay in their own mind-controlled little bubbles or whether they should start to think on their own.

  • 148. Richard A. Walter (s  |  October 26, 2010 at 9:03 am

    And that, Bryan, is exactly why it is so important to formulate and pose these questions to them and get their evasions on camera–so that people will see them for who and what they really are.

  • 149. Ronnie  |  October 26, 2010 at 8:07 am

    Speaking of bullying & schools….Is the the kind of board of education member tax payers want making descions for their children's well being?……Brian Brown enables & festers bigots like this…this is exactly the kind of detritus that follows NOM etc etc ….

    be prepared, the "F" to the "T" word is used a lot…..

    Statements along the same line as what he has said, minus the "F" word, has been said not only by every regular posting on NOM's Protect Marriage Facebook page but the Admin as well about the innocent kids who took their lives…..I would not be surprised if he is one of NOM's sheeple….

    Wake up Arkansas citizens…here is your hard earned tax money being used to promote murder, violence & advocate teen & child suicide….. >( ….Ronnie

  • 150. Leo  |  October 26, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    1. What level of official recognition would be granted to same-sex families under the best legal system you can imagine?
    2. Do states have the right to define what constitutes civil marriage? How about countries?

  • 151. Max Voltage SF  |  October 26, 2010 at 2:42 pm


    Intersex people are people, who completely due to reasons of biology, are neither women (XX) or men (XY). As such, they have no simple (or even complicated) opposite sex.

    Is it the position of NOM, that Intersex folks should be utterly & completely barred from marriage of any sort?

  • 152. Chris From CO  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:00 pm

    I met a couple that I was very jelous of and a bit angry with I have been with my partner only for four years. We are constantly talking about marriage. When it is legal we will be married. One night we were out and met this couple that was were two trannyies. He was born a women and she was born a man. Both of them are in the stage with hormones and such he has breast and im not quit sure if he has you know what. But when I thought about this I couldnt believe it by all means they meet the requirments of marriage they were born of the oppisite sex and when it is over they will still be the oppisit sex. Im not trying to through a tranny under the bus but the question should be discussed how will the oppisition to gay marriage react to things like this and does it show them how rediculous this whole thing is when we start making sex organs the basis of marriage. Shouldnt love take the front seat.

  • 153. fiona64  |  October 27, 2010 at 1:43 am

    I have it on pretty good authority (directly from my transgender friends) that "tranny" is an offensive way to refer to such folk.

    Other than that, I agree with your points.


  • 154. Homophobia much? Video, e&hellip  |  October 26, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    […] Unfortunately, that means he effectively escaped having to answer the questions we brainstormed yesterday for him. […]

  • 155. Varika  |  October 26, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    How can you, as an organization, in good conscience promote an institution which the founder of your religion declared to be only for those who were too weak of flesh to resist?

  • 156. Coxygru  |  October 26, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    Why don't NOM and its financiers seem to care about turnout for their 3 bus tours? There is a noticeable lack of PR effort. The consistently low turnout oddly contrasts with the effort it takes to put the buses on the road.

  • 157. Richard A. Walter (s  |  October 26, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    The low turnout fits right in with their victim complex, and allows them to play up for their sheeple how very persecuted they are, and how they are the ones being harmed because they are so afraid of us. Remember, these are the people who said we went to one of their summer rallies "armed" with balloons and umbrellas. And let us not forget the "attack dogs." You know, the two Labradors that we found out would only attack their food bowls.

  • 158. Anonygrl  |  October 27, 2010 at 12:08 am

    The bus tour is not important. It is a smoke screen, by spending money on it, they can justify the "educational" end of their tax exempt status, and that lets them spend tons of money on tv ads, which is what actually accomplishes things.

    Sadly, while the tours make them look like doofuses, not enough people get that part of the message. Which is why what the tour trackers do is so important. The more who know what a farce this is, the better off we all are.

  • 159. Kathryne  |  October 27, 2010 at 4:39 am

    If you believe homosexuality is a choice, will you defend your argument and prove to us that it is by giving Dan Savage a blow job and really liking it, and then flip the switch again and go back to being hetero?

  • 160. Dennis Ridge  |  October 27, 2010 at 6:51 am

    Here are a couple of questions to ask them:
    1) What name is on the check that paid for the bus?
    2) How is this creating more jobs for those out of work?

  • 161. NOM’s Brian Brown: &hellip  |  October 27, 2010 at 10:42 am

    […] We were expecting this interview in Winterset to be the first installment of several exchanges throughout the week, but then Brown abruptly left the tour after Day 1. It’s too bad Brian left the tour before we could ask him these hard questions brainstormed by Courage staff and the P8TT community (in the comments). […]

  • 162. Miguel  |  December 22, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    is the best =D

    Sincerest Regards

    Davidoff Deliciosos

  • 163. Anonymous  |  January 19, 2014 at 6:23 pm

    My brother recommended I might like this web site.
    He was totally right. This post truly made my day. You cann’t
    imagine simply how much time I had spent for this information!

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