Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Is same-sex marriage inevitable? Maybe not, says the ADF after Iowa

NOM Tour Tracker-Iowa Right-wing

Cross-posted at Good As You.

By Jeremy Hooper

The Alliance Defense Fund’s David French is using the Iowa judicial retention vote to question whether same-sex marriage is actually inevitable:

I don’t have my head in the sand. I see the poll data indicating that young people increasingly support same-sex marriage, but I also believe that much of that support is soft — dependent on the unique peer pressures and ideological environment on college campuses. Once students emerge into the “real world” will they be so willing to further experiment with an institution already so damaged by no-fault divorce and cohabitation? We shall see.

But until then, can we please hold off on the “inevitable” talk until same-sex marriage can actually win elections?

If Same-Sex Marriage is Allegedly Inevitable . . . [Speak Up blog]

But here’s the thing: The Iowa judge vote was a battle between one hyper-motivated, highly-funded, out-of-state-supported coalition solely focused on the single issue of same-sex marriage vs. everyone else in the state. That hyper-motivated coalition told supporters that they had to cast a non-retention vote to send a message and/or appease god. They told supporters that this was the most important vote in Iowa, if not the nation. Meanwhile, the ragtag “everyone else” coalition did not have one unifying message, since it included marriage equality supporters who supported the judges, marriage equality supporters who opposed retention for other reasons, indifferent voters, apathetic voters, gay marriage non-supporters who weren’t involved with the “Iowa For Freedom” campaign (and therefore either retained or not for a myriad of other reasons), people who forgot to turn their ballot over, people who didn’t give a damn enough to vote on retention, young voters who always turn out at disproportionately low rates (esp. in midterm elections), etc. etc. So of course the deck was stacked towards non-retention! This site, which covered the IFF campaign with the finest of fine tooth combs, felt that way from the very beginning.

The retention vote was only a same-sex marriage test for the anti-LGBT crowd that turned it into one! In a perfect Iowa, citizens of any political stripe or sexual orientation would have been free to follow their own minds and do their own research into the judges’ full records, then cast whatever vote was on their conscience for whatever reason. The judge vote, by its very design, should not have been politicized in any way. There certainly shouldn’t have been a national takeaway about whether or not gay Americans will ever be free to resume their lives from the pause they’ve had to place on it in order to fight this needless marriage battle. But the anti-gay crowd, ever in search of a vindictive “harumph!” against equality and the supposed “judicial activism” that decides in its favor, turned Streit/Baker/Ternus’ careers into a lopsided us vs. them game. We only had to play along because of their own choice to roll the discriminatory dice.

The truly remarkable thing to this writer’s eyes: That people like David French keep coming out and fully admitting that they wanted this to be a de facto referendum on same-sex marriage. At first these kids were more coy about it, seemingly realizing that the concept was anti-intellectual and anti-judicious. But now they seem to fully embrace it. Perhaps a majority of Americans will go along with this bizarrely revelatory ride, offering up a “right on!” to this undeniably shortsighted misuse of one state’s retention system — stranger things have happened. But I know if I were politically consulting their side, I’d advise toning down the out-of-state gloating that’s been de rigueur in the “protect marriage” movement since Wednesday morning.

Though the beauty part: Since I’m instead working to educate and embolden the team that values judicial fairness, equal protection, due process, intellectual assessment of careers rather than solitary decisions, church/state separation, and state votes that are less like games of Moral Monopoly and more like exercises in moving the jurisdiction along its civil course, I can I come out and say: Keep talking, judge-ousters! After all, an obfuscator’s overplayed hand often has a way of speeding up inevitability’s predestined arrival.


  • 1. phillykarl  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:35 am

    me first…

  • 2. StraightForEquality  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:37 am

    Me next!

  • 3. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:35 am

    Absolutely inevitable.

  • 4. phillykarl  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:39 am

    Unless WW III comes and sends the country back into a tribal bronze age again. I think that's what the conservative movement is planning for. If civilization moves forward I think marriage equality is inevitable, but I need it sooner, rather than later.

  • 5. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:27 am

    Seem in Utah the local population doesn't think "its inevitable" but I love hearing voices here stating emphatically "inevitable". Thanks for reality check : )

  • 6. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:54 am

    Even if WWIII happens, so long as I'm still around, I'll be happy to perform marriage ceremonies for anyone who wants one.

    Inevitable? Yea, I think so.

  • 7. JonT  |  November 8, 2010 at 6:10 am

    'Is same-sex marriage inevitable? '

    Oh absolutely. Who cares what 'ADF' thinks.

  • 8. Sagesse  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:41 am

    In their well funded dreams. Subscribing to read later.

  • 9. phillykarl  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:42 am

    Any one know of the status of the Massachusetts DOMA appeal? I think its going to the 1st circuit court of appeals..

  • 10. Kathleen  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:47 am

  • 11. Ann S.  |  November 8, 2010 at 2:17 am


  • 12. Ronnie  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:57 am

    100%, without a doubt & historically proven to be inevitable….<3…Ronnie

  • 13. Bob Barnes  |  November 8, 2010 at 2:06 am

    One word—Propaganda

    Iowa just had their version of Prop 8, out-of-state influence, moderate/young voters stayed home. Not sure, but I doubt this could happen again. The upside, let them say things to develop complacency.

  • 14. Tracy  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:12 am

    This was even worse than Prop 8 though in several ways. Prop 8 and similar laws are a disease, and the courts are the cure. By attacking the courts, NOM not only helps spread the disease, but it works to eliminate the only cure.

    Please forgive me for the comparison, but if the judicial system is like the immune system of our country that fights against social and cultural disease, then NOM is acting like, well — AIDS.

    At least Prop 8 had a NO campaign as well as a Yes campaign. These unfortunate Iowa judges refused to politicize their positions, refused to put up a fight (to their credit), and were subjected to a one-sided onslaught of negative campaign ads.

  • 15. Bob  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:25 am

    like that comparison Tracy, and may I point out the success in the AIDS battle came from a local group that formed called ACT-UP, they made a noise brought people's focus to the issue,

    those not affected by SSM may be asleep about the larger issue, but we know don't we, it's the purpose and call of the Rainbow Tribe to ACT-UP in doing so those with brains and hearts will take up the cause.

  • 16. grod  |  November 8, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    @Bob Barnes
    "Not sure, I doubt this could happen again'. Bob, what say you to 90 out of 99 counties voted No to retention of these three judges. Seventy four judges were on the ballots statewide, only these three Judges were removed. As you suggested, 94% of persons between the ages of 18 and 30 did not vote, but the overall turnout was about norm for midterms. The leader of the Yes to retention (former Governor R. Ray) was thought to have significantly more savvy that the leader of the Non (Soiux City former principal Vander Plaats ). Apparently there was out of state money on both sides, but 3/4 of monies was spent by the No’s. Perhaps the Yes side did not try to match funding/advertising. YES’ framed the question as supporting judicial independence; NOs framed the question an supporting judicial restraint on matters of civil rights (i.e. marriage). Both sides valued civil rights.
    If defeats could happen in California, Maine and Iowa, it could and likely will happen again.

  • 17. Bob Barnes  |  November 11, 2010 at 1:46 am

    grod, let me rephrase that, I doubt that it will happen twice in the same state/district/area. As with Prop8, I believe it's a "fool me once…."

  • 18. Alan E.  |  November 8, 2010 at 2:23 am

    I guess there were people also worried about gun rights in Iowa, but that campaign wasn't nearly as vocal as the marriage between same-sex couples issue.

  • 19. Richard A. Walter (s  |  November 8, 2010 at 2:26 am

    We must also remember that this particular group is one of the number of groups that is working so diligently for the ultimate goal of taking this nation away from the citizens and giving it to the theocracy leaders.

  • 20. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 8, 2010 at 2:39 am

    Jeremy wrote: That hyper-motivated coalition told supporters that they had to cast a non-retention vote to send a message and/or appease god.

    Jeremy where and when did NOM ever say the vote against the judges was to appease God?
    I would dearly love to read that

  • 21. Ronnie  |  November 8, 2010 at 2:49 am

    Another innocent kid took his own life because of anti-gay bulling who was perceived to be Gay….

    November 6, 2010
    Friends: Bullying led to tragedy
    Midd-West mourns third student death in 8 months
    By Tricia Pursell
    The Daily Item

    MIDDLEBURG — Students at Midd-West High School cried out against bullying Friday as they mourned the loss of a classmate who in the early morning hours walked about 13 miles from his home to Routes 11-15, where he ran in front of a southbound tractor-trailer after leaving a suicide note at his home.

    Freshman Brandon Bitner, 14, of Mount Pleasant Mills, ran in front of the truck at 3 a.m. near Liverpool, according to state police at Newport.

    There seems to be little doubt in the students’ minds why Bitner did what he did.

    “It was because of bullying,” friend Takara Jo Folk wrote in a letter to The Daily Item.

    “It was not about race, or gender, but they bullied him for his sexual preferences and the way he dressed. Which,” she said, “they wrongly accused him of.”

    (me)…more evidence that it is homophobia that is the problem….NOT the Equality Civil Rights Movement as Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, Tony Perkins, etc etc would have anti-gay/Equality/Freedom people believe….

    : ( …..Ronnie

  • 22. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 8, 2010 at 3:04 am

    Thanks for letting us know Ronnie

    Rest in peace Brandon………

  • 23. Tracy  |  November 8, 2010 at 3:07 am

    Congratulations, Brian Brown, et al… how much blood will you have on your hands when you finally realize you are accomplishing little more than killing children?

  • 24. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:58 am

    Maggie, too. Keep washing those hands, Mags.

    Rest in Peace, Brandon.

  • 25. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:22 am

    : (

  • 26. Bob  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:05 am

    RIP Brandon, people don't agree with the action you took, but it was an action non the less, walking 13 miles and throwing yourself in front of a truck, somehow you arrived at that decision, forgoing any false comforts the world has to offer, the only option you saw to accomplish your longing for love and acceptance was to end your physical existance in a world that didn't acknowledge your spriitual desire for love acceptance , justice, equality. I am so sorry that as adults, we have not been able to create this ability to nurture each other's hunger for acceptance.
    I often wonder what's on the other side of this life waiting, if the atheists are right and there is nothing, in an individual situation no harm done, just a strong message that what you where expeiencing wasn't worth the effort in this lifetime in this world.
    If their is a God, or a life after, and your spirit lives on, joy to you for making it home, to bow out of this ifgnorant display of christianity, removing yourself from the misguided judgement of men, and placing yourself before the only judge, to find PEACE in this case you have found what you hunger for, GOD is LOVE

  • 27. JonT  |  November 8, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Added to the list:

    Another dead kid, courtesy of NOM, FRC, FOtF, and their like minded partners in crime.


  • 28. Tracy  |  November 8, 2010 at 2:59 am

    How can NOM flood the air waves with "Vote NO", "Vote NO", "Vote NO", like a never-ending mantra, and then when people "Vote NO", claim that – hey look, Iowans voted their conscience. Iowans decided they didn't like having a right to SSM "invented" out of thin air.

    The anti-judge campaign by NOM amounted to little more than mass brainwashing. Like most cults, however, people will eventually wake up to its tactics.

  • 29. Tracy  |  November 8, 2010 at 3:03 am

    The only thing this vote proved is that Iowans watch too much TV.

  • 30. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:35 am

    Interesting insight Tracy !

  • 31. Mouse  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:47 am

    Let's start a campaign to buy DVRs for all Iowans so they don't have to sit through commercials and can't be brainwashed that way by NOM again.

  • 32. Rhie  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Ok,. had to laugh at that.

    The truth is, no one is impervious to culture, peer pressure or ads. The worst are people who think they are because they won't stop and question what they think they want to do. That's what happened here and in CA with Prop 8 and here with I-1098.

    A funny story about that phenomenon of people absolutely swearing advertising has no effect on any of their decisions ever:

    My boyfriend's mom worked a recycling plant before it was all automated. She would be there to accept donations and sort them. For a few months, a good commercial for a beer company was on the TV. Of course, she got a lot of bottles from that company coming through. Whenever she mentioned something about the people liking those commercials they swore up and down that it had NOTHING to do with it at ALL. They liked the beer they swore…except this was the first time they ever brought those bottles.

  • 33. Bob  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:19 am

    yes those air waves, polluted, that was the real attack, the bus tour did nothing, we have video evidence of it's fail, while they where working non stop infiltrating minds on a grander scale,

  • 34. Jeffrey Davis  |  November 8, 2010 at 3:07 am

    The damage groups like NOM do is astounding. Now people think that you fire judges for doing what they were hired to do: interpret the constitution. This is a fundamental recrafting of our judicial system, and NOM knows it. They hurt families, they hurt gay teens, and not they're attacking judges. Bizarre and shameful. Anita Bryant actually is pleasant compared to Maggie Gallagher!

  • 35. Mouse  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:48 am

    I would like to have those judges stories told in a personal way, exposing the human beings behind the "activist judges" NOM was attacking. Let's show NOM the people whose lives they have ruined.

  • 36. Tracy  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:50 am

    NOM's people have to have hearts, first.

  • 37. Bob  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:42 am

    Tracy read Crazy for God,, those people have hearts, but their minds have been brainwashed so that their hearts are no fully operational,

    The messge Mouse suggests, could be directed to those people who are not NOMbies, forget them, touch the hearts of people who are capable of unaltered connection with true emotions. The middle ground and affirming churches

  • 38. Tracy  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:47 am

    Agreed. My above comment, tongue-in-cheek, just comes from my never ending frustration with those people.

  • 39. Bob  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:16 am

    Great idea Mouse, tell thier stories, show their families, I like that and the idea of holding a vigil in thier honor.

  • 40. Ronnie  |  November 8, 2010 at 3:11 am

    Janet Jackson talks about bullying on Larry King Live…<3…Ronnie:

  • 41. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 8, 2010 at 10:05 am

    Woohoo Janet!

    Sorta on-topic: we had our annual United Way meeting a few weeks ago at work. Our company matches employee donations 50%. I couldn't afford too much, but I'm sending my money and my employer's to the Trevor Project, starting the first pay period in January.

  • 42. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 9, 2010 at 2:36 am

    Great idea Chris! I've donated to the United Way for years. I'll see if I can redirect my funds too.

  • 43. Bill  |  November 8, 2010 at 3:42 am

    I wonder how the Iowa campaign compares with the Rose Bird recall from the CA Supreme Court many years ago. I think that issue was the death penalty.

  • 44. Ann S.  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:05 am

    The issue was ostensibly the death penalty; in reality it was her supposed anti-business rulings.

    It's possible something similar is going on here.

  • 45. Sagesse  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:09 am


    This article addresses your point.

    Bench Strength

  • 46. Mackenzie  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:18 am

    Aside from all of the wrong information espoused by this epic failure of a person, there is one glaring inaccuarcy that I noticed. People do not experiment in college to decide later that they no longer support their gay friends who would like marriage. That is just ridiculous, I know my friends that support my now, will support me 10-20-forever down the road. This is coming if you like it or not. But nice of you to try and make your h8ers feel better at least for the time being.

  • 47. Rhie  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    It's a common lie. "Well, wait til you have a family and have kids…you'll get more conservative!" is the absolute favorite line of my Dad's to anything I say lately.

  • 48. Ann S.  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    It's been the opposite for me.

  • 49. Rhie  |  November 9, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Yea me too. But, then, I am only 28 …

  • 50. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 9, 2010 at 9:35 am

    @ "opposite for me"
    D.I.T.T.O. times a million! LOL!

  • 51. Kathleen  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    I got married and had kids. My views are as liberal as ever, maybe even more so now that I understand the world a bit better than I did when I was younger.

  • 52. fiona64  |  November 9, 2010 at 5:23 am

    I got married, chose not to have kids — and have become more liberal as I got older … for exactly the same reason Kathleen cites.


  • 53. eDee  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:20 am

    Very much inevitable. So inevitable that it’s really not worth their efforts.
    If someone can grow up as brainwashed as I and still become an ally there is no hope for their side.
    There is too much information out there, the world is getting smaller and more and more people aren’t hiding who they are any longer. Church was a community, for some the only place to connect with others – people are now finding that community online – the Jones’s are dead!

  • 54. Bob Barnes  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:23 am


    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has declined to step into a lesbian custody dispute between a woman who has renounced her homosexuality and her onetime partner.

    The justices on Monday turned down an appeal from Lisa Miller, the biological mother of an 8-year-old girl. Miller wanted the court to undo a Virginia court decision allowing Janet Jenkins visitation rights with the girl.

    Very disappointing, huh? So how can Brian get these justices removed?

  • 55. James in Hollywood  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:26 am

    It's inevitable. We have a growing number of allies and diminishing fear of our opponents. It will happen.

  • 56. grod  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:45 am

    @James in Hollywood
    You can make a difference!
    Award winning author Jimmy Nguyen warns about compliancy in an opinion piece on the Iowan judges in the Advocate Nov 7: Their ouster….should also serve as a powerful reminder for why the LGBT community must help ensure the independent strength of the judicial bench. ….The LGBT community should take notice. Like all minority segments, we cannot rely just on legislators and elected officials (who of course win office only with majority support) to protect our rights. ….Gays and lesbians need to care deeply about preserving an independent judiciary. We need to defend judges who are attacked merely for upholding Constitutional principles of equal protection and due process. We need to support justices who decide cases based upon what they believe in their hearts and minds is right under the law, not based on fear of losing their jobs. We need to help ensure there is strength in the bench.

    Compliancy often arises from a sense that "It's inevitable." A sense of inevitability can shape a mindset that little active – individually or collectively – needs to be done.

  • 57. Bob  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:36 am

    grod, thanks for the warning about compliancy, we must counter the sense tht "it's invevitable" by "if we act to make it so" actions, individual , group, forming coalitions, even simple actions like meditataion, and creating the vision first in our own minds, which form the intentions behind our actions, inevitability is connected to thought, we must learn that it is not something which occurs on it's own, so that we just sit and wait for it's arrival, we call it to ourselves, form it first in our thoughts. and use our actions to achieve it.

  • 58. Ray in MA  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:19 am

    oops… Complacency?

  • 59. Bob  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:29 am

    Thanks Ray, I was thinking of that while I typed, but really when you think about it, in this case either word would suffice.

    at least I saw the similarities, but thanks for the spell check

  • 60. Ray in MA  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Bad habit from the days when I was the last one standing in catholic school spelling bee's!

  • 61. eDee  |  November 8, 2010 at 6:02 am

    @James in Hollywood "growing number of allies"
    The growing number of allies are coming from the courage of LGBT’s coming out of hiding.
    It's easy to hate and misunderstand until it's in your family. When your favorite aunt or your brother comes out of the closet it does a lot to change peoples minds.

  • 62. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 8, 2010 at 10:09 am

    Yes! If you can, if it's safe to, coming out will help undo the climate of intolerance.

  • 63. Ronnie  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:52 am

    Members of Join The Impact staged a Homophobia kills Die-in at Boston South Station in Massachusetts……


  • 64. icapricorn  |  November 9, 2010 at 2:08 am


  • 65. Tracy  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:54 am

    I think the Courage Campaign needs to have its own nationwide bus tour — human interest not political. Paint your bus with 1-866-4UTREVOR, or "It gets better!" and make LGBT teen bullying and suicide a widely publicized national issue.

    People with their own teenagers will find this issue impossible to sweep under the rug if it's in their faces. Maybe we need a "Mothers Against Teen Suicide" campaign or something…

  • 66. Tracy  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:55 am

    The tragic deaths of these children ought not to be in vain – they ought to stand for something.

  • 67. Richard A. Walter (s  |  November 8, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    Or how about "Parents and Grandparents Against Bullicide"? That is actually what is happening. It is not suicide, it is bullicide.

  • 68. Tracy  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:03 am

    Alternatively, we pull a "sitting in the front of the bus" stunt; every LGBT couple in the country (or heck, LGBT allies as well) could line up at their courthouse on the same day and – one by one – apply for a marriage license. They will get turned down one after another, but it would sure make a statement.

  • 69. Ann S.  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:13 am

    For years my brother and his husband applied for marriage licenses every year on Feb. 14, and handed the clerk a red rose.

    I've told this story here before, but wth I'll tell it again.

    Every year the clerk would regretfully reply that the law did not allow her to issue them a license. If the law changed, she said, she would be happy to issue them a license.

    The day that they finally were able to marry, who was behind the counter but this same clerk? She was beside herself. Could hardly contain her excitement. "Ask me! Ask me!" she said. So they asked her.

    "The law has changed! And I am happy to issue you a license!"

    Just a small part of what was a wonderful, celebratory day for so many. Everyone at SF City Hall that day was full of smiles, down to the security guards.

  • 70. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:18 am

    I love this heartwarming story…particularly how everyone, even security guards smiling : ) How could they not smile when so many person who love each other are "in the house" I had not heard it before Ann…thank you for repeating!

  • 71. Ann S.  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:23 am

    Well, at the risk of boring everyone who's heard this before, I'll repeat a couple more tidbits from that day.

    Lovely women from the local UU church were handing out cupcakes. Some had pairs of Teddy Grahams on top, like mini-wedding cake toppers. Some were rainbow-colored. They were all given with a smile.

    Most of the weddings took place on the second floor, and then each newly married couple would descend down the grand marble main staircase in the rotunda. All of us who were in the rotunda would stop what we were doing and applaud and cheer them, although we didn't know them.

    Outside the Gay Men's Chorus sang, and later in the day a radio station was broadcasting their music live from in front. It was a big party, inside and outside.

    A wonderful day all around. I'm so happy to have been there.

  • 72. Kathleen  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:26 am

    I've heard the story several times and yet it still brings tears every time I hear it. Tears running down my face again…. thank you!

  • 73. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:33 am

    Can't wait for MANY more of these celebrations in City Halls across the country! I can imagine clearly what it will be like as the walls of discrimination crumble… INEVITABLE!

  • 74. Tracy  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:23 am

    I love this story — I hadn't heard it before, so thank you for repeating it. It's so uplifting and underscores the need to right the wrongs that NOM has "imposed" on all all LGBT people.

  • 75. Tracy  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:24 am

    And if you can't tell, there are few things that irritate me more these days than the phrase "impose gay marriage" or derivatives thereof.

  • 76. Ann S.  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:26 am

    Hear, hear!

  • 77. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:34 am


  • 78. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 8, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Ann S., don't ever stop telling this beautiful story! If every NOM publicity stunt was met with stories like your brother and brother-in-law's, NOMs soft support would erode leaving them powerless.

  • 79. Bob  |  November 8, 2010 at 6:49 am

    excellent idea, long line ups, block the system for a day , once a month, great way to act up….

  • 80. Tracy  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:26 am

    Exactly. Eventually something will have to be done about it!

  • 81. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:39 am

    So Robert and I have decide we sinoly can't wait any longer for marriage equality in our home state. We have decided to take a short trip back to Iowa (where we are both from) and get married on April 23rd 2011.
    We will have family and a few friends with us which will no doubt make for a lovely day for us.
    Ofcourse it will not be legal once we step outside of Iowa, but at least it will be recorded. Our repective pension services will be forced to recognize us as a married couple so at least some of the things we have been trying to get covered will be. If DADT ever gets repealed than maybe a couple more things will be solved for us.
    For those of you who have not heard my/our story I won't bore you with it here….short of saying that Robert is battling colon cancer and is fully attached to his oncology team here in Seattle which is why we can't just up and move to Iowa.

  • 82. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:41 am

    I need an edit button!!

    Should have read: "So Robert and I have decide we simply can’t wait any longer for marriage equality in our home state.

  • 83. Ann S.  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:45 am

    Mark — I'm happy you and Robert will be getting married. I'm so sorry it won't be recognized outside of Iowa. Hopefully we can change that, and soon.

  • 84. Kathleen  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:46 am

    I understood what you were saying. 🙂

    CONGRATULATIONS!!! I'm so happy that you're going to do this. I hope the trip isn't too difficult for Robert. I want LOTS of pictures!!!!

  • 85. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 8, 2010 at 6:00 am

    Will do what I can to get bunches of pictures.
    There's a sad story about the pictures from our 'Holy Union' ceremony back in 1988.
    One of my cousins said she wanted to have all the film developed for us as a wedding present, but than got so much negative input from other family that all the film was thrown into the fireplace and burned. We have 4 polaroids of our origonal ceremony. Pix this time are VERY important to us 🙂

  • 86. Ann S.  |  November 8, 2010 at 6:03 am

    Mark, that is so sad about the film from your ceremony! How awful. If she no longer wanted to develop the film, she obviously should have returned it to you.

  • 87. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:30 am

    She said that by returning it to us it would have been a sign of approval….UGH!!
    But so long ago now it no longer really bothers us…not really 🙂

  • 88. Ann S.  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:36 am

    So she let other people pressure her into changing from a position of support (wanting to give you a wedding gift) to censure. That's sad.

  • 89. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 8, 2010 at 6:16 am

    oh my goodness! (re: the pictures story) *shaking head* sorry Mark : (

  • 90. Richard A. Walter (s  |  November 8, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    I really wish BZ and I could be there. I would bring our handcam to record the ceremony for you guys, and would have LIghtScribe discs with me so that I could begin burning them before you guys left Iowa.

  • 91. Mark M  |  November 8, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    That's so sweet!

  • 92. Richard A. Walter (s  |  November 8, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    You guys deserve it. Everybody deserves to have video of their wedding, or in your case, your renewal of vows. Yes, you are already married, this is just to cover the legal bases, so I consider this a renewal ceremony. If you leave a note on the blog, I will email you our contact information. Would also like to be able to send you a DVD of our wedding (OMG, it's only 10 days away now!). One of our friends in PA that is going to CT with us is going to take pictures with the still camera, and another is operating the handcam. I still need to go to Staples and pick up some LIghtScribe DVD's to take with me, though.

  • 93. Ronnie  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:55 am


  • 94. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 8, 2010 at 6:01 am

    28 yrs engaged is long enough 🙂

  • 95. fiona64  |  November 9, 2010 at 5:22 am

    That's twice as long as Nathan Detroit and Miss Adelaide, you know.

    We're all gonna have to go shoot craps in the sewer now …


    Love and congratulations,

  • 96. Ann S.  |  November 9, 2010 at 5:29 am

    Sit down! You're rockin' the boat!

  • 97. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 10, 2010 at 10:37 am


  • 98. Bob  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:49 am

    Congratulations Mark and Robert, that's what you call taking action, you're doing something, I'm so happy for you, sending love cheers Bob

  • 99. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 8, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Thanks! 🙂

  • 100. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 8, 2010 at 10:18 am

    Congratulations! I have to smile extra, as it's the day before my birthday. 🙂 I'm so sorry to hear of Robert's cancer, though, and I wish you both that he recovers. Bless you both!

  • 101. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 9, 2010 at 5:03 am

    Thank you Chris 🙂

  • 102. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Thank you Ann. Hopefully it will be recognized Nationally soon. At least the pensions will be straightened out (pardon the expression), so that if and when Robert passes I won't be left eating cat food and homeless.
    NOM has no concept of just how hurtful what they do is…or maybe they do realize and are truly that evil as to not care.

  • 103. Tracy  |  November 8, 2010 at 6:03 am

    Congratulations to both of you! Regardless of what the law says, your marriage will have as much spiritual significance to each of you as in any other marriage. That matters a lot, especially in times of great difficulty.

    As for NOM, as much as I love to think they are evil (because it makes it so much easier to hate them that way), I think they truly are just so mentally twisted around the axle that they believe they are on the side of right. They do not see you as equal, because heterosexuality — to them — is a defining characteristic not only of marriage, but of being human. This makes me think their affliction is actually a form of mental impairment – an inability to recognize / accept reality, perhaps some form of delusional disorder.

    Either way, they need to be marginalized, because they are truly harmful to society and to wonderful couples like you who desire to have a life together!

  • 104. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:10 am

    Thank you Tracy. Our origonal 'marriage' was July 2nd 1988…on our 5 year anniversary. It will ALWAYS be our wedding day. this new ceremony will really only be for the legal issues. (as much as there are)
    Some days I feel true hatred for the NOMbies, but most days just sadness… Chriatian heart won't really let me hate them hate them…let's just say I dislike them A LOT!!!


  • 105. Tracy  |  November 8, 2010 at 8:10 am

    Mark — though the state may not have considered it a marriage, it was clearly a marriage! You two have been together longer than so many other married people, and have stuck with each other through sickness and health, richer or poorer, and forsaking all others.

    So you need not put marriage in quotes. 🙂 You are married. You are just waiting for your government to notice. 🙂

  • 106. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 8, 2010 at 8:21 am

    Thanks Tracy 😉

  • 107. Evelyn J. Brooks  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    I'm not sure I agree. I think there's something to be said about people who have dedicated their lives to what goes on in my bedroom. That kind of hate doesn't just pop out of nowhere for no reason. I think there's a strong deeply hidden sexual insecurity amongst many among the NOM supporters.

    If simple religious authority is the extent of it then there are so many things you can fight against. You can fight against diversity among school children with varying religious beliefs, you can fight for a national official religion, removal of the separation of church and state – but to center your life around someone's sexuality is…kind of CREEPY when you step back and observe it from a small distance.

  • 108. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 8, 2010 at 6:06 am

    That is good news to hear that pension issue will be resolved by getting married 🙂 I think about & worry about You and Robert often… * big sigh *

  • 109. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:48 am

    Thank you Gregory…your posts here always seem to bring a smile to my face and just as often a tear to my eye.
    You are a wonderful person!

  • 110. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 9, 2010 at 9:41 am

    ((HUGS)) Mark and Robert!

  • 111. Leo  |  November 8, 2010 at 6:49 am

    But until then, can we please hold off on the “inevitable” talk until same-sex marriage can actually win elections?

    Umm, no. Inevitability refers to future. When same-sex marriage wins elections, it won't be inevitable — it will have already happened.

  • 112. Kathlene  |  November 8, 2010 at 6:58 am

    The ironic part is that 2 of the judges voted out in Iowa are "conservative."

  • 113. Tracy  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Yes – the fact that the Iowa decision that started all this was unanimous speaks only to the fact that the decision was a no-brainer. In other words, any judge worth his/her salt, so to speak, would make the same decision given the same information, constitution and climate in Iowa at the time.

    Until NOM manages to get a politician with no training in the law appointed to the bench, hopefully that fact will remain so.

  • 114. Tracy  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:54 am

    I do have to admit though, that I am shaken to the core by the ease with which NOM manipulated the minds and votes of Iowan citizens. Iowans failed to see the irony that NOM stole / hijacked their votes as surely as if it had been taken by force. Yet NOM's message was that the people should have a right to decide. It's more like "the people have the right to decide the way we want them to".

    How frightening is that? I am so afraid that if we — the enlightened portion of the populace — remain "silent", relatively speaking, NOM and others like them will steamroll rights from coast to coast, shredding whatever is left of the constitution.

    We think to ourselves, oh, the voters would never support something so obviously unconstitutional, so unAmerican — and then along comes DOMA, DADT, Prop 8, and Iowa. The people on the right side of history need to have the loudest voices or the loudest actions.

  • 115. Sagesse  |  November 8, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Tracy, the reason the Iowa retention vote was such a debacle was (a) NOM and their friends threw a ridiculous amount of money into delivering their message, and (b) unlike most electoral contests, there was no one delivering counter-messaging for the other side. So long as NOM &Co have the ability to raise money, there will be vulnerable races like this where they inflict huge damage.

  • 116. Straight Ally #3008  |  November 8, 2010 at 8:56 am

    but I also believe that much of that support is soft — dependent on the unique peer pressures…

    Peer pressures like NOM's witch hunt of a propaganda campaign?

  • 117. Ray in MA  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:27 am

    "fully admitting that they wanted this to be a de facto referendum on same-sex marriage".

    That would mean a LOT money directly into their pockets!!!

  • 118. Leo  |  November 8, 2010 at 10:09 am

    Yes, it is. The USCA case numbers are 10-2204 for the Mass v. USDOH appeal and 10-2207 for the Gill v. OPM appeal. The government's opening brief is due December 13th.

  • 119. Leo  |  November 8, 2010 at 10:10 am

    Argh, meant as a reply to phillykarl

  • 120. Kathleen  |  November 8, 2010 at 10:31 am

    Curiously, there doesn't appear to be a briefing schedule yet for the Gill v OPM.

  • 121. Luke  |  November 8, 2010 at 10:57 am

    I don't think it will ever happen by vote. It needs to be up to the courts, especially the supreme court to enact it. I don't see congress or the senate doing anything about it any time soon.

  • 122. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 10, 2010 at 10:40 am

    I don't know about that Luke. The people of washington state last year came out in recird numbers to uphold the 'Everything BUT Marriage' Ref 71. First time in US history the people not the courts decided discrimination was not acceptable.

  • 123. Evelyn J. Brooks  |  November 8, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    Visited that page. Submitted a comment response to another comment that was posted:

    "Homosexuals can marry. They've always had the right to marry. Over the centuries many have done so, and they continue to do so today. But marriage is the union of two people of opposite sexes; thus, a homosexual who wants to marry must choose a spouse of the opposite sex in order to do so.

    There are no legal prohibitions to homosexuals enjoying authentic matrimony.

    Homosexuals, of course, will respond that they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex. The problem, then, such as it is, is not that homosexuals cannot marry but that they do not want to marry.

    That, of course, is their choice, but for homosexuals to say that they cannot marry is dishonest."

    – F.R. Duplantier – commentor

    Me: Do you know what Freedom is? I don't think you do.

    Freedom is not when you say "You have the freedom of religion just so long as you choose the religion that I want you to choose." It's not when you say "You can ride the bus, you just have to sit in the back". It's not when you say "You CAN get this job, we'll only pay you less because you're a woman."

    In America, history has proven time and time again that there is no 'catch 22' in liberty. You either have your rights and freedoms or by its very nature, you simply do not. Choosing not to marry someone you don't love isn't unreasonable at all. You talk about dishonesty. In fact, you'd think engaging in marriage with someone that you don't love would be dishonest. You'd think a marriage where there is no love is the kind of marriage that makes a mockery of the institution if not contribute to its destruction and integrity.

    F.R. Duplantier, I don't know much about you so I can't judge who you are as a person, but based on that response I can say at the very least you have a very thin understanding of freedom, marriage, and the values many Americans have fought and died for in this country.

    I'm posting this here. I'm pretty sure my comment isn't going to pass their censorship police.

  • 124. ADF Alliance Alert »&hellip  |  November 9, 2010 at 9:25 am

    […] Prop 8 Trial Tracker: “The Alliance Defense Fund’s David French is using the Iowa judicial retention vote to question whether same-sex marriage is actually inevitable . . . ‘I see the poll data indicating that young people increasingly support same-sex marriage, but I also believe that much of that support is soft — dependent on the unique peer pressures and ideological environment on college campuses’ . . . But here’s the thing: The Iowa judge vote was a battle between one hyper-motivated, highly-funded, out-of-state-supported coalition solely focused on the single issue of same-sex marriage vs. everyone else in the state.” […]

  • 125. Money, Politics, and Same&hellip  |  November 9, 2010 at 9:43 am

    […] at Prop 8 Trial Tracker, Jeremy Hooper takes issue with my recent post regarding Iowa voters’ rejection of three […]

  • 126. ADF Alliance Alert »&hellip  |  November 9, 2010 at 10:16 am

    […] Attorney David French writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “Over at Prop 8 Trial Tracker, Jeremy Hooper takes issue with my recent post regarding Iowa voters’ rejection of three state […]

  • 127. Jake  |  November 12, 2010 at 5:42 am

    You should also not that any time there is a retention vote in Iowa about 30% of the voters vote not to retain the judges. So, this simply means that Bob Vander Plaats and his cronies only needed to muscle 20% of the vote into their favor.

  • 128. Jake  |  November 12, 2010 at 5:43 am


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