Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Is NOM lying to you (again?)

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Background NOM Exposed Prop 8 trial

Cross-posted at Waking Up Now.

by Rob Tisinai

NOM isn’t the most truthful bunch on the planet. And it’s almost sad, because their lapses are so damn easy to spot. Here’s their expert Jennifer Roback Morse, blogging just before the appeal hearing started. She’s saying our star attorneys, Olson and Boies, had a responsibility during the trial to explain why previous federal precedents (against marriage equality) didn’t apply to their case:

Olsen and Boies didn’t do that. Judge Walker didn’t do that. They didn’t even mention Baker v Nelson, Adams v Howerton and a host of state and district court rulings around the country.

Baker v Nelson is a case from 1972: the Supreme Court left in place a lower-court verdict denying same-sex marriage rights. Our opponents invoke Baker to say Judge Walker had no business taking the current case in the first place, and his disregard for Baker is proof of his pro-gay bias.

Now here’s Morse advancing that claim, saying Walker, Olson, and Boise didn’t even mention Baker.


Actually, no. I knew Morse was wrong, so I Googled Baker Nelson Judge Walker. Here’s what I found in Judge Walker’s ruling against our opponents’ motion for summary judgment:

Page Reference to Baker v Nelson
7 – 8 Judge Walker brings up Baker, and Cooper (the other side’s attorney) acknowledges this is the only case that might offer complete grounds for dismissing the complaint
9 Cooper starts talking about Baker but get sidetracked.
17 Judge Walker brings the court’s attention back to Baker. And Cooper gets sidetracked again.
34 – 38 Judge Walker brings the court’s attention back to Baker again. Cooper finally stays on track and makes his points.
40 – 43 Judge Walker asks Olson (one of our attorneys) to address Baker. Olson does so.
59 Olson addresses Baker again without being prompted.
73 Judge Walker mentions Baker in his decision not to dismiss the case in summary judgment.
75 – 79 Judge Walker explains why he does not find Baker to be binding in this case.
90 Judge Walker officially declares Baker to be insufficient grounds to dismiss the case.

Not only does Judge Walker mention Baker, he repeatedly brings it up and asks both sides to comment on it. Baker comes up in the closing arguments, too (page 2986), when Walker asks Olson about Baker and Olson responds.

Here’s a word of advice for Morse, though: when you falsely accuse someone of egregious misdeeds, you only end up convicting yourself.

One last note: I merely wondered whether Morse is lying because there is another explanation. Perhaps she merely devoted a blog entry to something so untrue — not just untrue, but easy to check on, as well — because she lacks basic knowledge and research skills. I wouldn’t be surprised. Apart from Maggie Gallagher herself, the NOM team strikes me a bunch of Keystone Kops. When she reviews the troops, I imagine poor Maggie spends a lot of her time doing face palms — do you think?

Image from dancerher at


  • 1. StraightForEquality  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:18 am

  • 2. Ann S.  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:19 am

    Are their lips moving?

  • 3. Kathleen  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:23 am

    What Ann said. 🙂

  • 4. Ann S.  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:31 am

    Miss you already, Kathleen!

  • 5. Kathleen  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:41 am

    Same here!

  • 6. Ann S.  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:47 am

    I hope that bus has wifi and you're on the road. If not, that bus is really, really late! But you have plenty of time to make your flight, you're fine.

  • 7. Kathleen  |  December 7, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Bus had wifi. Now I'm at the airport, where there is also wifi. Nice and relaxed here – not busy at all. So getting a little time to catch up with all the posts from the last 36 hours!

  • 8. Ann S.  |  December 7, 2010 at 8:04 am

    Hooray for wifi!

  • 9. nightshayde  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:34 am

    I was going to ask the same question.

  • 10. 415kathleenk  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:35 am

    of course if their lips are moving LOL

  • 11. Sagesse  |  December 7, 2010 at 6:25 am

    Is NOM lying to you (again?)

    Well, DUH.

  • 12. Ronnie  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:21 am

    That was awesome…. : ) ……Ronnie

  • 13. Mark  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:23 am

    Was Maggie in the courtroom yesterday (with her shoes off)?

  • 14. Kathleen  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:25 am

    I didn't see her, but I didn't specifically look for her either. I remember thinking, before the hearing, that she might show up, but then began thinking of more pleasant things.

  • 15. 415kathleenk  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:37 am

    right response. I thought of her but i didn't spend any time looking- i assumed i would find out if she was there. I was much more excited to see Boies, Olson, all the plaintiffs etc. that is who i came to see- also all you fab prop 8tt people were a bonus 🙂

  • 16. Ann S.  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:38 am

    You shook David Boies's hand when he came along, right? Wasn't that a thrill??

  • 17. Kathleen  |  December 7, 2010 at 6:36 am

    One of the highlights of the day for me: Out in the hall after the press conference, I got an extended "moment' with David Boise, in which I got to shake his hand, thank him profusely and tell him how much I admired him. He smiled broadly, graciously accepted all my gushing, said he was glad for the opportunity to be part of this case and put his hand on my shoulder. I realized after the fact that I could have turned that moment into a hug – but I chickened out… just too in awe, I guess. But it was an experience I will always remember.

  • 18. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 7, 2010 at 6:46 am

    How wonderful Kathleen – that made me smile.

    Is he tall?

  • 19. Ann S.  |  December 7, 2010 at 7:00 am

    And don't forget, you got your picture taken with Dustin Lance Black. Don't forget to post that one!

  • 20. Kathleen  |  December 7, 2010 at 8:13 am

    LLB, I don't know how to gauge that. Everyone over the age of 10 seems tall to me.

  • 21. Ann S.  |  December 7, 2010 at 8:19 am

    LLB, if I had to guess, I'd say he's not quite as tall as my husband, which would make him 5'8" to 6' — but I'm not much good at this kind of thing.

    Of course, he's a giant among litigators (despite losing to Ted Olson, who I think is not quite as tall, but ask Alan, he hugged him).

  • 22. Alan E.  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:42 am

    I didn't see her. Brandon thought he saw Brian Brown, but I think I would have noticed him, too.

  • 23. John  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:23 am

    Liars for Jesus.


  • 24. Em  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:26 am

    I wish I could say "that's good news, because it means there's really only one member of NOM who poses any kind of threat to us," but I know sadly that isn't true. Despite the greater availability of fact-checking potential and information than ever before, the truth is that very few people are willing to take the time and effort to put a few keystrokes into Google and check the validity of claims they hear from political parties, candidates, or special interest groups like NOM. This holds especially true when they already agree with the sentiment behind the lies being spewed. 🙁

    Good thing sites like P8TT exist so that at least those of us who keep up can post fact-checking entries to larger social venues where more people can see. (I link this site to my Facebook wall at least twice a day.) They can't keep the wool pulled over everyone's eyes for long.

  • 25. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:29 am

    The sad part is she is doing a complete injustice to the Ruth Institute and NOM blind followers who think what they are told is beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true and factual.

    So they end up blogging online telling/preaching to other folks what they 'know to be true' and are shamed and called out in public forums for being idiots. They leave (probably shutting down their computers) crying and feeling alone and used.

    Very sad indeed!

  • 26. nightshayde  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:36 am

    I don't find that sad at all. Sounds like karma to me… and I'm ok with the people who spout NOM's garbage crying and feeling alone and used. They ARE used, and they're becoming more and more alone.

  • 27. AndrewPDX  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:40 am

    Aww, such a cute kitty! Thanks, Rob, for bringing a thing of beauty to the otherwise ugly face of NOM.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 28. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:45 am

    Why am I NOT surprised that that Jennifer Roback Morse would lie about this? After all, she is a NOMbie, and that is one of their trademarks–when you can't win with the truth, throw lies into the battle until at least one of them sticks securely enough to cheat their opposition out of what is rightfully theirs. In this case, marriage equality, and actually, FULL equality for our Rainbow Tribes!

  • 29. Melissa  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:54 am

    Giggle – that summary is also a good example of Cooper's ineptitude. I love how lines two and three of Rob's table detail Cooper getting sidetracked. Reminded me of yesterday when he would just start blathering and one of the judges would try to kindly lead him back to point. I don't know how those of you in the courtroom were able to keep quiet and still – he was so bad I wanted to beat my head against something.

  • 30. Ann S.  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:56 am

    Melissa, it's because we wanted so badly to be able to stay in the courtroom. But it wasn't easy, I tell you.

  • 31. Melissa  |  December 7, 2010 at 6:32 am

    I bet not! I would have had to clamp both of my hands over my mouth. Whereas, when Boies and Olson talked, I was riveted to the edge of my seat listening intently to every word. The contrast between Boies or Olson and Cooper was unbelieveable.

  • 32. DaveP  |  December 7, 2010 at 11:14 am

    Ah yes, one of the perks of being in the overflow room. Whem Cooper was spewing his nonsense we got to giggle, facepalm, groan and roll our eyes, mutter things like 'you gotta be kiddin me' and 'what the hell does that have to do with civil marriage?', etc.

    Alan E. started a sort of virtual drinking game by counting how many times the Prop H8 crew said "procreation" but he quickly ran out of fingers for counting. Ah, good times, Good times.

  • 33. fiona64  |  December 9, 2010 at 5:53 am

    Maybe we should create Bingo cards …


  • 34. Sagesse  |  December 7, 2010 at 6:28 am

    Morse is probably just picking up on Cooper. His appeal brief reads like Baker is the last word on marriage equality. He never mentions Romer or Lawrence. Baker was barely mentioned yesterday… the judges went straight for Romer.

  • 35. anonygrl  |  December 7, 2010 at 6:36 am

    Probably because they agreed with Walker's assesment of Baker, and knew that there was more relevant information to be mined from Romer. I take it as a good sign, actually.

  • 36. Marlene  |  December 7, 2010 at 8:09 am

    That's because these later decisions supercede Baker by leaps and bounds.

    Another observation is that Morse is intellectually incompetent. She obviously believes that Baker is so set in stone that no other SCOTUS decision can overturn it.

    Looks like she needs to read Brown v Board of Education, and the reasons why they ruled that the earlier Dred Scott decision (which legalized separate but equal) was in truth un-Constitutional.

    Ms. Morse also needs to look at Loving v Virginia as well, since that was a major victory for the Establishment Clause as well as the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Prop H8 violates those two parts of the Constitution, just as all of those anti-miscengenation laws did.

  • 37. Bob  |  December 7, 2010 at 6:32 am

    It's not unlike NOM, dr. Morse or any religicon to spout off things they may suspect is true without fact-checking. This happens to help them because misinformation is valuable to them. Much like Fox News this can now be spread as if it were factual, and fuel the dissatisfaction of the followers.

  • 38. Dick Mills  |  December 7, 2010 at 6:56 am

    I think that there are two reasons why the lying liars in the radical religious right lie their asses off. First, because they just repeat lies that someone else told them, without even checking on the veracity of the claim. As long as the "claim" fits neatly in their predetermined narrative, and someone else already made the claim, as far as they are concerned, it IS the truth – and that is irrespective of how egregious the lie is.

    But secondly, they know that there are hordes of minions who actually care what they say, and that the hordes will never fact check them. And they never fact check them for two reasons. The first reason I mentioned above, but the second is that the hordes are far too trusting (believing that the lying liars would never "lie" to them), too lazy to do their own research, too inept to be able to do their own research, or otherwise uninterested in fact checking the lies.

  • 39. John  |  December 7, 2010 at 7:16 am

    Sadly, that seems to be true.

    Fortunately the lies are starting to catch up with them. I am laughing my you-know-what off that a bunch of bigots in Colorado, in passing Amendment 2, may have opened the door for same-sex marriage in California. It is so fitting that hatred would be one of the major things that allows a court to re-examine previous decisions on same-sex marriage. It is so beautifully just that a horrid law would be used to overturn another horrid law. I'm thinking about sending Focus on the Family a dozen roses to show my appreciation for their hate!

  • 40. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 7, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    Shot themselves in the behind ultimately, didn't they? Sort of a civil-rights ricochet, if you will.

  • 41. Kathlene  |  December 7, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    My all time favorite right wing!fail

  • 42. anonygrl  |  December 8, 2010 at 12:14 am


  • 43. Felyx  |  December 8, 2010 at 10:07 am

    How I would love to see that one used right away!!! Too bad NOM is not based there!

  • 44. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 7, 2010 at 8:21 am

    Exactly, Dick, exactly. To invoke my usual parallel, when I talk to former creationists, pretty much the first thing they say is that they actually took some time to look up the facts for themselves, and found out they'd been lied to. And those spreading the lies probably believe that somehow, they must be right and all scientific data is wrong.

  • 45. nightshayde  |  December 7, 2010 at 8:49 am

    Of course science is wrong – it's not based on the Bible. Any "evidence" that disproves the biblical account of pretty much anything scientific was put there by God in order to test us & weed out the unbelievers.

    Add to that the belief that simply questioning anything in the Bible (or anything your religious officiant tells you) is sinful & you don't have a very good shot at getting people to learn to think in a critical manner.

  • 46. jimi  |  December 7, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Consider me weeded out.

  • 47. fiona64  |  December 9, 2010 at 5:55 am


    A few years ago, my husband and I went to a Phantom of the Opera event in Los Angeles (it was a charity fundraiser, not that it matters) and, while we were there, visited the LaBrea Tar Pits. The tar pits are an ongoing excavation, and there is an attached natural history museum.

    Well, one of his former colleagues collected those pressed pennies and so we got her one from LaBrea. Her comment, upon receiving it was a sniffy "I don't believe in evolution."

    Jeff said, "That's okay, it believes in you."

    She then opined that all of those bones at LaBrea were "put there by the devil to fool you."

    I subsequently found this t-shirt, which I keep threatening to get for Jeff:


  • 48. Marlene  |  December 7, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Of course, what's completely dismissed from these who would pervert a Bronze Age book to justify bigotry and prejudice, is the fact there's a little thing called the Commandments.

    Number eight decrees that Christians are not to bear false witness (ie, lie). I guess their delusion regarding them being above civil law extends to that religious one too!

  • 49. Josh  |  December 7, 2010 at 9:42 am

    I always thought there was another one about general lying, but i was wrong. I did a simple google search and checked myself before posting 😉

    I wish nom/cino would do that. But typing is so hard, ugh!

  • 50. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 7, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    Mmmmmm….I would offer that "bearing false witness" is not the same as lying in general. "Bearing false witness" means not to lie while testifying (that is, while under oath.) However, more than one denomination has made "lying for the Lord" doctrinally okay, which means you can lie if it furthers your dominionist ends.

  • 51. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 8, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Well, my favorite kind of "lie" is when I tell BZ I don't have anything to give him for his brithday or Chanukkah, then hand him the package when his birthday or Chanukkah arrives. Of course, he no longer has any excuse not to celebrate his birthday, since that will also be our anniversary!

  • 52. Josh  |  December 8, 2010 at 9:23 am

    Oh, I was thinking of just the 10 commandments. I thought one of them was about lying in general. I'd say bfw includes making untrue statements about another person or group of people, as in the case of the crap nom says about GLBT people.

  • 53. M S  |  December 8, 2010 at 1:29 am

    Real quick: those commandments were for the ancient Israelites to obey, not Christians. But since Jesus was a Jew– yes, it's true, I checked– he considered them binding, and since Jesus's followers considered *Jesus's* teachings binding, Christians went ahead and adopted Jesus's Bible as their own.

    If you're looking for Jesus's admonitions against lying or for honesty, try: 1) "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." 2) "Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no." 3) "Everything that has been covered up will be uncovered." 4) "Let your light so shine before others that they may see the good that you do and give glory to God." 5) "Be perfect, just as your Heavenly Father is perfect."

    Also, I grew up hearing that Satan was the Father of Lies, but I try to reserve that line for face to face confrontations. You don't need the devil's methods to do the Lord's work, and IMHO cruelty is not of God.

  • 54. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 8, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Also, M S, a lot of the commandments, and most of what is in the Levitical Law (called Levitical Law because of the priesthood coming from the Tribe of Levi) were admonitions against taking part in the idolatrous rituals of the other people in the area. When one actually digs into it, the "prohibition" against men lying with men as with women was actually a prohibition against an ancient rite that was used to appease the fertility gods and goddesses of the region. IN those rites, the heterosexual men were required to lie with the male temple prostitutes, and the heterosexual women were required to lie with the female temple prostitutes. Doing so would guarantee that they would not only have a bountiful crop in the fields, but also that they would have children, and that those children would be born healthy and live to see adulthood. If G-d were truly as homophobic as NOM and those of the same ilk make Her out to be, then why does the Bible contain the story of David and Jonathan, complete with King Saul telling David that he (Saul) is his (David's) father-in-law in twain (twice over), referring to the fact that David was not only married to Saul's daughter, Michal, but also to Saul's son, Jonathan? Or why would we have the story of Ruth and Naomi. It is not G-d who is homophobic, it is NOM and so many others who have misquoted, misinterpreted, redacted, and in so many other ways perverted the Bible who are the homophobes. And are they ever in for a surprise when Rabbi Yoshua ben Yosef and his twelve boyfriends greet them as a group!

  • 55. Josh  |  December 8, 2010 at 9:37 am

    I think I read that the Leviticus passage was about men forcing themselves on other men as a way to humiliate/dominate them. This would happen after a victory in battle when the victors would rape whomever they wanted, like jail rape. In this way, a man was treating the other dude as a woman and women were seen as inferior to men therefore it was forbidden. That passage doesn't mention women with women, but Romans does.

    Either way, I totally agree that they are mis-using the Bible to support their own prejudice. I agree with the gay-positive stories you mention. Nomers will never listen to the likes of Gene Robinson or Mel White who understand the Bible correctly. None of the claimed anti-gay passages are about concenting adults in loving relationships.

  • 56. Josh  |  December 7, 2010 at 9:35 am

    This reminds me of the dreadful Michele Bachmann making a big fussing lie about the cost per day of President Obama's trip to India. She didn't fact check, because she wanted to believe and spread the lie. Yep, she's a true cino.

  • 57. Chris From CO  |  December 7, 2010 at 7:14 am

    They study the truth of current event's the same way they do the bible. They look at it (not opening it), and argue over it (not reading it), they listen to each other and make a fact. Oh well it makes fools of them in the end.

  • 58. Ronnie  |  December 7, 2010 at 7:32 am

    To all my fellow Trackers who are Gleeks…don't forget to watch Glee tonight…& if you can't watch, don't forget to set the DVR's, TIVO's, or whatever you have…..

    Tonight on Glee….the songsters & songstresses bring us a special Holiday edition featuring songs such as "Merry Christmas, Darling", "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen", "Deck the Rooftop" & a few more including this "Baby It's Cold Outside" duet by Blaine & Kurt…..Happy Holidays!!!…..<3…Ronnie:

  • 59. fiona64  |  December 7, 2010 at 7:38 am

    I dunno, man … it's pretty much impossible to beat the Alan Cumming/Liza Minelli version of "Baby It's Cold Outside."

    Fiona (who has a big ol' straight girl crush on Alan Cumming)

  • 60. Ronnie  |  December 7, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Ooo..I've never heard this version….downloading….ty…<3…Ronnie

  • 61. nightshayde  |  December 7, 2010 at 8:17 am

    I'm a happy little Gleek. Mom & I will be watching!

  • 62. Rhie  |  December 7, 2010 at 7:57 am


  • 63. Ronnie  |  December 7, 2010 at 8:52 am

    A straight ally has passed away…just Monday, Elizabeth Edwards released a statement that she will no longer be undergoing treatment for cancer… the age of 61, she is no longer with us….Her family released this statement: (I got this from The Advocate)

    "Today we have lost the comfort of Elizabeth's presence but she remains the heart of this family. We love her and will never know anyone more inspiring or full of life," ……… "On behalf of Elizabeth we want to express our gratitude to the thousands of kindred spirits who moved and inspired her along the way. Your support and prayers touched our entire family."

    A fellow Equality community member posted this on FF4E….a speech that Elizabeth Edwards gave at an HRC dinner in San Francisco in 2007…..Even though my thoughts are already stretched thin this year…they will also be with the Edwards family this Holiday season…..<3….Ronnie:

    "Thank you my Brothers & Sisters" ~ Elizabeth Edwards…!

  • 64. Alex Gill-Gerards  |  December 7, 2010 at 9:48 am

    So sad RIP Elizabeth Edwards.

  • 65. StraightForEquality  |  December 7, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    Great speech and so true. She was one classy lady! (Too bad John Edwards proved not to have that kind of class.) I am sorry that she has left us.

  • 66. truthspew  |  December 7, 2010 at 9:00 am

    NOM lies like a cheap rug. Seriously, half truths, outright lies and falsehoods seem to be their stock in trade.

  • 67. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 7, 2010 at 9:17 am

    Somewhat OT, but not totally. For any of my P8TT family who do not have Facebook, click on my name above to see the latest post on my blog, complete with the four-part wedding video. This is what NOM does NOT want ANYONE to see. This is the truth about how deeply we can love, and how much marriage means to us. This is how awesome our commitment to our husbands and wives is!

  • 68. Ann S.  |  December 7, 2010 at 9:25 am

    Richard, I'm so looking forward to seeing your videos, but I don't see them in the post.

  • 69. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 7, 2010 at 9:27 am

    Let me go into it and see what happened. I may need to go into YouTube and get the other code. The guy with WordPress told me to use the embed code.

  • 70. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 7, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    I found the problem, Ann. Now three of the videos are showing, and the link to the fourth one is showing as well.

  • 71. Ann S.  |  December 7, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    Oh, Richard, how lovely! I was crying right along. Thank you so much for sharing those.

  • 72. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 8, 2010 at 12:57 am

    You're welcome. Of course, this is exactly what NOM does not want ANYONE to see. Videos like this absolutely ruin what little credibility they have left.

  • 73. Sagesse  |  December 8, 2010 at 2:08 am

    It was a lovely service, Richard. Thank you for sharing.

  • 74. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 8, 2010 at 6:49 am

    Glad you enjoyed it. As I stated earlier, my emotions were running very high that day. After growing up knowing that this dream would never be a reality, to finally have it become a reality was just overwhelming. Everybody should have this same chance to fulfill this lifelong dream of marrying for LOVE and COMMITMENT!

  • 75. Josh  |  December 7, 2010 at 9:23 am

    Haha, nice work, Rob!!

    This is exactly what the nom types and cino do. They make absurd claims and sadly, their sheep believe them w/o question.

    We've seen time and time again that nom/cino don't need facts nor the truth to rile their minions. They're nothing more than an angry mob and whatever the leader says, they all follow.

    Those who lie to "support" their opinion are always wrong. If they are truly good and right, they do not need to resort to lies.

    Will nom ever admit they were wrong on this point? NO!

  • 76. Carpool Cookie  |  December 7, 2010 at 11:13 am

    So, does anyone even request a retraction about the Baker inaccuracies in this woman's blog? Do we point it out in the comments section (if it gets past the mods?)

    Or do we just leave it there, steaming…?

    It's pretty revolting.

  • 77. anonygrl  |  December 8, 2010 at 12:26 am

    I put a comment. It will undoubtedly be moderated into oblivion.

    But that is just another proof of the way that they function. If someone on the right says it, it must be truth. If someone comes along with proof that it is false, "LA LA LA I have my fingers in my ears and I can't hear you."

  • 78. Carpool Cookie  |  December 8, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Sad…and infuriating for those of us who live in the real world.

    Too bad people can't have their "Dr." title taken away when the're proved to be an idiot!

  • 79. StraightForEquality  |  December 7, 2010 at 11:57 am

    The NOM sheeple are people of faith. My dictionary says faith is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. " So they don't need facts.

  • 80. Michael  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    Strident anti-gay activists Gallagher and Morse don't give a hoot about the truth. The sin of lying is just fine with them as long as it promotes the evil anti-gay agenda and helps them impose their "religious beliefs" on all the rest of us. Like the communists once said, "The end justifies the means."

  • 81. troubleshooting car probl&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 7:38 am

    Inet Reader…

    […]follow the other links to read more[…]…

  • 82. jobs in waleska ga&hellip  |  November 29, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    Find Jobs in…

    I highly recommend you approve this feedback to ensure I can link my own site back to your site becuase you have exciting posts on your web-site…

  • 83. hunting ear protection  |  October 4, 2013 at 3:42 am

    I was wondering if you ever thought of changing the structure of your website?
    Its very well written; I love what youve got to say.
    But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better.
    Youve got an awful lot of text for only having 1 or 2 pictures.
    Maybe you could space it out better?

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