Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Brian Brown gets it right (but does he know it?)

Marriage equality NOM Exposed

Cross-posted at Waking Up Now.

by Rob Tisinai

I wish NOM president Brian Brown had just a smidge more self-awareness. Because then he’d realize that, in his most recent newsletter, he accidentally presents NOM as a hateful and bigoted organization.

Brian writes this of the Iowa hearings on marriage:

Even I, who’ve heard pretty much everything at this point, was a little shocked to hear one gay marriage supporter say:

“It would be less harmful to me if you would just beat me up in a dark alley. It would be less hurtful to me if you would just spray paint the word f—-t on my garage door. Nothing you could do to me physically would be more hurtful to me than the action you are proposing to take with this resolution.”

If you and I disagree with him about marriage, we are hurting him as much as–more than–if we insulted and beat him?

I know too many of our fellow citizens and neighbors who support gay marriage have reached a similar boiling point of emotion-driven unreasonableness. And I want to, on the one hand, give them a big hug or something to make them feel better.

Emotion-driven unreasonableness?  Really?  Let’s check this out. 

First, I’d like Brian to acknowledge the problem is not that you disagree with us.  Disagree!  Go ahead!  Feel free!  No, the problem is you’re going beyond disagreement and trying to strip gay Iowans of the marriage rights they currently have.

So let me ask Brian:  Which would hurt you more — getting beaten up in an alley or having your marriage declared invalid?  Having a nasty word spray-painted on your garage door, or never being allowed to marry the one you love?

And, Brian, before you answer, you might want to review what happened to Kelly Glossip and Dennis Engelhard.  To Mark Goldberg and Ron Hanby.  To Shirley Tan and Jay Mercado (along with Maggie Gallagher’s callous shrug of a response).

See, Brian, the words that so shocked you feel less like emotion-driven unreasonableness and more like a plain and sensible statement of fact.

But you know what really struck me, Brian?  You listened to this man’s words — his perfectly reasonable words — and heard in them an accusation of hatred and bigotry.  But the man said no such thing.  You did.  You made that connection all by yourself.

So perhaps now you understand why some of us view you this way.

Recently Maggie Gallagher, your former boss, wrote this on your website:

For those of you reading this I would ask of you only one thing: whether you support gay marriage or not, can you at least acknowledge what you are asking of those of us who disagree, who believe our historic marriage tradition is good? … Gay marriage will make it virtually impossible to renew marriage’s central public role, which is not to celebrate private romantic love—hardly any business of government—but to protect children by increasing the likelihood that they will be born to and raised by their own mother and father. Gay marriage makes it impossible to articulate this as a goal of marriage, much less to realise it in real children’s lives.

Brian and Maggie, I understand what I’m asking of you.  I don’t agree, but I understand.  Can we now ask the same of you?  Can you understand what you’re asking of us? Can you see it’s  why hard not to view your life’s lucrative work as hateful and bigoted?  Can you read our stories, look at our lives, and see that?

In the meantime, you can keep your hugs to yourself.  I doubt they would give Shirley Tan or Mark Goldberg much comfort.


  • 1. Peterplumber  |  February 5, 2011 at 3:22 am


  • 2. Kathleen  |  February 5, 2011 at 3:29 am

  • 3. Ann S.  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:09 am

  • 4. Alan E.  |  February 5, 2011 at 3:29 am

    And to reiterate that gays don't want to "destroy heterosexual marriages." All we want is to have the same benefits, not get rid of theirs.

  • 5. Carpool Cookie  |  February 6, 2011 at 3:38 am

    I go back and forth on whether they're just stupid…or, rather, coldheartedly capitalistic.

  • 6. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 5, 2011 at 3:30 am

    If only they would truly listen to us, and see what they are doing to us. Brian, Maggie, I want to ask you this. What effect would it have on you to know that if your spouse dies, no matter how his or her will is made out, you children from a previous marriage could totally overturn your will by virtue of your marriage not being recognized? How would you feel knowing that someone could be the cause of your spouse, your life-long partner, being homeless and destitute simply because your marriage is not considered valid under the law, even though you had been together for ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or more years? This is exactly what your organization is doing to me! And you say that you are not anti-family!

  • 7. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 6, 2011 at 7:49 am

    Brian and Maggie and people like them, who are profiting from the anti-gay rhetoric, will change what they say only when it becomes profitable for them to do so. I really don't believe that they believe half of what they say, but they know it stirs up the people and if the people are stirred up, they get donations, they get donations, they get excellent salaries for preaching bigotry.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 8. Felyx  |  February 5, 2011 at 4:00 am

    Brian Brown is a firm believer in Conscientious Ignorance… anything he gets 'right' would necessarily have to be subconscious.

  • 9. Sagesse  |  February 5, 2011 at 4:17 am

    Conscientious Ignorance. I love it.

  • 10. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2011 at 4:08 am

    Brian Brown's unhealthy problem is his 100% lack of ALL decent human emotions…His soul is blacker then the deepest realms of the universe…It is amazing that he has managed to allow his apathy to outshine his arrogance…Careful Brian…because you are bordering on a very deleterious God complex…you should work on that….just saying…. : I …Ronnie

  • 11. Michelle Evans  |  February 5, 2011 at 5:55 am

    OT, but wanted to post this on today's thread in hopes that we might get some people to join me in action at contacting Disney (originally posted late on yesterday's thread):

    I just found out something very disturbing that I wanted to pass along, in hopes that others here at the P8TT may take action with me.

    The Pacific Justice Institute, which is one of the groups that has attempted to fight to keep Prop 8 on the books here in California, is having a conference on April 2 at Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel. One of their keynote speakers will be from Focus on the Family.

    Disney has always been extremely pro-LGBT, so hearing that they would allow this sort of an anti-LGBT conference on their turf is very disturbing to myself and Cherie. I hope that everyone here might go to Disney’s web site and send an email expressing your displeasure with this conference.

    or phone the hotel at:

    (714) 635-2300

  • 12. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:02 am

    Let's see if I can write this logically.

    There are so many who say homosexuality is a choice. I can honestly tell you I do not have a choice. What makes you that think I have a choice, what makes you so knowing that it is a choice?

    You must be honest and know that you haven't walked in my shoes, know what's in my heart, my soul and in my mind.

    So, I have a question to those that think it's a choice. What makes you think/know that you are indeed truly heterosexual? Do you just trust/know this is who you are? Do you have feelings, emotions, trust and love for only persons of the opposite sex? Do you actually feel anything for them – or just go through life thinking you are heterosexual – and feel nothing?

    Or, do you actually feel something special for those few opposite sex people you dated, fell in love with, and for perhaps actually married to share the rest of your lives together as one?

    Well, I love my male friends, many are my best friends. I am not attracted to men, only women – but certainly not all women. (I am sure you can say the same, there are only certain opposite men or women you have been attracted to.) For me it's only been women I have fallen in love with, been attracted to. All my life! It's not a decision I made, it is truly and honestly just who I am.

    I know I am not wording this right – I am a picture person and not a writer.

  • 13. Kathleen  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:09 am

    You said it quite nicely, LLB. 🙂

  • 14. Tim in Sonoma  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:48 am

    LLB: You worded it perfectly. I often ask my heterosexual friends who ask questions, "when did you choose to be straight?" That get's them every time because they didn't choose and they understand at that point and put their personal feelings aside.
    Brian Brown when did you choose?

  • 15. Peterplumber  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:52 am

    I have an old Army buddy that I keep in contact with. He knows I am gay. He said something recently about it being a choice. I tried to tell him it was NOT a choice. He came back with a rant about how I chose to act on my homosexual feelings when I could have chosen NOT to. Therefore, it is a choice. PFFFT

  • 16. AnonyGrl  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    That has become their fallback position on "choice". God wants homosexuals to be celibate.

    If that IS the case, God is a bastard beyond belief.

  • 17. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    Actually, the one who wanted us to remain celibate was Paul. And I often wonder if it may have been because nobody found him attractive enough to become involved with. I wonder if that was the "thorn in his flesh"?

  • 18. Steve  |  February 5, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    "If that IS the case, God is a bastard beyond belief."

    You only just noticed that now?

    There is plenty of other stuff. Things that are infinitely more disgusting. Like original sin, or eternal torture for not believing in the absence of any proof. Or the sheer narcissism of an omnipotent being demanding to be worshiped.

  • 19. Carpool Cookie  |  February 6, 2011 at 4:09 am


    And not just worshiped, but worshiped exclusively. A third of the Ten Commandments are given over to this.

    Not to go off on a long religious discourse, but as a politely brought up child, that's the first thing about "god" that rubbed me the wrong way. I was like, "Uh, that's what He's really into…?" Then when we got to "I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me," I was just "!!!Oh dear dear DEAR!!!"

  • 20. Carpool Cookie  |  February 6, 2011 at 4:14 am

    Ooops….above was in response to "the sheer narcissism of an omnipotent being demanding to be worshiped."

    Maybe the system is miffed that I could be interpreted as criticizing Christians? I know and am related to many who are lovely. (But I do have to say they'd never come up with a set of commandments like that.)

  • 21. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 5, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    That is similar to the statement I received from my friend on Thurs. night. So maddening that people think denying yourself the chance for companionship with someone you truly love will be okay for the rest of your life. I know there are gay Mormons who are making that commitment. If they are able to do that, wonderful for them. However, I can't imagine living a life that is void of a sharing, caring relationship for one life on earth. That is simply too much to ask of one person. And, of course, that is why a majority (I think) go inactive. They may or may not leave the church (reminds me need to ask my son about that. After seeing 8 the Mormon Proposition, he was going to ask to have his name removed from church records), and they may or may not give up their beliefs but they also, refuse to live a life void of hope for having a sharing and caring relationship with one they love.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 22. Kathleen  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:14 am

    A bit off topic, but the other day I was watching Sen. Mike Lee ( ) on C-SPAN and the thought suddenly occurred to me… has anyone ever seen Mike Lee and Brian Brown in the same place at the same time?

  • 23. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:15 am

    They certainly could be brothers!

  • 24. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:20 am

    I don't understand the protect the kids argument at all. There are just so many flawed assumptions there. First, half of all marriages end in divorce. That's a HUGE number of kids who have single parents or step parents. Many times, it works out just fine. Better, in fact, than if the parents had stayed for the kids.

    Then there are the unmarried couples who raise biological children and don't get married. Then, there are the kids being raised by aunts, uncles, foster parents, adoptive parents, and other family groups that turn out perfectly fine.

    Why are these groups, if they are loving and stable situations for children (and many are), such a bad thing?

    And, even if their argument about a married couple being the best situation the right one then the natural conclusion would be to allow LGBT to be married.

  • 25. Peterplumber  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:26 am

    They trhow the kids in there to attract attention. It's the "Aaaaawwww" factor. The question is, what are they trying to protect the kids FROM?
    As I posted last week, says they need to pretect the kids from learning that Homosexuality is NORMAL. They don't want their kids growing up thinking that Gay is OK.

  • 26. Kauai Guy  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:31 am

    …and they don't want their kids growing up thinking at all!

  • 27. Sagesse  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:50 am

    Rhie, it's not about the kids. It's about sexuality. They're obsessed with sexuality… other people's. Their churches are obsessed with sexuality, and controlling it. Sex outside marriage is a sin. Kids are the output… the evidence.

    Maggie has spent her adult life trying to atone for her sin… by making other people suffer for it. She fights to protect a purity she didn't live. They don't call it Catholic guilt for nothing.

  • 28. MJFargo  |  February 6, 2011 at 12:18 am

    Nail meet hammer (right on the head).

  • 29. Carpool Cookie  |  February 6, 2011 at 4:26 am

    Is Maggie's whole message (in a round-about way) that she thinks her child born out of wedlock is f-ed up, a mistake?

  • 30. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:22 am

    Watching too

  • 31. Chrys  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:38 am

    I have to say that if Brian Brown reached out and gave me a big hug, I'd likely sue him for assault.

    Names can hurt, sure. Beatings hurt – but bruises heal.

    But when I went off the road last Wednesday because of black ice and hit a tree head-on? If I had died, my lady would have had no home (it's in my name because the mortgage company wouldn't include both of us), no car (her car is in my name for other reasons), and no means of support since she is disabled.

    Yes, we have legal papers drawn up to try to protect her, yes, she is my heir – but as we all know, that can be fairly easily overlooked or overturned.

    And that knowledge hurts worse than any name-calling or bruises ever would.

  • 32. Carpool Cookie  |  February 6, 2011 at 4:30 am

    Several of my friends have got fed up with it all and moved to Canada, where they are not just "tolerated" but actually welcomed, and can marry into a future that has some certainty.

    I miss them!

  • 33. Chrys  |  February 6, 2011 at 8:08 am

    We have considered it. But that feels too much like giving in. We'd rather stay and work toward a country where we are considered equal. 🙂

  • 34. Tomato  |  February 6, 2011 at 8:37 am

    I grew up within a few miles of the border.
    We could see Canada "from our backyard…"
    I do think about emigrating. Nearly every day.
    Look at the folks who saw what was happening to Europe in the 1930's, and got out in time.

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a bible." Sinclair Lewis

  • 35. LCH  |  February 6, 2011 at 11:07 am

    We have also thought about Europe in the 1930's at our house and have discussed emigrating.

  • 36. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:47 am

    OT, but CNN has a story on Dick-Fil-A…

    I left a comment: (my first national news site post!)

    Again, CNN does not tell the whole story…

    It's not just about donated food incidents … read about this:

    Chick-fil-A has spent about $18 million to renovate Berry’s old Normandy buildings — the long-time home of the school’s dairy — during the past year. The company now will run the WinShape Retreat Center, primarily as a marriage seminar and ministry center.

  • 37. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:53 am

    OT: If anyone wants to learn more about Karen Grube, and take note that she's just plain anti-gay, not just pro marriage, google her user name "klgrube"

    From the WaPo on DADT, "What kind of idiots are these Democrats? What part of the results of this election did they NOT understand? LEAVE DADT ALONE!!!! How many more times do real people (as opposed to the liberal elites) and military families have to scream at the top of their lungs, "STOP! JUST STOP THIS NONSENSE!" Quit trying to force the gay agenda on this country – especially our military – against the wishes of the voters, which this is really all about."

    From Politico on DADT, "These egocentric, arrogant jerks we call Senators need to start listening to the military commanders and to their constituents before they spout off about what they support and what they don't support. Their opinion is meaningless. The ONLY opinions that should count on this issue are the commanders, really, and the voices of the families and constituents of these committee members. I wish they'd just shut up and listen for a change and quit spouting off!!!! They just don't get to repeal this policy if the commanders think it's working well to keep the men and women in service to this country safe. If it isn't, that would be a totally different situtation, but this president, who hasn't served one second in the military, doesn't have the right to repeal a policy against the advice of his commanders just to be politically correct or to pay back his gay activist supporters. How incredibly stupid would that be?"

  • 38. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:57 am

    Here on the WaPo she responds to all gay rights issues:

  • 39. Peterplumber  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:59 am

  • 40. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:06 am

  • 41. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:09 am

    And don't get me posting eHarmony…. can we detect the real problem?

  • 42. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:26 am

    Here she goes off the track and into the bushes.

    Reject R-71

    Don’t be fooled. A vote to approve R71 is a vote for gay marriage. If that isn’t clear, then you’re really NOT living in the real world. Look at what’s happened in other states! It’s a vote to have your children taught about homosexuality as young as 5 years of age and giving you no chance to opt your child out of such indoctrination.

    Read more:

  • 43. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:10 am

    LOL No choice? Apparently home schooling and religious schooling doesn't exist in this country. Nor does sending your kid to the public school and then to bible camp and sunday school. You know – actually being a fucking parent.

  • 44. Ed  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:37 am

    Goes off track and into the bushes…..i spit my beer out after reading that…HILARIOUS!! LOL

  • 45. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:39 am

    Karen Grube's rant form

    “Just to be clear about this, the voters of this country won’t settle either! We will not stop until traditional marriage is a part of the US Constitution the way it already is in over 30 states, until gay marriage is gone from the few states in which it is currently allowed, until there is no need for DOMA because there is no reason any longer to have to defend traditional marriage, until people like Kevin Jennings are out of any position of responsibility in our government so they never have the opportunity to mess up any kid’s life again, until parents are the ones who decide what values their kids are taught in public schools, until we stop creating laws that deprive a child of having both a mom and a dad, until schools and public facilities refuse to allow men to walk into the ladies room whenever they ‘feel like a woman,’ until organizations like adoption agencies don’t have to shut their doors because they want to give the children they’re trying to place the best start in life by placing them in traditional families, until our service men and women don’t have to worry about the sexual preference of the their fellow soldiers because no one has to ask and no one has to tell, and until our leaders have more common decency than to try to glorify a child molester like Harvey Milk by nominating him for any kind of award or recognition.

    All we need to accomplish that is a new President, a new Congress, several new Governors and state legislators, several new State Supreme Court Justices and Federal Judges (especially the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals), and a Supreme Court that actually reads the original constitution rather than trying to rewrite it!

    That’s not too much to ask. All it takes is for people to pay attention to what’s going on and actually VOTE!! You can make a difference, even in an off-year election!! Don’t lose this opportunity to get rid of the kinds of changes we never wanted or asked for! Be sure you’re registered and be sure you vote in 2010. It won’t happen without you!”


    For Karen, there's no marriage equality, no LGBTQ people in the federal government, no DADT repeal, no ENDA, no gay adoption, no gay parenting.

    Absolutely no gay rights.

  • 46. Tigger  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:39 pm

    If anyone needs a really cute and fun gay niece or nephew its those beyatch. Someone's gotta change that black heart.

  • 47. Tigger  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:39 pm

    *this* 🙂

  • 48. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:43 am

    Oh no question. She's a true hater. To bad she won't own it. If there is a god or a devil, I think she's working firmly for the devil. 🙂

  • 49. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:57 am


    Monitoring Zach Wahl YouTube:

    20 hours: 51,515 views

    1 Day: 130,598

    2 days: 563,762

    3 days: 1,025,247

    4 days: 1,250,659

  • 50. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:02 am

    On Gay Parenting

    I'm sorry, but gender DOES matter! Kids need both a mom and a dad! This is totally unacceptable! This country shound NEVER deny children the gender role models they so desperately need in their lives to grow up and understand the opposite sex well – and to develop good relationships with them. That's what a family is all about, and what growing up as part of a family is supposed to teach you! In the most intimate setting possible – your home – a child should be able to learn what it is like to live with people of both sexes – their mom and dad. They learn what men and women are all about! Hey, when you can prove to me (aside from some weird, specific, one in half a billion genetic anomaly) that there is really a genetic third neutral gender – fully testable by DNA testing, maybe our laws should change, but as long as babies are born as boys and girls, marriage should be between one man and one woman. Laws should not change because of someone's lifestyle choice or even because of 'love.' I'm sure there are men who 'love' more than one woman and older women who love teenage boys, but we don't let them marry and we don't change our laws to allow it. So just stop this nonsense! Get real! Leave marriage alone! Soon, the few states were gay 'marriage' is allowed will repeal those laws. In Maine, they're preparing to do that, and in New Hampshire and Iowa, constutional amendments have alreayd been written to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, and they're just waiting until they can boot the so-called representatives who forced this on the state without the consent of the people and elect a legislature and Governor who will actually listen to what the people want. Gay activists know this, that's why they're pushing the President and the media so hard to get even more gay rights approved so it will make it more difficult for these laws to be repealed. Sorry, but it just won't work. The people of this country do not want gay marriage. Clearly. There are 30 states with constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and fifteen more with laws prohibiting gay marriage. ANd in every state where they have been allowed to have their voices heard on this issue ath the ballot box, the people have said NO to gay marriage. And until science can prove definitively by genetic or DNA testing that one is born gay the way one can prove that a person is male or female or of a particular race, then granting special rights for someone's lifestyle choice or including them as a 'protected class' should STOP!

  • 51. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:09 am


    Great timing!!! View this video and get back to us…

    [youtube =]

  • 52. Kathleen  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:12 am

    Ray, I don't think it was obvious from Bob's post, but those are not his views. He was quoting Karen Grube, found at the link he provided.

  • 53. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:15 am

    Oh jeeez, I gotta slow down!

  • 54. Kathleen  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:16 am

    Hey, I understand! When I first saw the post, I was confused. It took me a bit to realize he was quoting someone else.

  • 55. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:20 am

    and I thought someone else was using Bob's 'handle!'!! (it is a common name!) 2 funny!

  • 56. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:32 am

    By the way, Ms Grube is one intelligent but disturbed woman. But she does quote right out of the NOM handbook, there are times she repeats Brian's word verbatim. I've run across her a lot in the past few years… it would be much easier on all of us if she'd just come clean and say she hates gays then to dicker about the laws that surround everyone's life.

  • 57. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:27 am

    Yeah, sorry Ray, it was suppose to be inline with my other posts. The confusion is my bad.

    Thanks, Kathleen!

  • 58. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:01 am

    I'm still laughing!

  • 59. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:48 am

    Yep – I did a double take too…

    Bob – please make it clear when you are quoting a hater. 🙂

  • 60. Kathleen  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:51 am

    Btw, this is a different "Bob" than our P8TTer from north of the border.

  • 61. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:54 am


    Yes. I can tell the different writing styles 🙂

  • 62. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:13 am

    Bob, I guess a lot has happened since Mon June 29, 2009 (the date of your CNN story) … how time flies!

  • 63. Ginger  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Aside from being morally repugnant, that post is also just wrong.

    Race is not a scientific notion or category. Generally speaking, you cannot tell someone's race by checking their DNA. (You can sometimes tell what specific ethnic group someone comes from, but that does not always work, and there is nothing uniting the different "White" or "Black" or "Asian" ethnic groups.)

  • 64. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:55 am

    And until science can prove definitively by genetic or DNA testing that one is born gay the way one can prove that a person is male or female or of a particular race, then granting special rights for someone’s lifestyle choice or including them as a ‘protected class’ should STOP!

    Rrrrrright. She'd accept scientific evidence. Yep, I'm sure she would do that.

  • 65. Jenny  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    She defiantly isn't accepting the scientific evidence against children needing a man and a woman raising them. There's lots of it.

  • 66. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    'She defiantly isn’t…'

    Perhaps you meant 'definitely'?

    '…accepting the scientific evidence against children needing a man and a woman raising them. There’s lots of it.'

    Citations or fuck off please.

  • 67. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    Ok, clearly I've had way too much troll this weekend.

    My apologies Jenny – I misread your post.

    Going to bed now. Sweet, sweet sleep….

  • 68. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    took me a minute to parse that too, JonT. She is saying that Karen is defiantly ignoring the fact that science shows that a man and a woman as parents are NOT necessary for children to grow up happy, healthy and productive.

  • 69. Steve  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:23 pm

    "Defiantly" is exactly the right word

  • 70. StraightSupporter  |  February 6, 2011 at 6:22 am

    But isn't this a ridiculous argument anyway? Surely we can reword this:

    "And until science can prove definitively by genetic or DNA testing that one is born Christian/Muslim/Hindu/etc the way one can prove that a person is male or female or of a particular race, then granting special rights for someone’s religious choice or including them as a ‘protected class’ should STOP!"

    Special rights are granted for a person's religion, despite it not being a born trait. Special rights are granted for freedom of expression (surely you made a choice on what clothes to wear today). So if all these other choices are protected rights, even if sexuality were a choice why should it not be protected when these other choices are?

    And if sexuality were a choice, then surely heterosexuality is a choices just as much as homosexuality or bisexuality. So if it is a choice, then it is not equality to have rights for one but not another. If it is not a choice, it is still not equality to have rights for one but not another.

  • 71. Kathleen  |  February 6, 2011 at 6:54 am

    While it might be the case that morally or ethically it makes sense to have policies that give at least equal weight to matters than are not by choice (inherent characteristics) as we do to matters that involve choice (e.g., religion), they are treated differently under the law because of the way legal doctrine has developed over the years.

    In simple terms, we require the government to have a compelling reason to enact laws which impact either (a) a fundamental right, or (b) a protected class of individuals. Because freedoms of religion and speech/expression are specifically guaranteed by the First Amendment, they are considered a fundamental right. It's irrelevant that these involve choice.

    But in order to qualify as a protected class, the court generally looks at a number of factors, including whether the group is a discrete minority possessing an immutable trait, that the group has historically been discriminated against and its members generally lack the ability to protect themselves through the usual political process. It is in this evaluation of whether or not gays and lesbians should be a considered a protected class that we hear the arguments about choice (i.e., immutability).

    To date, the US Supreme Court has not named gs&ls a protected class, which in turn has made it easier for discriminatory laws to pass constitutional muster. The government doesn't need to have a compelling reason for the laws, but only need show that the law is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" governmental interest.

  • 72. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:22 am

    Ray, can you remind me of what that story was about???

    Kathleen,,, the hint tht it's another Bob is obvious in that my brother Bob,,, bless him,, he knows how to post a link,,,,, just to keep things clear,,, I'll let you know if I ever learn to do that,,,, until thien I'll continue making my requests to others to do that for me,,,,which is of course helpfull because my posts are pre screened,,, not all my suggestions make it onto the blog,, I need tht kind of help…

    so while I'm at it,, I wonder if anyone here would enjoy that read about the thirty year history of gay rights in Canada that I recently shared with you,,,, I will let you decide,,, if it's off track or not…

    what I did get from watching it, was that here we went for human rights first,,, we fought on political and human rights issues only,, and as community we got a lot of support from other minority communities,,,, human rights first and SSM followed……

  • 73. AB  |  February 5, 2011 at 9:09 am

    I remember watching the view a while back, and Mike Huckabee said that the difference between marriage equality and the civil rights movement was that the people fighting for civil rights found the denial of those rights to be as offensive as physical violence and–as a result–they laid down their lives for them. Huckabee went on to reason that since no gay person had ever died for marriage equality, it must be a special privilege they sought.
    That was a while back, and it sparked some outrage. Huckabee appeared to be saying that rights were only due to people who suffered physical violence (which is wrong) and that gays hadn't suffered physical violence (which is also wrong).
    Now, Brian Brown appears to be saying that part of the reason that gays and lesbians don't deserve equality is because it turns out that we DO view our deprivation of rights as tantamount to physical violence? I don't get it.
    That such a view is, at once, requisite to receiving equality, AND also a sign of unreasonableness which should preclude the receipt of such equality is lunacy.
    Also, can I point out the irony in Brian Brown, the man who views compromises like civil unions or domestic partnerships as a bridge to far for conservatives, calling ANYONE unreasonable?
    How reasonable was NOM when it was sinking millions into campaigns to revoke hospital rights, even when marriage was not involved? How reasonable was NOM when it was slandering the names of dead persons, who served their communities as clergy or police, just because they happened to be gay and the people they shared their lives with wanted permission to bury remains?
    Let's face it… there is NOTHING reasonable about NOM's view that someone wanting to be by the side of their dying loved one is somehow a threat to the institution of marriage. Brian Brown calling anyone else unreasonable is–as the Bible would say–judging lest ye be judged.
    Gays don’t want your hugs Brian. Your embrace is a poor substitute for being able to see a partner of 30 years one last time before they die.

  • 74. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 9:46 am

    the difference between marriage equality and civil rights,,, seem to me to be that you put the cart befoe the horse……

    it is an interesting approach,,, being able to marry does not automatically give human rights,,,, look at all the work still required,,,,,,, whereas cilvil or secular rights, bestow equality on all people,,,, and SSM flows easily from that….

    focusing on human rights helps keep it out of the religious rhelm…. so all these back and forths about religous views are unnecessary.

    keep it in the political and legislative sphere,,,, when put to the test would America really deny human rights to any individual….. that's the question that every person in power must answer and grapple with…..

    In Obama's state of the union address he as much as slapped us all, with his reference to knowing their are gays in the military,,,, that was a slight ,,,, basically he gets off because we are duking it out individually with each other just like here on this ste,,,,, arguing about our human rights with the religious nut jobs…. We need to hold Obama and his gov't accountable,,,, when will his people enjoy human rights??? that is the question and it needs to be put at his feet, and the gov't needs to own it and decide, where they stand once and for all on this notion of human rights……

  • 75. AB  |  February 5, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    My post no more meant that Mike Huckabee was right that we (as you put it) require more work, anymore than it meant to argue that we should accept the flimsy compromises (eg civil unions) that the oh-so-"reasonable" Brian Brown also rejects. I merely meant to argue that it is useless to argue with the specifics of the claims that Huckabee, or indeed Brown, makes because they are ultimately willing to argue both sides anyway.
    As much as it seems obvious to you that we should keep the debate out of the religious realm, it is still a winning argument for some and we ultimately have to operate within those terms, and negate the arguments OR illuminate hypocrisy when and where possible.

  • 76. Esther  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:09 am

    Brian's word vomit is horribly inhuman…especially in light of those people’s stories (I felt like crying a little by the time I got to Shirley Tan’s).

    But what made me angriest was the little "hug" bit at the end–as if straight people like myself who care about the freedom to marry for their LGBTQ families and friends are being “overemotional” and that giving them a “hug” will cure them of their support for human rights.

    Anyway, I know if he tried to hug me in real life, I’d knee him so hard in the balls–assuming he has any–that he’d spouting his hatred soprano for a week!

    On a lighter note, as I am commenting from a computer with a workplace web filtering policy, I found out Brainless Brian Brown’s Blog™ is blocked…It’s rather amusing that the AI blocking machine detests Brian, Maggie, NOM and their ilk well.

  • 77. Esther  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:13 am

    *Snarl of frustration*….Ignore the random bolding: It was a typing fail on my part; I type so fast I always freaking forget the termination / in the HTML.

  • 78. Carpool Cookie  |  February 6, 2011 at 4:54 am

    It happens to the best of us : ) LBGT, straight, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Morman and all faiths and disbeliefs alike.

    But you haven't lived till you've been trapped, along with the entire rest of the page, in italics world for about 50 entries!

  • 79. Kate  |  February 6, 2011 at 6:00 am

    Our hero Jason is the all-time champ of the italics!

  • 80. bJason  |  February 7, 2011 at 12:41 am

    Oh thank you! So kind to be remembered! 🙂

  • 81. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:23 am

    Rob – nice try. But if they think anything like the last thread's primary troll, your plea would fall on deaf years.

    They simply do not want to understand.

    They will never even try.

  • 82. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:59 am

    For the NOM folks, keep dehumanizing the "other," and this is what your policies can lead to.

  • 83. Kate  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:44 am

    That's exactly their preference – the honest ones admit it. The rest just hide behind marriage inequality blather because they aren't allowed to freely murder us.

  • 84. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:47 am

    '…because they aren’t allowed to freely murder us.'

    And it goes without saying, that if they could freely murder us, they certainly would. Worth keeping in mind.

  • 85. Kate  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:50 am


  • 86. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:45 am

    Thanks for that reminder SA3008.

    That's the kind of action people like karen, BB, MG, TP and other scum like them promote.

    Hopefully the various donor countries like the US will use their money to make them own it, or abandon it.

  • 87. Rev. Will Fisher  |  February 6, 2011 at 5:01 am

    The bishop in the video made proud to be Anglican and Christian. $15 million to recruit kids into homosexuality? Wow, what nonsense!

  • 88. Kathleen  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:43 am

    Just received email notification of this study – purports to be the first large-scale national study of discrimination against transgender and gender non-conforming people, with 6,450 participants from all 50 U.S. states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands:

  • 89. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    Wow. I only read the 'executive' summary document, but those statistics are appalling.

    I can't say I'm surprised given the climate in this supposedly 'advanced' country, but damn. We've got such *along* way to go.

  • 90. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    And for those who may have missed it from the other thread, here is one more example of the ends of the hateful rhetoric of TexasJoe, Karen Grube, and all the other NOMbie SHEEPLE who can only spout the talking points until one of the more unstable elements of NOM's SHEEPLEFOLD act.

  • 91. Michael  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    Shrill anti-gay activist Brown wants to redefine treating Americans unequally under the law and destroying gay families as "love." Then he feigns surprise when he's called on it. Raking in cash by bashing gay families is immoral. Strident anti-gay activist Brown needs to desist with the fake surprise and repent. God sees what he's doing.

  • 92. Tomato  |  February 6, 2011 at 1:19 am

    I have to wonder how much Brian Brown values HIS OWN marriage, if he cannot comprehend that losing a marriage would be worse than having someone spray-paint graffiti on his garage or hit him.

    He must not value his own wife and kids much, if he'd rather abandon them than get beaten up in an alley.

    He must not value his own marriage, if he thinks a hug would fix things if he lost his marriage.

    Must suck to be his wife and kids, and know he values them so little.

  • 93. Tomato  |  February 6, 2011 at 1:20 am

    But then, if Brian Brown is the huge closet-case he appears to be, that would make perfect sense….

  • 94. AB  |  February 5, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    Yikes! This is going to be a close one!

  • 95. Canadian JAG Officer  |  February 6, 2011 at 12:42 am

    Hey everyone, so here are the 6 senators still in play in Maryland that we need 4 of to vote yes for equal marriage!

    Senators John C. Astle,
    Joan Carter Conway,
    Ulysses Currie,
    Edward J. Kasemeyer,
    Katherine A. Klausmeier and
    James C. Rosapepe

    Ill be emailing and calling them, I hope others will be too!

  • 96. AB  |  February 6, 2011 at 8:58 am

    That is what the link above is about.

  • 97. Sheryl Carver  |  February 6, 2011 at 12:57 am

    Does anyone know if Kittleman is still trying to have it both ways? Ie, "I'll vote for the bill, but I won't vote to end a filibuster on it."

  • 98. fiona64  |  February 6, 2011 at 1:07 am

    Hey, gang … just a quick post to let you know that we're mourning in our home today. Our beautiful Dalmatian, Phaedra, had a stroke yesterday and could not walk. We had to send her to the Rainbow Bridge. She was 14-1/2 years old, and had been my best friend for a very long time. She was a finished champion in conformation and a former hospice therapy dog.

    Hug your friends and family, four-leggers included.


  • 99. Sheryl Carver  |  February 6, 2011 at 1:18 am

    I am so sorry, Fiona.

    No matter what the circumstances, having a loved one cross over is very, very hard. Just because you know you did what was best for her, doesn't make the grief any less.

    Based on my experiences working with a very talented animal communicator, I have come to believe that all beings continue on in some way after what we call death. i don't know if you believe in any type of afterlife, but if you do, I hope that brings some degree of comfort during this awful time.

    With love to you & your family,

  • 100. Kathleen  |  February 6, 2011 at 2:18 am

    So sorry, Fiona. 🙁

  • 101. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  February 6, 2011 at 6:23 am

    Big Sigh : ( Love you to you Fiona –

  • 102. Felyx  |  February 6, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    Soboleznovaniya. Condolences from Russia. We lost our Cassidy not long ago… I miss him still.

    From Russia with Love,
    Felyx and Kevyn (and Papa Foma)

  • 103. Bob Barnes  |  February 6, 2011 at 1:58 am

    Fiona, my heart aches with you. I will give my pup extra love today in honor of Phaedra.


  • 104. Kate  |  February 6, 2011 at 2:24 am

    My heart is with you, Fiona.

  • 105. robtish  |  February 6, 2011 at 4:27 am

    Fiona, our dog Lucas is three years old and I can't imagine our home without him. I'm so sorry for your loss. It sounds like you gave him a wonderful life.

  • 106. Carpool Cookie  |  February 6, 2011 at 5:36 am

    I adore my dog! Every time a pet dies I cry and wonder if it's worth it, going through losing one all over again…but of course it is. I found my present one on the street…he was a wild little foundling! Now he resembles an occassionally awake marshmallow more than anything else. But he's happy.

  • 107. Kate  |  February 6, 2011 at 6:03 am

    As awful as it is to lose them, it's even worse to imagine my life without continuing to have dogs in it. There's no justice — goldfish can live to 50, and we're very, very lucky if our dogs make it to 14. And even then, it's not long enough. I try to tell myself that if this weren't the case (if our dogs didn't leave us within a decade or so), I'd still be on my first dog and would have missed out on so many other wonderful ones in my life. It's a pretty piss-poor way to look at it, but I need SOMETHING.

  • 108. Peterplumber  |  February 6, 2011 at 4:27 am

    I am sorry for your loss.

    I have had several dogs in my adult life. It is never easy when we lose one. The last one had to be put to sleep at the age of 10. It is really hard when they die so young. At least Phaedra had a good long life with a family she loved.

    Most of my dogs have been "rescue" dogs, meaning I did not get them as puppies. Some of these rescue dogs came from abusive or neglectful situations. They all come with "issues', but all their issues can be cured with love. I have always loved all my dogs as if they were my kids. It is never easy losing one.

  • 109. Michelle Evans  |  February 6, 2011 at 4:30 am

    Fiona, Much love to you over your loss of Phaedra. Cherie and I lost our beautiful kitty, Fluffy, nearly two years ago now, and it still feels like yesterday…

  • 110. Ann S.  |  February 6, 2011 at 4:40 am

    Hugs to you, Fiona. I'm so sorry.

  • 111. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 6, 2011 at 5:01 am

    I adore therapy dogs – what a way to spread the love of a cherished pet to those in need! Never forget that Phaedra had a wonderful life because of you – my sincerest condolences to you and your family.

  • 112. Ray in MA  |  February 6, 2011 at 6:27 am

    Have good cry, you'll feel better afterwards…

    [youtube =]

  • 113. Rhie  |  February 6, 2011 at 7:03 am

    I am so very sorry.

  • 114. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 6, 2011 at 8:21 am

    Our prayers are with you and your family, fiona. I know it is hard to think about it right now, but take comfort in the memories you made with Phaedra, and the fact that because of those memories, she will always be with you, even though you cannot physically reach out and hug her anymore.

  • 115. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 6, 2011 at 9:31 am

    I still remember how it tore my heart out when I was in junior high and we had to ask the vet to assist our Dalmatian, Duke, over to the other side. I still miss him, even though I was not willing to have him suffer with an inoperable brain tumor.
    And we just lost our little Yorkie, Dixie, this past spring. I still have her picture on my phone as the ID picture for my Mother-in-law's number.
    And our house would be too quiet without Shoshanah, Chaia, and Zusha. Shoshanah is our Cocker spaniel, and our shelter rescue. Chaia was the runt of the litter from a cousin's litter of pure-bred beagles (not that you can tell she was the runt by looking at her now), and Zusha is our little poodle. And he is a handful.
    But I love them all, and am glad they are young, so that we will have them around a while longer yet.

  • 116. Mark M (Seattle)  |  February 6, 2011 at 8:35 am

    Big furry hugs Fiona
    So very very sorry for your loss


  • 117. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2011 at 9:14 am

    Oh no… : ( ….Therapy dogs have a loved filled heart….although your family canine has passed away …the moments of comfort she provided will never part…

    My dog, Woody is going to be 6yo in August….I can't imagine not having him either (like Rob expressed in his condolences)….sad days come & go but the love your pet gave you will aways stay….xoxo, Fiona….<3…Ronnie

  • 118. Paul in Minneapolis  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:38 am

    I'm so sorry to learn of your loss, fiona!

    Your dog was so fortunate to have you. You gave her a good home, a good life and lots of love; too many animals don't have that. Our pets are as much a part of our families as our fellow humans, and it's so very hard to lose either.

    Very sorry for your loss.

  • 119. bJason  |  February 7, 2011 at 12:46 am

    My love and sympathy to you and your family.

  • 120. Sagesse  |  February 6, 2011 at 1:48 am

    New York state of mind: Bush daughter, Catholics support allowing NY same-sex couples to marry

  • 121. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 6, 2011 at 5:05 am

    a recent survey of New York registered voters conducted by Quinnipiac University found that a solid majority (56%) now say they would support a law that would allow same-sex couples to marry. Less than 4-in-10 (37%) New York voters say they would oppose the law. Views on same-sex marriage in New York state have shifted significantly since Quinnipiac first gauged voter sentiment on the issue in April 2004, when a solid majority of New Yorkers opposed allowing same-sex couples to marry (55% to 37%).

    Get the popcorn, folks. It's going to be fun watching the anti-equality side change its tune from "Let the people vote!" as public opinion continues to turn against them.

  • 122. Kate  |  February 6, 2011 at 5:30 am

    "Let the people vote" on Xristianists. Religion, after all, is a choice.

  • 123. Carpool Cookie  |  February 6, 2011 at 5:39 am

    Their rally cry is really "Let the Christianists Vote". Everyone else, Back of the bus!

  • 124. Kate  |  February 6, 2011 at 6:04 am

    UNDER the bus.

  • 125. Sheryl Carver  |  February 6, 2011 at 7:35 am

    Yeah, then drive back & forth over us for a while.

  • 126. Sagesse  |  February 6, 2011 at 2:07 am

    Click thru to see video. Although dated Jan 7, this seems to have just surfaced.

    Iowa's Michael Gronstal Insists He Won't Put Gay People's Rights Up For A Vote;…

  • 127. Sagesse  |  February 6, 2011 at 2:09 am

    Stay tuned on Tuesday

    Hawaii House Panel To Consider Gay Unions Bill;…

  • 128. NetAmigo  |  February 6, 2011 at 2:25 am

    Who the heck is Karen Grube that everyone here seems to be blogging about?

  • 129. Michelle Evans  |  February 6, 2011 at 4:28 am

    She was a troll on this site on Friday and Saturday who is adamantly against not only marriage equality, but any LGBT civil rights. From all that is understood about her and her previous blogs on the subject, she would be very happy if every LGBT person on Earth would simply disappear from existence. And she wouldn't mind helping them disappear, from what's she's said.

  • 130. NetAmigo  |  February 6, 2011 at 8:55 am

    Thanks Michelle. I did glance at some of her comments before but mostly ignored them. It is the same old religious right nonsense that the voters are against "gay marriage" and evil gay activists are foisting their evil agenda on the public. Karen and her agenda are rapidly becoming an anachronism as the public becomes better educated. Karen and her cohorts play on people's fears and ignorance. We understand human sexuality and sexual orientation much better today thanks to our mental health community. Prop. 8 barely passed two years ago. I'm sure if a the vote were taken today it would not pass. The religious right knows that change is coming. That is one reason they are frantically trying to change our constitutions around the country to codify their bigotry and prejudice.

  • 131. Sagesse  |  February 6, 2011 at 2:31 am

    I'm getting to like Catholics for Equality. Is it my imagination, or are more people pointing out that the Catholic church hierarchy does not speak for the Catholic voter?

    Catholic Conference Outlines Legislative Priorities, Attacks LGBT Families

  • 132. Sagesse  |  February 6, 2011 at 2:37 am

    Another binational couple

    With Deportation Set for Valentines Day, Brian & Anton Fight For A Future Together

  • 133. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  February 6, 2011 at 8:13 am

    : (

  • 134. Sagesse  |  February 6, 2011 at 4:25 am

    Tony Perkins, eat your heart out.

    Congressman: AFA should welcome gay clergy, same-sex dating

  • 135. Carpool Cookie  |  February 6, 2011 at 5:17 am

    If she sent any of them from work and her employer cares…she's really screwed. Date stamps aren't hard to check.

    "Oh what a tangled web we weave / When first we practice to deceive!" (Scott)

  • 136. Sarah  |  February 6, 2011 at 5:25 am

    just subscribing

  • 137. Ray in MA  |  February 6, 2011 at 5:47 am

    Since Karen Grube appears to have no sense of compasssion, she obviously can’t understand why some people here are concerned about privacy:

    Neighbor: Arson victims suffered anti-gay harassment

    We’ve seen this scenario too many times in too many places.

    Has anyone ever seen these headlines:

    “Arson victims were anti-gay proponents” ?

    I challenge anyone to come up with that headline!

    Google results:

    Your search – “Arson victims were anti-gay” – did not match any documents.

    No results found for “anti-gay Arson victims”

  • 138. Bob Barnes  |  February 6, 2011 at 12:37 am

    Remember, Karen Grube ignores what ALL the major medical and psychological associations say about sexual orientation. She instead, choices willfully to define us with already debunked claims about homosexuality. And these view and their voices on these views lead to harm for us all.

    She will not stop for one minute to consider her actions and how it affects real living beings, from children to the elderly. She has zero compassion.

    She will do everything in her power to work against you and me… it may be underhanded, it may seem unethical, but if it's legal, she'll do it.

    It's time to return the favor.

  • 139. Ray in MA  |  February 6, 2011 at 12:47 am

    She looks like a nice person, tho…

  • 140. Kathleen  |  February 6, 2011 at 1:58 am

    Seems she's a "birther" too. Wow. Just wow.

  • 141. Ray in MA  |  February 6, 2011 at 12:53 am

    and Karne Grube has a friend named Michael in Norfolk…

    In 2008, he considered her "An Uber Christianist Lunatic".

  • 142. Felyx  |  February 6, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    Way to go Michael!!! Callin' it like it is!

    (i about dies laughing over the expression 'Uber Bat-Shit Crazy'… LOL!)

  • 143. Ray in MA  |  February 6, 2011 at 1:27 am

    Would you say Karen Grube is a kind-hearted, generous person? (or just cheap?)

    AS a taxpayer, I refuse to pay for military lesbian in-vitro fertization treatments. I refuse to pay to treat increased cases of HIV, since the CDC has now shown that the biggest increase in HIV is among men having sex with men. I refuse to pay for military housing for ‘gay’ couples or their so-called families. And I refuse to allow state laws to have to recognize military gay ‘marriages’ when a couple married in one state is posted to another state that does not recognize gay marriage. These things are just wrong, and I am proud to stand with NOM and AFTAH in refusing to accept them.

    Comment by Karen Grube — October 2, 2010 @ 1:45 pm

  • 144. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 6, 2011 at 1:29 am

    Not only is she cheap, she is a very bitter, mean-spirited wench!

  • 145. Kate  |  February 6, 2011 at 1:35 am

    I'm sure she'd be delighted to be able to pay for a government-sponsered extermination program of all of us, though. AND of our allies.

  • 146. Kate  |  February 6, 2011 at 1:45 am

    sponsored. sorry.

  • 147. Bob Barnes  |  February 6, 2011 at 1:56 am

    Sad to say, but it looks like Karen supports some sort of final-solution plan.

    Oh well, let her words paint herself the corner with Fred Phelps. Sure they have different strategies but they both want negative things to happen to LGBTQ people.

    I relish the fact that the hell she so condemns us to will actually be her own. Keep talking Karen.

  • 148. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2011 at 9:51 am

    I'd say she is an ingrate who doesn't deserve her freedoms since she so blatantly disrespects those who are risking their lives for her, all of us, & our country…..ALL American pay taxes LGBT & Straight…so she needs to stop being so f-ing selfish….she is not superior to everybody else who does not live their lives how she demands…..She is not some form of God or higher power…she is not above the law…It is this simple, if she doesn't want her taxes used to help ALL Americans.. then she needs to STFU, don't pay taxes & I hope she has fun in prison….She seams very much to be a ….. Belligerent…Ignorant…&…Greedy…Oppressive…Tyrant…….(look at the 1st letters)

    just saying…. : I …Ronnie

  • 149. fiona64  |  February 6, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    She's also a liar. The largest growing group of HIV patients, according to the CDC, is heterosexual women of color.


  • 150. Sagesse  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    This transition bears watching. Not sure I agree with everything in the article, but….

    Gay-Fearing Righties Swing, Miss

  • 151. Sagesse  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:18 pm

    Gregory, can these bill pass?

    In Utah, animals have more protection than homosexuals

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