Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Mark your calendar for Ruth Institute's Junk Evidence Gala


By Adam Bink

This is something else:

I wonder what debunked, half-baked evidence they’ll pull out to demonstrate same-sex unions are destroying marriages in America.


  • 1. Peterplumber  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:10 am


  • 2. Lightning Baltimore  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:12 am

    I want to hear how contraception is destroying marriage! Nashville's only a four hour drive, and I must say I'm tempted.

  • 3. bJason  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:34 am

    Same here! Very tempted indeed.

  • 4. nightshayde  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:53 am

    Here's my guess (and I can't see the posted video here at work).

    Contraception is destroying marriage because being able to plan or delay starting a family gives women the idea that they can express their sexual urges outside of the bonds of marriage. Why get married if you can have sex without consequences? Contraception also gives women the ability to hold full-time jobs/careers. When a woman becomes financially self-sufficient, she doesn't "need" a man to take care of her. If she doesn't need a man to take care of her, she's free to kick his sorry backside to the curb if he cheats on her or if he tries to force her to conform to gender-based stereotypes to which she doesn't want to conform.

    If women would go back to the good ol' days of remaining virginal until marriage (which they'd do earlier if they can't have sex any other way) & then start reproducing as soon after the wedding as possible, they'll be trapped in bad marriages forever because they won't have the financial means (or job skills) to get out and support themselves and their children.

    Jennifer and her ilk don't give a rat's backside whether people are happily married or not — just that they're married. They seem to feel that being in a loveless or even abusive marriage is better than being in no marriage at all.

  • 5. Kathleen  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:12 am

  • 6. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:17 am

  • 7. Ann S.  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:08 am


  • 8. JonT  |  February 8, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Sorry, I could only make it about 1 minute into the video before my gag-reflex kicked in.

    These people are just so… delusional.

  • 9. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2011 at 1:05 am

    I concur….there is not enough antimetics in the world…. :-& …Ronnie

  • 10. plainmike  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:14 am

    right around :46 it looks like she is trying not to laugh… as she is saying "evidence that supports the bishops' position"… i found it very entertaining 🙂

  • 11. Straight for Equalit  |  February 9, 2011 at 3:06 am

    At 1:06 when she uses air quotes I found it hard to believe this wasn't a parody on SNL.

  • 12. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:17 am

    Any lie they can think of! They will probably use the same stuff their trolls have posted here!

  • 13. Randy  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:24 am

    Been reading for a while, not commented much, but I would love to have a bunch of our Muslim allies sign up and go to this meeting, I am betting their idea of an "Interfaith" gathering does not include "those" people… Or we should start a drive to pay for as many allies as possible to attend and ask those uncomfortable questions like "What does this have to do with Civil rights?"

  • 14. Carpool Cookie  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:39 am

    [b]"I would love to have a bunch of our Muslim allies sign up and go to this meeting, I am betting their idea of an 'Interfaith' gathering does not include 'those' people…"

    Failing that, anyone who attends can just wear a burkha, for kicks.

  • 15. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:42 am

    And you know that they are not including any representatives from any of the synagogues who are members of the WCLGBTJ–the World Congress of LGBT Jews, whose member synagogues are a mix of LGBTQ and our straight allies! Would love to show up in my official garb as rebbitizen! Complete with rainbow yarmulke and prayer tallis!
    Only thing is, I am not sure I could tolerate that much stupidity and ignorance for that long a stretch!

  • 16. Randy  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:45 am

    I thought about that, but I want us to be on the right side, we should send people who will go participate and ask questions based on their faith. I have a fairly good feeling that most people of faith in the country are actually coming around to see the truth of equality; it makes good spiritual sense… The problem is those people who try to make money off the uninformed, they do not believe what they say, but they do believe in the money. That is the one problem I do have with my idea; we have to give them money to go…

  • 17. Josh  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:12 am

    Amen, it's all about raising money to keep people under control by their version of their holy book. The good religious groups are GLBT inclusive.

  • 18. nightshayde  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:12 am

    Why do I get the impression that their version of "interfaith" involves merely various denominations of Christianity (or even various denominations of Fundamentalist Christianity)?

    I'd love to see some Wiccans, some Pagans, some UUs, some Reform Jews, and perhaps some people who follow various Asian philosophies/religions, too.

  • 19. fiona64  |  February 8, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    In response to discussion of Wicca being recognized by the military chaplaincy:

    “I don’t think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision.”
    — George W. Bush to ABCNEWS, June, 1999

    (I suspect that you’re right, Nightshayde … only people of ‘real’ religions have been invited to this shindig. Which, of course, means various brands of Christian.)


  • 20. Mouse  |  February 8, 2011 at 10:49 am

    And by various brands of Christian, we mean only the good ones.

    And by good, we mean only the ones who believe exactly what we believe.

    None of that liberal hippy "Love thy neighbor" garbage, nor "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

  • 21. Rhie  |  February 10, 2011 at 6:21 am

    Oh, you're completely right. The fundamentalist Christian high school I attended was part of the "interfaith" sports league. That is, they included Catholics.

  • 22. Carpool Cookie  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:35 am

    1.) Ms. Morse needs a decent hairdresser.

    2.) I first thought she said "we're giving a cool concert…" (rather than conference), and I had visions of a few of us forming a band in time.

  • 23. Lightning Baltimore  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:40 am

    She sounds soooo uncool when she says "cool."

  • 24. Carpool Cookie  |  February 8, 2011 at 6:46 am

    I thought that too! Is it the Ruth Institute that funded the "cool" let's-make-a-video program for teens? They are soooooooooooooooooooo coooooooooooooool!!!!

  • 25. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 8, 2011 at 6:11 am

    1.) Ms. Morse needs a decent hairdresser.

    Side effect of hating the gays. (just teasing – excuse the pun!) ;-D

  • 26. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 6:12 am

    Actually, you made two of them. But you made me laugh with both of them, so I guess that means you did a double mitzvah!

  • 27. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:20 am

    Double mitzvah all the way! 😉

  • 28. Mouse  |  February 8, 2011 at 10:50 am

    So bright, so vivid!

  • 29. Josh  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:14 am

    Haha, this whole section of comments is making me laugh a lot. Yea, this Ruth lady is not so coooool.

  • 30. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2011 at 1:13 am

    ROFL…. XP ….Ronnie

  • 31. Jonathan H  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:58 am

    Other threats to traditional family include women's suffrage, laws prohibiting child abuse, the existence of other traditions, and the internet. Come on down and learn why!

    Seriously, divorce being on that list puzzled me, because I think of divorce as the result of a destroyed marriage, not the cause. I suppose the idea is that if divorce is outlawed then every marriage will be happy and secure!

    Some of the Sherlock Holmes stories mention that the near ban on divorce did nothing but make people more miserable. And occasionally provide a motive for murder.

    It seems like a lot of these groups actually enjoy human suffering and try to increase it. I don't understand it.

  • 32. Jonathan H  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:59 am

    Also, if I click the box, I'll get more email. Yay!

  • 33. Mouse  |  February 8, 2011 at 10:51 am

    Of course these groups enjoy suffering. Misery loves company.

  • 34. Ed  |  February 8, 2011 at 6:05 am

    Hey Maggie….your gravy train with biscuit wheels (Thanks, Bill Murray, I *love* that line.) is without a doubt coming to a halt…..

  • 35. nightshayde  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:56 am

    Awww – please don't ruin the image of biscuits & gravy in my head. It's such a lovely thing — don't want to associate it with that creature.

    Side note: I made absolutely SCRUMPTIOUS Chicken & Dumplings last night. It took ages to make (my first time breaking down a whole chicken, among other things) — but it was worth the time & effort.

  • 36. fiona64  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:08 am

    I <3 chicken and dumplings.


  • 37. nightshayde  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:26 am

    Here is the recipe I used (if the embedded link works).

    I added a few cloves of garlic to the vegetable mixture.

    This makes a BIG pot of food. I ate a good size bowl & my Mom ate a little bowl — then we put away two full 6-cup containers & one 6-cup container that was 3/4 full.

  • 38. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 8, 2011 at 6:09 am

    It'll have as much scientific evidence as a creationism conference, I'm sure.

  • 39. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 8, 2011 at 6:12 am

    When do they get to "women not knowing their place" as something destroying marriages? No cherry-picking, guys!

  • 40. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 6:18 am

    Actually, the women who strengthen marriages are those who do know their place, and know that their place is exactly equal to their partner and who do not take any BS. The women here on P8TT are living examples of women who know their place, and who exercise their rights to full equality based on that knowledge. I don't care who you are married to, you are equal to your spouse, whether you are married to a man or to a woman. Unfortunately, this is not what the Ruth Institute would have us to believe. But then, that is their stupidity!

  • 41. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:19 am

    Amen, Richard!

  • 42. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:39 am

    My older sisters all had very strong marriages and a major reason those marriages lasted for life was the fact that their husbands knew that they would not be allowed to bully my sisters. They also knew that my sisters were their equals and that they expected to be treated as such.

  • 43. Rhie  |  February 8, 2011 at 6:19 am


  • 44. Ed  |  February 8, 2011 at 6:35 am

    OT, but if there was any doubt as to why the AFA is a hate group…..may i present evidence…

  • 45. fiona64  |  February 8, 2011 at 6:54 am

    I had to stop reading about halfway through. "Manifest Destiny" stuff like this is so ridiculous.

    Fiona (who is definitely learning to pay attention to her emotional barometer and not keep reading things that do not vibrate/resonate with her best self)

  • 46. Felyx&Kevyn  |  February 9, 2011 at 4:57 am

    Not one positive comment! What a maroon!

  • 47. Carpool Cookie  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:33 am

    Wow! That article (This article, Native Americans Morally Disqualified Themselves from the Land) reads like a (sad) satire!

    My favorite bits…

    (Comparing Native Americans to be cleared from the land as "god" punished the Canaanite people from Gen. 15:16)"His patience was not rewarded, and finally the day came when the sin had reached its full measure. The slop bucket was full, and it was time to empty it out. Israel under Joshua was God’s custodian to empty the bucket and start over."

    (Painting the Native Americans as depraved, diseased, sexual predators) "The journals record the morally abhorrent practice of many native American chiefs, who offered their own wives to the Corps of Discovery for their twisted sexual pleasure. (Regrettably, many members of the Corps, Lewis and Clark excepted, took advantage of these offers and contracted numerous and debilitating sexually transmitted diseases as a result.)

    Interesting….take on American history.

  • 48. fiona64  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:44 am

    Isn't it, though? I wonder what this individual has to say about the smallpox-infected blankets given to indigenous people by the missionaries?

    Or is that okay since the indigenous people were "icky"?

    (Honest to the gods, the whole manifest destiny nonsense that this guy spews is so completely offensive to me as an anthropology student that I don't know where to start … so I'll just stop.)


  • 49. Carpool Cookie  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:09 am

    The horrified comments over there are heartening, though : )


    * This can't be a legit article. It really can't. I'm not saying nobody could come to the pathetic conclusions that the author did, but to publish it on a site associated with family values? Did we skip ahead to April 1st?

    * Wow. If you don't get fired for this article, I will lose the remaining little faith I do have.

    * So people who killed Indians were doing the Lord's work, clearly. Is it still OK to kill Indians? Please let us know ASAP so we know how to proceed.

    * So in the same respect, Israel owns Palestine?

    * Incredible false information. Much history is ignored here. Like the fact that the Indians welcomed the first religious fanatics that arrived at their shore. Second, that these fanatics had been driven from Europe due to their fanaticism. Third, that the form of representative democracy that our country was founded on was illustrated in the Native Confederacy of tribal government. And of course the fact that Jefferson spoke against any religious form of government and was against any form of state religion. [responding to the author's claim that many Native Americans are somehow nomadic and "aimless"] If you take away a man's land, his ability to hunt and gather, give him liquor, and push him into the street and beat him periodically, he will appear as a homeless person. Kidnapping Africans and enslaving them accomplishes the same purpose.

    * I teach at a small Christian college. A little while back, one of my students posted something like this as her Facebook "religion" status: "I love Jesus, but his followers kind of creep me out." This mean-spirited and blatantly false diatribe shows why so many people come to feel that way. It makes me sad.

    * You of course know the people who wrote the Bible didn't know the Americas or China existed. Why did the Chinese and the Indians (India) survive as a people with their lands intact? Why did the Mongols take over most of the known world in the 13th Century? Your whole arguement is full of holes.

  • 50. JonT  |  February 8, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    Hah – yes! Some still support the article, but there are some good responses.

    'Thanks for helping to hasten the secularization of America.'


  • 51. Steve  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:51 am

    But Lot offering his virgin daughters for the strangers to rape is perfectly ok!

  • 52. Carpool Cookie  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:12 am

    Please don't get me started on Lot and his daughters….!

  • 53. Ann S.  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:17 am

    Actually, one bit of that is true — members of the Lewis & Clark expedition did come back with a lot of STDs. They had treated themselves for the symptoms with one of the remedies of the day, which contained heavy metal (mercury or lead, I forget which). It is possible that the effects of this medicine are related to Lewis's later erratic behavior and suicide.

    As for the rest of it — load of bollocks.

  • 54. Tom B.  |  February 9, 2011 at 6:50 am

    First thing I did after I read the article was to send an email to CNN about it, I mean, I think this kind of vitriolic hateful man needs to be put over the coals on a national stage, am I right?

  • 55. Manilow  |  February 8, 2011 at 6:57 am

    I also love the she is the one who mentions both the debate being a "battle" and giving participants the "ammunition" they need to defend marriage.

    An interesting choice of words for people who claim they were hapless bystanders in a culture war.

  • 56. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:04 am

    Also a very interesting choice of words coming from people who have the same political leanings as the Tea Party and SarahPAC! What's next–the sighting crosshairs that will later inexplicably become renamed "surveyor's sights?"

  • 57. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:22 am

    If you've ever watched Jesus Camp, you'll see that the war imagery is all over the place at meetings like this.

  • 58. fiona64  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:25 am

    "Jesus Camp" scared the crap out of me.



  • 59. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:29 am

    I think only Idiocracy is scarier.

  • 60. fiona64  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:45 am

    It's a toss-up to me.

    I just keep thinking about that creepy little toddler (with his angelic face) in "Jesus Camp" talking about how people were going straight to hell if they didn't get saved. It's like watching a possessed doll.


  • 61. Straight for Equalit  |  February 9, 2011 at 1:59 am

    I didn't know about Idiocracy. Now I'll have to watch it. Thanks!

  • 62. Carpool Cookie  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:34 am

    Yes…that documentary was a horror show.

  • 63. Mackenzie  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:02 am

    how is their view more Humane and Realistic than ours? I don't even know what the means. I doubt she does either. What A Mess.

  • 64. JayeInMaryland  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:03 am

    Just saw the following on the Washington Post and found it fascinating — "Debunking 'Biblical Marriage'

  • 65. Kathleen  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:08 am

    Yes, It's time again for Mrs Better Bowers, America's Best Christian.

  • 66. Kathleen  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:08 am

    Mrs "Betty" Bowers

  • 67. JayeInMaryland  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:20 am

    Love that video!

  • 68. JonT  |  February 8, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    Yay! 🙂 One of my all-time faves.

  • 69. fiona64  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:21 am

    Hey, TexasJoe? You might want to have a look at this commentary …


  • 70. JoeRH  |  February 9, 2011 at 4:22 am

    Am I TexasJoe? Just checking.

  • 71. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2011 at 4:23 am

    No, you are not. Thankfully!

  • 72. fiona64  |  February 9, 2011 at 4:26 am

    I'm guessing not. (See "Maggie (a)(b)(ps)" … yes, I know it's not quite right, but you'll find it … if you want to know what this is about.)


  • 73. Peterplumber  |  February 9, 2011 at 4:28 am

    TexasJoe sorta kinda went away…

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

    Ok, I've read his asinine posts. I know there are a lot of people who follow religion here, so I won't unleash my feelings on it, but I'd really REALLY like to hear an argument against SSM that doesn't involve religious preachings. If this is all about religion, then the argument of our country being free to follow whichever religion we want doesn't make any sense to push into our laws. Our laws should be separate from a particular religion's views.

    You called me out as a misogynist awhile ago, but I don't think I said anything as bad as this comment of TexasJoe's (paraphrasing): "A man is made in God's image, and men are above women, so a man having sex with another man is reducing God to a "mere woman."" Ok, not only is he a dick when it comes to equality and logic, but he is a blatant misogynist, apparently using his religion as justification.

    People like that guy are toxic to society. I know it's also unconstitutional, but I wish we could divide the country up between those who are for law and those who want to follow "God's law". Things would be so much more peaceful and fair. Or the people on the strictly religious side would start pulling off terrorist attacks on the others… "It's God's will!!!" *barf*

  • 75. JoeRH  |  February 9, 2011 at 5:59 am

    The link to this awesome article should be posted on every single anti-SSM blog out there so people can really see how little weight their arguments carry. I already posted it to my Facebook.

  • 76. Fred  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:26 am

    "Dr." Morse, as far as I can tell, has a PhD in Economics.

    How does that qualify her at all as an expert on marriage or relationships?

    Seems that she has about as much to offer as our trial buddy, David Blankenhorn (and his Masters degree in history).

  • 77. bJason  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:58 am

    or "Dr." Alveda King (with her degree in Honorary)

  • 78. AnonyGrl  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:21 am


  • 79. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2011 at 1:28 am

    ROTFLMGAYAO….that was great….<3…Ronnie

  • 80. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 8, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    I'm betting a lot of those doctorates were from Biola, Liberty, and Bob Jones.

  • 81. Straight for Equalit  |  February 9, 2011 at 2:25 am

    Or Maggie Gallagher with her degree in Religious Studies.

  • 82. Ed  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:07 am
    LOLOLOLOL…..She MADE the case????

  • 83. Kathleen  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:15 am

    I like how the blog posts ends with a threat, "The legislature should heed the overwhelming call of their constituents not to change marriage in Maryland," said Brown. "If they proceed down this radical path, the voters will surely overturn them in 2012."

  • 84. nightshayde  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:28 am

    I hope they proceed, and that the voters don't overturn them.

    And please don't call me Shirley.

  • 85. Mark M - Seattle  |  February 9, 2011 at 2:18 am

    RIP Leslie 😉

  • 86. Carpool Cookie  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:14 am

    Something is wrong with me. I so would love to dress really conservatively and attend this "conference".

    Please please please no one offer me a ticket…..

  • 87. fiona64  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:17 am

    If you go, please ask why you are not allowed to own Canadians.


  • 88. Kathleen  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:28 am

    I'm not?!?

  • 89. Kate  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:30 am

    Uh-oh, Kathleen; it looks as though we'll have to send ours back.

  • 90. nightshayde  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:33 am

    Shhhh. Just tell people they're your cousins & that they say weird stuff sometimes.

  • 91. Kathleen  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:37 am

    Yeah, who knew??

  • 92. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Damn! And we just ordered two brawny Canadian redheads to help out around here. And no, I am not sending them back home, except for vacations.

  • 93. fiona64  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:50 am

    My favorite question about Levitical law:

    Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?


  • 94. fiona64  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:52 am

    Okay, you all obviously need the whole list. The letter was originally sent to Dr. Laura Schlessinger after she did an on-air rant involving the usual clobber verses:

    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

    When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

    I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

    Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

    I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

    Fiona (who is generally laughing out loud by the time we reach the part about Canadians)

  • 95. Steve  |  February 8, 2011 at 10:32 am

    "The West Wing" has an awesome take on that letter:

  • 96. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Yes, and we were all laughing right a long with you, fiona. Although it would be nice to have a couple brawny Canadians around here to help with some of the stuff that needs doing here!

  • 97. fiona64  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:31 pm


    The first time that episode aired, I was in another room. My husband yelled for me to come quick, because "Martin Sheen is doing your rant about owning Canadians!"


  • 98. Rhie  |  February 10, 2011 at 6:26 am

    Oooh I LOVE that rant. I about died laughing when I saw Pres. Bartlet (Martin Sheen) actually say all this to the show's version of Dr Laura.

  • 99. Kathleen  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:56 am

    I know what the comment was referencing. I was just shocked to find out there was a prohibition against Canadians.

  • 100. Kate  |  February 8, 2011 at 9:04 am

    Maybe we can still have Newfoundlanders since they haven't been Canadians all that long.

  • 101. Kathleen  |  February 8, 2011 at 9:08 am

    I like your thinking, Kate.

  • 102. nightshayde  |  February 8, 2011 at 9:08 am

    Perhaps the French Canadians who want to be their own country?

  • 103. Peterplumber  |  February 8, 2011 at 9:16 am

  • 104. AnonyGrl  |  February 8, 2011 at 10:45 am

    Maybe it would be ok to keep them if you promise not to beat them?

  • 105. Steve  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:48 am

    But that would contradict other verses (both in the OT and NT) that allow and demand the beating the slaves

  • 106. Peterplumber  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:53 am

    Speaking of Newfoundlanders…

  • 107. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    That only applies to those slaves who enjoy getting beaten.

  • 108. Peterplumber  |  February 8, 2011 at 12:44 pm

  • 109. Kate  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:25 am

    How much are the tickets? I can't watch the video to find out. I would LOVE to buy one for Cookie.

  • 110. Carpool Cookie  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:41 am


    It would be like placing an enormous chocolate cake in fron tof me!


    Seriously, my head would explode.

    And I would probably get all the Bible students drunk each night after the lectures……

  • 111. AnonyGrl  |  February 8, 2011 at 10:46 am

    Probably the best thing you COULD do.

    I'm up for donating to this cause. 🙂

  • 112. John B.  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:47 am

    Not domestic abuse?
    Not alcoholism or substance abuse?
    Not infidelity?
    Not differences in religious beliefs?
    Not the complete failure of numerous adulterous and multiply-divorced and remarried leaders on the right to set a good example?

    If they are serious about strengthening marriage, these people have their priorities completely backwards.

  • 113. Paul in Minneapolis  |  February 8, 2011 at 9:13 am

    Why would anyone of "no faith tradition" (like me; I'm an atheist) want to attend this blatantly Catholic event? If one doesn't accept Catholicism (or any other religious beliefs) as a legitimate basis for American civil law, what could this "conference" possibly offer?

  • 114. AnonyGrl  |  February 8, 2011 at 10:08 am

    My guess is it offers a chance to pay for something you really don't want to hear, to be preached at with attempts to convert you, and to be told that you are wrong, heretical and most likely the spawn of the devil, with a possible side trip to Graceland, if you time it right.

  • 115. Felyx&Kevyn  |  February 9, 2011 at 5:47 am

    As is suspected, the invitation to all faiths and those of no faith tradition is really the pragmatic realization that more gay friendly reporters are attending these events than actual interested participants.

  • 116. AnonyGrl  |  February 8, 2011 at 10:05 am

    At 1:14…

    "the battle for natural marriage is…"

    That was the point at which I had to stop listening, or risk throwing my brand new computer through a wall.

    Natural marriage? Natural? What the HELL is natural marriage? Is it polygyny, one male and several females, which is biologically the most sound method for many species in nature, for instance lions, where the male keeps a harem in order to spread his semen around and breed as much as possible? Is it homosexuality, as practiced in nature by penguins, among so many others, for instance? Is it similar to the cuckoo bird, which first destroys the eggs it finds in a host nest, then lays its own there, some sort of forced adoption process? Is it, perhaps, more like one in which the mother sea turtle breeds with the male, then leaves him to swim thousands of miles away and abandon all the unborn children in a hole in the sand while she swims out to sea, never to see them again?

  • 117. AnonyGrl  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:10 am

    I posted the following comment on the YouTube page of this video. I am sure that the answer will be self evident… and even more so because the comment will never make it through moderation.

    "I am a bisexual woman, strongly and solidly in support of marriage equality, who thinks that contraception is perhaps one of the biggest boons to women, and thereby to equal partnership in marriage, ever. I feel that divorce can sometimes help to actually save a family that is in serious crisis, and I think that the practice of living with someone before taking the much more serious step of marriage can, in fact, help a couple discover areas they need to work on.

    How welcome am I?"

  • 118. Sagesse  |  February 8, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    One day they'll throw a party and no one will come.

  • 119. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 8, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Well, there's always be some…there are still Klan and Neo-Nazi rallies. But hopefully they'll be just as politically irrelevant.

  • 120. Sagesse  |  February 8, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    On second thought, Richard is right… inundate them with faith traditions of the welcoming kind.

  • 121. James Sweet  |  February 9, 2011 at 1:12 am

    FWIW, opposing contraception ultimately amounts to endorsing violence against and subservience of women. I'm sure many people who buy into this bullshit have no such malicious intentions, but that's the eventual outcome.

  • 122. JoeRH  |  February 9, 2011 at 4:20 am

    This woman is a total twat. And then there are all the people scrolling along the bottom of the page. I guess even the most deficient of people can get a Ph D since these people apparently think they have something valid to say to support this moronic organization. Then again, they could be focusing on the oh-so-horrible contraception and the other things which would put us back several decades. In any case, this woman deserves a giant boot up her ass or a brain in her skull. The part with her motioning quotation marks makes me want to spit in her fugly face.

  • 123. Peterplumber  |  February 9, 2011 at 4:27 am

    OK, but how do you REALLY feel?

  • 124. JoeRH  |  February 9, 2011 at 5:25 am

    I'm an angry person.

  • 125. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  February 9, 2011 at 5:15 am

    What's truly disgusting is that in their TRuth Institute video they are using "The Creation of Adam" fresco by the famous gay artist, Michelangelo. Way to go, guys! Use what homos create, for your decorations against us and then tell us how we're going to hell!

  • 126. Felyx&Kevyn  |  February 9, 2011 at 5:54 am

    (T)Ruth(less) that is…

  • 127. Jeffrey Weekley  |  February 9, 2011 at 11:11 pm

    It's OBSCENE for the Catholic Church and its minions to suggest that contraception and the ability for a woman to choose when and how to have a child is a threat to marriage.

    Lack of control over reproduction is the single greatest contributor to woman's enslavement in poverty, their lack of access to education and their ignorance.

    What is threatened is the Catholic Church's ability to keep billions of women in illiteracy and poverty. What's at stake is their ability to use superstition and lies to control people and take their money.

  • 128. Alteril Reviews&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 7:46 am

    Steve’s Sleep Loss Site…

    […]the following are many links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[…]…

  • 129. Woodworking4home&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    Steve’s Woodworking Site…

    […]these are a lot of links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[…]…

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