Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Flier belier: Debunking MN For Marriage’s latest handout

Marriage equality

Jeremy takes this thing apart- Adam

Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

MN For Marriage’s latest, in two parts:


1. No, nobody is seeking “two irreconcilable and conflicting definitions” of marriage. Equality activists are seeking *one* concrete definition that doesn’t discriminate on the basis of gender. The ones creating two irreconcilable definitions are those who demand same-sex couples meet all the burden$ of citizenship, yet fail to provide equal protection and due process under the law.

2. The “31 of 31 states” canard: This is so intellectually dishonest. Yes, it’s technically true. However, the vast majority of those states happened at a very different time, when marriage equality was much more untested, the public was much more apt to buy into fear lines, and those who might defend equality in these early states were completely blindsided by the conservative onslaught. We never had a chance then, whereas now we have nothing but opportunity. In fact, in many ways, the crude discrimination attached to this early wave helped us connect the dots for a previously unengaged public.

3. The “adopted by a bipartisan majority of Congress” thing: This is in reference to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act vote, and it is completely misleading. Sure, more than a few Congressional Democrats of a decade-and-a-half ago voted with the GOP majorities that controlled both chambers, many of them names (Biden, Mikulski) who would surely vote differently today. However, only one Republican — ONLY ONE! — voted against federal DOMA back in the day, an openly gay, retiring Congressman by the name of Steve Gunderson. Other than Gunderson, it was the Democratic party, even then, that put up the resistance to that decade’s vast right-wing wave: A right-wing wave that voted for DOMA by a 277-1 margin!

So yes, again, one can technically call the 1996 vote bipartisan. But the facts are a little more complex than the talking point. More here.

4. President Clinton, like many of the aforementioned Democrats who voted for DOMA, now stands against both DOMA and marriage discrimination in general. If we’re going to talk about the vote of 2012, then let’s talk about 2012 and not a congressional vote held sixteen years before.

5. “Current times”: Our current times includes six states and the nation’s capital with civil marriage equality. Massachusetts has had marriage equality for seven years now. And guess what? NOT ONE OF THE FAR-RIGHT FEAR CLAIMS HAS COME TRUE! Conservatives who are pushing this form of discrimination are going to have to start owning what is real, instructive, and patently obvious!

6. “The people” get to decide: Well no, not on issues pertaining to minority rights they don’t. Or at least they shouldn’t. The “protect marriage” crowd of the here and now might think it’s super fun to toss around the idea that minority rights should be up for a public vote, since they maintain a slight majority in most polling (and certainly rally their hyper-motivated base better on election day). But anyone who considers the implications, based on both a read of history and a consideration of a theoretical future, would hopefully think twice before so casually and carelessly tossing around “let the people vote” claims.

Oh, and it’s pretty funny (read: super annoying) to hear MN For Marriage knocking the idea that politicians would get to decide on marriage, considering the earlier touting of 1996’s Congressional vote on DOMA. Last time I checked, the U.S. Senate and House is also filled with politicians.

7. Judges do not “substitute their values.” That’s not the gig. Judges are tasked with ensuring that our policies are kosher, based on the prescriptions of our state and federal constitutions. Sure, it sounds all nice and scary to call judges “activist” and act as if our independent judiciary is some roving band of liberal foot soldiers out to rob rather than serve “the people.” But doing so is dangerous to our nation, dangerous to “the people,” and quite threatening to our way of life.

8. “Serves the interests of “men and women [and] children”: No, marriage as it exists right now, in most states and on a federal level, DOES NOT serve the interests of all men, women, and children. Same-sex couples and their families are unfairly burdened by a civil marriage system that fails to protect and benefit all, equally. Pointing out the good of marriage is one thing. Pointing out said good while also working to deny it to some? Well that’s just plain cruel!

Let’s move on (second part below the flip):


1.Redefine marriage or eliminate it altogether“: In terms of “redefinition,” see footnote one in the above section.

As for the charge of “elimination“: Is that really what MN For Marriage thinks, that we equality activists are pausing our lives to fight this battle that was waged against us just so we can subvert and ultimately destroy the institution for which we are fighting? Seriously, what would be the point of that? What benefit would that bring us? Why would we fight so hard to achieve a goal, only to then say, “Ha, fooled you! We actually don’t really want marriage! That whole last decade was just so we’d have an extracurricular activity!

The truth: We are seeking to eliminate unfairness. To eliminate inequality. To eliminate heterosexism. To eliminate crap treatment. We are not fighting to eliminate marriage as we know it.

2.Genderless institution“: This charge always confounds me, considering that gender is the very thing that makes anyone’s sexual orientation at all pertinent. What equality activists are seeking is a bias-less institution that doesn’t discriminate on the basis of gender. Neutral does not equal genderless.

3.for the benefit of adults — not children”: Equal marriage benefits everyone, young and old. From the same-sex couples who have children to the children who are LGBT (and everyone in between), a fair and just system provides a pathway that tells every couple, every family, every person that one’s truth need not limit one’s life.

4. How the “protect marriage” crowd will be treated under the law is not the sort of thing that is under any one person or group’s power. History will define this fight based on the facts at hand, just as history has done with every other socio-political conversation to come before.

5.religious groups…have lost their state tax exemption“: This is in reference to the Ocean Grove, NJ, situation, and it is one of the “protect marriage” crowd’s biggest whoppers. The truth: The Methodist church pavilion in question was receiving a *special* tax break under New Jersey’s Green Acres tax-exemption — a program which requires compliance with state non-discrimination laws in order to qualify. The pavilion agreed to this non-discrimination qualification upon signing up for the special break. So what the pavilion “lost” was a distinctive tax break on a public accommodation that they wanted to restrict to only the heterosexual public. This could’ve happened if they had denied gays and lesbians (or any minority) from holding any sort of ceremony, not just a civil union commitment! The Methodist organization that runs the pavilion didn’t lose regular tax-exempt status on an actual church: They lost it on a piece of property that required this kind of accommodating access, under NJ state law, in order to get what was undeniably a *special right.*

6. No one has forced Catholic Charities to do *anything.” The decision to shutter services rather than equally accommodate is a decision that Catholic Charities in certain jurisdictions have made on their own volition (and in conflict with many of their parishioners and staff members own wishes). This choice is on them, not us.

7. In the time since Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, an entire generation of children have passed through the state’s elementary schools. We’re literally talking about hundreds of thousands of kids. Don’t you think if there really was this big, bad, problematic bogeyman, that more than two sets of protesting parents (The Parkers and the Wirthlins) would’ve fallen out of the woodwork by now? I do.

8.Wedding professionals…harassed“: An easy thing to say, a tough thing to prove when it comes down to it. When it comes to wedding professionals (photogs, caterers, DJs, etc.), the issue, as in most instances, is not really same-sex marriage but non-discrimination. In fact, in many states where the “protect marriage” crowd has tried to work these claims, marriage equality is not even a civil reality. The issue arises whenever a business that contracts with members of the public decides that they won’t perform their usual duties for a LGBT person or same-sex couple, citing sexual orientation or gender identity as the reason for the holdout. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about a legal wedding, a non-binding ceremony, a family portrait independent of a union, or just an everyday matter of LGBT-initiated commerce. The burdens of doing business in a fair and just society will be in place regardless of legal marriage. It’s just that when legal marriage becomes a state conversation, the “protect marriage” crowd chooses to turn this matter of business non-discrimination into a marriage talking point. Like most of these talking points, this one is disingenuous, at best.

9.Licensed professionals risk their state licensure“: Again, the issue is non-discrimination, not marriage. State licensing boards of just about any profession have certain qualifications. Qualifications pertaining to LGBT non-discrimination must be met, regardless of whether or not the state has legal marriage. If certain practitioners have problems with those qualifications, then they must challenge the non-discrimination policies within their professions. But this fight is really not about marriage and its civil recognition. Because let’s get real: Does a counselor who refuses to offer therapy to a committed gay couple really care if said couple is bound together in law? No, of course not! This same theoretical therapist would have the same objections about a committed couple bound only by love. Those objections will need be dealt with by both the professional and his or her larger professional body, regardless of whether Minnesota does the right or wrong thing in regards to civil marriage law.

10. “Legal equivalent of bigots“: All people must comply with laws. Those who wish to flout laws pertaining to LGBT equality (real or theoretical) will be labeled in the numerous and varied ways afforded by the trends of society at a given time. As of now, many folks would hand those object to LGBT peace and equality a “right on!” medal of heroism. Some would view them in a much less favorable light. But those different labels and outlooks are not what is up for debate here. What we are talking about is civil law, a nation and state’s governing documents, a public that does quite tangibly include LGBT people, and the way we reconcile all that so that it serves the interest of a fair and free nation. How the sociology will ultimately play out is anyone’s guess. As mentioned above: The longview will be determined by history, based on the facts at hand. Our job in this equality fight is to ensure compliance with what is right and fair under the constitution. We on the pro-equality side are doing that, despite the arrows and/or the accolades. Those who wish to deny us must also focus on the actual, concrete issues rather than the abstract view whose ultimate prevalence they fear.

11. The supposed shift of marriage from the interests on “children and society as a whole” and onto “the desires of adults in a same-sex relationship” exists only with the heads of those who’d deny marriage to same-sex couples. A few truths here: (a) Marriage is not neatly defined even now in the way that social conservative claim it is; (b) children are not a marital requirement for anyone nor is marriage a requirement for those who do have children; (c ) many same-sex couple do have children independent of whether or not they get the marriage contract; (d) equal marriage does not stop heterosexual couples from following whatever marital and family path they personally see best; and (e) if the current interest truly is protecting “society as a whole,” then we must protect the whole of society, including those who happen to be LGBT!

MN For Marriage is only out to protect that limited society that its guiders (National Organization For Marriage, Minnesota Catholic Conference, Minnesota Family Council) deem proper. That is wrong.


  • 1. Ronnie  |  August 31, 2011 at 9:23 am

    Subscribing & sharing……… Meet Karen & Marcye & their beautiful family. They are the 5th couple, who have been together for 21years, involved in the lawsuit to bring Full Marriage Equality to New Jersey…… <3…Ronnie:
    [youtube LNWnHbgZ29I youtube]

  • 2. karen in kalifornia  |  August 31, 2011 at 9:47 am

    Don't forget that the same PR/campaign firm that pushed PropH8, Flint and Schubert, is the same firm that is designing and driving the MN antigay campaign. Note the logo design. Look familiar?

  • 3. Sam_Handwich  |  August 31, 2011 at 9:51 am

    More bad news for NOM

    A new poll from the AngusReid Public Opinion group has found a dramatic increase in support for same sex marriage since last year, with nearly half (46 percent) of respondents now saying it should be made legal … The numbers represent a 10 percent increase in support for same sex marriage over a 2010 AngusReid poll. Even more hopeful to marriage equality supporters are the demographic findings: 68 percent of what the firm called "generation y" favors legalizing same sex marriage, and 48 percent of "generation x" agrees.

  • 4. dwpiper  |  August 31, 2011 at 10:09 am

    Heartless though it may be, I can live with poor NOM's suffering.

  • 5. 415kathleenk  |  August 31, 2011 at 10:22 am

    my question is how is the minnesota marriage equality coalition going to counter this? Does anyone know their plans? We hear lots of news about how big and diverse the coalition is- lots of promarriage religious organizations etc. All very good. But what are they doing???

  • 6. Johan  |  September 1, 2011 at 5:36 am

    Very good questions.

  • 7. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 31, 2011 at 10:34 am

    Great point by point rebuttal, who but us will be seeing this?
    Is this to be made into our own flier to be handed out in MN?

  • 8. SFBay  |  August 31, 2011 at 10:49 am

    I am worried that the marriage equality groups in MN will not take this kind of bigoted lying seriously enough. We didn't here in CA. I hope the lesson has been learned.

  • 9. Teddy  |  August 31, 2011 at 11:19 am

    How about the blatant lie that a strong majority of Minnesotans are against marriage equality? Polls have shown over and over that it's either equally divided or lean towards equality?

  • 10. JoeRH  |  August 31, 2011 at 11:59 am

    Will any marriage-equality groups put out a similar flier DEBUNKING these claims, or at least telling the TRUTH about marriage equality? If not, get the fuck on top of it!

  • 11. AnonyGrl  |  August 31, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Joe, what are you doing about it? Have you written up a possible flyer text and suggested it to those marriage equality groups? Have you offered to pay some of the printing costs, or to organize a mailing?

    I don't mean to dun you personally, but it is very easy, I think, to come in here and say "they should!!!" when what we all need to be saying is "what can *I* do?" This fight will not be won by the groups, but by the individuals who make up those groups. And our efforts don't all need to be financial in nature. I wrote letters, visited senators and assemblymen, made phone calls and talked to everyone I met here in NY.

    So what are you doing?

  • 12. Sheryl, Mormon Mom  |  August 31, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    Not Joe, but very good point, AnonyGrl. I just e-mailed OutFront Minnesota and asked that someone post here on how non-Minnesotan's could be of help in this battle. I also encouraged them to study the opponents literature and radio and television ads to help them understand what they are up against and to develop a campaign to counter this.

  • 13. Sheryl, Mormon Mom  |  August 31, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    Still can't find an edit button. I encouraged them to study the opponents tactics in the California campaign.

  • 14. OutFrontAdam  |  September 2, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Adam from Minneapolis, here. I'm Operations Director at OutFront Minnesota (statewide LGBT group & lead organization behind the Minnesotans United for All Families coalition).

    Thanks to everyone for reaching out to us, and especially to Jeremy for his quick work in debunking the flier. Staff is working on a lot right now, but we're definitely keeping track of the opposition's literature and messaging. We don't yet have a flier to concisely debunk theirs — if folks want to help with that, that'd be incredibly helpful. Right now, we're using Jeremy's piece to equip our supporters with the facts, and to build the rap that we'll take door-to-door.

    But like AnonyGrl said: "This fight will not be won by the groups, but by the individuals." We in Minnesota definitely take that to heart, and OutFront Minnesota is committed to a campaign that empowers individuals everywhere to speak out, take action, and organize their communities to defeat the anti-marriage amendment.

    We definitely look forward to all the help that you all can provide!

  • 15. DaveP  |  August 31, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    I just emailed some folks in some of the Minnesota marriage equality organizations and notified them of this article and discussion thread and invited them to comment here to tell us what can be done and how we can help.

  • 16. Alan_Eckert  |  August 31, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    I have an idea for an ad campaign.

    The setup:
    [voiceover and some simple visuals] A NO vote will not make gay marriage legal. A NO vote shows that you can love gay people and still protect marriage.

    Then have clips of big name preachers and republican politicians saying "I love gay people" (don't include the phrase that usually comes after).

    [Voiceover and visuals] Vote NO on (insert bill name).

    This of course would have to come later in the game. Thoughts?
    I think it spreads multiple messages that can hit many target audiences in different ways without coming across as negative campaigning.

  • 17. DaveP  |  August 31, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    Hmm. Speaking as someone who does not know the wording of the bill and therefore does not know what a "YES" or "NO" vote actually means, I find this idea confusing. I'm not sure what it means.

  • 18. Paul in Minneapolis  |  August 31, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    This is an important point — one noticeably absent from the MFM list of lies (surprise, surprise). Even if the amendment is voted down, there is still a state law banning same-sex marriage.

    I'd also like to add my own rebuttal to MFM's claim that "[without] a marriage amendment in our constitution, activist judges can substitute their values for those of the people of Minnesota." What MFM fails to state is that *with* an amendment, the people themselves will have a more difficult time "defining marriage" should they wish to allow same-sex marriage. A constitutional amendment is more difficult to repeal than a statutory law. This (along with their other lies) proves that MFM isn't concerned with "the values of the people," but rather with only what MFM wants.

  • 19. Fluffyskunk  |  September 1, 2011 at 8:23 am

    The problem with that wording is it's a lie; you cannot "love" gay people and still "protect" marriage (from them).

  • 20. Alan_Eckert  |  September 1, 2011 at 8:48 am

    The point is to use their verbiage while leaving the definition ambiguous.

  • 21. Fluffyskunk  |  September 1, 2011 at 9:17 am

    That doesn't make their verbiage any less insulting…

  • 22. Ronnie  |  August 31, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    Another reason why the Destruction of Marriage Act (DOMA) needs to be repealed NOW!!!…..


    "DOMA has other immigration implications, including the very unwelcoming trouble it can cause married same-sex couples trying to enter the country. Karen-Marie and Andrina Perry of East Vancouver recently discovered on a recent visit that their marriage does not constitute a “family,” and thus they could not go through U.S. customs together, even though they have before."

    Canadian border guard tells lesbian couple to fill out separate forms

    "East Vancouver residents Karen-Marie Perry and Andrina Perry have been together since early 2005 and have been married since 2008. They share a surname and live together. So when they travel to the United States, Andrina generally completes one customs form for the two of them, as most families do.

    But during a recent visit, the couple had to fill out two separate customs forms because they are not considered a family in the United States."

    (me) More proof that heterosexual couples have special privileges, albeit a small privilege that makes traveling less difficult & bothersome but a special privilege none the less. Both types of couples/families are required to spend the same amount of their hard earned money to travel but each get treated differently. One gets treated with respect & the other gets treated like they are inferior to the other…. "separate but equal" fails again…….FULL EQUALITY NOW!!!!!!!!!………… >I …Ronnie

  • 23. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 31, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    That's so odd….in 2008 when Robert and I were returning from Greece (our 25th anniversary present to each other), we got royally chewed out by the customs agent for filling out seperate forms……seems he thought that since we were a couple and had been traveling together with shared luggage we should have declaired together.
    Very confusing indeed

  • 24. Fluffyskunk  |  September 1, 2011 at 9:34 am

    I can confirm that we were able to declare together just three weeks ago when we were returning from Canada.

  • 25. Fluffyskunk  |  September 2, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    To clarify my hastily written post, I meant we as in myself and my spouse. I'm not Mark M's husband. 🙂

  • 26. Reformed  |  August 31, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    I have a project idea for getting trial transcript content into the hands of people in a "companion piece" format that overcomes the sheer volume of material. I attempted this on my own, but was overcome by the length of the PDF transcripts and unfriendly format for text editing. I would appreciate anyone who would share my interest in doing this who would take some time to perform basic text editor functions on various parts of the transcripts. The end product would be a neutral document from the viewpoint of plaintiffs or defendant that reads easily and quickly without certain type of courtroom formalities such as Individual appearances, daily greetings, line numbers, information repeated daily, etc, etc, etc. The first step would be to removing line numbers and connect the lines of verbal proceedings into paragraphs. If you are interested in working on this part and other parts of the project (a great chance to review the transcripts again), please reply to [email protected]

  • 27. Sinéad  |  August 31, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    Another important point is the argument from the pro prop. 8 side: that marriage is an ancient institution and same-sex couples were never able to marry at any time in history. Slavery has existed since the beginnings of human society, and women have been oppressed since then as well. So that argument doesn't work at all–slavery was, of course, unfair and we abolished it.

  • 28. Sagesse  |  August 31, 2011 at 5:27 pm

    Family Research Council Sues Obama Justice Department to Obtain Documents Regarding Decision Not to Defend Defense of Marriage Act

  • 29. Lodi Gal  |  August 31, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    I need help.

    I am signed up to receive email from the Lodi teabaggers under a false identity. Although they claim to take no stand on social issues. I just received this content in one of their shrieking action alerts:

    "Volunteer Opportunities
    Stop SB48
    The Stop SB 48 campaign is looking for volunteers in their office in Sacramento. Contact LaTanya Wright of the Capitol Resource Institute for more information Read more about SB48 here- it was passed by both house and signed in to law by Jerry Brown last month. The Tea Party has gotten involved in this issue because 2 of our 3 main tenets are affected.
    Fiscal Responsibility-
    The publishers of our textbooks have to have an entirely different set of books to print due to the fact that no other state has these criteria. This will cost the taxpayers of California dearly.
    Limited Government- We do not feel that politicians should be legislating what our children learn in school, or that they know what is better for children that their parents (There is No Opt Out clause in this bill) This bill is a direct attack on parents rights."

    Can someone help me refute her claims that textbooks which include LGBT history will cost more? Her second claim is just ridiculous, and I can handle that one on my own.

  • 30. Lodi Gal  |  August 31, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    And sorry for going off topic, but I think this is the best place to ask for help with this and know someone will come through with a few ideas or post some links.

  • 31. maggie4noh8  |  August 31, 2011 at 6:16 pm

    I can't help directly refute the claim they will cost more… Printers of textbooks revise them periodically, and I suspect the material to be included by the FAIR act will be incorporated as part of that periodic revision (and thus, not an unnecessary additional cost).

    What they really mean to say is something along the lines of:

    California, Texas and New York are the bigger consumers of textbooks, and often publishers incorporate revisions/changes desired by those states into the latest edition at no "extraordinary" or "additional" cost to the states (because after all, publishers really do want to sell as many of their textbooks as possible).

    Smaller, less "pupilated" (populated pun intended), influential states (Montana, Wyoming or Alaska for example) are left to accept the textbooks created to satisfy the larger markets. That means, effectively, California has enacted a FAIR education act for much of the nation, not just itself.

    Although the cost to the tax payers of California will be minimal, the argument "but the children in other states will have a more complete and honest history lesson" won't hold much sway with California voters. However, if the cost concern is "sold" to Californians, we just *might* have a chance at stopping an education full of accurate history – not just here in California, but all across the nation!

    So, hopefully Lodi Gal, someone with more concrete information will speak up to help refute those claims… all you can do is your best to counter with the truth about FAIR and hope you reach someone who's willing to listen to you (although, I suspect those who *need* to hear the truth, *can't handle* the truth!).

  • 32. Reformed  |  August 31, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    The truth alway comes up, as the saying goes. Well, not if we can help it, says Stop SB 48. 🙂

  • 33. Ann S.  |  August 31, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    What Maggie4no8 says is correct about periodic updating of textbooks. The next update is set for 2015, according to CA Faith for Equality (who apparently got their info from Equality California). Here's the link.

    How will the FAIR Education Act impact California’s Budget?
    The FAIR Education Act adds no additional costs to the state. Periodically, the State Board of Education updates its education
    standards and textbooks. The next update is set for 2015 and any changes related to the FAIR Education Act will be made as
    a part of that regularly scheduled update.

  • 34. Lodi Gal  |  August 31, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    Thanks, everyone, for the links and info. I have already contacted the spokesperson for the local tea party group and hope she will agree to meet with me. Although I'm not expecting much, I feel compelled to try anyway.

  • 35. Ann S.  |  August 31, 2011 at 10:05 pm

    Good luck, Lodi Gal!

  • 36. MarcosLB  |  August 31, 2011 at 6:58 pm

    Hello Lodi Gal,

    You might also try going right to the source by contacting Mark Leno's office for advice.

    Hope this helps and thanks again for keeping up the good fight.

  • 37. Lodi Gal  |  September 1, 2011 at 6:50 pm

    After a flurry of emails yesterday, the chairwomen of the Lodi Tea Party group has decided to retract her emails regarding SB48, refrain from further discussion of the Stop SB48 campaign in her official communications, and no longer advocate signature collection!

    She's decided it doesn't fit the scope of Tea Party objectives and is too controversial and she does not understand legislation or politics very well. LOL LOL LOL
    (She was told to oppose SB48 by sargeants higher up the tea party food chain. She opposes it but is not clear why she's opposed. I think we can read between the lines on that.)

    Just want to let everyone know that approaching these folks can make a difference, even if it is just a small one.

  • 38. Sheryl, Mormon Mom  |  September 1, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    Good work. Talking to people one on one can certainly be very effective in this battle.

  • 39. Ann S.  |  September 1, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    Great job! Good for you for taking the time, gathering info, and plucking up the courage to talk to her.

    Hooray for Lodi Gal!!

  • 40. Lodi Gal  |  September 2, 2011 at 6:53 am

    WOW! The lodi tea party wants truthful info about SB48 and the governing board contacted me this morning to set up a meeting with me for a discussion of LGBT rights issues. Even if this turns out to be some kind of set up on their part, I can't lose. They have no accurate info and have already decided not to go forward with signature gathering. I will take a friend and see if we can educate some folks.

    And thanks for all the kind words and encouragement!

  • 41. Kate  |  September 2, 2011 at 7:25 am

    OMG, Lodi Gal, YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How wonderful to be able to be having such a huge impact on this fight!

  • 42. Sheryl_Carver  |  September 2, 2011 at 7:32 am

    Way to go, Lodi Gal!

    You just proved how effective one courageous person can be!
    It's so easy for me to say to myself, "well, "they" won't listen anyway, so why bother?" You've put the lie to that excuse.

  • 43. Sagesse  |  August 31, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    Another poll.

    A Breakdown of Gay Marriage Support by Religion

  • 44. Sagesse  |  September 1, 2011 at 4:59 am

    Best analysis I've seen of the legal arguments.

    "I would like to discuss two rather mundane, but in this case, related, legal issues: how do we define "the record" and on whose shoulders rests the burden of proof."

    Proposition 8: The Public Life of the Courts

    Read more:

  • 45. Alan_Eckert  |  September 1, 2011 at 8:47 am

    I liked it, but there were a few things missing in his analysis.

    Ari is assuming that anything more than the transcript (transcript plus) is automatically under seal. It took the Supreme Court to seal the transmission (not the ultimate release) of the trial video. He also forgot that Walker discounted the testimony of one of the proponents' experts (Blankenhorn) partially on his demeanor in the courtroom. You can't get all of those details from just the transcript.

  • 46. Sagesse  |  September 1, 2011 at 9:04 am

    The recording of Federal Court proceedings may be novel (as in new) and it may be unusual, but now that the video exists, there are a couple of things that argue that it is part of the trial record. First, I believe it was sent to the 9th Circuit with the rest of the trial record. In the analogy to Judge Walker's trial notes, on the other hand, those would not be sent to the 9th Circuit as part of the trial record. Second, it is not 'evidence', it is simply the information in the transcript, in a different form. Whether and how it became 'sealed' is a different question.

    My thoughts, not a lawyer.

  • 47. Sagesse  |  September 1, 2011 at 5:05 am

    "Liu will be sworn in to office by Brown today and join the court in time for Tuesday's critical hearing on Proposition 8, the 2008 initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage in California."

    Goodwin Liu confirmed to Calif. Supreme Court

    Read more:

  • 48. Sagesse  |  September 1, 2011 at 6:26 am

    “the desires of adults in a same-sex relationship”

    One has only to quote the 2010 US census, as ably summarized by the Williams Institue. Across the US, some 20% (plus or minus, I don't have it in front of me) of the almost 1 million same sex couples are raising children. It's not about those children?

  • 49. Neil  |  September 2, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    I'm feeling obnoxious this evening. If the point of marriage is procreation, then shouldn't a couple using contraception have their marriage annulled?

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