Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Audio: Signorile grills NC’s head marriage banner; said banner can’t take heat, leaves kitchen, blames cook

NOM Exposed Right-wing

Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

In an interview with SiriusXM’s Michelangelo Signorile, North Carolina state senator Jim Forrester (Very Far R-41st District) tried and failed to defend the “merits” of the marriage amendment that he has carried all the way to the 2012 polls. And when he couldn’t answer an actual gay man’s perfectly fair questions, Forrester proceeded to accuse Signorile of trying to “trip me up,” before running back to more convenient echo chambers.

Listen to the whole thing, via Think Progress‘ uploaded video. And in particular, listen to the part (7:02 in the first video) where he tries to use NOM’s “Anti-Defamation” poster child, Frank Turek, to justify his belief that gays die young:

NC Senator: “You’re trying to trip me up” [Signorile]

Sponsor Of North Carolina’s Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Can’t Explain How Gays And Lesbians Undermine Marriage [Think Progress]


  • 1. sneaks911  |  September 29, 2011 at 9:03 am

    What an imbecile!

  • 2. Ann S.  |  September 29, 2011 at 9:03 am


  • 3. Kathleen  |  September 29, 2011 at 9:16 am

    Looks like Forrester is falsifying his credentials, too. Story at Pam's House Blend.

    Especially read correspondence between Scott Rose and Michael A. Barry, Executive Director of the American College of Preventive Medicine

    Makes me wonder how much else in his bio he's lying about:

  • 4. Ronnie  |  September 29, 2011 at 9:22 am

    I posted this on the previous thread but I will repost it here since it is about the same inhuman fraud & tyrant that Michelangelo Signorile interviewed. This letter by Scott Rose is so strong but also very blunt…. I love it….

    Breaking: anti-gay N.C. Senator Forrester falsifies credentials – and an open letter to the lawmaker

    "Equality supporter Scott Rose has written an open letter to the Senator, and exposes the fact that Forrester, also a physician, lied repeatedly during that broadcast — and is also peddling false credentials about his qualifications. The Blend has the correspondence with the American College of Preventive Medicine, where Forrester claims to be a Fellow. Let’s just say the ACPM was not happy to hear what the lawmaker is pimping about himself."

    In other news….. Religious Persecution… I mean "Liberty"

    Assault Complaints Filed after Incident at Church

    "I went over to take the keys out of the ignition and all the sudden I hear someone say 'sick'em,'" said Gibson County resident, Jerry Pittman Jr.

    Pittman said the attack was prompted by the pastor of the church, Jerry Pittman, his father.

    "My uncle and two other deacons came over to the car per my dad's request. My uncle smash me in the door as the other deacon knocked my boyfriend back so he couldn't help me, punching him in his face and his chest. The other deacon came and hit me through my car window in my back," said Pittman. He said bystanders did not offer assistance. He said the deacon yelled derogatory homosexual slurs, even after officers arrived. He said the officers never intervened to stop the deacons from yelling the slurs. "

    (me) This is the America NOM et al is creating & perpetuating…. Where Pastors & so called "good" & "moral" "Christians" viscously and violently attack human beings for being gay…… But you know, It is the prop 8 witnesses & supporters as well as NOM et al including Maggie G's stalwarts being foisted by her new "'Marriage Anti-deceny Alliance: Pillorying and Defaming" gestapo thing who are in "danger"… <—BULLSHITE!!!

    Is Maggie G's new pet going to represent these "Christian" neanderthals, especially the pastor who ordered the bashing of his own son?…. HMMMM???? (tilts head inquisitively)….. XI …Ronnie

  • 5. Jon  |  September 29, 2011 at 10:03 am

    Yes, the story that sounds so good when no one challenges it, when it's told only to the fan base, when not even a few minutes of real dialog is permitted. That story. It falls apart so incredibly fast when it has to answer real questions.

    The Prop. 8 trial was a parade of those stories.

  • 6. Jon  |  September 29, 2011 at 10:17 am

    Wow, how did this guy ever become a doctor?

    Simple fact is, for every HIV death in America, there are 100 tobacco deaths. He never mentions that. Oh right; he's in North Carolina. But he believes HIV equals gay equals bad.

    My God.

  • 7. Kathleen  |  September 29, 2011 at 10:28 am

    UPDATE: LCR v. USA (DADT case)

    Bad news.

    OPINION (per curium) – District Court Judgment Vacated and Remanded with Directions to Dismiss

  • 8. Alan_Eckert  |  September 29, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Did anyone really expect something else?

  • 9. Kathleen  |  September 29, 2011 at 11:07 am

    Expect, no. Hope, yes.

    Was hoping the 9th would remand to the district court for additional fact-finding on the questions of mootness and vacature. It wasn't a completely unrealistic hope, given that the question of mootness only came up after the case had been fully briefed on appeal. LCR only had a chance to respond in a letter brief, without an opportunity to fully present evidence on the questions.

  • 10. MichGuy  |  September 29, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    I wonder how this new DADT court ruling will affect the Marrriage Cases pending in court like DOMA and Prop ???????????????????????

    Does anyone have any ideas ?

  • 11. jpmassar  |  September 29, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    It shouldn't have any effect.

  • 12. Steve  |  September 29, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    Completely different thing

    They didn't really consider the merits of the case (except the First Amendment issue), but dismissed it because the law was repealed

  • 13. Sagesse  |  September 29, 2011 at 5:09 pm

    What is the impact of O'Scannlain's 'concurrence'. It criticizes Judge Phillips' decision, which is no longer on the record. Does it have some kind of precedent value?

  • 14. Jon  |  September 29, 2011 at 10:29 am

    Endless talking points e.g. "liberal judges". "Let people vote". "Preserve traditional marriage".

    And muttered prevarications.

    Then we get to it "I can't answer that question". "You oughta talk to someone else" Gottta go!

    Forrester is a very sad man.

  • 15. HollywoodF1  |  September 29, 2011 at 11:18 am

    My dad, a conservative and otherwise intelligent guy, had a conversation with me about Activist Judges. I told him that an Activist Judge is one who doesn't find as you would have liked in a case. He went on to remind me that we are a majoritarian society. Then I realized that he was not aware of an important fact.

    The Founding Fathers were keenly aware that the flaw in majoritarianism was the potential for the Tyranny of the Majority. This would lead to small groups' rights being trampled by larger groups. The relief to this was the Judiciary. They were the group that would hear the grievance of a single voice at equal volume to a majority of voters, and ensure that justice was provided under the Constitution for all involved.

    He had complained that these judges were not working the will of the majority, and were therefore liberal activists. I explained that the will of the majority is addressed in the voting process; but it is not now, nor has it ever been, nor was it ever intended that the Judiciary enforce the will of the majority.

    So remind your Conservatives, if they think the will of the majority ought to be the last word in the law, that The Constitution affords us all a protection from the mob, that is thankfully wholly independent of the will of said mob, and it is called the Judiciary.

  • 16. Ronnie  |  September 29, 2011 at 11:32 am

    And now for a Hypochristian update….

    Anti-Gay "Pastor" Turns Himself In For Fraud, Theft

    "Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not bear false witness, Thou shall not lie." …… Oh wait, I forgot that those are manmade "Bible" rules that would limit his life experience and doesn't benefit him so they don't count…… FAIL!!!!!…… (rolls eyes) 8 / …Ronnie

  • 17. Andrew_SEA  |  September 29, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Interesting interview.

    What I continually hear is this issue of “the people need to vote”, “the people need to vote”.

    I think Michael hit it on the head when he asked why do people need to vote on this?

    Men will continue to marry women – I don’t think anything will stop that. LGBTs will continue to have relationships with other LGBTs – it does not stop that either. Heterosexual couples will still be having gay children – gay children that will get bullied and treated as second class citizens.

    The only thing that it stops is the equality of a very small segement of the citizens of NC in comparison to the overall population.

    It appears to me that this is the ONLY thing that current republicans can do to attempt to stop progress on this issue. Due to the fact the most leading judicial institutions have concurred that banning SSM is unconstitutional – their plan is to where the GOP has control of both houses – swiftly move this legislation for a vote to hopefully ensure victory and addition to the state’s constitution.

    This act is one of desperation. Cowardice. Fear. It certainly is not an act to uplift and proactively support a tax paying minority within a state. Rather – it is an attempt at control and segregation of a minority with complete animus built within the official state law itself.

    This man should be ashamed to even hold office.

    I can respect a difference of opinion – but when you cannot even state your position other than “I feel the people should vote on it”, it is quite clear that there really is no position at all – just animus.

  • 18. Anna Bryan  |  September 29, 2011 at 12:48 pm

  • 19. jpmassar  |  September 29, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    DOMA case thrown out by District Judge in Ninth Circuit

  • 20. Reformed  |  September 29, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    Lately it seems like every case that is decided in our favor is stayed giving higher court a chance to weigh in. In a dismissal, is this not applicable. I am wondering why the rare case decided against LGBT equality doesnt involve a stay. Is this just the wrong concept or does it say something about the judge that was involved.

  • 21. jpmassar  |  September 29, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    There's nothing to be stayed. The suit was demanding that ICE accept their permanent residency petition.

    Lots of things get stayed because, to do otherwise, would moot the case. Had Judge Ware not stayed his order to release the tapes, the tapes would have been released, and then what would have been the point of an appeal? The cat would have already been youtubed, so to speak.

    Similarly with the suits to withhold donor info. Once the info has been released, an appeal to not release the info makes no sense.

  • 22. Sagesse  |  September 29, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    Dems Select Liz Mathis For Iowa Senate Contest Crucial To Gay Marriage;…

  • 23. Sagesse  |  September 30, 2011 at 4:42 am

    Trend toward acceptance is dramatic, says long-term survey

  • 24. Ronnie  |  September 30, 2011 at 7:45 am

    Breaking – James Forrester’s falsified credentials: apparently he couldn’t stop at just one?

    Liar, Liar hypochristian…. tisk tisk…. <3…Ronnie

  • 25. maggie4noh8  |  September 30, 2011 at 11:01 am

    Check this out as well:

  • 26. So anyways.. awkward pare&hellip  |  October 2, 2011 at 7:42 am

    […] […]

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