Part the Second: This Isn’t About YouTube

February 9, 2010 at 10:48 am 289 comments

Over the weekend, the Matier and Ross column in the San Francisco Chronicle “outed” Judge Vaughn Walker.  As I pointed out then here at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, Andy Pugno’s response was muted. A mere suggestions of bias without a full accusation.

We are not going to say anything about that,” Pugno said. … “In many ways, the sponsors of Prop. 8 have been put at significant disadvantage throughout the case. Regardless of the reason for it.”(SF Chronicle)

But, Andy Pugno had no reason to make the full-throated accusation. After all, his audience now is a more subdued one made up of judges. And, he doesn’t need to rile up the base, after all, that’s what the National Organization for Against Marriage (NOM) is for. And boy, do they have a doozy on their hands here.  They hit all the points in a letter they sent out to their email list:

The letter, from NOM’s Executive Director Brian Brown, reads pretty much the way you’d expect from NOM. There’s Pugno’s “we don’t know if it’s true, but he’s really mean” line, but they quickly get to the red meat “activist” line:

We have no idea whether the report is true or not. But we do know one really big important fact about Judge Walker: He’s been an amazingly biased and one-sided force throughout this trial, far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee. That’s no secret at all.

I’ll forgive Mr. Brown for missing my earlier post on what being a judge really means. While it sounds cute to say “neutral referee” or that they are “calling the balls and strikes,” being a judge does require some judgment. It requires analysis that will vary from judge to judge. But don’t worry, there’s more to be horrified over:

But the most egregious, and damaging, of all of Judge Walker’s rulings was his determination to violate federal rules to broadcast his show trial worldwide. The US Supreme Court eventually blocked Walker’s efforts (and rapped his biased knuckles sharply!) finding that he improperly changed the rules “at the eleventh hour” in violation of federal law. (Unfortunately, however, but by the time the Supreme Court issued a permanent stay two days into trial, the supporters of Prop 8 had already lost two-thirds of their expert witnesses who feared retaliation from the publicity).

This is really the heart of where the pro-Prop 8 people are going with this. It’s all about the YouTube. Their witnesses were so scared of appearing on YouTube that they couldn’t possibly testify. Terrified, I tell you! But, when it comes down to it, what they were scared of was cross-examination. After seeing David Boies destroy both witnesses who did agree to hop on the stand, you can’t blame them. Take LSU Professor Loren Marks. He doesn’t seem so shy to appear on YouTube. Here’s one of his appearances on the video sharing site.

You can go through their full original witness list here, and you won’t find many wallflowers. You have Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young who together wrote a very public report in Canada about how society is now holding down men. Seriously, they wrote a book called Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men. And they’ve had no problem in running around to every possible open mic, camera, or group of accumulated sexists waiting to get the good news that they can go back to fighting for the rights of the downtrodden male gender.

And if you’d like, you can see clips from depositions of these folks on YouTube right now. If you watch those videos, you’ll see that the reason that they were pulled from the witness has less to do with YouTube, and more to do with the testimony that they were prepared to give.

But this isn’t really about the facts, is it? It’s not about Judge Walker, and his sexuality. After all, you certainly didn’t hear any complaints from either side about Ron George being straight. No, this is about NOM, and ProtectMarriage, and their ilk trying to do everything they can to play the public against the courts. They are setting this up for the next round. Oh, and trying to raise a few bucks along the road.

Read more to see the full letter.

Dear Friend of Marriage,

In a story this Sunday (Feb. 7), the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker is gay and called his orientation, “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage.”

We have no idea whether the report is true or not. But we do know one really big important fact about Judge Walker: He’s been an amazingly biased and one-sided force throughout this trial, far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee. That’s no secret at all.

Protect Marriage, the defendants in this case are effectively being held hostage by Judge Walker and cannot really comment.

But Judge Walker’s bias from the bench includes:

A series of rulings permitting deep and deeply irrelevant “fishing expeditions” into the private and personal motivations and secret campaign strategy of campaign proponents. It wasn’t six guys at Protect Marriage that passed Prop 8 it was 7 million Californians. But Judge Walker went so far as to order the Prop 8 campaign to disclose private internal communications about messages that were considered for public use but never actually used. He even ordered the campaign to turn over copies of all internal records and e-mail messages relating to campaign strategy.

Even though the Prop 8 supporters were forced to turn over private, internal documents and emails, Walker has refused to demand the same from opponents of the measure. In fact, Walker has refused to even rule on a motion to compel the discovery of this information, even though he has already closed testimony in the case. That alone is an unbelievable tilting of the playing field.

Walker has presided over a show trial designed to generate sympathetic headlines and news coverage for gay marriage supporters. Witness after witness was allowed to testify about their “expert” opinion that homosexuals have been discriminated against, that they feel badly when society does not validate their relationships, and that the passage of Prop 8 was simply an echo of historic prejudice and bigotry foisted on society by religious zealots.

To show the lengths that Walker has gone to create a “record” favoring the plaintiffs, he even allowed one “expert” witness — a gay man from Colorado who has never lived in California and was never exposed to any Prop 8 campaign messages — to testify that his parents’ efforts to change his sexual orientation failed.

But the most egregious, and damaging, of all of Judge Walker’s rulings was his determination to violate federal rules to broadcast his show trial worldwide. The US Supreme Court eventually blocked Walker’s efforts (and rapped his biased knuckles sharply!) finding that he improperly changed the rules “at the eleventh hour” in violation of federal law. (Unfortunately, however, but by the time the Supreme Court issued a permanent stay two days into trial, the supporters of Prop 8 had already lost two-thirds of their expert witnesses who feared retaliation from the publicity).

Judge Walker’s bias has been so extreme, he’s earned a rare judicial “twofer.” Key elements of his “fishing expedition” rulings were already reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (notably one of the most liberal in the nation) and the Supreme Court had to step in to block his illegal attempt to broadcast the trial.

It is highly unusual for a higher court to have to intercede in a trial judge’s handling of a trial while it is going on — yet Walker has had that “distinction” twice in the same case — and we’re not yet even at closing arguments.

There’s only one saving grace to Judge Walker’s bias. It’s so big, and so obvious, not only the American public but the Supreme Court itself is already aware we have bias in the trial judge presiding.

Faithfully,
/s/
Brian S. Brown
Executive Director

Entry filed under: Uncategorized.

Courageous Conversations at the Prop 8 Trial Prop 8 Harms Children, While Marriage Benefits Them

289 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Brandy  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:01 am

    *sigh* This is exhausting..

    Reply
    • 2. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:44 pm

      Wolf! Wolf!

      Protect yourselves and your children from the big bad wolf!!!!!

      ……

      Come ON people…..the wolf is going to get you!

      Reply
    • 3. Tigger  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:47 pm

      Some things that should be considered here…
      1) The defense HAD to know and understand that a win for the Plaintiffs in this case at the highest level (SCOTUS) could have the effect of invalidating 32 state consitutional amendments, overturning all conflicting state laws, and could legalize same sex marriage in the US.
      2) The defense had to assume that defending a case in the Northern District of CA proposing discrimination against a recently deemed “suspect class” by the CA Supreme Court would be an uphill batte.
      3) The NOM, Mormon, & Catholic churches have DEEP pockets.
      4) Considering their passion and the importance of the case, they should have prepared better, had more experienced counsel, and paid their witnesses so much cold hard cash that Jesus H. Christ himself couldn’t persuade them not to testify.

      This case will probably be reviewed by 13 (maybe more) judges & justices when all is said and done. Its PropH8’s own damn fault if they lose, not the fault of any one conservative gay libertarian trial court judge.

      Reply
  • 4. James  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:07 am

    “They are setting this up for the next round. Oh, and trying to raise a few bucks along the road.”

    I always found it interesting how these people (sic) from the likes of NOM have literally created themselves a paid position promoting hate.

    Brian S. Brown is nothing more than a carpet bagger. He moved to California to push 8, he then moved to Maine to stir up the hornets nest, and he will soon be in Washington DC, Iowa or who knows where to promote his bullshit and intolerance.

    Reply
  • 5. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:07 am

    Their lives must be very sad indeed. “We’re afraid to be on YouTube” … “even though we’re already on YouTube”? Give me a break. NOM et al are grasping at straws — and they know it — with the idea that an allegedly gay judge would automatically be biased. Judges are chosen at random, for starters. It really does make my head ache; I get dizzy from all of their spinning.

    Love,
    Fiona

    Reply
  • 6. JeffSD  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Wait so if being gay makes him bias how do we get a Judge without a sexual orientation? Obviously a heterosexual would be bias against GLBT persons by their logic.

    Reply
    • 7. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:11 am

      It’s ridiculous, of course. One’s sexual orientation is not grounds for recusal; nor is it grounds for bias. Like I said, they’re grasping at straws.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 8. G Rod  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:29 pm

      Well said. GR

      Reply
    • 9. moonlight  |  February 10, 2010 at 10:22 am

      And a black man couldn’t POSSIBLY make a fair decision about interracial marriage.

      Why only white christian male heterosexuals are capable of making fair and unbiased opinions. EVERYONE knows that!

      Reply
  • 10. Elizabeth  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:15 am

    the “and rapped his biased knuckles sharply” line gets me, maybe because I remember the stories of my mother& aunt in Catholic school.
    They take pleasure in the idea (and in saying) that he deserved the equivalent of being *sharply* physically struck with a ruler. Besides the whole physical violence (in any form), the whole insunation is that the judge is a Child, and we all know what FoF & NOM think of children: beat the will out of them .

    Reply
    • 11. Alan E.  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:00 pm

      I thought of Catholic nuns too. Quite a funny picture to imagine this older guy in a robe getting smacked by an older woman with a robe.

      Reply
    • 12. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:48 pm

      There is of course no evidence to suggest that Walker would or would not LIKE such physically violent activities, all we CAN say is that FoF and NOM have been logically and morally challenged from the very beginning.

      Reply
  • 13. Sagesse  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:16 am

    I keep asking myself what’s behind the decision to make this an issue now? Clearly, both sides have known all along, and so has the Chronicle.

    The evidence, including the amicus briefs, is all out there, and it speaks for itself.

    Legally, there’s no benefit to be had for the defence, or Pugno would have been all over it. There’s no jury to influence at any level as this moves forward… just cold, clear logic and the law.

    So the audience is the court of public opinion, where their nasty sound bites work?

    Also think it’s sad that they’ve chosen to violate the privacy of Judge Walker. The man is 65 years old and has had, by all accounts, a long and distinguished career. Evidently he wanted his private life to be private, and to just do his job. It’s none of our business, really.

    Reply
    • 14. Bill  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:54 pm

      This is NOM and ProtectMarraige’s ‘just in case’ to be kept in their ‘back pocket’ in the event that the Judge rules Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

      They will cry foul (or ‘fag’ if they are true to form) if they lose, hoping that the 9th circuit panel will observe all of this in the media.

      Do not think for one millisecond that this isn’t all planned and mapped out right down to the very last thrust.

      Reply
      • 15. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:57 pm

        Yes, I agree completely! ROFLMAO
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 16. Ed-M  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:15 am

        Very last thrust — a push for a federal (opposite-sex) marriage (only) amendment.

        Reply
  • 17. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:16 am

    “Protect Marriage, the defendants in this case are effectively being held hostage by Judge Walker and cannot really comment.”

    Really?…Tell me where are they being held hostage?…In the Judges Chambers?….What’s the ransom?…Why Can’t they comment?….please……get over yourselves!

    Reply
    • 18. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:19 am

      Ronnie, this is specifically what I commented about yesterday. It’s patently absurd. They have their website (where they don’t allow rebuttals) and are *clearly* commenting on any number of things. (Whether those things are based in reality is up for review, IMNSHO …). The idea that they are being silenced is absurd. Hell, they even show up *here* to spew their ignorance and (barring thoroughly egregious statements) are permitted to comment.

      Talk about delusional.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 19. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:50 pm

      I read this line and all I could think of was the scene in Pulp Fiction.

      Reply
    • 20. Susan R Barnes  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:17 pm

      “They” were all held hostage by Protectmarriage.com, where, during the entire duration of the Prop 8 Trial, they (or anyone else) were not allowed to post public comments, unlike this site, where public comments have always been allowed, and are still a welcome daily source of information, Team George and Kay notwithstanding.

      Reply
      • 21. John  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:18 pm

        Team George and Kay, who are a welcome daily source of humor.

        Reply
    • 22. moonlight  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:03 pm

      You know! The InterTubes!

      Why if they talk, they’ll face discrimination in their workplace and be chased down the street by violent queers! Gay on straight violence is SUCH a problem in today’s world! Heterosexual men are routinely fired from their jobs for having short hair or dressing too plainly!

      They’re the VICTIMS here! VICTIMS! VICTIMS! I mean seriously! All those depictions of Jesus as a lithe toned man with long hair and doe eyes, his wrists all limp up there on the cross and all these men proclaiming how much they love him! You SEE! Gays secretly run everything and they’re unstoppably powerful!

      Reply
  • 23. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:23 am

    Yes, exactly, they are grasping at straws and the construction of their straw hut will come tumbling-down, but by then they will have stirred the masses and they will beat their drums even louder, as if their noise made any difference in a court of law.

    Reply
    • 24. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:31 am

      no as if their noise can be any louder then ours……bwaaaaa….lol

      Reply
      • 25. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:35 am

        I stand, corrected, thanx, Ronnie.

        Reply
  • 26. Bill  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:26 am

    I wonder, when Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher and Andy Pugno are completely and totally alone with their thoughts, how God does not creep in somewhere to let them know just how wrong, hateful and against God they are acting.

    It almost makes me wonder if there even IS a God.

    Well, I guess not really…

    Reply
    • 27. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:57 pm

      Why would God be going anywhere near BB MG and AP’s thoughts? I thought God was pretty much lets Satan do his own thing with the people who give themselves over to his lies?…

      Reply
    • 28. Vaati  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:01 pm

      Cheer up, Bill. Do you think these people are genuinely happy? By interfering in such a major piece of other peoples lives it indicates that their own lives are possibly out of control in ways closely related to this.

      Maybe one of them has an out or trying to be out child, maybe they struggle with their own sexuality, maybe they are just lonely and resent that many of us have love in our lives. These are not the acts of secure, rational, happy people. These are the acts of people who have closed their minds to anything but what they think they know.

      To quote JK Rowling, “They can close their minds and hearts to any suffering that does not touch them personally, they can refuse to know. I might be tempted to envy people who can live that way, except I do not think they have any fewer nightmares than I do.

      Choosing to live in narrow spaces leads to a form of mental agoraphobia, and that brings it’s own terrors. I think the willfully unimaginative see more monsters, they are often more afraid.”

      Reply
    • 29. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:22 pm

      Bill, I think that in this instance, God is following the tactic of letting the Prop h8ers have enough rope so that they hang themselves with it.

      Reply
      • 30. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:25 pm

        Now the religious might are claiming that heterosexuals are being discriminated against…

        Heterosexuality: A New Hate Crime
        http://au.christiantoday.com/article/heterosexuality-a-new-hate-crime/7613.htm

        Reply
      • 31. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:26 pm

        Of course the above is from australia, it’s movement will move to the US soon. They need to prove their moral right.

        Reply
      • 32. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:29 pm

        Oh, Gawd. Here we go with the “oppressed majority” Bee-Ess …

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
  • 33. george  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:29 am

    The Protect Marriage guys are so underestimated here.

    While they surely know that the judge’s sexual preference is irrelevant to the legality of his opinion, they also know that the allegation that the judge’s bias figures into the case will drive those less-in-the-know crazy and cause them to ante up, show up, and do whatever else is needed to help in the fight to defend marriage.

    Nicely played. These guys are really good.

    Reply
    • 34. Bill  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:34 am

      go away asshole.

      Reply
      • 35. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:37 am

        Now, Bill, Remember, we agreed to ignore the “george’s and kay’s here. If we say anything to them, they just continue, but by ignoring them, we deny their voice here at our website.
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 36. Kai  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:40 am

        Why? He has a point. Especially with them coming out with this whole “he’s gay! oh and he’s biased!” after the whole trial is over. It’s all about stirring up their ignorant base.
        You can say what you want to about PM, but they do know how to stir up their constituents.

        Reply
      • 37. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:43 am

        What voices?………God? Is that you?…Life is a mystery…..I hear you call my name…and It feels like…home!”……lol

        Reply
      • 38. dieter  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:39 pm

        George is actually Maggie Gallagher. she was born a man named george. sometimes she forgets and types in her birth name.

        Reply
    • 39. george's boyfriend  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:59 am

      You certainly are making a lot of friends here, sweetheart. If you’re this starved for attention, why don’t you just come home early tonight? There’s some non-dairy whipped cream in the fridge.

      Reply
      • 40. TakeAChillPill  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:50 pm

        Non-dairy whipped cream as in “topping” George…

        Reply
    • 41. Mr.HCI  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:19 pm

      At least you’re admitting the best way to garner support for Prop 8 is via propaganda, rather than reality.

      Reply
    • 42. Bill  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:21 pm

      I had a moment of extreme weakness and just couldn’t help myself.

      But george is still an asshole.

      My apologies to assholes.

      Reply
    • 43. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:05 pm

      I agree with George, when you know you are failing miserably the best recourse is to start name calling. It will make them look childish and ignorant but at least it will rally other ignorant less-in-the-know crazies to act like idiots.

      Nicely played indeed.

      Thank you George,

      Your whining is so awesome. Hearing you complain of how unfair it is makes me feel really good.

      Tell me George, are you afraid that other states will also allow gays to marry?

      Does it just chill you to the core to know that two men can be married like anyone else? Having sex with each other while their children are asleep in the next room? Just like any other married couple?!

      Whine for me George, I like to hear you squeal! Squeal some more George…squeal like a pig! Weee! Weeeaaa!

      Reply
      • 44. Bill  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:39 pm

        more like ‘oink, oink.’

        Reply
      • 45. george's boyfriend  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:57 pm

        That’s my line.

        Reply
      • 46. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:01 pm

        I think oink is for the boy pig…not the sow.

        Reply
      • 47. G Rod  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:58 pm

        While it make amusing reading to observe the banter being elevated, do not the last number of comments illustrate how easy it is to slide into attacks of the person, not the issue – a parody on what the defenders of Prop 8 are being accused of doing re the judge.
        Hopefully George and his partner will put up with such banter and continue to contribute, while the rest of us practice civility.

        Reply
      • 48. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 8:26 pm

        I respectfully disagree. George is not being attacked here; he is being ragged on.

        Clearly he does not take the banter seriously; he doesn’t even respond to it. However, I have noticed that since he has been the ‘butt’ of the joke as opposed to being attacked, he has stopped ‘baiting’ Fiona and several others and kept his comments to mere outdated rhetoric or personal opinions regarding the subject at hand.

        Fiona saw how I reacted to a previous poster and how I differentiated between someone needing compassion vs. someone who needed to be challenged. George makes it clear through his inflamatory comments that, while he may actually believe what he is saying unlike some others who may be speaking out of fear of pain, he is looking to stir people up in order to be the recipient of hateful commentary. He feeds on this as it prove that he is right about who we are.

        Teasing him and ragging on him OTOH renders him less potent and keeps him in check.

        For that reason, I will continue to expose his fears and bait him in a manner that makes HIM feel uncomfortable and vulnerable and not attack him personally, deride his commentary or beliefs, or lash out with negativity.

        I make a distinction. I would speak out if I though George couldn’t take it like some others.

        Anyway, like you implied, it’s amusing too!

        Reply
    • 49. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:26 pm

      Actually, Team George, this fight is not about marriage, it is about hatred, pure and simple. And it is about fears and superstitions that have no rational basis in fact, fears and superstitions that are based only in the persecution of “the other.” If it were really about marriage, they would be fighting to toughen the divorce laws to prevent those like Britney Spears who get married while they are drunk and then get divorced 52 hours later, simply because “I didn’t know what I was doing.”

      Reply
    • 50. Terri  |  February 9, 2010 at 6:15 pm

      George,

      Is this the kind of thought that helps you sleep at night? I don’t get people with your mindset at all. You are the one that can look me straight in the face and lie through your teeth all the while keeping a huge smile on your face.

      I almost feel sorry for people like you.. almost but not quite.

      Reply
    • 51. Rightthingtodo TX  |  February 9, 2010 at 7:53 pm

      edit

      sexual orientation

      Reply
  • 52. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:29 am

    “the supporters of Prop 8 had already lost two-thirds of their expert witnesses who feared retaliation from the publicity”

    So!…the same could be said for the plaintiffs witnesses…they had just as much reason to fear retaliation from the prop ha8ters…especially the two same sex couples and those who are gay that testified….but surprise surprise they are not cowards…They and we are use to retaliation and discrimination….We and they are the strong ones because we and they didn’t run away like pigs at hog call….SUEWEY!!!!!!…..hahahha….lol

    Reply
    • 53. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:31 am

      Well, Ronnie, if the only way these idiots have to “defend marriage” is to tell lies and create bias … yeah, they’re in trouble.

      I’ll be watching the news for articles about roving gangs of LGBT people beating up the straights. (Not too closely, though, since I know it won’t be there …)

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 54. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:34 am

      “they had just as much reason to fear retaliation from the prop ha8ters…especially the two same sex couples and those who are gay that testified….but surprise surprise they are not cowards…”
      I like your use of words Ronnie, touche!

      Reply
      • 55. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:37 am

        thank you guys I knew that one stand out…lol

        Reply
  • 56. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:35 am

    Yes nicely played more discrimination, propaganda, speculation, lies, and anti-equality cry baby whining…all making it more easier for them to loose on every level…..bwaaaaa!!!!

    Reply
    • 57. george  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:42 am

      This whole case was started by the gays whining about the fact that only a man and a woman can make a baby and that the state holds that relationship in high esteem relative to non-procreating relationships. “I can’t procreate, bwaaaaaa!” Okay, can we stop with those silly kinds of comments now?

      Reply
      • 58. george's boyfriend  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:04 pm

        Come home and I’ll give you a nice relaxing backrub to help you forget about whatever it is that makes you come pick fights with the nice people here.

        I love you, george.

        Reply
      • 59. Sheryl Carver  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:08 pm

        I’m sure the folks who manage this site have more than enough to do. However, given that “george” is getting nastier & nastier (“sperm and feces do not a baby make.”), would it be possible to add a feature where each person can select to “ignore” any given commenter? I’ve seen this on other sites that have this option instead of banning posters or moderating comments.

        Don’t know how hard this would be to implement, but it seems like once it was in place, there wouldn’t be any further work required by the site administrator.

        I’d love to have a way to avoid seeing “george’s” nastiness. It would also be easier to resist the temptation to continue to engage him, which hopefully would finally make him & the few others of his ilk leave this site alone. I’m a dog trainer/behaviorist &, just like with children, often the best way to eliminate unwanted behavior is to ignore it. Any response, even a negative one, can reinforce the behavior.

        We are truly building a supportive community here. While intelligent questions from people who want to gain knowledge are & should be welcomed, the “georges” only want to spew. There are many other places they can do that; would be nice not to have to read it here.

        Thanks again to EVERYONE who is working so hard to bring about civil rights for ALL!

        Reply
      • 60. Mr.HCI  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:11 pm

        I think the only way to accomplish that would be by making this a message board with required registration.

        Reply
      • 61. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:15 pm

        i agree with both of you, Sheryl and Mr.HCI…although I am Having fun I am getting a little tired of having to repeat myself over and over again as well as debunk prop h8ate lies again and again….but notice I stopped cursing…I am being good.

        Reply
      • 62. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:21 pm

        Sheryl, that only works if there is registration. However, I am given to understand that certain parties are already being watched with an eye toward banning them.

        Yes, George has certainly become more and more vulgar with each posting. He keeps thinking that he is impressing me with his manliness, I guess, but he is only showing what a small, cowardly person he is.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 63. Sheryl Carver  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:24 pm

        I think the site I saw implemented it as an option IF you logged in, but didn’t require registration if you only wanted to view comments. I wouldn’t want people to HAVE to register to use this site – it’s much to important & educational to have any sort of restrictions to view.

        However, it would be nice to be able to avoid “george” & his kind. Not the highest priority, certainly, but would be nice.

        Or maybe “george’s boyfriend” will finally be able to help “george” become the calm, rational person that hopefully is in there somewhere. :-)

        Reply
      • 64. Kim  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:29 pm

        George,

        Don’t you know about the latest developments in fertilisation technology? Probably something, but it is unlikely that you know that they are already perfecting techniques to use two nuclei to create an embryo. From that, it is just a short way to use two sperm nuclei for fertilisation.

        So, the procreation issue is going to be solved soon enough…..

        Reply
      • 65. Sheryl Carver  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:54 pm

        Hi, Mr HCI, Ronnie, & Fiona!

        I used to be a software engineer, but burned out 18 years ago & have been out of the field so long that I know next to nothing about how anything is implemented these days. As I mentioned earlier, as annoying as “george” & “kay” are, I wouldn’t want to have anything that stands in the way of easy access this site.

        It does get tiring to constantly address the same issues, whether based on lack of knowledge or nastiness. One thing I clearly recall from my engineering days is the acronym “RTFM” which stood for “Read The F-ing Manual”. It was used in response to folks who were too lazy to try to get an answer that was readily available & just wanted someone to spoon-feed them the answer. (See, I’m so ancient that there were actual manuals shipped with the software we used!)

        Anyway, there are times I think the best response to the “georges” of this world is “RTFTT” = “Read The F-ing Trial Transcripts”, if you really want to learn something! Pretty much any & all of their so-called reasons to prevent us from access to full civil rights are answered fully & completely in the transcripts. So if “george” really wants to learn/understand, he can readily do so. Instead, he’d much rather incite, rant, & spew. What a sad way to spend one’s precious time on this earth!

        Love,
        Sheryl

        Reply
      • 66. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:03 pm

        So true

        Reply
      • 67. Bill  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:58 pm

        If, according to george, semen and feces do not make a baby, then how does george explain his existence?

        Reply
      • 68. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 9, 2010 at 6:44 pm

        No, TG, this whole case was started because of a discriminatory law that was forced on the voters of California through the use of lies, propaganda, fear, and superstition, merely because peoploe want to be selfish with basic, fundamental CIVIL rights, and want to force one interpretation of religion on everyone. The ones who have done the most whining are the ones who do not want the truth to come into the light of day with regard to their actions, the ones who want to oppress everyone who does not look exactly the same way they do, do not think exactly the way do, and in short want to see the United States of America go down the same road Germany went down under the Nazi regime, all while trying to disguise it as “Christianity.” Well, what about those of us who are Jewish? What about our relligious freedom? What about the Buddhists? What about the Unitarians. By banning same sex marriage, you are impinging on their religious freedom to perform the ceremonies that you do not want to perform. As Wanda Sykes said, “If you don’t believe in same sex marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex.” And yes, TG, it IS that simple.

        Reply
      • 69. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 6:52 pm

        Sykes!!!….hahah….awe dopty-daddy you remembered…lol

        Yeah what he said!…..What?!….What?!

        Reply
      • 70. Rightthingtodo TX  |  February 9, 2010 at 8:02 pm

        oh…let’s pray for the misguided jorge…he knows not what he says…brainwashed from birth to believe only one type of family unit is viable…when the world doesn’t fit into his nice little box, he starts heaving rocks from his glass house…ah irony

        jorge either doesn’t get it or is willfully ignorant…either way he’s not adding anything to the pro prop8 side

        marriage equality is about the government recognizing a contract between two individuals…recognizing it on a real economic level…and not the ability to procreate…just an aside why would jorge want procreation among opposite gender couples at all…experience shows us that some significant percentage will want to marry a person of the same gender…so where does that put him in 20 years?

        i’m not sure why i (and i can presume jorge although self loathing is weird animal so i can’t be sure) get to reap the economic benefit of having my relationship recognized simply because i’m attracted to the opposite gender

        btw, last i checked, both same gender male and same gender female couples can procreate providing 1/2 the genetic material to make a human

        Reply
    • 71. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:48 am

      Hey David K…..I can procreate right?…..Test tube babies are still babies…BWAAAAAA!!!!!!! and it was the bigots who said that man and woman can procreate only right?…..right???

      And this case started when the hate crimes in Cali rose substantially after prop h8ate passed right fiona64?….right?…right???

      bwaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!

      Reply
      • 72. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:54 am

        Yeppers, that works for me and if you lived on the Planet Parador in my story, that’s the only way it works.

        Reply
      • 73. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:55 am

        except, no test tube babies, there! LOL

        Reply
      • 74. george  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:00 pm

        What are you putting in the test tube and where are you going to get it? Sperm and sperm do not a baby make; sperm and feces do not a baby make.

        Reply
      • 75. Alan E.  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:03 pm

        Egg and egg a baby might make, though!

        Reply
      • 76. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:06 pm

        Let’s see Curious George A Gay couple who has a heterosexual female friend or vice versa for Lesbians….all is needed is an egg and a sperm…seriously do a little research moegoe!

        Reply
      • 77. Alan E.  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:23 pm

        Eggs fertilized without sperm via BBC.

        Reply
      • 79. Alan E.  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:26 pm

        http://www.redorbit.com/news/display?id=126087

        Reply
      • 80. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:35 pm

        Not only did hate crimes in CA raise after Prop 8 passed (I’ve posted the information repeatedly), but *every* time a piece of anti-LGBT legislation passes the same thing happens.

        Of course, procreation is irrelevant to the conversation. Otherwise, elderly couples, infertile couples and childfree couples would be denied marriage licenses. It’s just another stupid red herring.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
  • 81. Joe  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:46 am

    They’re trying to win in the court of public opinion, because they figure it’s quite likely now they’re going to lose in a court of law.

    Reply
    • 82. george  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:04 pm

      They already won in the court of public opinion (Remember Prop 8?)

      Reply
      • 83. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:11 pm

        Actually Joe they didn’t win in the court of the public either because the majority of the public didn’t vote…….so that’s still up in the air….prop h8ate are little liars and that was proven in court.

        Reply
      • 84. george's boyfriend  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:21 pm

        I want to apologize on george’s behalf, even though I’ll be in trouble tonight for it!

        You all have to understand that he was abused as a child. Every day he was forced to learn about heterosexual releationships and was even taught in school that heterosexual relationships are normal. What kind of monster would do that to an impressionable child? It has caused him to grow up thinking that being heterosexual is okay, wanting to go against nature and choose to be a heterosexual.

        Don’t blame him for this. Blame the society that did this to him.

        george and I struggle with this every day. I do my best to tell him I love him and that he is okay to be who he is, but sometimes that just isn’t enough and he slips back into old patterns.

        george has a mental illness. Please be understanding of that when dealing with the things he says that seem so hateful. We struggle to get him to feel safe loving himself, and fighting him here isn’t helping.

        I know I’m going to get it for talking about our private business here in the public like this, but I just love george too much to stay silent while he hurts himself like this.

        Reply
      • 85. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:34 pm

        @ geroge’s boyfriend. While I understand you wanting to take up for Team George, before someone can have a mental illness, one must frst have a mind, which Team George does not. Otherwise, Team George would be able tolearn, would be able to form his own opinion based on fact, rather than parroting the party line based on fear and superstition. It is like a button my husband hs that I am currently wearing on my jacket: “HOMOPHOBIA IS A SOCIAL DISEASE.”

        Reply
      • 86. Rightthingtodo TX  |  February 9, 2010 at 8:05 pm

        and public opinion has relevance how?

        jorge needs to pick a basis and go with it…either prop8 is right because of the popular vote or prop8 is right because of the procreation issue…sheesh…one of em is bound to stick right?

        Reply
    • 87. Ozymandias ('cause it's cooler than 'Elbert')  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:30 pm

      You’re right Joe, but it’s not the sure bet they seem to think it is. Prop H8 passed with only 52% of the vote – barely even a majority. Californians have had a year to see just how much damage Prop H8 has done to loving committed couples, and it wouldn’t surprise me one bit to see a good number of those who voted ‘Yes’ change their vote if another Referendum was held today.

      Love,

      Ozy

      Reply
      • 88. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:21 pm

        Yep. Two percentage points. That’s it. The Prop H8 folks like to pretend it’s four points, which shows that they don’t understand math. Two points above half … that’s two points, period.

        The gap narrows every time, and the arc swings closer to justice.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
  • 89. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:47 am

    Early this morning, I was up, since my tummy was upset and it gave me time to review the briefs filed on their behalf. What I found were some very cleverly disguised “straw men” (I use the term straw men only as an allegory). “The prop8 side had already lost 2/3 of their witnesses. O’kay, am I missing something, but didn’t they just have two witnesses and with the one that dropped-out, doesn’t that mean they only had 3 to begin with?

    Reply
    • 90. Alan E.  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:05 pm

      They had a total of six. 2 actually testified for them, and 1 testified for us, so technically, only half dropped out. We would have probably called the other three, but something about not being able to subpoena outside of 100 miles prevented that, so we used their previous deposition.

      Reply
      • 91. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:16 pm

        Thanx for clearing that up, Alan. When I downloaded the Amicus briefs from the website, I only saw 3 briefs filed by their side…maybe they aren’t available yet.

        By the way…Ronnie, can we get some music here today?
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 92. Alan E.  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:22 pm

        I’ve seen three as well, with only one that might have any kind of merit.

        Reply
    • 93. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:23 pm

      Don’t forget that two others testified at deposition and their testimony was used by our side anyway….technicaly half their witnesses testified for the plaintiff!

      Reply
  • 94. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:51 am

    There is no “I” in Bigot!…………wait?

    Reply
  • 95. Bolt  |  February 9, 2010 at 11:52 am

    Full steam ahead. Annihilate proposition 8!

    Reply
  • 96. TPAKyle  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    Pardon my ignorance here but didn’t the PM folks “win” by lying during their campaign and convincing 7M CA residents that the sky would fall if SSM continued.

    Last I checked, CA has over 36M residents. Doing the math, the PM folks were only able to hoodwink about 19% of the state’s population. Fully 81% of CA residents did not voice their disapproval of SSM.

    Ignoring the 14th amendment, how’s that the “will of the people”?

    What arrogant assholes.

    Reply
    • 97. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:02 pm

      Thanks, TPAKyle – looks like we are all on the same page!
      Love,
      David

      Reply
    • 98. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:04 pm

      Exactly….it could be said that the will of the people is saying that It shouldn’t even be an issue….Love is Love…I have dad several people say those exact words…”It shouldn’t even be a issue…Love is Love”

      Reply
      • 99. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:59 pm

        TOUCHE, Ronnie!

        Reply
  • 100. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    Ronnie, can we get some music?

    Reply
  • 101. CuriousObserver  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    George, you’re a moron. No, not every heterosexual relationship can create a baby. I assume that you want to ban infertile heterosexuals from obtaining the legal contract of marriage? How about elderly people?

    The state does not regulate fertility or procreation. Now, unless you want to create a law that states that all married couples must prove their fertility, and procreate within the first 2 years of their marriage, you have no argument.

    Next time, George, do your research before you stammer out absurd statements.

    Reply
    • 102. george  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:31 pm

      If you’ve read my other comments on other posts, you’d know that I know what I’m talking about. But to save you the trouble of searching, here’s the argument:

      1. All heterosexual couples are implicitly capable of procreation, whether they are capable, in fact, or not.

      2. Non-procreating heterosexual couples are societal examples of the only combination of people that can make a baby; they represent the ideal coupling, whether they actually procreate or not. They encourage men and women to marry, as opposed to merely living together and having children out of wedlock.

      3. Non-procreating homosexual couples do not provide the value to society that non-procreating heterosexual couples do.

      Reply
      • 103. george's boyfriend  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:34 pm

        I love you, george.

        We all want you to know that you have permission to love yourself, too.

        Reply
      • 104. Mr.HCI  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:35 pm

        You don’t actually care about any of that, George. Your nasty asides have amply shown your true feelings for LGBT people.

        Reply
      • 105. CuriousObserver  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:51 pm

        George, please forgive my brief absence, as I had to wipe off the water I spit out onto my computer screen in gasps of laughter.

        Now, to assuage your baiting, I shall deconstruct your ridiculous, albeit neatly numbered statements, one by one.

        “1. All heterosexual couples are implicitly capable of procreation, whether they are capable, in fact, or not.”

        So all heterosexual couples are capable of procreating…even when…they’re not capable? Please try to make sense next time. Next statement…

        “2. Non-procreating heterosexual couples are societal examples of the only combination of people that can make a baby;”

        George, if they’re incapable of procreation, then how exactly are they societal examples of people who can make a baby? Again, illogical…

        “They represent the ideal coupling, whether they actually procreate or not.”

        Ideal coupling? According to whom? This statement only serves to provide an example of animus towards gays/lesbians.

        “They encourage men and women to marry as opposed to merely living together and having children out of wedlock.”

        …which plenty of people do nowadays, no matter how many gorgeous weddings they are able to view. Did Bristol emulate Sarah?

        “3. Non-procreating homosexual couples do not provide the value to society that non-procreating heterosexual couples do.”

        Non-procreating homosexual couples take in the abandoned children that heterosexuals carelessly toss away. That’s real value right there, George. However, I do relish the not-too-well-hidden animus contained in your statement. Homosexuals are not valuable human beings? Their relationships and their children are not valuable to society? What are they, trash? After all, there are currently over a million children in the United States being raised by gay/lesbians couples. I don’t think the children of gay couples would be too thrilled with you calling them the products of a family that “had no value”.

        Awaiting your hilarious reply, George…

        Reply
      • 106. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:55 pm

        Do you have proof?…..No!………bwaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!

        Bristol Palin, Britney Spears, Mylie Cyrus, Charlie Sheen, Jeffrey Domber, Britney Spears’ little sister, Liza(I love you but still you married a lot of Gay guys), Tiger Woods, Bill Clinton, Priests who molest kids, K-Fed, Gay Bashers, The 14yo straight boy who shot 15yo Lawrence King, The married guy Ashlee Dupree slept with who was a politician, Playboy, The guys who murdered Matthew Shepard, The drunk who murdered Barry Winchell, The highest hetero divorce rate in years, Barney the Dinosaur, Dan White, My step mother who siad she wanted to kill me because she hates my mother, Pat Robertson, the KKK, Nazis, Hetero rapists and repeat sex offenders, Womanizer Jude Law(great actor bad treatment of women), Anita Bryant, Briggs, and so on and so on…..

        Yes the straight world is SOOOOOOO!!!! perfect and normal…hahaahahaha……OMG!!!! Can I be straight like you? Where do I sign up?……….NOT!

        Reply
      • 107. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:37 pm

        But no offense to our straight allies….I was just pointing out that Curious George’s holier then thou heterosexuals are the paragons of virtue hogwash that prop ha8te shouts out all the live long day…..I love you, our fellow heterosexual humans with a heart of gold.

        <3…Ronnie Mc

        Reply
      • 108. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:44 pm

        Ronnie, don’t you worry. I was snickering right along with you.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 109. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:00 pm

        LOL…thank you, Fiona64. <3

        Reply
      • 110. rpx  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:50 pm

        Fiona I signed the pledge not to feed the troll George or Kay. I said I would go along with you, if you signed I signed, and you signed. Boy is this hard to keep my pledge. Fiona I wouls simply like to make a point to you and anyone else who happens to e reading that homosexual couples can procreate. If you are a lesbian you simply need a sperm donor which is why I have my twin grandgchildren. If yo are a gay man you simply need a surrogate and an egg donor. This method of procreation is not “gay” many hetrosexual couples experience fertility problems and utilize this current science. It is never true to say that “only” hetrosexuals can procreate. A correct statement would be that it takes three things to procreate, an egg, a sperm, and a hospitable uterus. As long as you have 1 of the 3 you can procreate by finding donors, hetrosexuals aren’t the only ones who can make babies.

        Reply
      • 111. John  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:53 pm

        But they’re the only ones who do it by sticking part of their body into someone else’s body. Because somehow that’s the only way that matters.

        Reply
      • 112. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:56 pm

        Dear RPX:

        I wholeheartedly concur with every point you made.

        Every point.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 113. Grelef  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:07 pm

        I’m wondering if we should just sterilize heterosexual couples who procreate outside of marriage.

        Reply
      • 114. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:13 pm

        Grelef: Appropos of nothing, if you are the same person who used that handle on AOL back in the day, I was MiladySCA.

        If this is the right person, folks, he is the author of the brilliant Leviticus exegesis that I shared a while back (credited to Greg).

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 115. Grelef  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:21 pm

        OMG, Fiona, how NICE to run into you again!! Yes, I am Grelef from AOL.

        Reply
      • 116. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:24 pm

        Ditto, Grelef!

        Grelef can verify that I’ve been working on marriage equality issues since 2004, everyone; he and I were on the boards poking holes in the same moronic arguments that we are seeing here today.

        I am *so* very glad to see you here! I have thought about you often.

        Love,
        Fiona

        PS — a lot of us here sign our posts “love” because we realized that none of the Prop 8 arguments for marriage included love at all. Just so you know. :-)

        Reply
      • 117. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:38 pm

        Oh, Really? And what about all of the same sex couples who adopt children and give them loving homes instead of forcing those children to remain wards of the state by leaving them in foster care and/or orphanages? How do they add less value to society than heterosexual couples? Again, do some HONEST research, Team George, instead of just parroting te claptrap put out by Focus on (duping and manipulating) the Family and the other hte-filled organizations and individuals you listen to and repeat just like an iPod.

        Reply
      • 118. Grelef  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:39 pm

        I followed the trial on this site but haven’t posted until today. Well, I’m not fickle. I’m as attracted to your mind and prose style now as I was in 1994 !

        Love,
        Grelef

        Reply
      • 119. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:40 pm

        Richard, I think I need to invent the iParrot. ;->

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 120. Grelef  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:41 pm

        Ooops. Make that 2004!

        Reply
      • 121. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:42 pm

        Dear Grelef:

        No worries. :-)

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 122. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:21 pm

        ZOMG!!! I just KNEW you were part of the SCA!!! I could feel it….I could swear I felt that connection!!!

        Dearest Milady, I tip my hat to you!

        Felyx

        Reply
      • 123. Rightthingtodo TX  |  February 9, 2010 at 8:06 pm

        ok and this has relevance to the issue how?

        Reply
      • 124. Rightthingtodo TX  |  February 10, 2010 at 7:39 am

        marriage equality is about the government recognizing a contract between two individuals…recognizing it on a real economic level…and not the ability to procreate…just an aside why would jorge want procreation among opposite gender couples at all…experience shows us that some significant percentage of opposite gender offspring will want to marry a person of the same gender…so where does that put him in 20 years?

        i’m not sure why i (and i can presume jorge although self loathing is weird animal so i can’t be sure) get to reap the economic benefit of having my relationship recognized simply because i’m attracted to the opposite gender

        btw, last i checked, both same gender male and same gender female couples can procreate providing 1/2 the genetic material to make a human

        ah…so it’s about “examples”…hmm…criminals getting married…nice societal example.

        pwnd

        Reply
      • 125. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 10:32 am

        Dear Felyx:

        Thank you kindly. I am no longer active in the Society; I dated a local court baron for a while and, when I left him, well … suffice it to say that a restraining order was involved. Because the judge could not order him to stay away from SCAdian activities (although he was ordered to be 100 yards away from me at such, many activities are on smaller grounds than that), I found it easier to stop attending.

        I was an A/S geek (needlework/cookery).

        YIS,
        Fiona

        Reply
    • 126. G Rod  |  February 9, 2010 at 6:20 pm

      Perhaps the moderator could put a thumb up and thumb down below each entry, and cumulate the number received. Those that get ignored might soon get the message that opinions are not being read. Those not interesting in the banter would move on to meaningful comments one way or the other. It might be worth a try. Insightful comments are why I come to this site.

      “A person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”.

      Reply
      • 127. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2010 at 6:27 pm

        I don’t necessarily like the thumbs up thumbs down on posts. But sometimes find myself looking for the thumbs up on so many posts when i first start reading daily.

        I would propose though a button next to each post (associated with their IP, but hidden IP of course) where we could hit an iggy button to ignore that person.

        But, then again, I also do like reading the ‘other side’s’ view and sometimes it is insightful to their motives.

        Reply
  • 128. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    Ok Kids Gather around…never a better place for some review for the life Exam (this is a repost):

    Reply
    • 129. Kohai  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:45 pm

      HAH HA HAHHAHAHAHAHAHA…….mmmm…sorry. funny :)

      Reply
    • 130. Todd  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:02 pm

      Thanks for that. Fun and educational!

      Reply
  • 131. CuriousObserver  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    I would also add, George, that citing public opinion does not hold much water for your side of this issue. If the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage today, I doubt most people would actually care (with the exception of the absurd lunatic fringe, about 30% of the population).

    It is also interesting to note the actual statistics available on the issue of gay marriage. In 2000, around 20% of Americans supported the right of gay couples to marry. By the end of the decade, that number had risen to somewhere between 46% and 48%. People’s minds are constantly changing on this subject matter, but it’s undeniable that public opinion is only moving in one direction.

    Regardless of the statistics, however, I find it quite amusing that you seem to believe that gays/lesbians need the approval of straight people to have the same rights that straight people have in the first place. Seriously? The Constitution already mandates that equal protection under the law be available to all, regardless of what one group of Americans might think about another group of Americans.

    You have no argument, George. Scurry off.

    Reply
  • 132. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Thanks, Ronnie, that was great!
    Love,
    David

    Reply
  • 133. Ozymandias ('cause it's cooler than 'Elbert')  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    Ah yes, the classic ‘We can’t use evidence so we’ll go for character assassination instead’ tactic.

    Whether the Judge is Gay or not is irrelevant to the case – the EVIDENCE is clear and shows the level of animus toward the LGBT community… in fact, I would say that the resulting fundie-hysteria would only reinforce that fact. Was anyone here complaining about judicial bias concerning Walker’s orientation before? Nope.

    Love,

    Ozy

    Reply
    • 134. Mr.HCI  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:26 pm

      “George” certainly does a good job of proving animus toward the LGBT community.

      Reply
      • 135. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:28 pm

        Good point! I was thinking the same thing myself!
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 136. Ozymandias ('cause it's cooler than 'Elbert')  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:35 pm

        Damn right, Mr. HCI!

        Of course, people who post such froth-at-the-mouth insanity usually retort with ‘Well I don’t hate anyone’… and then just can’t understand why everyone won’t stop laughing at them. Sad, but predictable.

        Love,

        Ozy

        Reply
      • 137. John  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:47 pm

        “I have gay friends. I just don’t think their relationships are worth anything, or that that they should share all of my rights. But they’re friends, I swear!”

        Reply
      • 138. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:48 pm

        John, that pretty much covers it.

        (I always laugh a little bit when that inevitable “Some of my best friends are XYZ, and they’re okay with me hating them” argument comes along. Do they really think *anyone* believes them?)

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
    • 139. Mouse  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:47 pm

      If the plaintiffs hadn’t done a brilliant job and the defense hadn’t soiled themselves so thoroughly during the case, then the whole “the judge is biased because he’s gay” schtick might be scarrier.

      As it stands, no sane person will be able to convince himself that a ruling against prop 8 wasn’t a logical outcome of the cases both sides presented.

      Reply
  • 140. truthspew  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    You know I looked at the witness list and I’m actually shocked that Herr Gallagher wasn’t invited to be a witness for the defense, particularly since she’s such an ‘expert’ on marriage. Or how about Brown himself? He holds himself out there too.

    Reply
    • 141. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:51 pm

      I think the reason that “Herr Gallagher” or or others, who are of the NOM camp didn’t appear as witnesses is probably two fold, first, they were deeply involved in the campaign and secondly they did not want to face, what I would describe as “killer cross examination”.
      Love,
      David

      Reply
  • 142. Alan E.  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    Protect Marriage, the defendants in this case are effectively being held hostage by Judge Walker and cannot really comment.

    Ironic statement of the year since comments are off on pm.com!

    Reply
    • 143. Alan E.  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:56 pm

      To show the lengths that Walker has gone to create a “record” favoring the plaintiffs, he even allowed one “expert” witness — a gay man from Colorado who has never lived in California and was never exposed to any Prop 8 campaign messages — to testify that his parents’ efforts to change his sexual orientation failed.

      He attended a facility here in California that serves other Californians too. I don’t know if I can make it through the entire letter without my head exploding.

      Reply
      • 144. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:51 pm

        That gay man was not offered as an expert witness…. unlike Miller and Blankehoover who were.

        I am pointing out the obvious lying but…really it’s kinda useless as there are so many.

        Speaking of lying….the P8 people are not really making lots of accusations of anti-P8ers of lying.

        Reply
    • 145. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:53 pm

      Hahahaha….Pulp Fiction!

      Reply
  • 146. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    Why bother with facts when you can make an easy living scaring people about things they know nothing about.

    Reply
  • 147. CuriousObserver  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    I’m loving this George character. It’s always fun to debate the ridiculousness of these people’s arguments when I have extra time on my hands.

    Reply
    • 148. slsmith66  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:05 pm

      I like George’s boyfriend more!

      Reply
  • 149. slsmith66  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    See they could of had another witness for their side…

    http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/1813692.html

    Guess he decided to teach health science his own way, including anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion, and bible studies. Would of love to have been in that class! LOL

    Reply
    • 150. John  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:06 pm

      Ah, I love my school. So many wonderful people there.

      Reply
  • 151. rpx  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    I looked at the witness list but it was hard for me to tell who was a plainteff witness and who was a defendent Intervenor witness. I might be mistaken but I think I only saw 2 other witnesses for the DI’s both from McGill University in Montreal Canada (besides blankenhorny and the first guy (can’t remember his name) that testified for the DI’s, for a total of 4. Is that the way everyone else is reading the list? Well heck if someone would just copy and paste into this forum the experts for the defense (those who showed and those he ran away) I would sure appreciate it.

    Reply
    • 152. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:27 pm

      rpx, if I’m reading it correctly, their six witnesses were:

      David Blankenhorn (actually testified)
      Kenneth P. Miller (actually testified)
      Paul Nathanson (deposition on YouTube)
      Katherine Young (deposition on YouTube)
      Loren Marks
      Daniel N. Robinson

      I don’t see William Tam’s name there, so I guess this was filed after he bailed, then the next four were dropped.

      Reply
    • 153. rpx  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:10 pm

      Many thanks Straight Ally! I went back to the legal doc and added the full set of info which I’ll post below. Bummer no cut and paste though! Didn’t take me long to just type it up. Here then is thier complete witness list-
      David Blankenhorn (actually testified)
      Instituite for American Values New York

      Kenneth P. Miller (actually testified)
      Associate Professor Deptment of Government
      Claremont McKenna College
      Claremont, CA 91711
      909-607-2811

      Paul Nathanson (deposition on YouTube)
      Religious Studies
      McGill University
      Montreal Canada 514-398-1511
      Dr. Nathanson’s Testimony will be related to the matters addressed in his expert report

      Katherine Young (deposition on YouTube)
      Faculty of Religious Studies
      McGill University
      Montreal Canada 514-398-1511
      Professor Young’s Testimony will be related to the matters addressed in her expert report

      Loren Marks
      Louisiana State Universtiy School of Human Ecology Division of Family & Child Consumer Sciences
      341 Human Ecology Building
      Baton Rouge, LA 70803 (225) 578-2697
      Professor Mark’s Testimony will be related to the matters addressed in his expert report

      Daniel N. Robinson
      Philosophy Faculty
      Oxford University
      Professor Robinson’s Testimony will be related to the matters addressed in his expert report

      I think I’ll go over to AFER and see if I can find their expert reports and anything else interesting about these people.

      Reply
      • 154. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:16 pm

        Fascinating how these people allegedly dropped out because of the potential to be seen on YouTube … but are already on YouTube.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 155. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:21 pm

        I doubt they ‘dropped’ out. I have a feeling they were asked by the defense attorneys to drop out (and the defense attorneys told them, here’s a good reason you can use why you are dropping out). The defense attorneys realized their witnesses wouldn’t ‘help’ their case : )

        Reply
      • 156. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:25 pm

        LLB, that’s why I said “allegedly.” I think that P8 knew they were hosed from jump street.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
    • 157. rpx  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:17 pm

      So annoying when I take the time to write up a comment and then for some reason it does not post! I never can figure out why?
      Anyway thanks much straight ally. I went back to the legal doc and added in the information on the experts for the defense.
      David Blankenhorn (actually testified)
      Instituite for American Values New York

      Kenneth P. Miller (actually testified)
      Associate Professor Deptment of Government
      Claremont McKenna College
      Claremont, CA 91711
      909-607-2811

      Paul Nathanson (deposition on YouTube)
      Religious Studies
      McGill University
      Montreal Canada 514-398-1511
      Dr. Nathanson’s Testimony will be related to the matters addressed in his expert report

      Katherine Young (deposition on YouTube)
      Faculty of Religious Studies
      McGill University
      Montreal Canada 514-398-1511
      Professor Young’s Testimony will be related to the matters addressed in her expert report

      Loren Marks
      Louisiana State Universtiy School of Human Ecology Division of Family & Child Consumer Sciences
      341 Human Ecology Building
      Baton Rouge, LA 70803 (225) 578-2697
      Professor Mark’s Testimony will be related to the matters addressed in his expert report

      Daniel N. Robinson
      Philosophy Faculty
      Oxford University
      Professor Robinson’s Testimony will be related to the matters addressed in his expert report

      Now I’ll go to AFER and see if I can read their reports and anything else about them. Geesh these sure are shy people to run away like that. None of our witnessess ran away when they thought they would be on camera.

      Reply
      • 158. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:27 pm

        We should all write the two that testified and the two whose depositions were used (and maybe Tam if his address pops up) and thank them for their assistance in shaming the defense and making the plaintiffs case for them….we should then also make them open letters to the public as well.

        It’ll send the message, ‘Have something factual to say or shut up!’

        Reply
  • 159. CuriousObserver  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    Did you guys know that straight people are capable of procreating even when they’re not capable of procreating?

    I didn’t know that, but apparently George does. Somebody slap his sophomore biology teacher.

    Reply
    • 160. John  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:14 pm

      Maybe it’s like Schrodinger’s cat. Put two straight people in a box, and they will both procreate and not procreate, but only as long as you don’t watch them do it.

      Reply
      • 161. Alan E.  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:38 pm

        They can’t watch themselves do it either, so maybe a hole in a sheet?

        Reply
      • 162. PDXAndrew  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:49 pm

        ROFL! not like many here would want to watch them get it on.

        Reply
    • 163. Mr.HCI  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:18 pm

      I think he was merely making a poor attempt at saying that M/F couples are the ideal, whether they can make babies or not, and society has an interest in promoting that ideal . . .

      . . . via vicious condemnation of and unconscionable discrimination against homosexuals.

      Reply
      • 164. Ozymandias ('cause it's cooler than 'Elbert')  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:29 pm

        Typical that this argument is long on rhetoric and woefully short on fact… I mean, do marriage licenses require procreation tests for hetero couples? No? Oops!

        Love,

        Ozy

        Reply
      • 165. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:45 pm

        I don’t think George is suggesting he should put his ‘mind’ to any use at all… I am almost positive he is thinking with his….other head.

        Reply
      • 166. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:46 pm

        You know, Felyx … I think you are right. Sad, really … what a lonely, lonely little person.

        I wish I could be impressed; I’m just not.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
    • 167. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:19 pm

      Yeah, I was pretty amazed to learn that, despite being childfree and having had my tubes tied 17 years ago, I am apparently capable of procreating.

      And elderly people! Who knew? And the infertile? I am sure that all of those people who are undergoing fertility treatments will be shocked to learn that they can just procreate if they put their minds to it.

      Argh.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 168. george  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:02 pm

      Apparently you don’t understand the meaning of “implicit.” It means that it’s common sense: a man and a woman procreate. It’s what they’re designed to do, notwithstanding the possibility that the equipment might not work or they choose not to use it that way.

      As opposed to two gay men, who implicitly cannot procreate by design, and two women who implicitly cannot procreate by design. No one looks at two men or two women and assumes that they have made or can make a baby together. They cannot, and no one would expect that they can.

      Reply
      • 169. John  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:07 pm

        You keep using the word “design.” I think this says something about the basis of your position.

        Reply
      • 170. dieter  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:07 pm

        straight people have been rendered NON-ESSENTIAL!!!
        all society needs to continue is a gay man, a turkey baster and a bored lesbian.
        we don’t need straight people to continue on.
        we never have.

        Reply
      • 171. Mr.HCI  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:15 pm

        Furthermore, John, if we’re gonna talk DESIGN, the male body is perfectly designed for male/male intercourse. I’m not going to go into details, but everything fits too well together, and the male “g-spot” is internal, for it to be anything less than by design, either by God or by evolution.

        Reply
      • 172. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:15 pm

        No one?….Alicia keys is that you…I love you…But wait not you support LGBT Rights an Equality Marriage….sorry my bad.

        Science is by human design so two men and two women can have a baby and everybody knows it or else in-vitro for LGBT’s would be illegal….

        Implicit means its common sense a man and a woman cab procreate?….what dictionary says that?

        It’s implicit that that 2morro will come but it is also implicit that a person may not ….Umm …..i mean may not see 2morro

        It’s implicit that there are LGBT people and that we are not going anywhere….BWAAAAAAA!!!!

        Reply
      • 173. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:17 pm

        I have to wonder why someone “looks at” a given couple and assumes that they do or do not have children. It is completely immaterial. Many gay and lesbian couples have children; many straight couples do not.

        There is no requirement for procreation in order to marry, so the argument is, as Shakespeare said, “full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing.”

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 174. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:19 pm

        John, why am I reminded of “The Princess Bride”?

        “You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.”

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 175. slsmith66  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:20 pm

        George where is your boyfriend? What does he think of this?

        Reply
      • 176. John  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:20 pm

        INCONCEIVABLE! It’s inconceivable that gay people can have children, I guess.

        Reply
      • 177. John  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:21 pm

        Heh, inconceivable. There’s a pun for you.

        Reply
      • 178. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:23 pm

        Well, since the post-fertile and infertile are *explicitly* unable to procreate, and I am *explicitly* unwilling to do so, it is kind of irrelevant for anyone to argue that being *implicitly* able to procreate means that they are more deserving of marriage, don’t you think, Ronnie? I mean, c’mon … I wonder how long one is permitted to remain marrying without procreation? What should the statute of limitations be before one’s marriage is judicially annulled for Failure to Obey George(TM)?

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 179. Mr.HCI  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:26 pm

        It’s such an absurd argument. All that matters is the genitals of the applicants. Perhaps when people are married, they should be covered in heavy shrouds, with only a hole to expose their genitalia, so there will be no doubt.

        Reply
      • 180. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:27 pm

        Prop 8 supporters keeps forgetting, were not going to have less people in the world if GLBT couples are allowed to marry. Straight people will not stop procreating because same-sex couples are not allowed to marry.

        Reply
      • 181. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:29 pm

        I think I think…I’m sure I don’t care….if you know what i mean fiona64…..lol…although Since I like monkeys…I am finding this more and more amusing..yeah?

        Reply
      • 182. Mr.HCI  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:30 pm

        I’ve actually heard something similar to that argument, LLB. If same-sex couples can marry, procreation will no longer be the central purpose* of marriage and straights will immediately stop getting married and stop screwing, en masse.

        *not that it is currently or anything

        Reply
      • 183. george's boyfriend  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:20 pm

        What do you want for dinner tonight, sweety? I’m in the mood for a rump roast.

        We can enjoy a nice, tender, juicy rump together while we watch LOST tonight. Tell all your new friends how much you are enjoying this season’s alternate realities storyline.

        Reply
      • 184. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:32 pm

        I would like to rephrase that last statement I made because it can be miss-construed:

        I think I know what you mean(whisper: But I really know)…I’m sure I don’t care about Curious Georges incoherent discreditable arguments….if you know what i mean fiona64…..lol…although Since I like monkeys…I am finding this more and more amusing..aren’t you?

        lol…..<3….Ronnie Mc

        Reply
      • 185. Grelef  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:55 pm

        According to George’s argument, though, elderly people should never be allowed to marry. They are “explicitly” infertile and create a bad example for other seniors. Before you know it lots of elderly, infertile people will want to follow suit and form non-vialbe marriages–a proposition that would be deliterious to the propagation of society.

        Reply
      • 186. Polydactyl  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:00 pm

        So that’s why coworkers often ask me if my same-sex partner & I have thought of having children.

        Reply
      • 187. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:37 pm

        I was thinking of bringing up the actual definition of implicit and remarking on its proper use but what’s the point….

        It is much more fun to hear George squeal….

        Whether implicit or not….Gays will still be winning the right to marry. They are getting married and there is nothing really you can do but squeal George.

        And remember….there are openly gay penis sucking boys in the military right now and no one is doing anything about it. He is not being beaten up and he is not getting fired. And if he sticks his willy in another boy the other boys are still not caring….

        Gays are making babies and fighting wars….and you are powerless to do anything but whine!

        Would you like some (head) cheese with that whine?!

        Reply
    • 188. Mr.HCI  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:08 pm

      And yet . . .

      – procreation is not a requirement for civil marriage
      – many same-sex couples have children

      Until the law requires procreation as a stipulation of marriage, George, you have no case.

      Reply
      • 189. george  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:03 pm

        Not true; the law can just say that enforcing a procreation requirement is too onerous, but that procreation is the foundation of marriage. And on that basis, it can conclude that marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman.

        Same sex couples with children can be addressed by non-marital unions; until they outlaw gay adoptions. Then, it’s really easy.

        Reply
      • 190. John  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:06 pm

        You can’t define procreation as the basis of marraige, and then allow some but not all marriages that cannot procreate. That’s blatantly discriminatory.

        Reply
      • 191. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:09 pm

        Squeal George….Weeee! Weeeee!!! Like a sow George…WEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

        Yeah….your know your screwed…and you LIKE IT!!!

        Reply
      • 192. george  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:13 pm

        btw, Mr. HCI, anuses are not designed to accommodate penises (or fists or cucumbers, for that matter) by design. It tears the tissue, causes hemorrhoids, and can damage the internal muscular structure. Ask your proctologist. And feces in the urethra are destined for infection.

        The whole act is a form of internal bodily mutilation.

        Reply
      • 193. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:18 pm

        Mr. HCI, I am very concerned about *someone’s* stage of development on this board …

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_stage

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 194. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:20 pm

        ZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!

        Then LGBT will all use in-vitro making that business more booming then plastic surgery and the orphanages will fill up with children because the bigots don’t want them and more tax money being used to feed, cloth, educate, medicate, and shelter kids that are unwanted by bigots like Curious George. as well as kids who have been taken from their rapist bio parents, abusive bio parents, alcoholic bio parents, crack head bio parents and so on..

        WE CAN STILL HAVE KIDS…come up with something new,,,that this Betch hasn’t debunked….SNAP! SNAP!

        Reply
      • 195. george's boyfriend  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:21 pm

        On your way home tonight, sweetheart, please pick some fat free milk.

        Reply
      • 196. george's boyfriend  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:25 pm

        And now that you mention it, we’re out of cucumbers, too.

        Reply
      • 197. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:30 pm

        Hey Curious George

        1. One wonders why you know so much about Gay sex
        2. This is Marriage Equality for all LGBT Americans so your argument is irrelevant when it comes to Lesbianism
        3. We have the shower stream…not as seen on TV!
        4. I depends on size
        5. I don’t tear tissues I blow my nose with one
        6. My muscles are quite strong
        7. “Internal bodily mutilation” well so is pregnancy and child birth but you seem to be ok with that.
        8. “designed to accommodate” so I guess you neve had a prostate exam…you might have Cancer George,,I think you should get that checked out.
        9. Some heterosexual couple might disagree with you on that one as well.
        10. WHY DO YOU KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT GAY SEX?

        Reply
      • 198. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:33 pm

        Ronnie wrote: 7. “Internal bodily mutilation” well so is pregnancy and child birth but you seem to be ok with that.

        External as well … not to put too fine a point on it, but the wife of one of my co-workers had an episiotomy … she tore the *other* way, and in correcting that tear, wound up with a clitoridectomy. :-/

        There are a whole host of reasons why pregnancy is not a state of wellness. George doesn’t care about that, though; his body is not the one at risk of pregnancy and the complications that come along with it.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 199. Mr. HCI  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:33 pm

        Btw, George, it’s not a gay thing, straight people do it, as well. Plenty of straight women like it from behind and there are straight guys who like their wives/girlfriends to do them with a strap-on.

        I’m not going to address what you wrote as you won’t listen, no matter what I write.

        Reply
      • 200. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:36 pm

        You’re right, Mr. HCI. In fact, at a very lovely establishment around the corner from where I used to live, they have published an excellent guidebook about the matter. A visit to http://www.goodvibes.com and a perusal of the books link will get you there. Not my cuppa, frankly, but the information is there.

        As always, I am amused at the people who think that only gay men and lesbians enjoy certain acts.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 201. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:44 pm

        That is true fiona64…my mother had a c-section for me and still has the scar 25 years later…but not true the man can have just as much outer damage when the woman says “I will kill you for putting this thing in me..don’t you touch me!…. Don’t You Touch Me!!!!”…my cousin broke her husbands hand during her first birth…..lol

        Reply
      • 202. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:06 pm

        This video pretty much discusses all of the above issues.

        Reply
      • 203. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:10 pm

        LLB…….I love it!……I love Hype!

        Reply
      • 204. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:18 pm

        I like the way he explains that the parts do indeed fit, and if you are doing it the other way, you are doing it wrong.

        Reply
  • 205. Rene and Daryl  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Maybe a Bi-Sexual judge? Will keep things level

    Reply
  • 206. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    Here’s a great blog/article going over NOMs email – point by point – and pointing out why the Judge did/said/ordered the things he did.

    But, the best part is in the 2nd to last paragraph, “Why go through all of this trouble to point out the errors in a fundraising email to NOM supporters? Because NOM’s Maggie Gallagher was covering the trial on her blog – and Brian Brown knew he was deliberately lying.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-ocamb/countering-noms-missive-o_b_455226.html

    Reply
    • 207. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:08 pm

      Yes, that about says it! Thank you, Lesbians Love Boies, for posting this link, btw, when I went to website and read the story, there was one comment made by an “attorney” I did not bother to post a comment, since it is pointless to argue with these people, who insiste bias, despite what the record shows.
      Love,
      David

      Reply
      • 208. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:22 pm

        I agree.

        A point I rarely read out of all of the articles on this subject today is that Walker’s ruling will be reviewed under a magnifying glass by a bunch of straight (I am being presumptuous here) judges. What he writes needs to be justified and legitimate analysis of the case. I don’t think he’s taking this lightly — being full-aware of who will be reading this, and who will be judging his reasoning.

        Reply
  • 209. K  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    There are at least two untrue statements in the letter: one regarding the judge’s “bias” and one regarding the reason the D-I’s witnesses didn’t testify. And, look at his statement about unqualified witnesses–note that the second D-I witness was allowed to testify even though his expert credentials were sketchy at best. These are examples of what George Lakoff would call “Orwellian language,” which is the tactic employed by conservatives when they have an insupportably weak position. From that perspective, we can take lapse into Orwellian language as a good sign!
    Has anyone else noticed that conservatives don’t handle the one-down position like grown-ups? They don’t handle things with logic and equanimity. But their illogic has served their cause well because they’ve learned to tap into fear and anger and turn it to their advantage at the polling booths by appealing to primitive instincts which override logic and higher brain functions every time. We need to learn to recognize this when it occurs, and develop strategies that are effective. (So do the liberals in our government need to learn countermeasures, but they seem oddly resistant to do so.)
    But this is a court of law, not the court of popular opinion. The judge has to look at the facts presented. The courts are the right place to have this fight.
    Years ago, a friend gave me a copy of Lakoff’s little gem of a book, “Don’t Think of an Elephant.” I became almost messianic about this book, because suddenly I understood things like why conservatives believe what they do and the methods they use to subvert reason. I’d recommend the book for anyone wanting to be active in moving the cause ahead in popular opinion. It would also help folks understand that conservatives aren’t necessarily ALL bigots; some are just poor dupes.
    If anyone has an hour to spare this evening, there’s an abbreviated version, a video lecture by Lakoff on YouTube. I can’t paste the url here, but if you search his name and “Moral Politics,” you’ll find it.
    Love,
    Kaye

    Reply
    • 210. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:37 pm

      Thank you Kaye,

      To summarize…Wolf! Wolf! Protect yourselves from the big bad wolf!

      I taunt George to squeal like a pig but you have said it so much more eruditely with the phrase ‘Orwellian Language.”

      Thank you again, Felyx

      Reply
  • 211. B&E  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    Thanks all for doing such a top notch job here. Being on of the 18000 who’s marriage is valid, but living in TN where we live under DOMA, I was very excited to read how this case has panned out. My only hope is that this case will bring to light the animus towards the GLBT community in such a way that SCOTUS will be forced to grant us our civil rights. It is my birthright as an American to have the same standard applied to all peoples regardless of race, religion, or orientation. Keep up the good work. Us homo’s in TN are eagerly waiting the decision of the courts.

    Reply
  • 212. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    A song dedicated to Curious George & company:

    I know my parents love me,
    Stand behind me come what may.
    I know now that I’m ready,
    Because I finally heard them say
    It’s a different world from where you come from.

    Here’s a chance to make it,
    If we focus on our goals.
    If you dish it we can take it,
    Just remember you’ve been told
    It’s a different world from where you come from.
    It’s a different world from where you come from.

    Thank you America…I love you….<3…..Ronnie Mc

    Reply
  • 213. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    Special dedication to NOM and the other Prop 8 folks:

    Reply
    • 214. slsmith66  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:34 pm

      Ally, that was a good one! My wife could hear it across the room and was cracking up!

      Reply
    • 215. dieter  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:40 pm

      LOL..it’s the Lord’s holy word..as my second wife said to my third…….

      Reply
    • 216. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:48 pm

      Priceless! I need to watch that again!!!

      Reply
    • 217. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:39 pm

      Oh………MY…….. Guh!!!!!…lol

      Reply
  • 218. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    The Thomas More Law Center, on behalf of some Mich. religious leaders, filed a federal lawsuit against the federal government over the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

    http://michiganmessenger.com/34517/michigan-plaintiffs-file-suit-against-hate-crimes-law

    Unbelievable.

    Reply
    • 219. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:52 pm

      And here is all that needs to be said (quoted from LLB’s link):

      There is no question that the expression of anti-gay views, whether religiously based or not, is protected by the First Amendment (as it should be). And in reality, the provisions of the hate crimes law only applies to the investigation and prosecution of actual physical crimes against individuals, not against speech. Unless the plaintiffs intend to actually assault someone, their anti-gay beliefs are irrelevant; if they chose to assault someone, then those expressed views could be used to establish that they committed such a crime out of hatred or bigotry and that might then trigger the provisions of the hate crimes bill. But the mere expression of anti-gay views cannot be punished under the hate crimes law unless the person expressing those views actually commits a violent crime of some sort.
      —–
      I guess these “good Christian people” are planning to go out and beat the crap out of some LGBT people and want to do so with impunity?

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 220. Mr. HCI  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:54 pm

        You betcha!

        Reply
      • 221. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:04 pm

        My sentiments exactly!

        Reply
    • 222. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:01 pm

      What a shock. The TMLC lawyers were the ones who represented the creationists on the Dover school board in Kitzmiller v. Dover. And we know how well they did with that case….

      Reply
    • 223. Sagesse  |  February 9, 2010 at 6:21 pm

      FWIW. Consider when you read this article that the US only has ‘hate crimes’ legislation (actions, actual violence). Canada (and the UK?) also have ‘hate speech’ laws (speech intended to provoke hatred against a particular group’). Doesn’t apply to religious teachings.

      It is highly unlikely the US would ever enact hate speech legislation because of the first amendment (both the free speech part and the freedom of religion part). Doesn’t stop the religious right from claiming that there are restrictions on what they can preach, but there aren’t.

      Also FWIW, the hate speech laws don’t work terribly well, since courts are reluctant to rule that speech (or print) goes so far as to cross the line into hate.

      As a Canadian, I kinda like the concept that there are purely hateful things you just can’t say or print.

      Reply
  • 224. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    NOM needs to change their name to National Organization for Discrimination and Hatred.

    Reply
    • 225. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:03 pm

      National Organization for Mahem

      Reply
    • 226. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:04 pm

      National Organization for Morons (of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.)

      Reply
    • 227. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:06 pm

      National Organization of Murder

      Reply
    • 228. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:47 pm

      Perhaps National Organization for Discrimination, Ugliness and Hatred, which renders them NO DUH.
      ;->

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
  • 229. rpx  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    A little background on a defense expert who ran away Mr. Loren Marks. From this website http://www.fccs.huec.lsu.edu/faculty/marks.htm

    Loren D. Marks, Ph.D., CFLE, holds the Kathryn Norwood and Claude Fussel Alumni Professorship in the College of Agriculture is an Associate Professor in the Family, Child, and Consumer Science Division of Louisiana State University’s School of Human Ecology. He also works with the LSU AgCenter’s Parents Preparing for Success Program (PPSP). Since beginning his work at LSU in 2002, Dr. Marks has centered his research efforts on a national qualitative study of faith and families. He has authored 40 research publications on family life, including recent work that has received national media attention from sources as diverse as The Washington Times and Black Entertainment Television (BET.com). In 2008, he was named an LSU Rainmaker (Top 100 LSU Research Faculty), and in 2009 he was honored as the Sedberry Outstanding Undergraduate Teacher in the LSU College of Agriculture, was featured as LSU Today Flagship Faculty, and was listed in Who’s Who in America. A member of the Kappa Omicron Nu and Gamma Sigma Delta Honor Societies, Dr. Marks received his undergraduate and M.S. degrees in Family Science and Human Development from Brigham Young University, and a Ph.D. in Family Studies from the University of Delaware.

    His curriculum Vitae is here http://www.fccs.huec.lsu.edu/MARKS-vita23.pdf
    Interesting on his CV it says he taught at the University of Deleware when he was studying for his PhD this class-
    2002 IFST 230 – Emerging Lifestyles: Relationships and Diversity

    You should take a look on his curriculium Vitae at the articles he has written 98% of them are all religion and the family etc. etc.

    Reply
  • 230. K  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    Does anyone recall when Judge Walker first said that he was going to record and broadcast the trial? I don’t recall that it was an “11th hour” announcement.

    Reply
  • 232. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    Now I have read it all…on NOM’s own blog post (about this very subject) one person states:

    “Marriage is between a man and a woman. If you don’t want religion then why are you trying to have a religious ceremony or union?”

    Reply
    • 233. John  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:42 pm

      Because all homosexuals are atheist, and no religions condone gay marraige, of course. And it’s not like there are secular benefits or anything.

      Reply
      • 234. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:55 pm

        I’m not an atheist…..I’m an Earthian….praise Gaia!

        Reply
      • 235. dieter  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:40 pm

        Well I for one am a proud Atheist…I swear to GOD!!!!

        Reply
    • 236. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:44 pm

      I guess these people are unaware of the fact that a civil license is required to marry, and that there is no religious test pertaining thereto?

      I’m trying to be kind here …

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 237. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:05 pm

      Who is trying to have a relgious ceremony like every other gay boy I have planned my wedding down to the T..now all I need is a boyfriend…and My wedding will not include a church or a priest so this Betch will not be planning a religious ceremony…Wow they really do think the world revolves around the church….Did the world stop spinning when Father O’ copafeel molested Tommy? It should have for Father O’ copafeel…F-ing pediph!

      Reply
  • 238. rpx  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    Is this thing working? Why did my post not show up? Test

    Reply
    • 239. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:43 pm

      Both of your last posts showed, rpx … I even responded to one. I don’t know what is happening on your end.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 240. rpx  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:57 pm

        Fiona, no they are not all showing up! I tried like 6 times to enter my information I found on one of their experts Loren Marks and it won’t post. If this Board is moderated and for some reason my post is being blocked will you at least come on here and acknowledge. There is nothing wrong with my post!

        Reply
      • 241. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:54 pm

        Oh, rpx — I think I know why. If you have more than one link, it goes into moderation.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
  • 242. Mr. HCI  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    Wasn’t Maggs an unwed mother, and therefore not a virgin when she got married? Why has she not been stoned to death, yet?

    Maybe she’s just attacking homos ’cause she’s mad that she’s not going to Heaven, being that she’s a fornicator (1 Corinthians 6:9).

    Reply
    • 243. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:58 pm

      Or maybe her ex is GAY!!!!

      Reply
  • 244. Billy  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    We all know society will just utterly fall apart when marriage equality is allowed. Here’s a music video to illustrate this point:

    Reply
    • 245. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:53 pm

      Sad to know this is EXACTLY what they are thinking. Great video Billy. I need to go to youtube just to read the comments on it.

      Reply
    • 246. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:20 pm

      “Yeaaaaa!!!!…..Guatemala!!!…..I’m going to Spain!!!!!!!”

      Reply
    • 247. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 7:56 pm

      I wonder why NOM isn’t using this video….

      Gathering Storm was really kinda boring!

      Reply
  • 248. Kathleen  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    Of those of you who read the amicus brief from the California Professors of Family Law (in support of plaintiffs), did you catch the fact that they use “The Case for Marriage” by Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher (2000), as one of their authorities? LOL

    Reply
    • 249. dieter  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:43 pm

      it is rather odd that these religious folks like Maggie Gallagher claim that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation.
      two things wrong with that. God had a son but was never married, nor did he “procreate”, and Maggie gallagher had her bastard child out of wedlock. Epic fail.

      Reply
  • 250. rpx  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    IS THIS BOARD MODERATED??????????????
    This is very annoying, I have tried positng about one of the witnesses for the defense who ran away and my posts are NOT SHOWING UP! Yes I know caps are shouting BUT if you are not permitting my posts then you should at least send me an e-mail instead of leaving my a** out to hang. I keep thinking it is a technical problem so I go thorugh the effert to re=post it again but now I am certain that my comments are not being accepted. How rude! I am really ticked off. I have been a contributor here since the very first day and there is absolutly nothing wrong with the information I am trying to post. Now you are starting to act like the other side you mystery mods…

    Reply
    • 251. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:13 pm

      rpx,

      Any chance you put more than one link in the same comment? I think I tried that once and the comment just didn’t go through.

      Reply
      • 252. rpx  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:20 pm

        Straight Ally, Yes there is more than one link, whew! Boy I was getting ticked off. It is frustrating, I post it doesn’t show up, I post it again, don’t see it. Try a reply to Fiona, yeah that is working. Try it again, doesn’t work yadda yadda yadda
        I put some work into this typing up where all their experts are from and then researching the first one Loren marks, and he is real interesting I will try for liek the 10th time to post it (but with only one link this time)
        A little background on a defense expert who ran away Mr. Loren Marks. From this website http://www.fccs.huec.lsu.edu/faculty/marks.htm

        Loren D. Marks, Ph.D., CFLE, holds the Kathryn Norwood and Claude Fussel Alumni Professorship in the College of Agriculture is an Associate Professor in the Family, Child, and Consumer Science Division of Louisiana State University’s School of Human Ecology. He also works with the LSU AgCenter’s Parents Preparing for Success Program (PPSP). Since beginning his work at LSU in 2002, Dr. Marks has centered his research efforts on a national qualitative study of faith and families. He has authored 40 research publications on family life, including recent work that has received national media attention from sources as diverse as The Washington Times and Black Entertainment Television (BET.com). In 2008, he was named an LSU Rainmaker (Top 100 LSU Research Faculty), and in 2009 he was honored as the Sedberry Outstanding Undergraduate Teacher in the LSU College of Agriculture, was featured as LSU Today Flagship Faculty, and was listed in Who’s Who in America. A member of the Kappa Omicron Nu and Gamma Sigma Delta Honor Societies, Dr. Marks received his undergraduate and M.S. degrees in Family Science and Human Development from Brigham Young University, and a Ph.D. in Family Studies from the University of Delaware.

        Reply
    • 253. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:14 pm

      ummm….maybe you need a time out?

      I have had the same thing happen it might the type of thing you are trying to post….I don’t know but that could be it,

      Reply
    • 254. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:15 pm

      Also – I see posts of yours at 135 and 139, if those are the ones you mean, just threading with older posts.

      Reply
    • 255. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:16 pm

      generally they state if a post is in moderation. i had one in moderation once, couldn’t understand why, perhaps a word stood out, but it did state that my post was in moderation and I could see something.

      Reply
    • 256. dieter  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:44 pm

      last week this site did the same thing to me. I had to remove my internet explorer and sign up for firefox, and now everything works great again…don’t know why that happened.

      Reply
  • 257. Kathleen  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    rpx, I’m seeing your posts. The one that listed the D-I’s witnesses and their affiliations – it posted twice. Something must be going on at your end … maybe the website isn’t updating for you? I’m not aware of there being any interventionist moderation going on here.

    Reply
  • 258. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    Just one more from Roy Zimmerman. This tune is an ode to the Loving v. Virginia decision.

    I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

    -Mildred Loving, 2007

    Reply
  • 259. rpx  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    Finally it posted above, geesh I wish I would have known not to have a post with 2 links in it, could have saved me an hours worth of time tonight.
    This is the second part-
    His curriculum Vitae is here http://www.fccs.huec.lsu.edu/MARKS-vita23.pdf
    Interesting on his CV it says he taught at the University of Delaware when he was studying for his PhD this class-
    2002 IFST 230 – Emerging Lifestyles: Relationships and Diversity

    You should take a look on his curriculum Vitae at the articles he has written 98% of them are all religion and the family etc. etc.

    Reply
  • 260. freestatesd  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    More info on Loren Marks

    Thus Chief Judge Vaughn Walker shouldn’t certify Young as an expert, Olson wrote. The Gibson partner also targeted to other Yes on 8 experts, including Dr. Loren Marks, an associate professor at the College of Agriculture at Louisiana State University who is slated to testify about the benefits of biological marriage structures as ideal for child rearing. Yet Marks has never studied gay families, Olson notes.

    http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/12/prop-8-foes-attack-expertise-of-expert-witnesses.html

    “Dr. Marks does not have the experience or education necessary to make a determination on what type of family structure is ‘ideal’ for child outcomes,” Olson wrote. “His self-described areas of research interest include faith and families and African American families — discrete areas that hardly provide Dr. Marks an adequate foundation to opine on an ‘ideal structure’ for child outcomes.”

    Reply
  • 261. rpx  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    Thanks freestatesd that was a good source you provided about this expert. Now i’ll go look up another one.

    Reply
  • 262. freestatesd  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    Heres a PDF of a filing from our side as to why three of these people (Marks, Young & Blankenhorn) are not experts and should not be given any weight:

    http://legalpad.typepad.com/files/limine-expert-mcgill-not-qualified.pdf

    Its a really good read:)

    Reply
    • 263. Sagesse  |  February 9, 2010 at 7:10 pm

      Outstanding. So everyone, including the judge knew that the defense’s expert testimony was a joke.

      Reply
  • 264. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 6:01 pm

    Is this what they think the world is like?….No… It can’t be? We need to protect marriage right? It’s the Gay Agenda right?…..RIGHT?????

    Reply
  • 265. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    Something about NOM’s letter has been bothering me since I first read this post today…

    They wrote, “We have no idea whether the report is true or not.”

    I kept thinking, they had to have known, if it is true, and it’s been in blogs since June or July 09, they surely would have known.

    I think I just realized why it was bothering me that they would write the above statement. They probably didn’t know. They obviously don’t do extensive research. They live in that bubble where only their truths can be told, and any truths that go against their moral reasoning must be kept blind to them.

    Which we know is why the defense had such a hard time finding anyone with conclusive evidence to back up their theories. These people cannot do research, cannot analyze beyond their scope for fear of learning the truth. Their truth is told in an old bible where they ‘choose’ which parts to live by…today.

    So, I conclude they didn’t know.

    Reply
    • 266. freestatesd  |  February 9, 2010 at 6:31 pm

      I think they knew – they just want to play the “were not attacking him because he’s gay” card because it would backfire as far as public relations would go at this point. Once the judgement is out that is likely to change depending on the ruling. Lets be honest NOM is fast and quick with facts – they still have yet to file legal papers in Maine that are past due. They want to have it their way or no way at all.

      Reply
      • 267. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 6:40 pm

        Wait wait wait wait wait wait….wait!…….They are the ones screaming legality about the right to ban Marriage Equality and all this the Judge is Biased and Gay cr@p…but they have yet to file legal papers in Maine that are past due?

        Come on NOM….do you believe in legality or not?…..Hypocrites!

        Reply
      • 268. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2010 at 7:04 pm

        Yup,

        Commission Actions
        January 28, 2010

        Petition by National Organization for Marriage for Stay of Investigation
        The National Organization for Marriage has objected to the Commission’s investigative requests for documents and information. The organization requests a stay of the investigation until the federal courts have reached a final decision on its constitutional challenge to the ballot question reporting statute.

        Motion: That the Commission deny a stay of the investigation.
        Made by: Mr. McKee
        Seconded by: Ms. Matheson
        Vote: 4-1 (motion passed)
        Yeas: Mr. McKee, Mr. Youngblood, Mr. Duchette, Ms Matheson
        Nays: Mr. Marsano

        NOM was denied their petition. Next meeting is Feb. 25.

        There was an audio of this, but it was the entire audio of Jan. 28 and boring as all heck.

        So, I don’t know when they need to turn over the documents. NOM certainly is looking corrupt.

        Reply
  • 269. Elliott  |  February 9, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    Eww. I didn’t really think, but kinda expected this to sink so low. Eww. I am ashamed that this sort of bigotry (I am a Sacramentan and a Californian before I’m an American) does still exist in my home state. Walker is a federal judge, and a good one at that. The fact that we need (and must) engage in this discussion shows me that we are a suspect class and will be afforded the scrutiny any protected class deserves. I amwaiting with baited breath to see how this unfolds but I can pretty much anticipate the outcome. He’ll rule in our favor and that will rile the Right to use that ruling to prompt the leaning electorate to sway things toward a Republcan favor in the next election. Pisses me off is all. F this.

    Reply
  • 270. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 9, 2010 at 6:50 pm

    to fiona @ #111. Save the money you would spend inventing the iParrot. We already have Team George and Team Kay.

    Reply
  • 271. jimig  |  February 9, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    Just read the link regarding disqualifing thank you freestatesd, damn and they still put them on as experts. thank you that was very insightful.

    Reply
  • 272. jimig  |  February 9, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    SF Cronicle is really nothing but a dirty piece of lies and they don’t care whose life they distroy, and they have no accountability. They are why I try not to read papers anymore and a prime reason why papers are going out of business.

    Reply
  • 273. Urbain  |  February 9, 2010 at 10:01 pm

    Does anyone remember ProtectMarriage.com’s threats to the businesses that opposed Prop 8? Here’s a sample, signed by Andy Pugno and others:

    It seems a bit ironic, given their supposed fears about going public.

    Reply
    • 274. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  February 9, 2010 at 10:56 pm

      Ironic isn’t the word that comes to my mind, more like criminal!! Isn’t that extortion??

      Reply
      • 275. Mr. HCI  |  February 10, 2010 at 6:09 am

        It’s not extortion if it helps get rid of teh gays.

        Reply
    • 276. Sagesse  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:09 am

      Wonder why this didn’t make it into evidence? People are going to target our side if the trial is televised, and we’re very scared, but we can post your donors’ names on our website unless you give to Prop 8. Unbelieveable.

      Is this in the public domain? I mean before you posted it here, of course :).

      Reply
      • 277. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 6:09 am

        The letter was turned over to the media by a business owner who received one. It’s absolutely in the public domain now.’

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 278. Urbain  |  February 10, 2010 at 7:12 am

        Yes, it’s in the public domain. AP carried stories about these letters back in October.

        Disturbing, isn’t it?

        Reply
  • 279. dieter  |  February 9, 2010 at 10:04 pm

    Antigay N.Y. State Senator Expelled
    By Julie Bolcer
    Hiram Monserratex180 (Wikimedia Commons) | Advocate.com

    The New York state senate voted to expel Hiram Monserrate on Tuesday night, citing his misdemeanor conviction in the assault on his girlfriend. The Queens lawmaker was one of eight Democrats who voted against the marriage equality bill that failed in December.

    Senators voted 53 to 8, with one abstention, to remove Monserrate effective immediately after agonizing discussion, according to the New York Daily News.

    “The dramatic vote came after hours of impassioned closed-door debate – the only question seemed to be just when Monserrate would be expelled,” reports the Daily News.

    Monserrate is the first state lawmaker to be expelled in nearly a century.

    Reply
  • 280. rpx  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:37 am

    It is morning by me and I am feeling a bit less aggrivated now that I know about not being able to put in 2 links in a post. The one remaining witness from the defense is a bit of a mystery. Daniel N Robinson, the prof from Oxford. This guy is credentialed up the ying yang. He was twice past president of the American Psychological Association but in History and another area. He was a longtime prof at Georgetown. I tried researching his writings but didn’t find much, seems like you have to buy his research/books. I found where he signed the Princeton book – Marriage and the Public Good 10 Principles http://www.winst.org/family_marriage_and_democracy/WI_Marriage.pdf

    I did find where he gave a lecture to an organization called, Families World Wide which is based out of Salt Lake City. I will provide the links in seperate posts.

    Reply
  • 281. rpx  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:38 am

    Here is a link to the organization that Dr Robinson addressed
    http://www.fww.org/aboutfww.html and in the next post a link to the speech

    Reply
  • 282. rpx  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:40 am

    The speech
    http://www.fww.org/articles/wfpforum/drobins.htm
    by Dr Robinson

    Reply
  • 283. rpx  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:42 am

    Oaky I got it figured out, here come the Catholics, cna’t let the Mormon experts ahve all the fun. Catholic Georgetown University 30 year Professor Daniel Robinson.
    Here is a recent article, June 19, 2009 he wrote about how our country should be governed. http://www.thecatholicthing.org/content/view/1780/26/

    Reply
    • 284. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 6:35 am

      I just finished reading this article, thank you rpx. I found it very entertaining. Here is the easiest and funniest statement to debunk:

      “I must be excused in not agreeing with those modern writers who have opposed the use of the Bible as a schoolbook…I maintain that there is no book of its size in the whole world that contains half so much useful knowledge for the government of states or the direction of the affairs of individuals as the Bible.”

      Sorry moron but ….uh…dah…yeah there is a book/schoolbook that is getting bigger as more information is added to our extensive knowledge……Have you figured it out yet?

      The Encyclopedia Britannica, in fact any Encyclopedia…..PWND…….hehehe

      Reply
    • 285. Urbain  |  February 10, 2010 at 7:15 am

      Another example of the Christian Dominionist movement. Considering that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and so many more of the Founders were deists who had a very low opinion of the Christian religion and Bible, statements such as Rush’s about the Founders’ understanding of a Christian nation are disturbing, at best.

      Reply
  • 286. Religious Anti-Gay Rhetoric Heats Up - God Discussion  |  February 10, 2010 at 7:02 am

    […] Courage Campaign writers at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker site reviewed the supposed unfair treatment suffered by proponents of Proposition 8 at the federal trial in Perry v. Schwarzenneger.  The defendants (that is, the proponents of the […]

    Reply
  • 287. BMc  |  February 10, 2010 at 9:05 am

    What’s up with all the “quotes” in every other “word” of this “letter” ?

    Reply
  • 288. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 9:34 am

    “Readers may recall that in October 2009, ProtectMarriage.com (the defense) was threatening businesses that opposed Proposition 8. Right Wing Watch summarized it neatly.”

    “ProtectMarriage.com has been sending out letters to those who have donated to efforts to defeat the anti-gay marriage amendment in California, demanding that they donate thousands of dollars to the Yes on 8 campaign or else have their names and businesses publicly exposed.”

    WOW! They really did this? These two quotes are from the the website “Religious Anti-Gay Rhetoric Heats Up – God Discussion”

    Reply
  • […] did his best to outcrazy the crazy National Organziation for Against Marriage (NOM). If you recall, NOM sent out an email blasting Judge Walker: He’s been an amazingly biased and one-sided force throughout this trial, […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,297 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...