The Defense Experts That Were “Scared”

February 10, 2010 at 10:54 am 279 comments

by Brian Leubitz

Remember all those experts who were scared of appearing on YouTube? Well, I don’t know if they knew this when they were lining up to be deposed, but depositions become part of the public record, and fortunately for us, we have said depositions. And even more helpfully, we have clips on YouTube of Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, you know the people who believe that men are constantly and subtly being discriminated against.

Anyway, these folks go around doing expert testimony for social conservative causes. Apparently hiding their faces while doing so. Perhaps Paul Nathanson should have hidden more than his face during the Iowa same-sex marriage, Varnum V. Brien, and just gone mute. It would have done more benefit for the opponents of marriage equality. Nathanson’s testimony Varnum was so ridiculous that the court struck it from the record stating that his testimony was “not based on observation supported by scientific methodology or . . . on empirical research in any sense.”

Forgetting my legal training, and just looking at a quick behavioral and textual reading of this testimony, it is clear that neither of these two witnesses would have done a lick of good for the Prop 8 defense. As we go through these clips, you’ll know exactly what I mean. Let’s start with Paul Nathanson (transcript here):

Q – Let’s try to break that down into two parts. First, you recognize that gay couples are today raising children, correct?
A – Yes.
Q – And you believe that enabling those gay couples to marry would enhance their ability to be good parents to the chi-
A – Yes.

Basically, this guy admits something that David Blankenhorn ended up admitting on the stand: lack of marriage equality harms children being raised by LGBT parents. While the defense completely failed to prove that there was any damage whatsoever from marriage equality on the children of straight parents, over and over again, event the defense’s own witnesses acknowledged that there was real and serious harm done to not only LGBT couples, but their families. Meanwhile, Nathanson is looking unhappy and snippy. All in all, he was just another Blankenhorn debacle waiting to happen. And, I think even the defense would privately admit that could have gone better.

And Katherine Young would not have been much better. See the thing is that with these scientists, they’ve actually read these studies, and understand the background. This is where Boies picked apart Prof. Miller. Miller had to eventually admit that his position was contrary to the great bulk of research in the field. And Miller’s testimony, at its best, could only go to a small portion of what they were trying to show. Young wound up admitting a gold mine’s worth in her deposition. It’s almost hard to pick out selections from the transcript of Young’s deposition.

Q – My question is, is it your view that because something was the norm in the past, it should be continued in the future? …
A – Just because something is a norm, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is an appropriate norm, and it has to then be reassessed in the contemporary context to see if t norm should remain.
***
Q – And you believe that allowing gay couples to marry will increase the durability of those gay couples relationships, correct?
A – Okay. I’ll say yes.
***
Q – Okay. And increasing the durability of those relationships is beneficial to the children that they’re raising, correct?
A – On that one factor, yes.

While Young does come across looking annoyed, she doesn’t seem quite so smug as Blankenhorn and Nathanson, so point for her on that. However, the factual admissions she makes were just too much for the Prop 8 defense to consider putting her on the stand.

At any rate, both Nathanson and Young hardly look fearful of appearing either on YouTube or on the witness stand. This was a purely tactical decision masquerading as something else. After all, they have written several books together about how men are an oppressed minority, they are hardly afraid of spouting controversial opinions in public. The reason these two didn’t testify has nothing to do with being scared, and everything to do with the fact that they were simply bad witnesses.

Entry filed under: Right-wing, Trial analysis. Tags: , .

Prop 8 Harms Children, While Marriage Benefits Them Trial Re-enactment Episode 4

279 Comments Add your own

  • 1. rf  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:03 am

    From the last post:

    “I just learned today that the California Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of Prop 8.”

    George, did you learn that little fact from Rick Santorum today? If you did, perhaps you didnt realize he’s the dumbest rock in Pennsylvania. Clearly evidenced, not only by a disgraceful career in politics, but also by the total lack of constitutional legal knowledge in his pathetic opinion piece about constitutional issues.

    Very interesting that the biggest bigot in the comments section is named George too.

    http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20100210_The_Elephant_in_the_Room__No_way_to_preach_tolerance.html

    Reply
    • 2. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:05 am

      Yep. It also seems that our little friend has self-published a book on how governments should manage manners and morals that are in decline. I posted the description on the previous thread.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 3. John  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:11 am

        I always found it strange that so many conservatives (though I recognize that not all are like this) seem to want less government control in everything except for other people’s personal lives.

        Reply
      • 4. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:45 am

        John,

        It’s has everything to do with the Religious Right’s infiltration of the GOP, and yes, at face value it’s a total contradiction.

        “I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”
        -Barry Goldwater

        Reply
      • 5. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:47 am

        I did not realize that Fiona, I was under the impression it was filmed in the NC SC GA region.

        Reply
      • 6. rf  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:51 am

        Yes, Fiona, that was very interesting. although not surprising!

        Reply
      • 7. Sarah  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:42 pm

        Oh gosh Straight Ally, my family are Goldwater republicans. My paternal grandparents were very involved in politics and supported his campaign. Even though they both passed away years ago their children still haven’t managed to let go of Barry. My parents have a ton of campaign memorabilia in their basement.

        I think a lot of people believe in what the party used to represent rather than this ridiculous extreme conservative religious junk but they have really become stuck with it.

        Reply
      • 8. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:07 pm

        Off topic, but especially for Felyx:

        see more Lolcats and funny pictures

        Reply
      • 9. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:08 pm

        Okay, let’s try that again:

        I couldn’t get it to embed click on the link to see “Reintarnation.”

        Reply
      • 10. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:24 pm

        Fiona, I about died laughing when I saw Scooter…I am laughing so hard I am crying!!! Thank you!

        As for reintarnation, we all knew George was a pussy….now he can finally shut up and just be loved!!!

        Reply
      • 11. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:27 pm

        I thought I had posted this but I didn’t see it soo….

        Thanks Fiona, I just about died when I saw Scooter. I am laughing so hard I am crying.

        As for George, we all knew he was a pussy(cat)…now he can just shut up and be loved!

        Reply
      • 12. TPAKyle  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:02 pm

        I was most amused to see, in a description of George’s work, the following:

        “The author is living the carefree life of a bachelor in Northeast Philadelphia.”

        Could it be that our little bigot George is a *gasp* repressed homo?

        Reply
      • 13. Kay Moore  |  February 10, 2010 at 7:56 pm

        On the classic liberal/conservative continuum (interestingly enough used most often by dedicated libertarians), the conservatives wants maximum economic freedom and diminished behavioral freedom; the liberal wants maximum behavioral freedom and diminished economic freedom. It’s not all that unexpected given the most favored source of “right” and “wrong” for the two sides. One side believes that right and wrong come from an external system defined by time, tradition, and other things whereas the other believes that it comes from an internal system defined by each individual with minimal outside input. Because the conservative generally see right/wrong as external, an external authority (a majority, for example) defining it is fine with them but such would be anathema to anyone who regards the internal system of right/wrong as being the most important. Determining why the two ideologies differ so strongly on economic freedom is way too much of a headache to figure out, much less explain.

        Reply
      • 14. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 8:13 pm

        In all reality pro-equality and humans with a heart…….right and wrong is subjective, undefined, up to interpretation, hearsay, personal opinion, and selfishness…..The far reich conservative are greedy, spoiled, selfish, and me me me me, only those who have money are worth the time of day…where as the liberal is also greedy spoiled and selfish but are shouting we we we we….Determining why two ideologies are the most important amongst a new world of diversity and individualism is way to much of a headache to figure out, much less explain other then all are created equal.

        Reply
    • 15. Sheryl Carver  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:11 am

      I understand that “george” has now been banned from the site. His postings today were the last straw.

      (Breathing sigh of relief now.)

      Love,
      Sheryl

      Reply
      • 16. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:26 am

        One can only hope.

        Love,
        Fiona (who ordinarily does not agree with silencing voices of dissent, but finds hate speech to be *way* beyond mere dissent)

        Reply
      • 17. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:32 am

        I concur…I had no problem with the irrational arguments that have been repeatedly squashed (as if the repeat brainwash works on us) but we really saw the extent of it today.

        Reply
      • 18. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:21 pm

        I agree and what I am wondering is “george” for real?

        Reply
      • 19. jc  |  February 10, 2010 at 8:28 pm

        hmm..i missed whatever he posted to get himself banned…are the posts still here or have they been removed?

        Reply
      • 20. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 8:39 pm

        it was on 2 diff. threads today…a sad attempt to flood

        Reply
    • 21. Bill  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:36 pm

      The California Supreme Court DID NOT RULE that Prop 8 was CONSTITUTIONAL. They NEVER made that ruling. That is a lie.

      George is incorrect if he presents the case in that way.

      The Supreme Court ONLY ruled that the amendement (Prop 8) was ENACTED properly. They DID NOT EVER rule on the Constitutionality of Prop 8. That was not what the lawsuit was even filed to address.

      Simply research would make that information available to george if he sought TRUTH, but he does not seek anything LIKE truth.

      However, the Supreme Court of California DID rule that it IS Unconstitutional for same-sex couples to be denied marraige licences from the state.

      Then, people just like george said ‘fuck you’ to the Supreme Court, and enacted Prop 8. In direct conflict with the Constitution. So let’s just change it. Anyone got a sharpie!

      What a respectful, admirable bunch.

      Can’t even play by the RULES to win this fight.

      Have to IGNORE the highest court in the land, and indeed carve LGTB people right out of the Constitution in order to acheive their immoral goals.

      george can’t even be truthful about FACTS.

      Reply
      • 22. Dave T  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:32 pm

        It’s sad, really. I would love to see an honest debate between proponents and opponents of prop 8.

        Hell, I’ll even take part in such a debate, in a forum such as this, if someone from the pro-prop8 side would stand up.

        Reply
      • 23. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:39 pm

        Dave T,

        Unfortunately, the debate would end up sounding something like this:

        (At this point I think I can post this here without offending anyone, but: WARNING! RAW LANGUAGE!)

        Reply
      • 24. Sheryl  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:21 pm

        Dave T, don’t think an honest debate is possible. They would do the homosexuality is an abhorrent sin in the eyes of God and our side would present facts, facts, and more facts.

        Reply
      • 25. Matt  |  February 10, 2010 at 7:24 pm

        Unfortunately, I’ve only ever seen two types of “conversations” from our opponents over SSM. Type 1: “God says it’s bad, end of story…” Type 2: They prepare a dozen or so BS talking points (“slippery slope”,”protect the children”,”gays can already marry the opposite sex”, etc…) and then switch between those talking points as soon as someone successfully challenges one, without actually responding to the challenge. It’s just distract, evade, distract, distract until they “win” the argument.

        Reply
      • 26. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 7:42 pm

        That is precisely why we have judges who slow things down and listens to all the facts. Puts everyone on an more equal ground.

        Reply
    • 27. dieter  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:58 pm

      if that first guy in the video is not a raging queen himself, then I have lost my mind….

      Reply
      • 28. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:03 pm

        I seem to remember reading that he is gay.

        Reply
      • 29. Tigger  |  February 11, 2010 at 1:03 pm

        A picnic basket’s got nothin on that dude… Jeesh. Talk about shooting one’s nose off despite his face. There is a phrase that’s be used traditionally throughout time…KA-WEEN!

        Reply
    • 30. dieter  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:50 pm

      In the news:..(and they say GAYS are the ones who are harming children..:)

      COLUMBUS, Ohio – About 1,000 American-born children are forced into the sex trade in Ohio every year and about 800 immigrants are sexually exploited and pushed into sweatshop-type jobs, a new report on human trafficking in the state said Wednesday.

      Reply
      • 31. jc  |  February 10, 2010 at 8:30 pm

        on the note of gays being harmful to children and whatnot, box turtle has this “heterosexual agenda” they update every so often….it’s funny yet sad…

        http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/tag/heterosexual-agenda

        Reply
      • 32. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 8:36 pm

        Gosh, the heterosexuals have an agenda now too! WOW, who knew? (chuckles) BTW- thanks for shaing the link.
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 33. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 8:53 pm

        What is a heterosexual agenda?….Sarah Palin and gun control? Over population? Bringing Ice cream sandwiches to a Gay mans house warming (that’s just hostile)? BOBS Furniture? enough said…..Wal-mart?…we all know that Target is sooooooo much better! Is it cyber monday and black friday? Because we know nobody can own a sample sale like we can….. Maybe it is reality TV shows like the biggest loser…you know because the show promotes weight loss while the people at home are sitting on their @sses eating popcorn and hoehoes…Or maybe its plain old I love you but I’m not IN move with you…hahaha

        Reply
      • 34. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 8:58 pm

        thanx, Ronnie, I was being sarcastic.

        Reply
      • 35. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 8:59 pm

        But lets not forget the amazing heterosexuals that have embraced the rainbow….lets call it the Haters Agenda much like the Heathers but without the que sera sera….yeah?

        Reply
      • 36. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 9:01 pm

        I know David K….but I couldn’t help myself…lol

        Reply
  • 37. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:07 am

    With or without these particular ‘expert witnesses’, it would seem the defense has proven highly lacking.

    Reply
    • 38. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:09 am

      I wholeheartedly concur. :-)

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 39. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:15 pm

      Yeah, I agree and I can’t believe with all the time they had to prepare their defense, this was the best they could come-up really!

      Reply
  • 40. Alan E.  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:13 am

    These have been available for a while now, and it’s funny that NOM, pm.com, etc., haven’t mentioned this. They are already part of public record and on Youtube! Oh noes! Totally blows apart their claim, now if only someone could hack into their correspondence pages and send out a corrected letter…

    Reply
  • 41. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:28 am

    What I find funny is that the far reich(right) wing conservative bigots seem to forget that we are in 21st century or youtube, myspace, twitter, facebook, texting, iPad, and so on and so on…..That there is no hiding.

    You would think these so called “experts” would know that and yet…shoop shoop shoop!…hehehe

    Reply
    • 42. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:32 am

      Very true. And archiving events, papers, videos, reports, etc. of everything prior the the boom of the internet is happening at a growing pace. And I’m loving it more and more every day.

      Reply
      • 43. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:46 am

        “I love living in the Future”…..lol

        Reply
      • 44. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:49 am

        Yeppers, I don’t know, if anybody saw my post about the California State Supreme Court ruling, so I will post it again here. The California State Supreme Court upheld Prop8 on the grounds that the people have the “right to change the Constitution” – their decision was based soley on this.
        While it is interesting to note, this the case also recognized GLBT as a “suspect class” and should be afforded those rights!

        Reply
    • 45. Phil L  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:41 pm

      It seems to me that what they’re relying on is the idea that some of their “fanbase” won’t think to look for the depositions or trial transcripts. In some cases they’d be right to think that. Some people really do just take the words of people like Andy Pugno at face value and believe them, shunning anything to the contrary (even if it’s video footage of depositions of their “scared” witnesses) because it just might shake their belief.

      I think Andy Pugno knows the truth (that the defense was a disaster even without all of their witnesses) and is simply trying to reach the small pocket of individuals who are too lazy to read the transcripts themselves. He may also be ready literally reach into their pockets when judge Walker makes his decision.

      Reply
    • 46. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:17 pm

      LOL – shoop shoop shoop! No actually it more like sheep sheep sheep being led to the slaughter.

      Reply
  • 47. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:55 am

    “What would happen, he (Ray Hopper) asks, if two lesbian mummies had to take their little boy to the toilets at the shopping mall? They couldn’t go into his toilet. He couldn’t come into theirs. OMFG! It’s the end of civilisation as we know it, dogs and cats openly sleeping together, a rain of horny toads, donkeys and horses eating puppies. Chaos and madness, people. Chaos and madness.”

    A very funny article…we all need laughter : )

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/why-should-gay-couples-be-spared-children/20100210-ns2l.html

    Reply
    • 48. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:03 pm

      And actually, depending upon the age of the child, they CAN go into the bathroom with a parent of the opposite sex. There are an increasing number of family-oriented bathrooms which even have diaper changing tables that fold ot from the wall in the same manner as dining room tables used to do in mobile homes, or Murphy beds. So that argument is invalid also.

      Reply
      • 49. John  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:07 pm

        Indeed. I distinctly remember going into the women’s bathroom with my mother on one occasion, when I was around 5 or so if I remember right.

        Reply
      • 50. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:25 pm

        They are not ‘family-oriented bathrooms’, they are Gender Family Bathrooms!!!!

        Didn’t you see the Prop 8 commercial?!!! If gays get married there will be more Gender Friendly Bathrooms!!!

        (This is all covered in the Feb 2 comments section.)

        http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/02/02/first-episodes-of-trial-re-enactment/#comments

        Reply
      • 51. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:11 pm

        @ Felyx.
        Oh, is that what everybody was talking about? I thought that was the bathrooms from Ally McBeal! My goof! Here in the Fayettenam area of North Carolina, they are all labled “Family Restrooms.” Seriously.

        Reply
      • 52. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:33 pm

        Well if they allowed gay marriage in NC then the law would require they all be renamed as Gender Friendly. At least that is what I was getting from the PH8 campaign ad. Family values would be ruthlessly diregarded and replaced by Gender Friendly Values…followed by Arma-Gay-don.

        Reply
    • 53. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:38 pm

      Considering that some woman had her 10-year-old son in the ladies’ room with her at the movies the other day, I think this is something of a non-issue.

      (I had to yell at the brat to stop peeping in through the door gap at me, FWIW.)

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 54. Sarah  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:15 pm

        Yeah, I think unless your child has a disability of some sort 10 is too old. I’m all for gender neutral bathrooms but since they are clearly divided now I think maybe that 10 year old’s mommy should loosen the apron strings a tad.

        Reply
    • 55. Sarah  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:12 pm

      Seriously? I very clearly remember one incident when my dad took me to a water park when I was about four or five. I went into the womens room and got tangled in my soaking one piece bathing suit. A stranger had to come and help me figure out the complicated garment, which of course was horrifyingly awkward. Now the thing is my parents are straight and yet somehow I STILL had to be rescued by a stranger while my dad waited outside. As awkward as figuring out how to handle kids and bathrooms can be I fail to see how this has anything to do with gay marriage.

      I like the author’s piratey take on the situation :)

      Reply
    • 56. rpx  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:19 pm

      I kinda remember that discusssion about gender neutral bathrooms but it went over my head. Now I am catching on to what this is about. My goodness do people really care about this stuff? It is kind of a rite of passage when you start letting your little boy go into the mens room while you wait outside. I dunno how 2 gay men handle it if they have a little girl but I am sure they figure out something as all parents do. I remember one time at state fair when there was a real long line to the ladies room, my little boy waited and waited and waited and finally I knew he was going to explode so I just held him up to an open trash can and he wee-wee ‘d into it ,his little toddler wee-wee, and everybody in line thought it was okay. None of the women were offended at all. Parents do what they gotta do when their kids gotta go. Gays can’t get married and have children because how will they take their children to the bathroom? Get a life people…

      Reply
      • 57. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:42 pm

        I read your post rpx and now I realize why more people didn’t seem interested in why I thought that particular comment was so unbelievably hilarious.

        Yes Gender-Friendly Bathrooms are not only not a real or prominent designation for any type of bathroom but the closest thing to it is referred to a Family Bathroom. Promarriage is arguing FOR families but against bathrooms DESIGNED for families.

        I couldn’t resist poking fun. Once again, if you like hilarious satire reread the comments here. They are at the top so it won’t take long to get to them.

        http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/02/02/first-episodes-of-trial-re-enactment/#comments

        Reply
      • 58. Sheryl  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:28 pm

        Well, rpx, they’d probably handle it like my husband did with my stepdaughter before we met. He took her to the men’s room (she does have some disabilities so couldn’t send her off to the ladies by herself). First time we were out and she headed to the men’s room, I took her to task about it, totally forgetting that that was his option.

        anyway, was this bathroom issue also a reason the ERA should not pass? I certainly remember all the to do about sharing bathrooms and how that could not happen.

        They just keep trotting out the same old arguments.

        Reply
    • 59. Layla  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:29 pm

      I like the end of a comment posted at the on the article

      “Has there been any research into what effect being raised by narrow minded bigoted conservatives has on a child’s development? I bet it’s not good”
      Posted by Barnesm

      Reply
      • 60. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:37 pm

        Actually there has been! It is not phrased as such but even in the trial there was testimony about increase violence towards gays and their children during the campaign.

        (Indeed, it did not look pretty!)

        Reply
    • 61. Susan R Barnes  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:49 pm

      I wonder if it has ever occurred to Ray Hopper how millions of mummies and daddies have managed the bathroom dilema while out shopping alone with their opposite sex child and without their spouse?

      Chaos and Madness!

      Reply
  • 62. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 10, 2010 at 11:59 am

    Actually, Bian, I don’t even think it was the fact that they were bad witnesses. They were excellent witnesses, just not for the side they were supposed to be witnesses for.

    Reply
  • 63. slsmith66  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    Oh I missed the “George” comment!! Was he being his usual pleasant self? What about his boyfriend now? LOL

    Reply
    • 64. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:27 pm

      Boyfriend is holding him hostage and forbiding him to speak…Pulp Fiction style.

      Reply
      • 65. slsmith66  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:33 pm

        LOL oh can we post that video?!?!

        Reply
      • 66. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:12 pm

        And how much do we have to give the boyfriend to keep holding Team George hostage? And will he take Team Kay, also?

        Reply
  • 67. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    “After all, parenthood pretty much negates any chance of a real sex life so if Ray would just loosen up and let our gay brothers and sisters hop on the mummy and daddy train they’d no longer be dancing down the street in their cowboy boots and bottomless leather pants waving their genitals in people’s faces every goddamn day.” – thanks I got a particular chuckle out of this one from the article, Lesbians Love Boies.

    Reply
  • 68. Justas Poof  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    Dear P8TT,

    Please stop posting what you are posting. Our experts feared being called names and that is exactly what you are doing right now. Being called names hurts. So you should stop it now.
    Most of what you are posting is either false opinions or inaccurate facts, even the true ones.
    Our God does not condone people like you so you should stop what you are doing and send us money now to support God’s work that He cannot do for Himself.
    If you don’t we will post your names on the internet under Whiny Gay Heathens Who Hate The One Rightious God. So we demand you stop sending money to your people and send it too us instead.
    Our fight for exclusive marriages in order to further stigmatize those we don’t care for is being undermined by your efforts, stop now or there will be dire consequences.

    In God’s Love (for us and not you),
    Maggie & Andrew

    Reply
    • 69. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:32 pm

      “Fighting to Protect Marriage from People Who Want to Marry”

      Reply
    • 70. slsmith66  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:45 pm

      I can only assume that either you Maggie or Andrew are curious about the other side or you wouldn’t be here posting. Why don’t you petition your protect marriage folks to open up posting on their site? Why don’t you send money to Haiti if you want to do god’s work? Why do you feel the need to post here?

      Reply
      • 71. John  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:47 pm

        (Hint: that post wasn’t serious. I didn’t post it, but I’m pretty sure whoever did was being sarcastic.)

        Reply
      • 72. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:53 pm

        I posted it….it was a spoof version of a whiny campaign letter. I seriously did not think anyone would take it literally. Sorry, next time I will make it more clear.

        Felyx (AKA Just A Spoof)

        Reply
      • 73. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:54 pm

        AKA Justice Poof (hehehe)

        Reply
      • 74. Ed-M  |  February 11, 2010 at 2:28 pm

        @slssmith66: Poe’s Law in action once again and you got fooled! I knew it was a spoof from the start for I know that the surmane – Poof – is also a British derogatory slur against gay men.

        Reply
  • 75. Randy  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    Just a thought, and I no nothing of the legalities of this, but if all these are public documents can they be used as commercials, for our side? Similar to the ones the right makes. Start out with a description of the “scholars” background so that it is apparent these people are from the far right organizations then just play an unadulterated clip from the depo and end with a big thanks… just a thought.

    Reply
    • 76. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:13 pm

      Thanks Randy, I agree they would make interesting commercials, but hopefully, the commercials will not be necessary, should the Judge rule in our favor and then the two courts, that will follow, Federal District Court and ultimately the Supreme Court.

      Reply
  • 77. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    “Our God does not condone people like you so you should stop what you are doing and send us money now to support God’s work that He cannot do for Himself.” Yeah, like that’s gonna happen. ROFLMAO

    Reply
    • 78. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:24 pm

      Does God accept Atheists? They are allowed to get married.

      Reply
      • 79. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:29 pm

        Only if they financially support NOM and H8 gays.

        Reply
      • 80. Phil L  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:45 pm

        Oh no! If they legalize gay marriage but simultaneously outlaw atheist marriage then I STILL won’t be able to get married!

        :-O

        Reply
      • 81. PDXAndrew  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:48 pm

        Now THAT is an awesome question. If marriage is a religious status, then:
        A) why are Athiests allowed to marry?
        B) why would they want to in the first place?
        I mean, it couldn’t be to express their eternal love or for any of the legal and financial benefits that come with marriage, because we’ve been told over and over again that this doesn’t count.

        Quick: how do you spell ‘conservative Reich-wing fundamentalist’?

        H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E

        Reply
      • 82. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:19 pm

        PDXAndrew, you are a genius! You are also bound to become a famous satirist or just outright comedian. I am having to type in between gales of laughter at your post.

        Reply
      • 83. Terri  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:36 am

        god (with a little g) does not have to accept atheists for them to get married. Atheists go to Vegas (not a church) and I do have first hand knowledge of this BUT most atheists are not Republican so I’m sure that if push came to shove they would not allow us to marry either.

        Reply
  • 84. truthspew  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Right on! So Rick Santorum screaming that 2/3’s couldn’t testify is off base.

    It’s more like 1/3 and even then, Tam got up on the stand so it’s less than the third, more like 1/6th that didn’t have the stones to testify.

    Reply
  • 85. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing

    “More than 3,300 religious leaders from more than 50 religious traditions have endorsed the Religious Declaration, including clergy; professional religious educators and counselors; denominational and interfaith leaders; and seminary presidents, deans and faculty members.”

    “Our culture needs a sexual ethic focused on personal relationships and social justice rather than particular sexual acts. All persons have the right and responsibility to lead sexual lives that express love, justice, mutuality, commitment, consent, and pleasure. Grounded in respect for the body and for the vulnerability that intimacy brings, this ethic fosters physical, emotional, and spiritual health. It accepts no double standards and applies to all persons, without regard to sex, gender, color, age, bodily condition, marital status, or sexual orientation.”

    http://www.religiousinstitute.org/religious-declaration-on-sexual-morality-justice-and-healing

    Reply
    • 86. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:25 pm

      LLB, you are a genius! Thank you. I only hope that the radical “religious” folks in this country aren’t able to commit any retaliatory acts against the men and women who signed this declaration. This is beautiful. Think I will do a counted cross stitch sampler of this and put it under glass on my front door. Perhaps in rainbow thread! On a bright white background so it would stand out. Or do you think black would be better?

      Reply
      • 87. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:34 pm

        bright white. let’s remain cheery…unless you really like black backgrounds. I find them hard to read, especially websites who use white text…it’s terrible on my eyes.

        Reply
  • 88. Layla  |  February 10, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    Nathanson’s video made my gaydar go off the chart!

    Reply
    • 89. JDinSeattle  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:07 pm

      Ditto that!

      Reply
    • 90. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:29 pm

      Hmm, he didn’t do a thing for me, but then maybe I’m just being too picky? ya’ think?

      Reply
    • 91. truthspew  |  February 10, 2010 at 10:54 pm

      Roger that! I thought I was the only one who thought he was channeling Charles Nelson Reilly.

      Reply
    • 92. Bill  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:30 am

      I did not even HAVE gaydar until I watched Nathanson’s video.

      Reply
      • 93. JonT  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:03 am

        Thanks Bill, now I have to go wipe some coffee off my monitor and keyboard. :)

        Reply
  • 94. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    I saw this movie last weekend. This is the movie trailer for “For the Bible Tells Me So.”

    I will post a link (following this post, since we all know two links is a no no) to the first of a 9 video series of the movie, in the event someone hasn’t seen it.

    Reply
    • 95. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:24 pm

      9 video series on youtube:

      Reply
      • 96. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 10, 2010 at 7:21 pm

        LLB, you have done what so many have done here on this site. You have brought tears to my eyes with these two posts. I watched the trailer, then I watched all nine full segments and the finale. Now,I am going to look for the full uninterrupted feature so that I can have it in my DVD library alongside of Trembling Before G-d, which goes into the trials of LGBTQQI’s who are Orthodox Jews. So many brave people, including the Reitans who went to jail for justice, just as PP&M asked in their civil rights song. YOU GO, LADY! (I have too much respect for the women on here to say “girl” without their express permission. Besides, all of you have shown yourselves to be ladies in the very finest sense of the word.)

        Reply
      • 97. truthspew  |  February 10, 2010 at 10:55 pm

        Yeah I’ve seen this one plus Jesus Camp and a few others. You know what they say, know your enemy.

        Reply
      • 98. fiona64  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:28 am

        “Jesus Camp” was one of the scariest damned things I think I’ve ever seen.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 99. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:34 am

        *standing ovation*

        I watched this last night, it was totally engrossing and very moving. Thanks for the link, LLB!

        Reply
      • 100. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:37 am

        Oh, and yes, Jesus Camp is terrifying. It reinforces my opinion that when they lose their battle against same-sex marriage, the Religious Right will come after us scientists with renewed fury. Don’t forget us when they do, LGBT friends!

        Reply
      • 101. Terri  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:04 am

        Jesus Camp is scary but I know it is really happening because I was a part of that as a teen. I attended Calvary Chapel when it wasn’t so radical but it turned radical in like 79 or 80. It scared me even when I did say I was a christian. Scared me enough to walk away from the church and to question the very basics of my beliefs. I knew that if god was real that could not be the way he would opperate and if tactics like that had to be resorted to that god could not really exist.

        Reply
    • 102. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:25 pm

      That film is *brilliant.*

      I just wish that the people who *really* needed to see it would be the ones to do so.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 103. RAY in MA  |  February 10, 2010 at 8:11 pm

      Excellent video … can we submit this as an Amicus?

      Reply
      • 104. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 10, 2010 at 9:09 pm

        Unfortunately, we cannot. The period for filing briefs ended on 3 February. This would have been superb, however.

        Reply
  • 105. S.  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    I’d be interested in hearing what people who have followed this closely think. Did the defense recognize how weak their expert testimony was? Are they fooling themselves? Hoping for a bigoted judge?

    Reply
    • 106. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:42 pm

      The chief propagandist of Prop 8, Frank Schubert, admitted that his side had to use scare tactics to win. These tactics don’t hold up in court, so now they are crying foul whenever possible in an effort to sway public opinion. In the legal arena, I’m assuming they are counting on a 5-4 win in the Supreme Court.

      I predict Judge Walker will rule in favor of the plaintiffs, and I’ll go out on a limb and predict that his ruling will be upheld at the appellate level. Too close to call with the SCOTUS.

      Reply
  • 107. george  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:44 pm

    What a surprise; advocates of the homosexual agenda shuts out all dissenters.

    Yeah, the country knows what’s up with you; that’s why you have lost over 30 times and will continue to lose ad infinitum.

    Reply
    • 108. george  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:50 pm

      PS – Did you really think you could block me? To quote Ronnie, ” Bwaaaaaaahaaaaaaa!!!!”

      Reply
      • 109. Vaati  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:41 am

        You probably come from a background where you are scarcely questioned in what you do and believe. Here is where the line is drawn. Until you actually understand what is at stake here please don’t be so arrogant about this matter, you have no idea what marriage could do for our community.

        I encourage you to read the Trial Transcripts in their entirety and think about the testimony for a while. Not just the personal stories, all of it.

        Reply
  • 110. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    ZZZZZZZZZZ!!….Oh…um….huh?…..Of course they were S…..but heaven forbid we shouted bigot judge….Hypocrites!

    Reply
    • 111. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:59 pm

      Our favorite closet case has returned…I vote we ignore him.
      Love,
      David

      Reply
      • 112. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:03 pm

        Not sure it is the same person. Prolly just a lurker Poser.

        Reply
      • 113. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:04 pm

        What a pitiful little man. I know he keeps coming back to try to impress me, but all I do is roll my eyes. He isn’t even worthy of the energy it would take for me to display my scorn.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 114. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:15 pm

        I was more than happy to so until the POS libeled me. He has been reported to Courage Campaign for his actions, and the next call is to my lawyer.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 115. Sheryl Carver  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:02 pm

        Good luck with the legal approach, Fiona!

        It’s so sad that the Georges of this world not only work so hard to prevent people who love each other from having full civil rights, but also feel the need to be deliberately nasty & hateful to others.

        With luck & a good lawyer, perhaps you’ll be able to teach George a much-needed lesson.

        Love,
        Sheryl

        Reply
  • 116. Brad  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Here is a link to a new HBO documentary about lgbt politicians active in the anti-lgbt movement. Interesting:
    http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/outrage/index.html

    Reply
    • 117. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:56 pm

      Oh, that looks like it is a ‘must see’. Thanks for the link Brad.

      Reply
    • 118. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 1:58 pm

      Thanx Brad for the link – the clip was a short and rather choppy, but I think I got the idea.

      Reply
  • 119. B&E  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    Can a transgendered person be legally married ie. M2F legally marry a M, or F2M legally marry a F? I guess that all gets back to how a non-reproductive heterosexual can be reproductive. Dang, george has gotten me all confused.

    I’m still trying to figure out how the belief in a Jewish Zombie that requires me to ritualisticly eat his flesh while communicating telepathicaly so he can remove the evil in my soul created by a woman made from a rib that was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magic tree really has any right to tell me I’m the one who is crazy and am less of a human than other Zombie loving heteros. JeeSH! :)

    Reply
    • 120. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:06 pm

      Short answer: yes. A transgendered person (I assume you mean post-transition) is now legally a different gender, at least in CA, and can even get a new birth certificate.

      I have a F2M transgendered friend who is married to a very nice hetero lady. They have adopted 5 special needs kids who were abandoned by their parents at birth (so much for the theory that being bio-parents automatically makes you loving and and prepared for the challenges, eh)?

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 121. B&E  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:16 pm

        Fiona,

        Thanks for the response. I don’t recall seeing this point brought up during the trial. So the heteros would rather us have reassignment surgery in order to have the same rights as they currently are granted. Seems counter-intuitive.

        This site has brought me great comfort over the past few weeks. Keep up the great work.

        Since george can obviously continue to post his rants, maybe the powers that be should enforce “sign up” to post.

        Reply
      • 122. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:50 pm

        B&E, I’m glad I could help.

        I must admit that it’s been hard for me, as a straight ally, to see the vitriol spread about my LGBT friends and family members by members of the general public — people who don’t even know my friends and family, but are willing to make hurtful generalizations about them nonetheless.

        As for Mr. George Tomezsko, well, his desperation to get my attention worked when he libeled me. I hope that he gets help for whatever-the-hell his psychosis happens to be.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
  • 123. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    This has got to be one of the funniest movies I have seen (over 100 times)…lol:

    Reply
    • 124. Sarah  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:17 pm

      Oh my gosh that movie cracks me up!

      Reply
    • 125. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:21 pm

      Thanks, Ronnie, I have not seen the movie, but it looks like a hoot!

      Reply
    • 126. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:22 pm

      Was that Lenny and Squiggy?

      Reply
      • 127. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:46 pm

        No its Richard Moll(tall guy) and Wesley Mann (short guy)

        Reply
  • 128. george  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    For the record, I only posted a few times on the previous thread. No doubt it was Ronnie or Fiona who was responsible for the other comments; and based on the stupidity of those posts and the fact that things were spelled relatively correctly, I’m guessing it was Fiona.

    See y’all tomorrow!!!!!

    Reply
    • 129. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:08 pm

      George, I am responding only because you are accusing me directly of something that I did not do. This is libel, little man, so I suggest that you prove your accusations. I will not hesitate to contact the Courage Campaign to have them track you down and you will be slapped with a lawsuit so fast that your ugly little head will spin right off.

      I have far better things to do than pretend to be you. Believe me. You are a sick, sad and pathetic individual who is CLEARLY desperate for my attention if you would accuse me of this.

      Get help, loser.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 130. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:18 pm

        I doubt it is George Fiona, this one was complimenting you on your spelling. The original George didn’t know how to spell to well.

        Reply
      • 131. Jeff  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:27 pm

        Dont worry Fiona – what George does not know is that WordPress blogs, such as this one, track ip addresses. So its very easy for who ever is the admin for this blog to see who has posted what.

        Reply
    • 132. dieter  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:03 pm

      George..you left your panties at my house last night…please pick them up pronto. I don’t want them here
      they smell like budweiser, and fritos.

      Reply
  • 133. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    PS to George: I won’t be holding my breath for proof, because I know you are full of crap and I furthermore know that I did nothing of the sort. When you lay out this kind of BS, Mr. Tomeszko, I suggest that you be very, very careful. You can and will be found; do not doubt me.

    Love,
    Fiona

    Reply
    • 134. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:15 pm

      fiona64 I sent you a email on facebook……<3..Ronnie Mc

      Reply
      • 135. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:16 pm

        I won’t be able to see it until tonight, Ronnie. I’ll write back.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 136. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:17 pm

        ok cool….but lets do a little check right now to make sure we are who we say we are…because I am a little P.O.ed as well

        Reply
      • 137. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:19 pm

        Courage campaign has the IP address of every post here. You can contact them if there are problems.

        Reply
      • 138. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:19 pm

        No worries, Ronnie. My real initials are SC and I’ve written two books. :-) Does that help, LOL?

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 139. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:23 pm

        Yeah, I’m David

        Reply
      • 140. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:23 pm

        lol..yes…how many people are in my face book picture…you probably don’t remember…but I think thats the easiest thinng I can ask…but the first comment I said to you on FB had something to do with my mother(wink wink)

        <3…Ronnie Mc

        Reply
      • 141. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:24 pm

        I’m Barb

        Reply
      • 142. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:25 pm

        on 2nd thought don’t mention the number.

        Reply
  • 143. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    @LLB, I’ve written to Julia, including telling her where to find George’s libelous post.

    It is obvious to me that George’s desperation to get my attention has escalated (Felyx, I appreciate your thoughts, but this is not the first time that George has called me “stupid,” “bitch,” etc. … you know, the kinds of things that misogynists say to women who refuse to kowtow to them, because they figure that women are supposed to be so insulted by those words that they’ll just be “nice” again.) George can kiss my tukus.

    Love,
    Fiona

    Reply
    • 144. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:25 pm

      Well, I guess the george poster will just keep getting banned. Constructive comments are one thing but riling up the community just has to go.

      Reply
      • 145. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:28 pm

        Do you think we could charge George and company with harassment?

        Reply
  • 146. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    David K. I’m sending you an email right now…..what does it say?

    Reply
    • 147. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:29 pm

      I dunno, let me check – will let you know in a minute.

      Reply
    • 148. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:38 pm

      OK, says: Testing?…I <3 Boies

      Reply
  • 149. B&E  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    I doubt George has the mad skills to spoof his IP, but if he does, an IP address won’t help. Open forums are more often than not spoiled by juvenille antics such as this. If we could only get his MAC address, the we could have some fun……… BUUWAAAHHHAAAAA

    Reply
  • 150. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    Ronnie, your first comment to me mentioned light blonde hair.

    Love,
    Fiona

    Reply
    • 151. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:34 pm

      yes on the picture of you wearing a B&W high waisted dress…right?

      Reply
      • 152. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:35 pm

        That would be the one.

        Reply
  • 153. (fake) george  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    9 of the fake george posts were mine, but only very short, silly ones, like, “Who’s on first?”. As an upshot, I have been banned. I’m posting this from a different IP address, and I will not try to circumvent the ban again. I just wanted to say goodbye, as I’ve enjoyed being part of this community for the last month.

    Mr. HCI

    Reply
    • 154. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:37 pm

      Mr. HCI, if you are on the FB P8TT group, please let us know.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
  • 155. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    OK, says, “Testing?…I <3 Boies"

    Reply
    • 156. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:39 pm

      hahah…yes….busted…we are 3 for 3

      Reply
  • 157. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Yeppers, I wonder if P8TT could charge George and company with harrassment?

    Reply
    • 158. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:44 pm

      I don’t know what the ramifications are in that regard, David (harassment). In my case, I will say there are worse things in life than having married into a family full of lawyers … Mr. George Tomezsko should keep that in mind. (Google the name if you want to see more of the same inanities he’s posted here all over the internet …)

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 159. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:49 pm

        Yes, I know fiona64. I have googled the name and I understand what you mean about him. The website obviously has at least one of his IP addresses – I suspect that he just keeps moving to a new computer or more likely, he is part of ring (kay involved) that makes it their “mission” to harrass us at this website. I have attorney friends, as well.
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 160. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:54 pm

        I just found a fascinating website for an organization called Following Edge International. Interesting, interesting …

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 161. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:55 pm

        Oops, I’m sorry … Forward Edge International. I can’t type very well today, LOL.

        Reply
      • 162. Grelef  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:04 pm

        In all probability, he can be located for free on Zabasearch.com. It’s not exactly a common name. Your lawyer can serve papers to his doorstep.

        Reply
    • 163. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:51 pm

      The FBi cyber crimes division was working with “The View” MB moderators a month or so ago and it was shut down for a week.

      Reply
      • 164. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:54 pm

        “MB” – okay I dunno what that means.

        Reply
      • 165. John  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:54 pm

        Message Board, I’m guessing.

        Reply
      • 166. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:56 pm

        OK, thanx, I’ll admit it, I am a bit thick sometimes, but always friendly! LOL

        Reply
      • 167. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:58 pm

        Thick and friendly….not a bad comination you know!

        Reply
      • 168. John  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:00 pm

        I think I’ve been spending too much time lately shopping for computer parts. My initial thought was “motherboard,” and it confused me.

        Reply
      • 169. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:11 pm

        Yes its message board…I mean it was nuts….this person flooded 45 pages/25 threads per page for 3 days every 3 hours…and then when that wasn’t working he/she would go on every thread and do the same thing…it was really annoying

        Reply
      • 170. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:12 pm

        Well, I guess I walked into that one, didn’t I. I didn’t even think about it, when I posted it! LOL
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 171. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:29 pm

        Love ya back Dave.

        BTW How thic…mmmm….never mind.

        To get back on topic, it seems the PM.comers are going to lose the info wars. Information is out there and ya can’t turn the lights out now!

        Reply
  • 172. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    This really is absurd, and I should have continue to ignore certain people.

    I apologize to the board at large for getting so angry at Mr. Tamezskos that I broke my promise to ignore him.

    Love,
    Fiona

    Reply
    • 173. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:06 pm

      That’s okay fiona64, I will admit some of his comments did steam me a bit too.
      Love,
      David

      Reply
  • 174. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    Have we all returned to a state, where we can communicate again?

    Reply
    • 175. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:25 pm

      I believe so, at least on my part. I really needed to take a deep breath.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 176. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:29 pm

      I’m still here, I guess…….<3…Ronnie

      Reply
    • 177. John  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:31 pm

      Well, I’m at work, so I can only post sporadically, and I don’t have a lot of material to start a conversation, so there isn’t much for me to say unless other people are posting.

      Reply
  • 178. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    Great, so where were we?

    Reply
  • 179. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    I think maybe we need something special…the first song fits best for describing the prop ha8ters…..enjoy:

    Reply
    • 180. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:39 pm

      Thanks, Ronnie, that was great!

      Reply
      • 181. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:43 pm

        You’re welcome make sure to check out the movie trailer at the end of the video when it shows others that are related…oh feel better…..<3…Ronnie

        Reply
  • 182. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    Since I am not yet FB enabled…where else are you all hanging out? I only know of this message board. It is easier to use because it is simple, not cluttered with flashing side items or advertisements.

    (I live in the mountains at the moment and depend on a very poor rural satelite system. I will be in Raleigh soon though.)

    Reply
  • 183. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    Well, I need to go and take some medication…my tummy is upset again.
    Love,
    David

    Reply
  • 184. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    The only problem is the nausea medication just zaps me, so I will be here later.
    Love,
    David

    Reply
  • 185. Gery  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    Why is that people like he-who-shall-not-be-named figure that if they just keep repeating the same things over and over and OVER again with increasing volume no less, that somehow it will embue their statements with any degree of Truth?

    It just gets SO damn tedious to hear the SAME thing month after month after year.

    I need some tea.

    Reply
    • 186. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 10, 2010 at 7:32 pm

      Gery, it is not so much that as what Goebbels said during Hitler’s reign: “Tell the same lies often enough, and everyone, everywhere, will begin to believe them.” that is what Team George and Team Kay are all about, just like the Prop h8ers at PM.org and NOM.org. All they want to do is spread the same lies over and over again until everyone believes them. However, in the age of the Internet, it is easier to check those lies out and find out the truth and thereby debunk the superstitions and the myths. And that is what they forget.

      Reply
      • 187. Kay Moore  |  February 10, 2010 at 8:10 pm

        Well, no, seeing as how Team Kay (I am the Army of One, hoorah!) uses the internet to acquire all of her information. Text of Supreme Court cases, quotations from the Federalist Papers, assessments of judicial philosophy (and actually bothering herself to know that empiricism was a philosophical movement before it became the most basic component of science), and longer-range studies on child welfare given certain environments. The internet is a wonderful tool for the curious and motivated researcher, something that ideological uniformity is ill-equipped to handle. That’s why I come back day after day cheerful without so much as a shadow of doubt. :)

        Reply
      • 188. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 8:34 pm

        Hi dopty-daddy…….hey girl hey….I love it!…I love Hype…love is like a battle field right?……in absence of empirical proof….and using the internet to copy and paste from fifth grade papers…..texting quotations of speculation and theoretical assessments of humorous philosophy ( and for me science is like…why..its just like…you know science)…children on welfare are a waste of my tax money if I’m not entitle to all the rights that tax money affords me…you get what I’m saying dopty-daddy?…and I agree the internet is an fabulous tool for the curious and motivated stalker, sex addict,,,,something that the FBI is well aware of…But that’s not why I come back here day after day anxiously awaiting to talk to people who have been oppressed like me and maybe just maybe stopping some young LGBT kid from committing the terrible act of suicide after reading viral prop ha8te propaganda..do you see where I coming form……dopty-daddy

        Reply
      • 189. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 8:38 pm

        Thanx, Ronnie, That was great.
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 190. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 9:03 pm

        I knew you would like that one David K…..<3… Ronnie

        Reply
      • 191. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 10, 2010 at 9:16 pm

        @176. You are something else, Ronnie. You truly have a bright future ahead of you. And if you need any models for your menswear line, let me know. I know two here in NC who will model for you. Granted, one of us is not what most would call a fashionable height, but you can’t make everything only for those who are 6 feet tall and over. Besides, older folks like to be fashionable, too.

        Reply
      • 192. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 9:21 pm

        Thank you…I’ll remember that…and you will have a happy future also with your marriage….<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 193. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 10, 2010 at 9:41 pm

        Ronnie, if the past year is any indication, this marriage will be a very happy one. than you so much for the kind wishes. And when you find your Prince Charming, I hope the two of you have many many decades of happiness together. BZ and I have gone through a lot in this past year, and it has only mae our marriage that much more important to me. You see, this time, I have someone where I know that when the chips are down he has my back. ANd he knows that when the chips are down, I have his back. And if anyone tries to hurt either one of his adult children, or any of the grandchildren, they will have me to deal with, and hell hath no fury like a gay man who is defending his children or grandcildren. We are as vicious in that regard as any mother is. We will not tolerate children being harmed, and that is why overturning Prop h8 is so important. It is truly harming our children by removing the stability they had while it was legal to get married.

        Reply
      • 194. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 9:54 pm

        I’m glad to hear that…and boy do I hope Price Charming finds his way to me soon…It is really good that you have someone so special, not everybody has that LGBT or straight….and true we maybe peaceful but so is a kitten until you corner it…true story I got 15 stitches…remember if a kitten goes inside a box spring let it come out itself..lol…thank GaGa I now have a platform bed with a very soft mattress…hehehe….<3…Ronnie Mc

        Reply
      • 195. Kay Moore  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:14 am

        Well, love is much more like classic realist-philosophy diplomacy… little bit o’ war, lotsa peace, you shake hands with one hand while the other keeps the dagger ready behind your back… it’s the ultimate popcorn show. I’m not sure what the rest of your doggerel is supposed to mean, though… the FBI has no problem with people becoming well-educated and the most useful thing to stalk with an internet connection is empirical evidence, especially the sort that lets you make a mock of the science that the epicureans brag on so much.

        Reply
      • 196. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:30 am

        Well dopty-daddy it appears a troll is not able to life by its own rule of “stay out of my conversation” Hypocritical bigot who comes in the night like a triple K/swatzy boglin while most people are sleeping.

        Love will keep us together and not pull people apart such as realist-philososphy diplomacy(which are 3 words that don’t fit together)…diplomacy?…..right forcing people into oppression is very diplomatic…..discrimination based on race, gender, age, orientation, and yes religion(all of them) is not diplomatic…It appears that it doesn’t understand anything I said….hahahaha….educated my @$$

        and yet it appears it agrees to stalking on the internet……..<<<<<>>>>>>>

        Hacker alert!!!!!!!!!!! was banned last night!!!!

        Reply
  • 197. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    Well, I guess they got what they wanted, eh? They’ve managed to literally silence this group with their hate. :-(

    Love,
    Fiona

    Reply
    • 198. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:02 pm

      I’m not being silent….I just don’t have anything to say right now because it has all been said…lol…. (o_0)

      Reply
  • 199. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    Liberty Council wrote an opinion piece on Catholic Online stating Judge Walker should recuse himself.

    http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=35397

    Reply
    • 200. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:15 pm

      “At worst, Judge Walker’s continued involvement with this case presents a textbook conflict of interest. At best, it objectively illustrates the unseemly appearance of a conflict. ”

      This is my fav…as if a heterosexual religious judge wouldn’t have a conflict of interest or show bias…F-ing cry baby bigots….he didn’t choose this case it was given to him…grow up and get over it…geeze

      Reply
      • 201. Layla  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:11 pm

        That’s the point for them. They expect a judge of the “christian” faith to rely on said faith and not the laws of the land when making a decision. So if they expect a judge who’s personal beliefs are in alignment with theirs to make judgments based on those beliefs they can not expect nor fathom that a judge with differing beliefs would or could possibly make a judgment only based on the laws and constitution.

        Reply
    • 202. John  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:18 pm

      There they go playing the “we lost our expert witnesses because they’re scared of the big bad gays” card again. I’d ask who they think they’re fooling, but they’re probably fooling a lot of people.

      And it’s not like the SCOTUS justices they’re probably counting on are going to have any bias, of course.

      Reply
    • 203. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:57 pm

      There are no comments under the article…I have posted a very VERY respectful one…..hmmmmm.

      Reply
      • 204. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:02 pm

        Comments are moderated. Once an admin reads it, then they determine if it is okay to post. I would love to see if they post opposite opinion.

        Reply
  • 205. K  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    I’d like to respond to Dave T who posted rather early today regarding an honest debate. I think the opponents are folks who were raised in authoritarian families (like Focus on the Family teaches) so their natural reaction is to believe what authority (church) tells them and not question whether something makes sense. So, you can present a wonderful logical position, but their rejoinder would be along the lines of “because the Bible says so,” and that would be the end of discussion. Sad for them. What we saw at trial REALLY IS the best they could come up with.
    Love,
    Kaye

    Reply
    • 206. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:35 pm

      I tend to agree with this. The people we need to try to reach are not the vehement opponents; their minds are made up and they don’t want to be confused by the facts (so to speak). My wonderful MCC pastor says that these are the people with whom you need to “cut bait early,” because they distract you from reaching the moderates who *can* be swayed with factual information.

      It’s not possible to have an honest debate when only one side comes armed with data, facts and science. “Because the bible says so/my pastor says so/I think it’s icky” would get you laughed off of the stage in a high school debate, let alone in matters of law. The people who use those reasons cannot discuss the matter logically because, frankly, they have no logical or rational basis for their opinions. They are not grounded in what my friends and I call the reality-based community.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 207. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:54 pm

        I agree. Which is a good reason NOT to feed these trolls. It’s time for us to let their posts go unanswered.

        Reply
      • 208. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 6:45 pm

        Yes, I agree, since once people choose to close their minds, it might be easier to try and show them the world is round.
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 209. Kay Moore  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:19 am

        Yes it is. Meanwhile, I’ll get my pack of Act III Extra Butter and watch the trolls operate and the people whose minds are made up eagerly rush to the comforting safety of those that agree in ever-increasingly vehement terms. Also, assemble more science to amuse myself.

        Reply
      • 210. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:35 am

        A troll calling somebody else a troll……hahahahaha…MUADE!!!!….cyber stalker…cyber stalker!!!….It must take one to know one right David K?(Notice I am living by the trolls rules and having a conversation with you David K.)

        Reply
    • 211. Dave T  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:15 am

      Yeah, I understand all this. After many years of studying philosophy – specifically logic and critical thinking – I guess I’m a little frustrated. The obvious errors in the other side’s arguments and especially the fact that they show up to the debate with nothing but “because the bible says so”/”because this guy says god says so” and they expect that to work. It makes me want to throw up. I want to give these folks the benefit of the doubt and assume that they’re not stupid – I really do. But they make it so hard…

      Reply
  • 212. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    I am crying…

    Reply
    • 213. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:32 pm

      BTW, the info from the above video:

      On Wednesday, February 10th, LGBT activist Kitty Lambert attempts to receive a marriage license from the Buffalo City Clerk’s office. Denied, she then turns to the crowd where a willing gay male steps forw

      Reply
      • 214. fiona64  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:36 pm

        I won’t be able to see this until I get home. I am looking forward to it.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
    • 215. cc  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:54 pm

      Funny thats all it takes. I never met you before, but hey I’m a woman your a man….Let’s get married! Completely disheartening!

      Reply
    • 217. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:20 pm

      There needs to be more of this!!! The more it is done and shown to the public the more it exposes the farce of marriage laws!!

      Bravo!

      Reply
  • 218. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    My dad, a devout Catholic and KoC has told me that there is no separation of Church and State. It is still founded on religious principles and will only be successful if it adheres to religious principles, not Baptist ones, but Catholic ones.

    That is why his lesbian wife divorced him and 2/3 of his children want nothing to do with him….one of them a very devout Catholic as well!

    Reply
    • 219. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 10, 2010 at 7:39 pm

      It is BS like this, on top of having a Nazi pope who has put a collaborationist pope on the fast track to sainthood, that ended up being the straw that broke the camel’s back for me, and I tendered my Knights of Columbus (this is what K of C is, for those who are not Catholic) resignation directly to Carl Anderson at the Supreme Office in New Haven, Connecticut. And yes, I will soon finish my conversion process for Judaism. That way, when my husband and I make it legal in CT, it will not be an interfaith marriage, and when we go before Rabbi Stanton in NC, everything will be fully kosher.

      Reply
  • 220. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    “San Francisco Chronicle has “outed” 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Vaughn Walker as an active practitioner of the homosexual lifestyle.”

    Catholics do not officially say gay. It would imply legitimacy.

    Reply
  • 221. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    *homosexual extremists
    *so-called “same-sex marriage:”
    *Judge Walker apparently chooses to engage in homosexual conduct
    *similarly situated homosexual activist plaintiffs
    *based on homosexuals’ violent reaction
    *Judge Walker’s personal biases and alleged lifestyle choices.

    Can’t say gay.

    Reply
    • 222. John  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:40 pm

      Gays don’t exist, but they still manage to discriminate against them. But this is religion we’re talking about, so logical contradictions aren’t an issue.

      Reply
    • 223. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:41 pm

      With the exception of the title to the opinion piece.

      Reply
      • 224. John  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:42 pm

        ‘Gay.’ They still put it in quotes.

        Reply
      • 225. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:09 pm

        According to that towering image of fatherhood under which I grew, by ‘calling it what it is’ it better allows an honest Catholic to understand how to love the sinner but not the activity.

        Like ‘Guest Opinion’ is code for ‘Not Official Catholic Opinion’ and therefor not to be considered as Official promotion of misleading dis-information.

        If this was being reviewed by a serious Bishop it would not have been posted. (At least not in the Catholic Church I was raised in.)

        Reply
  • 226. dieter  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    Here is what we do…we use the word GAY like they do in quotes about ourselves everywhere we go. Go to the grocery store and say ” Hi, I am a gay shopper who would like to know where the gay milk is, I want to buy it as a gay shopper, so as a gay driver I can gay drive my gay milk home to my gay owned house. Then I will put it in my gay owned refrigerator. Sine I have a large yard, I will gay mow my lawn, and then place the recycle bin out on the gay yard.
    Then I will have to gay shower. and gay cook my dinner. after dinner I will pay my gay bills, and do my gay dishes.
    as a gay pet owner I will play with my dog, and then gay feed her. you see if we keep overusing the word like THEY do, eventually they will not want to use it anymore.

    Reply
    • 227. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:14 pm

      Signaling the word “Gay” in quote marks.

      Reply
    • 228. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:16 pm

      Yes let’s “Gay” it forward!……..hehehe….lol……<3…Ronnie

      Reply
      • 229. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 6:31 pm

        Yeah, I like that idea too!

        Reply
  • 230. K  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    They put “gay” in quotes because it’s not their language. The quotation marks delegitimize the word and signal that it’s “so-called.” It’s condesention and it’s nasty. It’s not their cultural meme, but they have refrained from using the word “pervert,” and they have emphasized their restraint while, at the same time, conveying what they really mean.
    Love,
    Kay

    Reply
    • 231. dieter  |  February 10, 2010 at 6:01 pm

      I am so gay bored, sitting here gay watching tv, and gay eating..it makes my gay head hurt. Later I will gay play some online games, and gay chat on facebook.

      Tomorrow I really have to gay grocery shop, and gay drive my dog to the groomer.

      then I will probably just gay drive home, and gay check my mail…. maybe I will gay wave to my neighbors just in case they forgot I was GAY.

      Reply
      • 232. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:53 am

        dieter that was priceless….but you forgot to add it right here: and gay drive my gay dog to the gay groomer…lol….I like your idea, from now everything is gay!

        Reply
  • 233. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    Paul Nathanson, Katherine Young and William Tam: are these the ONLY three other people the Defense had as witnesses? Is it these three who claim they would be harassed?

    Do we have William Tam’s deposition on video? Did he give one?

    Reply
    • 234. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:47 pm

      There is no video of him on youtube that I can find.

      Reply
      • 235. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:52 pm

        I found that he indeed did give a deposition and it was video taped.

        Courage Campaign, if it’s public record how do we get it to view it?

        Reply
      • 236. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 6:11 pm

        I don’t know….I would like to see it also so I could use it in a comedy routine..lol

        Reply
    • 237. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 6:22 pm

      I have found the defendant witness list:

      David Blankenhorn* Institute for American Values
      Loren Marks* Louisiana State University
      Kenneth P. Miller* Associate Professor
      Paul Nathanson* Religious Studies
      Daniel N. Robinson* Philosophy Faculty
      Katherine Young* Faculty of Religious Studies

      Tam was a DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR. I remember him trying to get out of it, so he may not be one now. Perhaps his deposition, as an EX- DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR is not part of public record. I would certainly like to know.

      Did the other two in the list not give depositions?

      Reply
      • 238. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 6:33 pm

        I’m not sure but i think somebody is looking for them.

        Reply
      • 239. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 6:43 pm

        Okay, so the depositions were in november, and the other two witnesses dropped out of the case on January 11. I am assuming they did give depositions…

        Of course, someone will probably pop in here with the legal knowledge to answer the question…

        Reply
  • 240. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    Bigots are truly an affront to the very delicacy of nature……do you like my nails?……whack!

    Reply
    • 241. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:16 pm

      turned my head at the whack and got whiplash!

      Reply
      • 242. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:19 pm

        LMAO!!!!

        Reply
    • 243. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:22 pm

      but lets try that again as that is true; however:

      Bigots truly are an affront to the very delicacy of my nature…do you like my nails?……..whack!

      Reply
    • 244. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 6:41 pm

      Why, yes, dear, they are lovely and just what is that color…it’s so divine! LOL

      Reply
      • 245. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 6:44 pm

        Periwinkle Glitter…heheh

        Reply
  • 246. Jason  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    This may have been asked already (I wasn’t able to go through all the comments) but even though these people declined to testify in court, are their deposition transcripts still admitted?

    Reply
  • 247. K  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    portions of two were played in court and admitted.
    Love, Kaye

    Reply
  • 248. Von  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    Ok wow, look what kind of BS they’re coming up with now:

    “Judge Walker then ordered Prop 8 proponents to disclose private communications, work product, emails and campaign strategies to plaintiffs while – in an example of jaw-dropping inequality – permitted plaintiffs to keep the same materials secret.”

    This was from a “guest commentary” article posted on a Catholic website by the Liberty Council. I’ve been watching this trial almost nauseatingly close and don’t seem to recall this particular event ever happening. Did I miss something or is this just another whopper of a lie perpetrated to cover up their failings in the court room?

    Reply
    • 249. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:27 pm

      What they seem to forget (the prop ha8ters) is that they are the ones on trial not the plaintiffs….fools…..all of those materials are evidence of discrimination and are in fact relevant to the case…they just can’t handle the truth.

      Reply
    • 250. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:31 pm

      WE are not on trial, they are. That’s why the judge doesn’t need certain items from the plaintiff. But they spin and spin. The judges who will see all of this after Judge Walker are the only ones who really matter…and they know the legalities of all documents.

      It’s really not an issue, even if the defense wants people to think it is.

      Reply
  • 251. K  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:28 pm

    I’m not a lawyer, I hust work for one. This is not legal advice. As I understand the discovery process, there has to be a reason to ask someone to produce discoverable evidence. The Plaintiff’s reason was probable because these documents went to Yes on 8’s state of mind. Not sure that this would be an applicable reason to get Plaintiffs’ docs.
    Love,
    Kaye

    Reply
  • 252. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    There is a group on FB called:

    I bet we can find 1,000,000 People who Support Same Sex Marriage

    current # = 1,446,328 and climbing ….no glass ceilings….lol

    Here is the link:
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=283600686512

    Reply
  • 253. Angel  |  February 10, 2010 at 6:40 pm

    I can’t believe the Courage Campaign took so long to discover these deposition videos, as they have been on YouTube since week #1 of the trial. The first time I watched them, I thought they were from the No on 8 side! When I discovered they were the defendants witnesses, it made things all too clear why so many of the “Stanky Skanky-8” witnesses “mysteriously dropped out”.

    Question: Does anyone know if these were admitted as evidence? I’m hoping the answer is a resolute YES!!!

    Reply
    • 254. David Kimble  |  February 10, 2010 at 6:43 pm

      If you read though the comments, Angel, yes, some portions of them were.

      Reply
  • 255. Layla  |  February 10, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    I think this answers the question if we can have a true debate with the PropH8ers and their ilk on any subject.

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

    Reply
  • 256. Layla  |  February 10, 2010 at 7:09 pm

    That didn’t work. So much for their embed code. Lets just try a good ol’fashion link

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/35339907#35339907

    Reply
    • 257. Felyx  |  February 10, 2010 at 7:39 pm

      Any way you could give some details? I have satelite covered in snow so downloading is verrrrrryyyyy slow.

      Thanks if possible.

      Reply
      • 258. Layla  |  February 10, 2010 at 9:04 pm

        You need to move away from the snow! :-)

        Rob Boston (from Americans United for Separation of Church and State) talks about the upcoming American Revival Tour led by Fox News’ Glenn Beck to tackle religion in America.

        So the folks behind this “American Revival” are trying to make a case for bringing religion back into our govt like our “forefathers originally intended”. To make their case they are literally making up quotes and spouting them as truth that has been hidden by a conspiracy of the socialists that have been in control for the past 100 years.

        And of course sheeple are lining up to buy their books and see them talk. As my mom says “if you see a need, fill it, then make money off of it.” I need to find a way to make money off of the sheeple!

        Reply
      • 259. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:57 am

        Yeah I will let you know how that turns out…just as soon as the blizzard is over! LOL

        Reply
  • 260. JPM  |  February 10, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    The 4th chapter of Day 1 of the Prop 8 trial is out.

    http://marriagetrial.com/

    Reply
  • 261. Chuck S  |  February 10, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    I want to see the depositions of the other witnesses as well… even if they didn’t get ‘turned’ during the depo. In the interest of full disclosure, we should be able to see ALL the potential witnesses, not just the ones that help the plaintiffs. Let’s see the defense witnesses in all their holy glory!!!

    Reply
    • 262. Chuck S  |  February 10, 2010 at 8:17 pm

      Oops… Meant to say Holey Glory.

      Reply
  • 263. Wade MacMorrighan  |  February 10, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    Personally, as a history-buff, I was inspired to dig-deeper when she actually claimed that Roman elite males are recorded as having publicly marriage men within civil marriage,l two examples i found were Elagabus and Nero (two Emperors who both publicly married men to the cheers of the citizens and populace of Rome!). of course, the Chuckchi and Native American plains Indians allowed two men to marry each other, and were frequently sought after as a spouse by some of the tribesmen!

    Reply
    • 264. Kay Moore  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:32 am

      I think that Caligula was another of the ones who married men… Commodus too, if I recall correctly. Of course, Caligula’s purpose seemed to be more seeing if a man became a woman if he castrated them and Commodus apparently believed that he was Heracules and who’s Heracules without his nephew tagging along to scorch the hydra’s necks?
      I’m not so sure that bragging about Elagbalus or Nero is all that wise… Elagabalus was hacked apart by the Praetorian Guard over his antics (violating the sexual taboos of Rome, for example, which behavior caused no end of unhappiness among the citizens, the Senate, and the Praetorian Guard) and Nero is famous for “fiddling while Rome burned” which doesn’t seem to make him much of a role model for a stable normal loving marriage, no matter the gender of his partner.

      Reply
      • 265. Dave T  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:25 am

        Yeah, well, and Hitler was married (briefly) too. I wouldn’t call him “much of a role model for a stable normal loving marriage”.

        Wade’s point was not to give examples of great marriages (same sex or otherwise). The identities of the people who were married to same sex partners is not particularly important, nor is their conduct before, during, or after marriage.

        Wade’s point is that there are examples of same sex marriage in other cultures. And, if his examples are correct (I’m no historian, so I don’t know), then it appears same sex marriage was viewed positively in these other cultures.

        Please, if you’re going to respond to a post, take a moment to read and understand the post and try to address the point the author is making.

        Reply
      • 266. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:45 am

        <<<>>>>>>

        Nice use of the phrase “I think” more like “I don’t know”….next thing you know Lucy Lawless is goinf the scream yi yi yi yi…while her lesbian luvva Gabrielle beats the bigot with her stick…..notice none of these posts are posted right away or while people are awake(burning the midnight oil she lies more more more)making it well aware of trolling actions by looking things up to copy and paste…(must be really good at white painted macaroni hooded masks)…..moegoe!!!!

        Reply
      • 267. fiona64  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:58 am

        In addition, Dave T., the Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches had specific rites for marrying two men, in use right up until the mid 13th C. It was known as the Adelphopoiia.

        http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.html

        I do find it amusing when people respond to historical examples of same-sex marriage with “those aren’t real because they aren’t Christian” or “those weren’t good marriages.” As if all straight marriages are Christian, and all straight marriages are good …

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 268. Kay Moore  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:44 am

        I got the point of his post, Dave, which is why I brought up Caligula and Commodus and pointed out that Elagabusa was murdered partly because of his marrying men and homosexual dalliances: it certainly happened in Rome and its possible (although unlikely, given the Roman reaction to the emperors’ dalliances) that it was tolerated but the sundry emperors are a really bad example to use because the ones most well-known for marrying men and the like were also associated with out-and-out insanity and the worst sort of tyranny. Naturally, the two things are not related but they do coincide and give the impression that in Roman society, homosexual marriage was an indulgence of the insane and the tyrant, not an accepted institution as wade seemed to be trying to say.

        Reply
      • 269. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 10:50 am

        Maude….moegoe………hahaha

        You are soooo right Fiona64,,,,you know what may have(and I say “may have” because we were not there so it is all subjective, speculation, propaganda, and hearsay)…anyway do you, Wade, or Dave T. kow what may have been true and the norm of the Romans?…That they believed in many Gods and Goddess, indulged in many cherry picking in a group situation, thought the world revolved around them, and all men wore dresses….lol

        Reply
    • 270. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:21 am

      Pots and Kettles to Kay,

      If you go back to http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/02/07/outing/

      Roughly around the late #60’s and throughout the #70’s comments there is an interesting thread where Kay claims that a Psychotic Supercomputer that Kills people out of fear would be a better judge than Judge Walker.

      She gets totally deconstructed and responds that I was not paying attention to her capitalization or I would have realized that she was talking about something totally different.

      Read the comments and then vote here:

      Did Kay get PWNED or did I merely misunderstand her?

      Regardless, where in that posting she weakly claims I misunderstood her due to a matter of capital letters, it is still obvious she completely took the article out of context regarding marriage in history. (I would add, we only get to hear about famous people with power who, regardless of sexuality are usually F’d up. But if the elite are doing it, just how many regular citized had marriages that were just fine?!)

      Reply
      • 271. Kay Moore  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:58 am

        Actually, roughly around the late #60’s and throughout the #70’s comments, there is an interesting thread where Kay claims that an ultimate computer with maximum processing power would be a totally impartial judge although an inhumane one. The thread is distinct for the initial tongue-in-cheek comment and for the LACK of any comparison between the theoretical computer and Judge Walker.

        What “article” did I take out of context, exactly? If you’re talking about my reply to Wade right above, further examination reveals that no article was mentioned; he brought up two Roman emperors (one of whom was murdered because his marrying men, among other things, was considered grossly improper in Rome) so I brought up two others and the consistent feature of all four of our examples was that they were all tyrants, famously debauched, or exceedingly poor emperors. Thus my follow-up pointing out that the emperors are very poor proof that homosexual marriage was acceptable to Romans.
        I’ll add, just for you, that I seem to recall that one of the “Five Good Emperors” (possibly Hadrian) was distinct for his long-term intimate relationship with a young Greek servant boy and this was well-tolerated among Romans because he was, as the title he and four others were given implies, among the five emperors who distinct for how well-loved they were among the common people.

        Reply
      • 272. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 10:44 am

        Yes Felyx it got PWND…..but is very masochistic….and keeps getting pwnd…..over and over and over and over and over again…..Obviously little bunny fufu never learns in the real world….right Felyx?

        Reply
      • 273. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 10:54 am

        I am inclined to agree. Especially about the Masochism. When you gay bash, even in sophisticated elevated and highly logical terms, it is still gay bashing! Kay’s version of queer baiting and gay bashing is mild to be sure, but is none the less transparent.

        If you don’t want to get PWNED Kay, then admit SSM existed as the posted comments suggested (I incorrectly stated article) and talk about Hadrian instead of trying to subtly gay bash on a gay friendly site.

        Reply
      • 274. Kay Moore  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:49 pm

        I love unspecific accusations; they’re a tacit admission that you cannot actually quote me or prove anything but are convinced that it happened and want to be able to toss around the accusation without a need to justify it. Further, you accompany it with the word “transparent” which sort of implies that you feel able to conclusively justify your accusation but chose not to. If it’s “transparent” demonstrate it.

        You can try to PWN all you want, Felyx. But you actually have to cite facts in support of your assertion before you get acknowledgement and “the all-powerful did it so it must have been acceptable” isn’t proof of anything. I could certainly talk about Hadrian but why would I? Your commentator talked about Nero and Elagabusa who were both heavily disliked and either forced to commit suicide (Nero) or hacked apart by the Praetorian Guard (Elagabusa). If you want me to discuss Hadrian as proof of the acceptance of same-sex relationships in Rome, talk about him in your own argument. And if you think I’m “bashing gays” I eagerly await your evidence.

        Reply
      • 275. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:58 pm

        Hey Felyx…….”The Call Is coming From Inside The House!”…..ahhhhhhh!!!!!…I love things that are transparent…there’s glasses, pinks outfit at the 2010 Grammy’s, windows, cheep curtains…..growl…..water…I like water…..proof is the eye of the beholder right Felyx everything else is just hearsay, propaganda, subjective, and speculation….right Felyx?…..and you sometimes evne hard walls are transparent…right?…its so funny when people talk about historic events as if they were actually there (ROTFLMAO!!!!!!)…..right Felyx?…anyway its implied…right Felyx?

        Reply
  • 276. Kim  |  February 11, 2010 at 5:20 am

    Maybe a stupid question, but has anybody actually taken the time to verify the claim they are scared?

    Reply
    • 277. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 11, 2010 at 5:27 am

      Hi Kim, I think the only person who was worried about testifying was William Tam. Not as much fear from the heterosexual community, but lashings about his bias behavior and radical thoughts. Tam didn’t realize that in agreeing to be a defense intervenor also meant that his own behavior could be scrutinized. Remember he’s the guy who thinks homosexuals are pediphiles, want to legalize prostitution and other outrageous babble.

      I think the defense went smokescreen on these two as their ‘factual’ testimony actually would hurt the defense.

      Reply
    • 278. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:23 am

      Why are you trying to confuse hype with facts?

      Reply
  • […] yes, if you mean Paul Nathanson, who I mentioned yesterday. If you’ll recall, that was the guy the Iowa courts (made up of those radical corn-fed […]

    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)

  • 4,585,293 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...