NOM: marriage equality = slave trade

August 1, 2010 at 5:20 pm 119 comments

[Cross-posted from my original entry at DailyKos, and excited to be joining the NOM Tour Tracker Team–Dante]

By Dante Atkins

For those who may not have seen the news, the bigots at National Organization for Marriage–the group most prominently opposed to marriage equality and the main sponsors of Proposition 8 in California and Question 1 in Maine–have been on tour. They’ve been going around the country in an archetypical bus tour trying to promote their special brand of outmoded discrimination. As could have been expected, the tour has been an epic boatload of fail. At many stops of the tour, marriage equality supporters have equaled or outnumbered those who show up to hate on gay people.

NOM has been tweeting statements from spokesman Brian Brown during the course of the tour–and while a variety of them have been offensive in a lot of ways, this one probably takes the cake:

“It is 1972 for marriage. This is the same as the time as before Roe v. Wade. . . . What if William Wilberforce listened to those telling him not to bring his religion into the public square?”

Let’s get the obvious out of the way. William Wilberforce was a British member of Parliament who was best known for his religiously based opposition to the slave trade, and was instrumental in outlawing slavery throughout the British empire in the mid-19th century. And in invoking the ghost of William Wilberforce, NOM has just compared opposition to bigotry against gays to…supporting the slave trade. Now it’s not quite full Godwin, but by the time you’re talking about the slave trade, you’re getting pretty damned close.

That’s bad enough. But what’s actually just as interesting is in this little snippet, Brian Brown is making an argument that is expressly theocratic. By devolving to a rationale that is based simply on religion in the public square, NOM is essentially admitting that theocratic values are the only reason to oppose marriage equality (truth be told, if you had seen their closing arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, such an admission should come as no surprise).

But when it comes down to it, what Brian Brown is actually doing here is making a unwitting yet fundamental attack on the value of Christian morality. The implication of Brown’s statement regarding Wilberforce’s motivations is that if Wilberforce had not been so religiously inclined, he would not have pursued his opposition to the slave trade. Does Brian Brown really think that your average Christian believes that slavery is wrong because God said so, and that because in their view God says that gay marriage is bad, it has to be opposed with equal vigor? Is Brian Brown really suggesting that regular believers are so rigidly doctrinaire that they see no nuance?

If anyone needs a lesson in Christian values, it’s obviously Brian Brown.

Entry filed under: NOM Tour Tracker, Right-wing.

With marriage equality fading as an issue in Iowa, NOM desperately tries to revive it One Iowa responds to NOM in kind

119 Comments Add your own

  • 1. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  August 1, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    Shall we?

    • 2. Kathleen  |  August 1, 2010 at 5:30 pm

      Oh, yes. Let’s

      • 3. Alan E.  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:09 pm

        I’m game.

    • 4. rick jacobs  |  August 1, 2010 at 5:32 pm


      Do you live in Moscow? How are you coping with the heat?


      • 5. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:01 pm


        I live ~150 miles northwesterly from Moscow.  The heat is horrendous.  The worst ever, they say.  Well, I used to be chubby, very chubby (overweight to obese), so that was really horrible to cope with any heat, but now that I got slim and fit, even in the worst heat in the recorded history, I feel fine, just a little uncomfortable without air conditioners in 95-100°F.  The peat bogs on fire — that’s pretty bad to breath in, but it got better after 3-4 days of such weather.  So, the lesson is: it is better and healthier to be fit and trained!

      • 6. Kirill's M8  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:46 pm

        I think he talks to his boyfriend in the US ad nauseum for hours on end in order to distract himself from the awful heat. Not sure what two very compatible young gay guys would talk about for hours on end though…! ;`)

        Kirill’s Bi-National Boyfriend

      • 7. Lurking  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:08 am

        Prolly talkin’ about gay marriage! :P

      • 8. Kirill's M8  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:25 am

        Well, yes, this certainly is a frequent topic of discussion.

        However, there is extensive discussion on the appropriate pleasurable uses of our mutual corporeal instrumentality… um… like hugging. ;`)


        P.S.: Cuddling is also a very highly discussed topic. ;`P

      • 9. Papa Foma  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:30 am

        Well at least you are not just using each other for procreative purposes. I am sure God intended for humans to do more than just make babies!


    • 10. JonT  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:21 pm

      Indeed my good man, indeed.

    • 11. AndrewPDX  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:18 pm

      Sure… I mean, without all these emails, I’d have nothing else to do at work (well, except maybe my job) :)


  • 12. Steve  |  August 1, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    The Bible actually has a lot of good things to say about slavery. You can’t own other Americans, but Canadians and Mexicans are perfectly fine.

    • 13. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:25 pm

      You also have to treat your slaves the same way you would treat your own family, and after six years you are to set them free and return all their property to them, and allow them to take their family with them when they leave. There is a provision for a slave who does not want to leave you, but even then, you are to treat them well and make certain that their needs are provided for. This was a direct result of how the Egyptians treated the Jews when they were slaves, to ensure that the Jews were more compassionate and humane to their slaves.

      • 14. PamC  |  August 1, 2010 at 8:48 pm

        …not to mention the year of jubilee!! (what was that, every 20 years?)

      • 15. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:11 pm

        Actually, the slaves were to be freed in the year of the great sabbath, which occurred every seventh year. Say for example this were the year of sabbath. Any slaves you acquired during the previous six years, even the ones you acquired last year, would be freed this year. that was the law of slavery as handed down to the Jews (or as they were called then, the Hebrews). If a slave refused to leave you, and wished to stay, then you were to pierce his or her ear, and that would be the permanent sign of adoption. Your slaves were even to inherit as part of your family if you died during their term of indenture.
        The year of sabbath was the year you let your fields rest so that they could produce better crops. So in your six years of planting, you always preserved enough of the crops to get you through the year when you would not plant.

    • 16. Felyx  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:49 pm

      My Canadian friend is Canadian. My question is, in keeping with the Bible, should BS Brown support my being my friend’s slave?

      Very curious to know this!


      • 17. The Pope's Nose  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:14 am

        If it is supported in the bible then I am SURE Brian would HAVE to approve. Slavery, as I understand it, is a lifestyle choice and not something one is born into!

  • 18. rick jacobs  |  August 1, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    Dante, this is brilliant. Mr. Brown and his team fear greatly the outcome of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial and they fear as much or more the messages from that trial. They know their side failed even more in the courtroom than they are on this tour. They had no answers whatsoever to the basic questions about whether allowing lesbians and gays to marry would have any deleterious effect on other marriages.

    In fact, Mr. Charles Cooper, their lawyer, had only one answer to this question: “I don’t know.” So the entire NOM tour and raison d’etre (that’s reason to be, lest Mr. Brown accuse me of being “French”) are to divide Americans over an issue that has been litigated in court for which they have no answers.

    Your main point here is that they now find people in history to which to equate themselves–Dr. King and Wiliam Wilberforce–but for whom the equation ends badly for NOM. What you say abouit Wilbeforce is smack on: Does Mr. Brown really think that people who support marriage also support slavery?

    For those of you who do not know Dante Atkins, he is a whip-smart activist here in Los Angeles. He works in the opinion research world and has a very exciting political career ahead of him, if he decides to go that way.

    Thanks for joining us, Dante!

    • 19. Felyx  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:53 pm

      Question for NOM,

      Why are you saying that pro-universal marriage supporters are pro-slavery?


      • 20. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:05 pm

        Could it be that their marriages make them feel as though they are enslaved?

      • 21. AndrewPDX  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:20 pm

        Could it be that their marriages make them feel as though they are enslaved?

        Whoa… yeah, that would make a whole lot of sense.


  • 22. Richard W. Fitch  |  August 1, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    It is really sad that more of Brian’s and Maggie’s comments have not been picked up by the MNM. People hearing these absurdities must begin to wonder what planet these gNOMes come from and what the ulterior motives *really* are.

  • 23. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 1, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    Actually, what BB needs is a very thorough course in the following:
    Koine Greek
    Sociology and Culture of the Holy Land during the times of the Bible
    US Civics
    Separation of Church and State
    CIvil right Movements through the ages
    Then maybe he would be qualified to discourse on these things.
    Of course, he should also be taken back to study the history of Germany from 1933-1945. If nothing else, it would probably get him to change the color of his suit.
    Of course, he would probably go to Steve LIvely’s lame idiocy about Hitler and the SS all being gay.
    And he is obviously forgetting that the Rainbow Tribe were the first people Hitler went after, even before he went after the Jews. Perhaps it is time for BZ and me to pack up our house and all its contents and move to Tel Aviv where we might stand a chance of being safe. After all, we are not only gay, we are Jewish.

    • 24. Alan E.  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:15 pm

      But what about all of those Glitzkriegs? Didn’t you know that Hitler himself was gay?!

      • 25. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:28 pm

        Hitler was also Austrian, not German, and Jewish on his mother’s side. Hitler is a prime example of what self-loathing will cause you to do to your own kind.

      • 26. JonT  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:34 pm

        Alan E – and for you, a Glitter Pony! :)

        I must say I’ve been kind of surprised at all the people claiming the nazi’s and hitler were all gay lately. At least, it seems a somewhat recent phenomenon.

        I saw Scott Lively on the daily show last week, and could not freaking believe my ears. Apparently gay men have no self control over their violent tendencies, and are therefore ruthless and formidable soldiers. Seriously. So what was the problem with that whole DADT thing again? What a freaking nutcase.

        Anyway, Hi Dante – I actually read this article on DK yesterday, and thought about cross posting it here hehe. I never know what links I should post or not.

        Hopefully we’ll hear some more from you!

      • 27. allen  |  August 2, 2010 at 12:07 am

        I just had a vision of 100’s of Geroge Rekers goose stepping in unison. *_*

    • 28. Felyx  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:55 pm

      OMG! I about pissed myself over this one!

      “Of course, he should also be taken back to study the history of Germany from 1933-1945. If nothing else, it would probably get him to change the color of his suit.”

      Felyx – Still LMAO!

      • 29. Franck  |  August 1, 2010 at 10:45 pm

        Felyx, I missed replying to your welcome back thread, but I wanted to say this: I might not be able to attend your wedding, online or not, so let me make it up to you. Contact me some time ahead and I’ll gladly draw something for you and Kirille. Sure, I can’t draw humans to save my life, but I’m sure we can work something out ^_^

        On a less happy note, my connection died yesterday while I was talking with my fiancé. I already hate it that my time with him is limited to a few hours per week (minus cheating with my workplace’s connection), but I hate it even more when we’re cut off without warning like that. No matter how often it may happen, it still feels like a knife in the gut.

        – Franck P. Rabeson
        Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1137 days, as of today.

  • 30. Ronnie  |  August 1, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    “If anyone needs a lesson in Christian values, it’s obviously Brian Brown.”

    Perfect…& so so so soooooooo…TRUE!!!…..<3…Ronnie

  • 31. Aya  |  August 1, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    Partially OT, but does anyone know when the Prop 8 decision will be out? I wasn’t sure if it was going to be for a specific date or if it’s whenever Judge Walker finally makes a decision.

    Eagerly awaiting the decision over here, like the law geek I am. I want to read the opinion and see how bad the Prop 8 side gets whipped, considering they had no argument whatsoever of which to speak.

    • 32. Kathleen  |  August 1, 2010 at 5:51 pm

      No set date. In an interview, David Boies said he expected it around mid-August. Both the media and plaintiffs’ attorneys have formally requested that Walker give 48 hours’ notice in advance of the decision, but Walker hasn’t yet responded to that request.

      • 33. Aya  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:35 pm

        Thanks. I figured it was something where we’d have a vague idea but wouldn’t know a specific date. I’ve been following everything from the Prop 8 appeal at the CA SC onwards (very nicely timed, but I was taking a Sexual Orientation and the Law class that Spring). It’s one of the few things that really sparked my interest and passions in law school.

        I know the law and justice in general moves slowly, but I really hope to see SSM legalized throughout the US sometime in the first half of my lifetime. Dare to dream!

    • 34. Alan E.  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:16 pm

      Can we make that a part of the headline, saying something along the lines of “We don’t know when the decision will be out yet. If the decision was due, then you would be seeing more of a frenzy along those lines than the NOM tour.”

  • 35. Bob  |  August 1, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    Here’s a question for bb, unless it’s already been asked,

    Has he had any theological training and how much wieght is given to that in the position he holds at NOM?

    • 36. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:30 pm

      Probably the only theological training BB has received was when he was in Catechism class. And many of the older texts used for catechism class were very sparse on explanation, but heavy on fear. I seriously doubt that he has read the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

  • 37. rick jacobs  |  August 1, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    No date has been set and the judge is obliged to none. It could be tomorrow or in October. I’m betting the end of August, but who knows?

  • 38. Sagesse  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    BB and NOM equate religion with morality. It’s the kind of slippery reasoning that allows him to equate freedom of religion with separation of church and state. He uses them interchangeably if it serves his point.

    “We have to allow religious speech because morality has always driven civil rights.”

    • 39. Dpeck  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:16 pm

      Wow, that’s creepy. That’s not just circular logic, that’s a friggen mobius strip.

      • 40. Sagesse  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:45 pm

        Mobius strip. Best description of BB’s sleight of tongue I’ve ever heard.. Wish I’d thought of it.

      • 41. Dpeck  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:55 pm

        You have to give me credit the first three times you use it. After that, you can claim it as your own. That’s the rules.

      • 42. Felyx  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:01 pm

        So freakin’ hilarious!

        Mobius Logic – An argument that has no beginning, doesn’t address anything, proves nothing and goes nowhere.

        (See Prop8 Defense case for a thorough example.)

        Dpeck – you are freakin’ hilarious!


      • 43. Sagesse  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:07 pm

        Understood and agreed :).

      • 44. Felyx  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:14 pm

        I have to amend this as the Mobius Strip is noted for having only one side… so then:

        Mobius Logic – A ONE SIDED argument that has no beginning, doesn’t address anything, proves nothing and goes nowhere.


      • 45. AndrewPDX  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:25 pm

        ROFL… Mobius Logic… that is soooo apropos.


      • 46. Dpeck  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:28 pm

        Oooh, that’s good. And how about this – just when you think BB has argued all the way around to where he started from and is finally going to stop yapping – Ack! He’s only half way there!

      • 47. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:32 pm

        And sometimes, BB isn’t even to the halfway point! That is when it really gets scary. I may have to borrow stilts to get through the mire if he keeps talking.

      • 48. Felyx  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:37 pm

        Double amend just for Dpeck.

        Mobius Logic – A one sided argument that has no beginning, doesn’t address anything, proves nothing and goes nowhere… all over again.

        Felyx :P

  • 49. Straight Grandmother  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    Great Headline!

  • 50. Dave in Maine  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    Okay..not too late with this one.

    Wonder twin powers-subscribe!!


    • 51. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:01 pm

      And let us not forget about Wonder Dog!
      And if I remember correctly the Wonder Twins were named Wendy and Marvin. Please, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

      • 52. AndrewPDX  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:28 pm

        Sorry… the Wonder Twins were Zan and Jayna. Wendy and Marvin weren’t super-powered, just got to hang out with Superman and Wonder Woman because of their cool dog.


    • 53. fiona64  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:56 am

      Shape of – equality supporters!

      Form of – no more bigotry!


  • 54. Ben  |  August 1, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    I am always amazed at how little time is spent thinking through the ramifications of using religion in an argument of « morality » by these people. The amazing thing about their reliance on the Bible is that for every statement they can find to support their position, there is at least one that is contradictory, and usually at least one more that is unclear on what it actually means, but seems to be related. That was a really long sentence to reach my point : everything’s relative.

    • 55. PamC  |  August 1, 2010 at 8:54 pm

      It’s “sound bite” or “bumper sticker” theology. Biblical teachings =morality. The rest of us have no moral basis, since they radically ignore just about everything else in history, philosophy, other theologies, rational thinking….

      In medieval Catholic theology, you could at least be a “just man” and only go to the first circle of hell…

  • 56. Roger  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    Why haven’t I heard anyone chanting “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?

  • 57. Michael  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:21 pm

    Militant anti-gay activist Brown, in his desperation, is becoming a sad caricature of himself.

    First of all, the Bible is not against slavery. The best thing it says about it is that masters should treat their slaves well. No where does it say specifically that slavery is wrong. As many know, pro-slavery Americans used the Bible extensively to justify slavery, not get rid of it.

    NOM was created by the Mormon Church as a means to impose its “religious beliefs” on the rest of us. So, it’s no surprise that unrepentant homophobe Brown would slip up and let that out from time-to-time.

    The truth is that Christ never condoned homophobia and He commanded us to treat others as we want to be treated. Spending millions of dollars to promote the idea that it’s okay to vote away the civil rights of other Americans (and enriching oneself along the way) is a far cry from what Christ commands us to do. May God have mercy on shrill anti-gay activist Brown’s soul for turning Christ into a cheap, plastic, unloving replica of himself.

    • 58. Mark M  |  August 1, 2010 at 8:48 pm

      Well said Michael!

    • 59. Rev. Will Fisher  |  August 2, 2010 at 4:17 am

      What the Torah laws of the OT condone is more like indentured servitude. What we think of as Slavery (ante-bellum South) is condemned in the Exodus narratives. Bible: right. NOM: wrong.

      • 60. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:21 am

        Thank you Reverend Fisher. It is so nice to know that there are Christians out there who understand the Judaic laws and the customs and sociology/culture of the regions of the Torah.

  • 61. Bob  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:43 pm

    I like that bb involked the whole slavery thing, ,cause maybe it will ring a bell for some allies in the African American community when slaves taught themselves to read, they took on the study of the bible , the very book that was said to condone their position in life, and in doing so, they read for themselves the very words through which they realized their first sense of freedom, I don’t quote passages, but they read, that when they were told to obey their masters, it did not mean their earthly masters, and reminded them their true master was not of an earthly nature and that quote, always hidden from them, and found there inside the very book which kept them captive, lifted their spriits, and gave them a new sense of dignity,

    so thinking about the other thread, maybe singing a freedom song like Amazing Grace, would involke memoreies of a kindred spirit in the African American community.

    • 62. Felyx  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:55 pm

      On that note, to make a comparative analogy, I once again point out Matthew 19:11-12

      11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

      I totally read this passage to mean some (men) are gay by birth and are not obligated to marry someone (female) as had been written of those (men) who should marry (women). Nowhere does he say ALL men are obligated to marry and reproduce, and certainly there is nowhere written a prohibition against ANY type of marriage between humans… even the (gasp!) dreaded polyamorous kind!


      • 63. Bob  |  August 1, 2010 at 8:39 pm

        Felyx, thanks for following up with that comparative analysis, and your note shy of specific quotes,

        Like Ben wrote above, one passage condems, another frees,

      • 64. PamC  |  August 1, 2010 at 8:59 pm

        @Felyx–I once heard the pastor of MCC NYC give a sermon on this same passage, and she interpreted it in exactly the same manner as you.

      • 65. Steve  |  August 2, 2010 at 3:53 am

        There is a website that has some extensive analysis on the whole eunuch thing, both in the Bible and the Koran. It also points out that Roman law made some very explicit distinctions between men born as eunuchs and ones that became so through accidents or operations. Unlike the modern definition of castrated men, the definition also seems to include men who aren’t interested in women for some reason.

        Though I’m not sure how widely accepted that view is in the larger scientific community.

  • 66. Jim  |  August 1, 2010 at 7:55 pm

    I just want to commend the Tour Trackers for their amazing work doing this. Thank you for keeping us all informed and for pulling back the PR veil that NOM is trying to use to hide their true colors. I check this site and your tweets often and I love that it’s always so current and thorough. Great job!

  • 67. Ronnie  |  August 1, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    Well here you go Trackers

    From Louis Marinelli himself, that Fascist anti-American pig who better NEVER get a marriage license because he clearly does not respect THE LAW:

    “We are going to Sioux City because we are holding a rally there on Tuesday to stand up for geniune marriage between a man and a woman. I say geniune, and I’ve made this point before, because a piece of paper doesn’t make you married. A piece of paper gives you access to a series of benefits afforded to married couples but it doesn’t make you married.”

    (me) Actually Louis, you uneducated trash, it does. Where did you go to school? University of I Have NO Idea How This Country Works (i.e. school for anti-American idiots)?

    “I say this because of this picture taken by one of our stalkers over at the NOM Tour Tracker.”

    (me) Once again you show your complete lack of education. Maybe you should look up the word “stalker” you unmitigated clod.

    “It’s a sign held by one of our opponents today in Des Moines (we held a good rally there earlier today at th State Capital) was holding a sign that said she was married to her parner for 9 months and was thanking the State of Iowa for that. These people are not married.”

    (me) It is the LAW in Iowa, Louis MaryNelly, therefore they are married & they are wives whether you like it or not you illiterate schlock.

    “Marriage is between a man and a woman and taking something and molding it into the shape of marriage and then giving it the name of marriage doesn’t make it marriage! It is merely a mockery of marriage and that is what these so-called “same-sex marriages” amount to.”

    (me) FYI you SOB Marriage is BTW M&M & W&W awa M&W whether you like it or not so STFU you POS. Louis you do nothing but make a mockery of marriage & American Freedom.

    “And that misunderstanding, that fallacy, is that marriage is only about love and commitment.”

    (me) Excuse me? They’ve been together for 15 years & 9 months. You basically just said that those 2 women who you do not even know do not love each other & are not committed to each other. Do you know them personally? Who the F@#K do you think you are?

    I am officially calling it…Louis Marinelli is nothing but trash.

    >I …..Ronnie

    • 68. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 1, 2010 at 8:38 pm

      Ronnie, you really should try to be a little more passionate about our cause. ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥
      (Of course, you know i am just picking on you. I wish you were closer to us.)

    • 69. Kathleen  |  August 1, 2010 at 8:44 pm

      If it’s “just a piece of paper” and they’re “not really” married, then what does he care who gets the paper? Sounds like he’s just proclaimed that state-sanctioned marriage don’t really concern him. So can we expect NOM to go home now?

      • 70. Mark M  |  August 1, 2010 at 8:55 pm

        Good point! Someone should point that out to them.
        They just threw in the towel…right?

      • 71. Anonygrl  |  August 1, 2010 at 8:56 pm

        LOL Kathleen! Sounds good to me!

      • 72. Kathleen  |  August 1, 2010 at 8:59 pm

        of course that was supposed to read “marriageS don’t”

      • 73. Rhonda  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:21 am

        “And that misunderstanding, that fallacy, is that marriage is only about love and commitment.”

        That, to me, reads that marriage isn’t about love and commitment. If that it what he thinks, it’s prolly because he’s in a loveless marriage, if married at all.

    • 74. PamC  |  August 1, 2010 at 8:57 pm

      ..methinks louis doth protest a bit too much…and he’d better tend to that 2×4 in his own eye.

    • 76. Ann S.  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:09 pm

      Louis is living with Alice in Wonderland, where words mean only what Humpty Dumpty says that they mean.

      I guess that makes Louis — Humpty Dumpty!

      Hahaha, I crack myself up.

      • 77. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:17 pm

        And if Louis is Humpty-Dumpty, I am looking forward to when he takes his big tumble off the wall.

      • 78. Ann S.  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:18 pm

        I think that’s what I’ll call Louis from now on.

        Hi, Humpty Dumpty!!

      • 79. Ronnie  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:29 pm

        ROTFLMGAYAO….Louis is now Humpty Dumpty

        Maggie Gallagher the shoe flipping Pig
        Brainless Brown Suit
        Louis Humpty Dumpty MaryNelly

        Hey Louis, why won’t you post my comments? You a coward? You a rotten egg? oh what am I saying, of course you are….<3…Ronnie

      • 80. Ann S.  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:34 pm

        Maggie is the Red Queen, futilely screaming, “off with their heads!”

    • 81. JonT  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:36 pm

      Well, the whole tone of LM’s post seemed quite defensive. Unusually so, based on what little I try to read of his crap.

      Oh and Louis, that ‘piece of paper’ that says they are married, means that they are married. Your opinion is irrelevant.

      I was also surprised with his obsession over the number disparities between their people and ours. That seemed to sting him a bit too. Good. :)

      • 82. Kathleen  |  August 1, 2010 at 10:08 pm

        I agree. It’s an odd post in a number of ways. He’s usually just obnoxious and offensive (and, of course, misinformed.. but that’s a given). This one sounds more like whiney kid.

    • 83. Sheryl  |  August 2, 2010 at 12:45 am

      So, if a piece of paper you received from the state and signed by the official that performed the ceremony does not make you married, then what does? I think Louis just insulted all married couples be they same-sex or heterosexual. And this response of his is so interesting:

      Marriage is something higher than the word of men. Like you said: Writing “the world is flat” doesn’t make it so. Writing up a marriage certificate doesn’t make it marriage.

      Man didn’t create marriage and wasn’t empowered to change it. Any changes to it therefore, are invalid. Same-sex ‘marriages’ while ‘marriage’ by name are not authentic.

      And the response have shown how ridiculous this line of reasoning is. Guess all of us women are supposed to go back to being a piece of property with no rights whatsoever. And since in Biblical times men had more than one wife, what is their problem with the idea that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy. Just more picking and chosing what they want and conveniently ignoring anything else.

      AND, when did Louis open his blog to the public again, just a couple of days ago it was invitation only?

    • 84. Sagesse  |  August 2, 2010 at 5:45 am

      He’s an A$$. But I do note his language seems to be toned down a bit. Perhaps NOM has him on somewhat of a leash?

    • 85. Straight Grandmother  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:53 am

      Well he as throughly insulted my son and his legal husband who were Legally Married in Washington DC in April this year. I really don’t give a rats ass about Louis, what his opinion is. I just care about what the civil government calles married. I am totally insulted for those 2 nice women with their sign. How DARE Louis look at them and say, “Not good enough.” Who the hell are you Louis, some little pimple on the ass of [I can’t think of anything derogotry enough, I’m not Ronnie LOL] citation needed here. You are nothing Louis, you are on this big ego trip here this summer, you think you are all that, but you ain’t sheeit. You think you are this big movement leader, yeah you are a movement leader, a bowel movement. Face reality Louis NO ONE is showing up for your rallys of HATE. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, practically nobody shows up. You ain’t all that Louis. AND my son, my beloved son is legally married [sticks out tongue] so there.

      • 86. fiona64  |  August 2, 2010 at 11:01 am

        He’s insulted every married couple on the planet.

        Louis (Hi, Louis!) is a buffoon.


      • 87. Ann S.  |  August 2, 2010 at 11:04 am

        I am insulted. Am I not married unless Humpty Dumpty says I am???

        I think not. I happen to be hetero, married over 30 years. Not sure that’s good enough for Humpty Dumpty, though.

  • 88. Anonygrl  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    I just posted this on Louis….

    “Writing up a marriage certificate doesn’t make it marriage. ”

    Well, then… I guess that is it. If the marriage certificate, which is what we are asking for, does not change what YOU define as marriage, and I am sure we can all agree to that, then you can just pack up and go home! If the marriage certificate is meaningless, what difference could it possibly make to YOU if I have one?

    So thanks for throwing in the towel Louis!

    • 89. Anonygrl  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:05 pm

      And Louis follow up comment…

      “Likewise, taking two people of the same sex and allowing them to go through the process of getting married doesn’t mean they are married.”

      And MY follow up to that….

      And again… if that is the case, your work here is done. If letting people get married does not mean they are married to you, fine. But if the process is that trivial, why should you care?

      Off you go now… have a safe trip home!

  • 90. Ann S.  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:02 pm

    WTF is it with that Roe v. Wade comment? That is nonsensical, even for Brian.

    • 91. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:15 pm

      NOMbies have never been noted for using logic, Ann. It is one of their hallmarks, along with a lack of critical thinnking skills which would allow them to see their logical fallacies and avoid them.

      • 92. Ann S.  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:17 pm

        Well, yes. They think they don’t need logic because it’s “so obvious” that they’re right. To them, anyway. But — Roe v. Wade???

        ::mind boggles and head explodes::

      • 93. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:22 pm

        Also, to the Catholic mindset, abortion=murder. So Roe v. Wade legalized murder in their eyes. You should see how they link the Roe v. Wade decision in with the Fatima apparitions in 1917 and communism in Russia. Supposedly, Mary told the three little children that unless Russia was consecrated to her immaculate heart, that all manner of evil would come forth from there, and that they would spread their errors all over the world. And they link the Roe v. Wade decision in with that. And now, the woman who was Roe is on their side. She has totally bought into all of it.

      • 94. Ann S.  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:24 pm

        Yep. Norma McCorvey.

      • 95. Wednesday  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:05 am

        Well, does anyone here honestly think Norma McCorvey would still be alive today if she hadn’t joined the anti-choice side, or at least gotten a very good bodyguard?

  • 96. Kathleen  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    Actually, it makes perfect sense in the world that exists inside his head. Roe v Wade was a ruling by the Supreme Court that illustrates how “activist judges” can “make up” a right that isn’t in the constitution (or at least the way plain [god-fearing] folk would read it) that set off a bitter conflict along ideological lines that rages on even today. He’s claiming we’re on the brink of another such ruling and it’s up to them to stop it.

    He has his dates a little mixed up, since there’s no Supreme Court case pending, and in 1972, Row v Wade had already been argued in front of the Supremes, with the decision issued Jan, 1973…. but then I don’t expect Brian to really be up on history or how the judicial system works, or any of that other stuff that just confuses the ‘real’ issues.

    • 97. Ann S.  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:22 pm

      Oh, I see — maybe. He thinks the Perry ruling is about to come down (fingers crossed) and then he can compare it to Roe v. Wade. That sorta makes sense. Of course I don’t agree with him about that, either, but — what would you expect?

      Thanks for the translation.

    • 98. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:23 pm

      Someone look into it and find out if Brian is a member of the Fatima Society. That would totally explain a lot.

    • 99. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:25 pm

      Also, wasn’t Roe v. Wade about personal, individual freedoms, including the right to privacy, that while not expressly stated in the Constitution, can easily be inferred from the wording of the Constitution?

      • 100. Ann S.  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:27 pm

        Yeah, they hate that shite.

    • 101. AndrewPDX  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:37 pm

      “argued in front of the Supremes”? Was Diana Ross with them? Did she get to sing “I’m Coming Out”?

      That would have been awesome! :P


      • 102. Kathleen  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:43 pm

        law geek slang.

  • 103. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 1, 2010 at 9:28 pm

    They also seem to forget that the longer they have the government meddling in our personal, private affairs, the longer the government will be meddling in theirs.

    • 104. Fulton  |  August 2, 2010 at 4:29 am

      Yeah…that is the weird thing about the religious right. Until recently, the religious praised and hallelujah-ed the separation of church and state. It kept government out of the church.
      The religious now want to breach the separation of church and state and have a say in government. Yet, they feign surprise when the government steps into the church. They want it both ways…involvement and separation. This is a typical conceit…the bible is literally true except for the uncomfortable parts which are cultural statements rather than law (according to Rick Warren).

  • 105. Kathleen  |  August 1, 2010 at 10:15 pm

    Holly Hahn (the demonstrator who was arrested in Columbus) has her court date coming up either Monday or early this week sometime. Is anyone going to attend?

    • 106. Bob  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:54 am

      thanks for reminding us, I am thinking of Holly, for those of us not able to attend, how can we be informed of the trial, and if they are able to have a sit in as she was hoping.

      Is there some way we can get a messge of support to her.?

  • 107. PamC  |  August 2, 2010 at 5:41 am

    More mobius reasoning:

    “When asked by an Atlanta TV reporter why she thought gay parents aren’t legitimate, Handel replied, “Because I don’t.” ”

    –Georgia Republican gubernatorial primary candidate Karen Handel

    • 108. PamC  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:33 am

      p.s. could someone please explain “tautology” to her???

      • 109. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:26 am

        Forgive me for sounding stupid. What is “tautology”?

      • 110. Ann S.  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:30 am

        @Richard, in rhetoric, it is using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity.

      • 111. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:34 am

        Thank you. This is what makes this a family, even more than just an online community. One of us can ask a question, and someone will have the answer. And none of us put any of the rest of us down for not knowing the answer. Gee, I wonder if this is why so many of us are considered smarter than the general population?

      • 112. Ann S.  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:38 am

        Happy to help. In my case, it was just my awesome google-fu.

      • 113. Straight Grandmother  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:40 am

        Okay so now I had to go look up “tautology”. Good point PamC.

      • 114. Kathleen  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:45 am

        It’s also a logical fallacy closely related to those of circular reasoning or begging the question. Their entire argument is a tautology. “Marriage is between a man and a woman” Question: Why is that so? Answer: Because that’s what marriage is.

  • 115. sneaks911  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:23 am

    My response to Louis 1m1w (still pending moderation)

    Are you saying that love and commitment aren’t enough for a marriage? What more is needed? Two people who love each other, want to take care of each other through thick and thin, who are committed to each other can’t be married (in your view), but a man and woman can meet in Vegas one day, get married that night, and still be considered a marriage. Where is the logic in that? And are you going to tell all the opposite sex couples who are married strictly for love and commitment that they aren’t married?

  • 116. Mike  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:15 am

    They bring the most judemental and worst aspects of their religion into the public square. Gay people have gotten the worst of their judement hands down, and they are suprised people are sick of it.

    • 117. Straight Grandmother  |  August 2, 2010 at 11:00 am

      True, very true. Especially young people.

  • 118. Straight Grandmother  |  August 2, 2010 at 11:04 am

    Are we all happy that this is August? I am hoping our decision in Prop8 will come in August (might not but it is a good guess). Hey at least we all hung in there and we ahve finally arrived in the great month of August.

  • […] also learn from the Courage Campaign that Brian Brown, NOM's current president, is equating marriage equality with the old British slave trades:NOM has been tweeting statements from spokesman Brian Brown during the course of the tour–and […]


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


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

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

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


TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,324 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...