What drives many of NOM’s rank-and-file supporters

August 13, 2010 at 7:15 am 138 comments

by Adam Bink

We get a lot of footage of NOM supporters here at NOMTourTracker.com, and I’m always interested to see what motivates them, and the difference in language used between NOM’s leadership and the speakers they invite versus their rank-and-file supporters. Recently we’ve seen NOM speakers citing “evidence” that physical abuse of children is much higher with same-sex couples, or citing how children growing up without a mother and father are 20 times more likely to commit violent crime, or saying that gays and lesbians have a far shorter lifespan. And generally, I would say NOM’s leadership have been tending towards that kind of Ruth Institute work- “studies” and the like.

But there is still the religious fervor that drives many people among the NOM supporter rank-and-file. Here’s Arisha and Anthony interviewing Steve Davis, a NOM supporter and anti-equality activist on Wednesday in Charleston, WV. Watch what he says about the history of the homosexual movement being violent, how people would want to marry their cats or dogs, the choice to be gay, and more.

Now, here’s Carrie Stone, Elisia Ross, and their family:

Every time I see statements from individuals like Steve contrasted with footage of couples like Carrie, Alicia and their family (the two little ones are their grandchildren), it just takes my breath away. Carrie and Alicia aren’t a violent couple. They aren’t “choosing” to “sin”. They aren’t like cats or dogs. In fact, if Steve met them without knowing they were a couple, he’d probably say two nice folks like them are going to the Kingdom of Heaven. They might even be his neighbors.

It makes me wonder if folks like Steve will ever be reached in a place where he can see in his heart that these two people are just two regular folks who want to be married like anyone else. And it makes me wonder if the rest of NOM’s supporters are like Steve- allowing their interpretation of the Bible to solely drive their view of gay and lesbian couples, blind to how they actually lead their lives in love, responsibility, and caring for one another like any other married couple. For all the studies NOM and their speakers cite, they can’t get away from the fact that much of their rank-and-file are driven by religious intolerance. That’s not what they want the face of NOM to be, but it remains clear to the rest of us.

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

Prop 8 Proponents File Emergency Stay Request #NOMtourFAIL: Post-Prop 8 decision rally? Shockingly dull.

138 Comments Add your own

  • 1. AndrewPDX  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:15 am

    ‘scribin (am i first?)

    • 2. Anna Bryan  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:19 am

      I’m very disappointed that the videos aren’t coded for mobile devices…

    • 3. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:20 am

      Scribin and working and reading and laughing

    • 4. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:33 am

      slip-scribin’ away

    • 5. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:38 am

      Yes, you’re first, Andrew, because I wasn’t available at the time to subscribe right away :`D

    • 6. JonT  |  August 13, 2010 at 4:53 pm

      I sense a disturbance in my inbox.

  • 7. chamisaguy  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:22 am

    well written, Adam!

    And I think the unfortunate answer is “No, one cannot reach them (those like the NOM supporters mentioned) behind their religious barricade of intolerance and rejection”


    • 8. adambink  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:03 am

      Thank you.

    • 9. fiona64  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:24 am

      A very wise pastor whom I met during the Prop 8 protests taught me something: you can’t reach a zealot. They aren’t interested in facts, or being swayed. Sometimes the smartest thing to do is decide that it’s time to “cut bait” and move on to someone whom you *can* reach instead of wasting your time.


      • 10. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:51 pm

        @Fiona, I worked a booth at our local farmers’ market several times before the election in ’08. Most people who are anti-equality just don’t want to engage, but we did have one poor woman who was probably mentally ill and screamed at us (no convincing someone like that) and one guy who said he had already voted yes (I certainly didn’t have a lot of time to waste on someone who had already voted, now did I?!).

        We would just take them as they came, if someone was just beyond reaching, well, move on to the next. Just as you say.

      • 11. Marlene  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:24 am

        Exactly, Fiona.

        As I’ve posted before, here in Bowling Green, Ohio we’re fighting to keep two ordinances on the books, with an upcoming vote this November.

        As we’ve begun our canvassing, we’ve encountered lots of ignorance not only about the ordinances, but of civil rights in general. One voter we talked to (a lawyer!), claimed there’s already state and federal protections for all of those covered by the local ordinances!

        This isn’t proprietary info, as most every campaign uses a scale of 1-5 in regards to support. We’ve decided to completely ignore fours and fives, and focus on the threes to sway them in our favor.

        I usually don’t go begging here, but we’re badly in need of funds for yard signs, t-shirts, and rent of our HQ. Please send whatever you can via Paypal and direct donation via our website http://www.onebowlinggreen.org

  • 12. Sagesse  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:25 am

    More and more, NOM is reverting to the core religious arguments about gays as sinners who can accept that their urges are morally depraved and choose to reject theri adherent behaviour. There’s a video of Maggie on the previous thread.

    My inbox is almost empty. That’s a sin against nature and should be remedied.

    • 13. Anonygrl  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:34 am

      The reason for that is because THAT is the audience they can still convince. More moderate religionists, the ones who might actually be inclined to love the sinner, are coming to the realization that the sin might not be a sin, that maybe they have been misinformed, and are beginning to swing to the atttude that NOM is, perhaps, wrong. The only group NOM can still count on is the hard core “homosexuals are going to hell” crowd who will, as is mentioned above, never be reached.

      I actually know someone who, while only mildly religious, found homosexuality uncomfortable and icky and did not want to discuss that. She also realized that this was a prejudiced attitude to have, and made a concerted effort NOT to pass it on to her kids.

      • 14. AndrewPDX  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:36 am

        Heh… so NOM and WBC… a ‘marriage made in heaven’?

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

      • 15. Franck  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:47 am

        My own mother was the kind that saw homosexuality through a religious screen. You should’ve heard the kind of words she could have back when she didn’t know about me…

        Even after I came out to her, she still thought I was going to follow every bad stereotype out there. It took me three years of insistence to convince her otherwise, but the discomfort is still there: while she doesn’t vocally condemn homosexuality anymore, she just refuses to broach the subject (unless she needs to mention my fiancé).

        The only positive point: pride in having the oldest and most successful son among her siblings prevented her from ever threatening to kick me out. Hard to explain why you’d throw out the one you’ve spent years to put on a pedestal after all.

        – Franck P. Rabeson
        Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1148 days, as of today.

    • 16. Lightning Baltimore  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:26 am

      Thank you for mentioning that!

      I just went searching for it in the comments and it’s a stunner. She doesn’t care whether we can change or not, we can control our behavior.

      She also makes it clear that banning marriage is not enough. I’m going to paraphrase a bit, but, basically, she says that it is “dehumanizing” to us to allow us the legal right to have homosexual relations. Here’s her actual statement

      It’s dehumanizing for gay people to be . . . for it to be suggested that . . . uh. . . their . . . their desires are not subject to moral reflection and critique.”

      Here’s the link, for those who missed it: http://vodpod.com/watch/4210163-maggie-gallagher-to-gay-people-you-can-always-control-your-behavior-homosexuality-is-an-unfortunate-thing

      It’s an interview from the syndicated radio show Janet Parshall’s America (where the LGBT are absolutely not welcome).

      • 17. Sagesse  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:44 am

        I posted a comment on that very same quote when I watched the video. The condescension and patronizing are what dehumanizes people.

        As I said before, going to be sick now.

      • 18. Lightning Baltimore  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:12 am

        Janet is a horrible, hateful, deceit-filled woman. I have listened to her radio show many times; I even won a copy of William Dembski‘s book The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World from her show, when she had him on for an interview to talk about it. His premise is the Fall of Adam affected time both forward and backward. In other words, there was no death or evil in all of creation prior to The Fall. When Adam sinned, however, death and evil immediately became retroactive. Therefore, in actuality, even though there was no death or evil, God allowed both to exist for hundreds of millions of years, from the beginning, really, because he knew he would one day create Adam, and Adam would sin. How is that loving?

      • 19. Breaking the Silence  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:34 am

        Argh! Dehumanizing for it to be suggested that their desires are not subject to moral reflection and critique?? Yet another demonstration of the distorted thinking persons of her ilk subscribe to. Sit on your porches, in your parlors, bedrooms, bathrooms, automobiles, basements and attics and “morally reflect and critique” ALL YOU WANT, people! NOBODY is trying to take that away from you. What you are losing is the power to lord over other people’s lives. You whine about some false deprivation of the ability to reflect and critique (when what you really mean is the ability to dictate and control) because when you had your big shot to demonstrate any actual harm or injury in a court of law, you had nothing. N-o-t-h-i-n-g. Nada, zip, zero zilch, a vacuum, the void. I’d say a black hole, dark matter, anti-matter, etc. but those actually have observable effects. The closest thing your belief system has to an observable effect is the otherwise completely unfounded desire to control harmless actions of others. Furthermore, the allegations you make against Judge Walker would be laughable if not so pathetic. Even if one were inclined, no underhanded action of any sort was necessary. Your people were issued a gilded invitation to prove your points, they opened their mouths, and nothing of value in a forum that requires, no, *demands* substance came out. Well, what little that did come out supported the wrong (right, actually) side. You lose, you are done. Your ride on the elephant’s back is over and I, for one, have every confidence that any court in the land will realize, as enough of the American public now realizes, that there is no legitimate basis for what you want whatsoever. The SCOTUS would not be leaping ahead of public opinion to uphold the current verdict because the lenses of fear, falsehood, exaggeration, hollow and empty allegations, and demonization of good, decent loving people that you and your type so struggle to hold over the eyes of America are faded, cracked, and crumbling. Howl and bay to your heart’s content. It’s music to freedom’s ears.

        Though much of the above has been said here before, thanks for the space to voice and affirm!

      • 20. Straight Grandmother  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:14 pm

        Breaking the Silence, I, 100 well 1,000% agree with you. Only thing is you could have used a few more paragraph breaks, LOL.

        Probably because I am connecting from France the video would not play for me. But never the less I have seen the critiques here so I can condemn it. Whack jobs, whack jobs, whack jobs.

        Please continue to keep break the silence everywhere and any whear you find. I noticed you ahve been recently posting and I like what you ahve to say.

      • 21. Breaking the Silence  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:46 pm

        Thank you so much, SG! It is absolutely wonderful to hear that, and I sincerely hope all enjoy my bits as much as I enjoy those of all. …Or, at least, that I don’t put anyone off too badly. :)

        And I will try to remember to insert those breaks when I get all ranty!

  • 22. Alan E.  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:26 am

    I love to chat with you guys! why else would I want more email?

  • 27. AndrewPDX  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:31 am

    Ugh… Steve is an idiot.
    He doesn’t know about the First Amendment of the Constitution. “Violation of their Religious Rights? No because if you [don’t force my religious views on others], people will want to marry their dogs and cats.”

    He also says “The Bible says ‘No homosexual or lesbian shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven’.” Now, I don’t have the Bible memorized, but I don’t remember that specific verse… was it Misquotes 2:12?

    I got one question for you, Steve: when did you ‘choose’ to be straight?

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

    • 28. Anonygrl  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:42 am

      I met a guy once, outside a Planned Parenthood clinic. He was with four other old men, protesting. He told me (as I walked by and stopped to have some fun) that Jesus said abortion was a sin.

      I asked him to show me where THAT passage was. It happened that I had a New Testament in my purse (for a totally unrelated issue) and offered it to him. He declined.

      It really freaks them out when you know their reference material better than they do and catch them out when they are making stuff up.

      • 29. ElsieH  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:08 am

        Hehe, I do that all the time. I am a pagan but after a lifetime of hearing people trying to “save me”, I know more about their religion than they do. It freaks them out that I actually read the Bible from cover to cover. Imagine my surprise when my Christian in-laws told me that “no one” does that.

        Some of my in-laws are of Steve’s ilk. For my in-laws it’s a matter of fear of the loss of control and fear of losing an easy answer to life’s questions. Many times I am angry at these types of anti equality people but I also pity that they live their lives under this cloud of fear. They fear their own humanity, they fear the outsider, they fear that they are not good enough to go to heaven.

      • 30. fiona64  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:27 am

        BTW, if this *ever* comes up again, you can always refer them to Numbers 5:11-31, wherein a woman suspected of being unfaithful is forced to consume an abortifacient (dust from the temple floor would contain ergot, from rotting grain, which was a known abortifacient).

        I’m just sayin’ …


      • 31. Susan R Barnes  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:37 am


        “For my in-laws it’s a matter of fear of the loss of control and fear of losing an easy answer to life’s questions.”

        That struck a note with me. I think that ‘fear of losing an easy answer’ is at the root of (some) of my extended family’s religious intolerance. One aunt of mine in particular struggled in a written response to my wedding announcement back in 2008. She wrote that loved me, wanted the best for me, was glad I had found someone to love and build a life together with, but couldn’t congratulate me on my marriage to a woman for fear of appearing hypocritical because the Bible said bla, bla bla, despite the fact that most of her responses fit the definition of the verb to congratulate. It baffles me.

        People fear thinking their own way out of life’s situations, choosing instead to let their prejudices lead them deeper into their dark tunnels of religious induced bigotry.

      • 32. Straight Grandmother  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:49 pm

        @ Susan R Barnes, well I am dying to know if she sent a gift.

      • 33. Marlene  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:36 am

        I do the same in my guest lecturers, the various blogs and Yahoo News/newspaper story comments.

        I *love* it when the religious reicht claim this and that about their book, when they’ve *never* looked at their book in its historical, sociological, and textural context.

        Like Elsie and Fiona, the reicht can’t stand it when a transsexual, lesbian atheist knows more about their little book than *they* do!

        Listen to “TransTalk” every Monday at 4-5pm ET on http://falconradio.org!

    • 34. Lightning Baltimore  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:50 am


      Allowing same-gender marriage would infringe on his religious freedom.

      However, we should not allow religious freedom, because people would then marry household pets.

      I think what it comes down to is this:

      The 1st Amendment guarantee to freedom of religion means you have the right to be a Christian and have your doctrine made enforceable by law. Christians who do not agree with the doctrine of the first group, and non-Christians, have the freedom to either shut the Hell up or get the Hell out.

      • 35. Tom B.  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:41 am

        Incorrect. The freedom of religion also means that the government shall not force any religious doctrines on the people, or say that ‘this religion is the law, follow it or get out.’ So your argument is fundamentally flawed.


      • 36. Tom B.  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:48 am

        Oops, didn’t realize you were on our side. I guess I should be saying that to the whackjob in the video, eh? :)

      • 37. Sheryl Carver  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:50 am

        I think Lightning was paraphrasing what STEVE thinks the 1st Amendment means.

      • 38. Tom B.  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:52 am

        Yeah, I misread it, not realizing it was a response to an earlier post. :)

      • 39. Lightning Baltimore  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:57 am


      • 40. Anonygrl  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:57 am

        What most people who rant about infringement of their religious freedom fail to notices is the way that clause is worded.

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

        They fail to notice that the FIRST part guarantees freedom FROM religion. Only after that comes freedom OF religion. My freedom not to be subject to your religion trumps your freedom to practice your religion. Once it is clear that I will not have to suffer for it, you can do whatever you like. NOT the other way around. You do NOT get to do what you like, and if it causes me to suffer I have to fight against it.

        I think it is an important distinction.

      • 41. Breaking the Silence  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:25 am

        Hear, hear Anonygirl!

      • 42. Marlene  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:44 am

        They also don’t get the fact that the 14th Amendment brought all of the rights in the Constitution down to the states, along with the 10th, IIRC.

    • 43. Rev. Will Fisher  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:13 am

      1st Corinthians 6:9-11. Of course, he quotes it out of context. The words for homosexual and effiminate in the original Greek are ambiguous (I suspect they refer to cultic prostitution, not to what we construct as homosexuality today). Also, I argue that Paul uses sexual imagery as rhetoric in his epistles. Fornication really means idolatry and apostasy (the same way the OT prophets do). Because his target audience understands themselves to be decent (even sexually pure) folk, this rhetorically used sexual imagery arouses their sense of moral indignation which Paul will later turn on them (You, people of Corinth, treat your weaker brothers and sisters poorly, you are the idolaters/fornicators). The prophet Nathan uses the same pattern of rhetoric when confronting King David over his affair with Bathsheeba/murder of Uriah in 2 Samuel 12:7. I hope that makes sense.

      • 44. ElsieH  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:26 am

        Interesting. What do you think of the argument that Paul was actually condemning pedophilia.

      • 45. AndrewPDX  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:28 am

        Thanks, Reverend! I’ll need to look up these references so I know how to respond to those who somehow think the Bible was written in English.

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

      • 46. Steve  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:14 am

        Paul also refers to behavior common among non-Jews that he thinks should be taboo for Jews. And that’s what the Hebrew word “toveh” (sp?) really means. It has been mistranslated as “abomination”, which has connotations of some deeply disgusting evil. But that’s not the context it’s used in many other places.

        And isn’t the word he uses for what is now translated as “homosexual” completely made up? It appears nowhere else. Some people indeed think that he refers to the adult men who use male temple prostitutes.

      • 47. fiona64  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:47 am

        Toevah – “ritually impure.”


      • 48. Breaking the Silence  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:19 am

        If it helps understanding in this area at all; as I understand from Anne Fausto-Sterling’s “Sexing the Body” and sources therein; the ancient Greeks weren’t concerned over the gender of participants in sexual activity so much as the age and social/political status of the participants as they related mainly to “top and bottom.” I believe the point was that negativity (hence possibly negative terms) toward same-gender sexual activity would pertain, simply put, to a man who should have been a “top” as judged by social/political standing but chose to behave as a “bottom” in relations with other men.

      • 49. fiona64  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:28 am

        BTS has the basic sense of it. Sex was not something between equals. It was something that someone in authority “did to” (for lack of a better way to put it) someone over whom they had authority (i.e., a woman or a slave).


      • 50. Steve  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:17 pm

        That distinction between tops and buttons like in ancient Greece still exists in Saudia Arabia of all places. The western concept of homosexuality as a distinct identity is relatively new-fangled there.

        Because of the strict gender segregation, same-gender sexual contact is relatively common. Both among men and women. Most aren’t truly gay, but it’s like being in prison. When nothing else is available, they get what they can. But it’s pretty hard to find bottoms. A lot of them come from immigrants or foreign workers, many of whom may actually be gay.

    • 51. JonT  |  August 13, 2010 at 5:09 pm

      @Andrew: ‘Now, I don’t have the Bible memorized, but I don’t remember that specific verse… was it Misquotes 2:12?


      That’s my favorite part of the bible too: the Book of Misquotes. Followed by the Books of Misinterpretation and Cherry Picking.


  • 52. James Sweet  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:40 am

    You’re reading into it too much. It’s much simpler. Folks like Steve Davis are — sorry to sound elitist here — simple ignoramuses who will be happy to swallow whatever is fed them that seems to justify their innate discomforts. Folks like Brian Brown are ideologically-driven zealots.

    What will eliminate the problem of Steve Davises — at least in regards to this issue — is exposure. The more the Steve Davises of the world see gay couples, gay marriage, etc., the harder it will be to keep a grip on their prejudices, especially if the exposure is younger in life. And we’re seeing that happen now. The Steve Davises of the next generation are just as ignorant and simple and willing to swallow propaganda that confirms their shallow prejudices — but they’ve been around enough LGBT people that they just don’t happen to care about that issue.

    The Brian Browns of the world — not fixable. The only solution is a social shift that discredits and delegitimizes their message. The Brian Browns will always be there, but hopefully someday they will get as much respect in the mainstream media as Fred Phelps does.

    One way of accomplishing that is getting rid of the false deference shown to religious beliefs. We should not be saying, “I understand that your religious beliefs condemn homosexuality, and while I respect that, you must recognize that we have freedom of religion in this country and not everyone shares your beliefs.” Instead, we should be saying, “Your religious beliefs about homosexuality are stupid, and while the first amendment requires that I tolerate them, I have absolutely no respect for them.”

    Will that just piss some people off? Yes. Will it drive some people away? Yes. But it is the only way to win the battle long term. The Brian Browns will not be swayed by appealing to religious freedom, and the Steve Davises are too dim to even grasp the argument. But the next generation of Steve Davises… what they need to hear, over and over and over again, is that religious beliefs that condemn a persons sexual orientation are stupid, uncool, grumpy old person stuff.

    In any case, after all that rambling, my point is this — there is no need to look for some deep underlying drive. It’s simple ignorance and incuriosity on one hand, and sick malicious ideological zealotry on the other.

    • 53. James Sweet  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:46 am

      BTW, just in the interest of consistency with things I have written/blogged before, I do favor a tactical solution in the run-up to electoral decisions about same-sex marriage. In the run-up to a vote, the advertising should focus on de-emphasizing sexuality, accommodating religious belief, proselytizing about a compatibility between faith and tolerance, etc.

      For general long-term social change, though, I favor a strategic approach of “That is stupid, please shut up, kthxbye”

      • 54. Dave  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:43 am

        Thanks for your analysis, James. There is, I believe, one more factor in addition to “simple ignorance and incuriosity” – a lack of critical thinking skills, which leads to a) an inability to recognize their own hypocrisy (and erroneous thinking) and b) a lack of understanding why hypocrisy is a problem.

      • 55. Sagesse  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:11 am


        There is recent research in evolutionary psychology that suggests (a) an innate predisposition toward morality (which can be packaged as religious belief, or not) and (b) an innate tendency to a liberal or a conservative point of view (not in the same person :)).

        I’m going to oversimplify and paraphrase and butcher this but bear with me. This analysis appeals to me because it seems to predict and explain behaviour well. A liberal is comfortable with change, with compromise and with shades of grey. The conservative mindset sees things as black and white, needs certainty, and resists change. Religious fundamentalists fall into this conservative group. They’re very comfortable when an authority figure tells them what to think. What seems like a lack of critical thinking or intellectual curiosity is fear of having their sense of certainty disturbed.

        This article is very dense, so feel free not to read if you have better things to do. But we do like our reference sources here.



      • 56. James Sweet  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:39 am

        It continues to puzzle me why liberals are viewed as idealistic and conservatives as trying to be more pragmatic — and it puzzles me how people tend to become more conservative as they grow older. For me, both adages have been completely turned on their head. There are aspects of conservatism which I embraced when I was younger, and which I now recognize as hopelessly idealistic positions. As I grew older, I started to recognize how messy reality really is, and the pragmatism of the liberal position started to become apparent.

      • 57. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:57 pm

        @Sagesse, I have seen Jonathon Haidt’s work before — there is a very interesting TED talk he gives — on the bases of morality. Interesting stuff, and it helps me (a little bit) to understand some of those people with whom I strongly disagree.

      • 58. Sagesse  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:50 am

        @Ann S

        There is other related work… George Lakoff has a fascinating take on it…. that discusses how to tailor messaging to each of the liberal and conservative moral worldviews, and why speaking ‘liberal’ to convince conservatives completely misses the conservative audience. Unfortunately, it’s pretty long reading, though not necessarily heavy.

    • 59. AndrewPDX  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:38 am

      Hm… This makes me think… The Brian’s and Larrys and Steves of this world won’t change… They’ll continue to hate and will ultimately self-destruct.
      But having these conversations do help… If the “moveable middle” folks can see how ludicrous these fringe lunatics really are, the more likely they will wake up and start using the brains God gave them.

      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 60. Bolt  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:45 am

    Good morning, everyone, and have a wonderful day.

  • 61. Jasun  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:49 am

    That interview with Steve was priceless… by the end, they had him claiming to be able to cure Crone’s disease by “laying hands.” I mean, you talk about your bat-shit crazy people…

    • 62. Jaymax  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:48 am

      I wonder if he’s had much luck helping an amputee grow a leg back?

      • 63. bJason  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:26 pm

        My mother recently heard a woman speaking at her church (Free Chapel – Evangelical – super crazy – on TV – one “campus” here and one in Irvine, CA) who reports that she did actually have her amputated leg “grow back” through the divine power of prayer. I shit you not.

        Mom believes that (oh, and that I am going to hell). My mother is one of these people. They cannot be won. The bible is truth and for any part of it not to be would destroy their faith. Not gonna happen.

    • 64. Straight Grandmother  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:14 pm

      Jasun, by any chance did you happen to catch a NOM rally, I think it was Ohio, where they had ministers who spoke in tongues? OMG that was great entertainment. After that one time they never had minsters who speak in tongues again and I really missed that.

      You should have seen the video. They were praying away the gay, in tongue where he would pray in English and then pray in some foreign language, sounded Arabic to me. I guess it didn’t work though as non of the protesters jumped up screaming, “Im saved, I’m saved I now love women”

      • 65. Alan E.  |  August 13, 2010 at 2:25 pm

        He only said words in English those that he couldn’t make up gibberish for (and of course wanted to emphasize).

      • 66. Marlene  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:16 am

        Speaking in tongues reminds me of an ollllllld routine Steve Martin when he was still doing standup.

        He was talking about his childhood (his real name and his sister’s were non-sensical sounds), and how he’d do the same to his kids by teaching them to speak “wrong”.

        If they were in school and had to go to the toilet, they’d raise their hand and say: “May I maimuu dogface and go to the banana patch?”

  • 67. rf  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:50 am

    “It makes me wonder if folks like Steve will ever be reached in a place where he can see in his heart that these two people are just two regular folks who want to be married like anyone else.”

    In a world where, even in the 21st century, 1/4 of all Americans believed that blacks and whites shouldn’t marry:


    The answer is sadly, no.

  • 68. Brian G  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:52 am

    I actually made it all the way to 3:19 on the Steve video before I couldn’t stomach it any more. Ironically, these are the people that should be thrust into the spotlight to show the rest of America that the “fringe” are not the LGBT Community, but people like Steve.
    Using the Bible as your defense to a civil law issue is a no-win. Personally I love it when the ‘thumpers’ quote the Bible (and especially mis-quote it) by saying “God says….” Like the Bible was some kind of one-on-one interview with God.
    And FYI, the words homosexual and lesbian do not appear anywhere in the Bible. The ‘act’ of homosexuality is described however, which is the oft used Leviticus quote by the WBC. You know, right there where it’s a equal abomination to eat pork, eat shellfish, wear clothes of unnatural and/or two different fibers, and go out in public during your menses.
    Quick, someone snap a picture of Maggie in one of her God-awful polyester suits, on the rag, and eating jambalaya and tell her she’s going to Hell!
    Or just tell her to go to Hell anyway.

    • 69. fiona64  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:31 am

      And that quote is mistranslated all the damn time. The word in Leviticus is “toevah,” which means ritually impure (hint: women on their periods are toevah). This means that one must be ritually purified before returning to temple.

      The word “abomination” is from the Latinate “abominatio” and was not even coined until the mid-16th C. CE.

      The first time the word homosexual was used at all was the late 19th C. (thank you, Dr. Freud), and the first time it appeared in a Bible translation was in the 1940s.

      So, yeah. Orthography and history FTW and ignorance of one’s own scriptures (on the part of the anti-equality folks) FTL.


      • 70. Joel  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:04 am

        It can further be said about Lev 18:22 that in the original language, the word “with” is not there and the verb “lie” takes a direct object. The more accurate translation and interpretation would be “Thou shalt not lay a man as thou wouldst a woman (chattel), it is abomination”. The only way to interpret it is as a condemnation of male to male rape, a common occurrence among warring armies of the time.

    • 71. AndrewPDX  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:54 am

      I keep having this deliciously evil thought of throwing a big black-tie fund-raiser for NOM.. I’d make sure to invite Larry the Noose and Carrie Prejean and such…serve lots of bacon-wrapped shrimp… Only, and secretly have every caterer/waiter/bartender equipped with small video cameras to catch each and every bite.
      Then, using that NOM NOM NOM song (you know, that YouTube video of the chipmunks and rabbits and whatnot eating), put together a NOM NOM NOM of NOMbies, with the applicable Leviticus quotes scrolling across the bottom of the screen.
      Then, somehow make that video go viral.

      The thought just makes me smile :)

      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

      • 72. Brian G  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:10 am

        Love it!!!!

      • 73. Freddy  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:55 am

        Andrew, don’t forget the bacon wrapped scallops as well!

      • 74. Chris B  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:23 am

        Unfortunately, the irony would be lost on these people. They can (and have) dismissed the other Levitical holiness laws, under some pretext or another. They can easily pick and choose verses that they support and throw away the rest as not being relevant.

        They even choose to ignore clear verses in the New Testament, like how a divorced person who remarries is committing adultery (words spoken by Jesus himself) and how women should be silent in church.

        These people lack the critical thinking skills to determine the real truth–and they are probably raised to not question what they are taught (I know I was). For example, I am sure that a lot of children raised in single-parent homes enter into crime, etc. However, I would think that many of these kids also grow up in poverty. So, a single-parent home, plus poverty leads to a greater likelihood of a child getting into crime.

        But these people like to hear a single sound byte that supports their views. Their ideas are predetermined and they look for evidence to support those ideas. So trying to show them how their belief system contradicts itself is pointless.

      • 75. Straight Grandmother  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:16 pm

        Andrew PDX, where do you come up with this sheet? Ha Ha Ha so so funny. I enjoy a sense of humor in a person.

    • 76. Steve  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:15 am

      Leviticus is also a ritual holiness code for male priests. It doesn’t even apply to the population in its entirety! Not to mention that it was explicitly invalidated by the New Testament.

  • 77. Ronnie  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:23 am

    I’ll tell you what drives NOMbies….serious control issues…& voyeuristic practices….oh & the failed education of American/World History, the Constitution….juts to name a few……<3…Ronnie

    • 78. Ronnie  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:24 am

      lol…just to name a few…not juts…going to get coffee now…. ; ) …Ronnie

  • 79. John P.  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:26 am

    I can’t even watch videos with folks like Steve Davis. They make me so angry… Of course, I need to loosen up and just laugh at people like him! LOL!! Social change is slow and you can never reach people like Steve, but you can reach his children and their children. That is truly where our hope lies. I hate to say this (because I am 50 y/o), but the older generation – represented by people like Steve – will be replaced with much more tolerant future generations. These religious fanatics need to realize that they have already lost the battle!

  • 80. Sagesse  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:27 am

    From the Proponents’ Endless Motion for an Emergency Stay, p 69:

    “Further, if the district court is correct that marriages entered during the pendency of the appeal would
    remain valid even if Proposition 8 is ultimately upheld on appeal, this would only underscore the urgency of a stay, for Plaintiffs would otherwise have the option of mooting this case simply by marrying while the appeal is pending.”

    Haven’t noticed this being mentioned (officially) before, but they seem to be saying that if the plaintiff couples marry, it would moot the appeal (so don’t let anyone marry).

    This is posturing, but it addresses the question.

  • 81. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Green Light and Delay on Same-Sex Marriage
    A federal district judge lifted a stay on his decision on same-sex marriage, but he delayed implementation of the order until Aug. 18.

    — ♂KF

  • 82. Sagesse  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:38 am

    On the stay: technical question. Is this an appeal of Judge Walker’s denial, or a separate motion?

    A little late, but clearly D-I’s are addressing Walker’s actual decision this time, since they filed their motion last time before they had even seen the decision, or the Plaintiffs and the state of California responses. But do the Plaintiffs and the state of California have to repeat everything they said to Walker, or is it already ‘on the record’ with the 9th circuit for purposes of evaluating the stay request?

    Not sure the answer matters a whole lot, but the timing to turn this motion around is tight and anything that would speed up the process is good.

    • 83. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:45 am

      I don’t think this is an appeal of Walker’s denial of a stay per se, so much as an independent motion to the 9th Circuit to issue a stay.

      Because it’s a request for an emergency stay, they have to show why it’s essential that the Court decide in less than 21 days. But other than that, they need to show all the usual elements for a stay, i.e., that 4-pronged test. At least, that’s my understanding, but I could be wrong.

      Perhaps Brian or someone can clarify. I’m also curious as to whether appellees (plaintiffs) are allowed to respond to this motion before the 9th Circuit panels judge(s) make(s) a decision.

      • 84. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:47 am

        That last sentence was meant to be “… before the 9th Circuit motions panel judge(s)….”

      • 85. Sagesse  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:20 am

        Sarcasm alert.

        So this 95 page diatribe could be the precursor to their real (not emergency) stay motion which the Plaintiffs and the state of California will then get to respond to? Oh joy, can’t hardly wait.

        In today’s electronic world, it’s no big deal to repackage their responses to Judge Walker and add whatever is necessary to counter the latest from Cooper et al.

        I feel permanent eyestrain coming on.

      • 86. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:42 pm

        Even though this is a request for an ’emergency’ stay, I think this request is for a stay pending appeal. That is, if the Court grants their request, it is a stay that will remain in place until the appeal is resolved. From their motion, “Appellants respectfully seek a stay of the district court’s judgment invalidating Proposition 8 pending resolution of their appeal.”

        However, as mentioned before, the Court can, at its discretion, grant a limited or temporary stay to give the Court and/or parties time for consideration of a longer stay (or an appeal to the Supreme Court).

        It seems that Appellees (Plaintiffs) should have an opportunity to respond to a request for a stay, but I’m not clear on what procedure applies here.

  • 87. DazedWheels  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Just checking in, and catching up with my reading. Happy Friday, everyone.

  • 88. Dalow  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:51 am

    I think that most NOMbies, especially the loudest ones, have never read the bible, nor have they STUDIED it! Otherwise, they’d have many wives, concubines, slaves, etc. And they probably wouldn’t be alive to tell about it, what with all the plagues, locusts, floods and other disasters.

    More importantly, they do not understand the Constitution and it’s amendments, particularly the First. “an establishment of religion” means that the government cannot create a religion based set of laws and procedures. Jefferson himself felt compelled to write (after the adoption) that he firmly intended a “wall of separation between church and state. (To the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1, 1802)

    Finally, (with respect to honest folk who disagree) it is my unyielding belief that there is no god, only science. Therefore the entire discussion is moot.

  • 90. cakes  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Hello everyone….this is my first time writing on this website but have been following it for several months now. I want to comment on Steve’s position in this as I find his views entertaining as well as disturbing…

    People like Steve have been beaten down all their lives with what is right and what is wrong with little doubt from where that moral code is derived. A comment earlier said “It makes me wonder if folks like Steve will ever be reached in a place where he can see in his heart that these two people are just two regular folks who want to be married like anyone else.” I really don’t believe that people can’t be reached (some tougher than others) but perhaps everyone should understand that its not just gay people (though we’ve endured the brunt of it) who have been attacked by zealots…people like Steve have been brainwashed for years and have no more than an elementary ability to debate an issue…their crutch as many have pointed out is their religious belief, when all reasoning fails. Perhaps the key to reaching a guy like him is to pit his sense of good with his religous beliefs. Religious beliefs were cited for why slavery should have remain and why interracial marriage was wrong…maybe that will get the neurons firing.

    I do wonder what Steve’s (and others like him) position is on other social issues which are now emerging…mosques in NYC, immigration, 14th Amendment, etc. as I don’t think the religious organizations have yet been able to brainwash him on these new issues. Perhaps if another NOM supporter is interviewed, we can ask neutral and broad questions and hear whether their positions are rooted in religious belief or in some limited understanding of the Constitution.

    just my thoughts

    • 91. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:39 am

      Hi cakes. Just wanted to say “welcome” and glad you decided to join the discussion.

    • 92. Anonygrl  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:01 pm

      Hi cakes! Welcome to the mix!

      I would address your point about Steve and the upcoming issues of the 14th amendment, mosques and so on.

      One of the things about folks who have been brainwashed is that it is easier to get them to believe the next thing you tell them, as they are alreay conditioned. So basically, if whichever source Steve gets his views on one subject discusses another, he agrees with them.

      Glenn Beck can rile his listeners up about health care reform when they haven’t got a CLUE what they are riled up about. If you PROVED that health care reform would mean that they could get WORLD CLASS health care, better than they get now, and it would cost them much less, and the claim forms would be easier, and they would be given fluffy kittens and a new truck at the end of the process, because Glenn told them that health care was evil, they they would vote it down.

  • 93. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:18 am

    Sorry to be so late getting to the party. Making Challah, so will be here for another 1 hour and 21 minutes before leaving to punch it down and braid it for the second rise and baking time.
    BTW, if any of you have ever heard of Rainbow Law (yes, they have a page on FB), You just met them in the video above. Carrie and Elisia are Rainbow Law. They have a lot of paperwork for any legal things we need, and what they don’t have, they can find.

    • 94. Anonygrl  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:05 am

      I love a good Challah bread… yum!

  • 95. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:18 am

    Might help if I click the box, right?

  • 96. Sagesse  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:20 am

    A timely, balanced round up religious commentary:

    Who redefined marriage? Not Prop8 judge: Look in the mirror, experts say


  • 97. Sagesse  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Analysis of next steps, from Firedoglake

    Breaking News: Judge Walker’s Prop 8 Stay Decision


  • 98. Steve  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Zealots like Steve in the video have to do that because they are desperate to find anything to justify their position. The biggest problem (as I see it) for the opponents of same-sex marriage is that they cannot go into a court room and spew a bunch of religious based nonsense. That is why the Prop 8 trial was such a disaster for them. It’s easy to preach to their choirs but in reality marriage equality is not a religious issue. What we have is the government on both the State and Federal levels saying ‘here is a package of rights and benefits that we will give to married people – oh and by the way, we are not going to let that group of people marry.’ That is discrimination.

  • 99. paul  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Sorry…Steve is not going to move one inch. I have parents whom I haven’t seen in 30 years and they are just like this.
    There’s not one ounce of hope in my mind that you persuade someone like like Steve to think outside “his” little box. I think our time should be spent working with more hopeful cases of close-mindedness & discrimination. Steve ( & Alveda King) are beyond reasoning and there are so many people who can be reasoned with…we need to focus our love & energy on them and let the Steve’s & Alveda’s go their own way.

  • 100. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:58 am

    The Friday News Roundup: The panelists discuss the implications of a federal judge’s ruling last week striking down California’s Proposition 8 allowing same-sex marriage in that state. All agreed that it’s very likely the case will ultimately make its way to the Supreme Court.

  • 101. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:02 am

    George Takei talks about the arguments used by supporters of California’s Prop 8 on The Joy Behar Show.

    • 102. Alan E.  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:08 pm

      I listened to this on my way to work this morning (instead of reading emails).

    • 103. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 2:16 pm

      @LLB, I love that video! Partly because I can see footage of my brother, BIL and niece on the same screen as George Takei, and partly for the scene of a swashbuckling Mr. Sulu, and partly because of the story about the internment. George Takei rocks!

      • 104. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 13, 2010 at 2:48 pm

        Ann, I am going to take some new pictures of my car and PM them to your brother on FB. When I bought my car in April 2009, I named it Sulu because of George Takei. And so far, my little Suzuki has lived up to that name. It has not only been a very dependable car, it has often gone above and beyond the call of duty. Maybe it realized the high standard it had to live up to?

      • 105. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 2:54 pm

        @Richard, that will be cool!

  • 106. Sheryl Carver  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:16 am

    When a person has life-long, deeply held beliefs, & is completely unwilling to look at those beliefs with an open mind, I think the only thing that can change this person’s mind is some sort of dramatic experience that forces them to confront the difference between reality (that experience) & their beliefs.

    Even then, some will still cling to their beliefs, because to let go of them is too frightening. Some, however, will work through that fear & come out the other side with a much better understanding of themselves & the world they live in.

    We all know of examples of both: parents who learn their child is gay or lesbian, or people so far in the closet they can’t even acknowledge their orientation to themselves. Depending on the person, it can go either way. As the saying goes, “de-Nile” isn’t just a river in Egypt.

    • 107. Johan de Vries  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:50 am

      “…because to let go of them is too frightening”

      I think you hit the nail on the head there. People generally don’t like change. They bring in a lot of lessons learned from their childhood and carry that over to their future. When through all your youth you have been raised to be weary of gays and lesbians, it is an uncomfortable notion that what you have been taught all your life may not be correct.

      In general I think it would be fair to make a rough division like this: 40 percent of the people are unchangably pro gay and pro gay rights, 40 percent are against gays and gay rights and 20 percent hover inbetween. Those 20 percent are the ones that are going to enable change. Those are the ones that must be reached.

      Let’s be honest here for a second. Most if not all of us fall into the 40 percent pro gay group that is open to little or no arguments that contradict our beliefs. Fortunately, we have science on our side, but if someday a peer reviewed piece of evidence is uncovered that sheds new unfavorable information on gay relationships, we would pretty much all be kicking and screaming just the way NOM is doing.

      NOM, like us is currently “preaching to the choir”. That is, trying to re-enforce ideas into those that don’t need re-enforcement. In that respect, I don’t personally belief the NOM counter rallies have much impact on those that do need the convincing (the 20 percent). The prop 8 opposition needs to find a better way to reach them. The prop 8 proponents did that very well during the election where they managed to turn a “too close to call” into a 52 percent defeat. Granted, their arguments were flawed and not based on science, but without counter arguments, the hovering voters will be impacted by that message. They don’t want to take the time to look up the actual facts, they assume what they hear is right.

      As a sidenote: the 40-40-20 (pro gay – anti gay – hovering) ratio is a guess, though I think it’s a good ballpark when looking at all ages combined. Older generations may be more closely to 30-60-10 while the younger generations are more likely to be 60-30-10.

  • 108. Chris B  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:44 am

    I watched Steve’s video and just have to testify. I grew up in a Christian home, went to Christian school and a fundamentalist Bible college (wasn’t ‘all-out’ fundamentalist, though, but pretty much was a straight-arrow).

    I prayed probably every day for 15+ years for God to take away my same-sex desires. But they never went away. Someone like Steve might say that I didn’t have enough faith, or didn’t want to be changed. But with all the guilt and secret shame I felt growing up, I would have been happy for it to just disappear one day. But it never happened.

    Eventually I admitted to myself that I was gay. (yeah, had these feelings, but never labeled myself ‘gay’ until I was 28).

    So for Steve to imply that God can simply “heal” you from being gay if you ask for it, is, in my experience, wrong, and naive.

  • 109. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:49 am

    I agree that the hardcore NOM supporters are unlikely to change their minds, but in the big picture, opinions are changing, possibly even at 50-50 for/against depending on the poll.

    I think there’s a large middle ground of folks who just don’t think about the issue of same-sex marriage and might, just out of a “traditional” upbringing, think that civil unions are fine, why tamper with marriage? They’ve voted for LGBT candidates, have LGBT friends and relatives, and they’ve never discussed marriage and haven’t heard the constitutional arguments for equality. I think the shift in the polls is a matter of the message getting out, of visibility and publicity. The equality side has, by far, the stronger argument – if the middle-of-the-roaders stop and think about it, they’ll come down on the equality side. Ironically, the backlash to Prop 8 may help shift more people against the NOMNOMs than for them.

    • 110. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:03 am

      I think using the term ‘hardcore’ with NOM supporters is apropos.

    • 111. Bennett  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:19 am

      This is such a great comment. I support equality, but I really could not have told you the constitutional reasons until now. Fair minded people could initially hold either view, but evidence and reasoning should cause their view to change with time. NOM cannot win without cementing Animus and Ignorance. They must keep their base whipped up with lots saber rattling, by creating a false sense of victimazation, and by releasesing a barage of incendiary mis information. I think their techniques are a turnoff to those who otherwise support their message. I am less afraid now.

      • 112. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:06 pm

        Thanks, Bennett, and well said! The main PR man behind Prop 8 flat-out admitted – at an awards ceremony no less – that the only way they could win was to make people frightened of same-sex marriage. That time, their message of fear worked – I’m not sure that song will play as well the second time around, if it comes down to it.

  • 113. Alan E.  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:50 am

    OneNewsNow has done what David Boies demanded: they have taken some facts and tried to show how they can be disputed.


    Have fun!

    • 114. Abbe  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:17 am

      Question: Who is going to come to my office and clean up when my head explodes from reading that crap?

    • 115. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:17 am

      Oh boy, here we go…. gay sex spreads AIDS. What an idiot. I’m not going to even waste the space to point out the logical fallacies.

      • 116. Steve  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:26 pm

        They shouldn’t have anything against lesbians then. There isn’t a single confirmed case of female-to-female HIV transmission.

      • 117. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:53 pm

        Well, I have to point out at least one — if any perfectly legal activity involves certain health risks, the appropriate response is to work to make the activity safer, as by spreading knowledge about safe practices, improving medical care, etc. Only if you can’t make it safe would you ban it.

        I am not going to get into the high rate of AIDS transmission by all kinds of other means, especially among straight people. Or the other fallacies in his argument.

        There isn’t enough time in the day.

      • 118. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 13, 2010 at 2:04 pm

        I don’t think we could finish refuting all of his fallacies before the next millennium begins.

      • 119. Steve  |  August 13, 2010 at 2:43 pm

        Ann S.:

        Technically, there is no such thing as “AIDS transmission”. The virus is called HIV. AIDS is the collection of diseases that may manifest if HIV spreads in the body. It’s possible to be HIV positive without having AIDS.

      • 120. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 2:53 pm

        @Steve, thank you. I will use the correct language in the future.

    • 121. Alan E.  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:13 pm

      I’d love to see what evidence they have to “refudiate” these facts. I’d especially love to see them on the witness stand against David Boies.

    • 122. John P.  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:32 pm

      OMG! I could hardly get through these. Talk about twisted reasoning. The author should be careful and cover his tracks though. I don’t think he’d want us to know that he logs onto rentboy.com regularly! LOL!

    • 124. Sheryl Carver  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:52 pm

      To paraphrase the illustrious Mr. Bois (may I never be cross-examined by him!), it’s easy to say & claim whatever you want UNLESS you are in the witness stand in a court of law. Then you have to have actual EVIDENCE.

      One wonders if these reactionaries (not the rank & file) actually believe even half of what they blather on about, or if it’s just about trying desperately to extend their 15 minutes of fame.

    • 125. Chris B  |  August 13, 2010 at 2:05 pm

      Guess he forgot that CA already encourages gays to form domestic partnerships and adopt children, and that being gay is not a crime anymore in the US. As far as the ex-gays, it’s impossible to prove that someone is gay or ex-gay. Being gay (or ex-gay) is a self-identified condition. As we know, many gays live in the closet and are married with children. Having sex with a person of the opposite sex does not prove that someone is straight, and having sex with a person of the same sex does not make someone gay. A person who identifies as ex-gay has a self-serving reason to identify themselves that way and may not truly admit their own feelings. That’s why the claim of being ex-gay cannot be trusted*. (Just like someone can’t ‘prove’ that they hate cinnamon, or “American Idol, or a certain brand of soap. They can only point to their behavior, which may be fake.)

      “Good laws discriminate against behavior. They do not discriminate against people.” By that logic, I can refuse to serve Orthodox Jews or Muslims or Catholics (if I believe those religions are false or dangerous) in my store or restaurant because these lifestyles are behaviors. Good laws discriminate agains behaviors which are dangerous to others or self (murder, child abuse, robbery, etc.) but not all dangerous behaviors are illegal (smoking,etc.)

      *There is also a range of sexual attraction. Some people are 100% gay or straight, but most fall somewhere in between. Someone who is only 20% gay may decide to live as straight and therefore could claim to be “healed” of same sex desire. But then again, everyone is different. Because one person claims to no longer have same sex desires, that doesn’t mean everyone can be ‘cured’.

    • 126. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:12 pm

      The people who write for OneNewsNow think that the entire universe is about 6,000 years old. There’s not big on facts and evidence.

  • 127. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:01 am

    Clearly, as these people keep stating, they need to get their moral views and actions from the Bible…otherwise they would all be murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. Fine with me. Personally I don’t need a bible to be kind to my fellow humans. My morals are clearly enshrined within myself.

    That said. Which religion are these people saying needs to be followed? Should we pick one and remove all of the others from the US? Get out of our country or follow our ONE religion! Who gets to decide which religion we must all follow? A vote of the people?

    Catholicism and Mormon would never make that cut.

    I also know for a fact that there are religions that feel that homosexuality is not immoral.

    Just ranting after reading so much on the net today that makes my stomach churn.

    • 128. Freddy  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:27 am

      I often thought it would be interesting to see all the Protestants rally and vote all the Catholics out of existence or at least threaten to to see how they would react. (I myself was raised Catholic)

    • 129. Breaking the Silence  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:33 am

      Hear, hear, LLB! (One could easily get very accustomed to using that expression around here.) :)

    • 130. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:57 am

      There was some nut job, “Flip” Benham, on Anderson Cooper a day or so ago. He was arguing that Islam is a lie (all based on the fact that they don’t believe in the things Christians do, like Christ being God, etc.) and actually held up his bible as the only proof anyone needs to understand what’s “true”. I don’t know if the numbers of these extremists are become more numerous or just more visible.

      • 131. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:03 pm

        Yes, the My-Religion-Trumps-Your-Religion philosophy.

        Personally I don’t think they are higher in numbers I think many of them found the internet and then their heads got big when one person watched their homemade video. So then they decided they need more of that juice that makes them feel so superior.

      • 132. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:15 pm

        Just more visible, Kathleen. Just like Fred Phelps, they love the Internet because it gives them a worldwide audience for their ranting, ravings, and other lunacies of hatred, instead of just the local street corner. It allows them to magnify the effects of their propaganda more quickly.

      • 133. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:26 pm

        @ LLB: then why don’t they go to their local moonshiner and leave everybody else alone?

  • 134. nightshayde  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:06 am

    Has anyone heard anything about the Harrisburg tour stop today?

    • 135. Freddy  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:27 am

      There is a new post on Harrisburg.

  • 136. Sagesse  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:22 am

    Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times on Judge Walker’s decision

    Hiding in Plain Sight


  • 137. Jon  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    Before the Civil War, there was much agreement in the South that slavery was part of God’s plan.

    Ask any NOM member whether God changed His mind about slavery in 1865, or whether those who invoked God to defend it were mistaken.

    What’s really going on here?

    It’s called spiritualizing your prejudices. The bigotry comes first; religion is invoked to justify it, and pretend there isn’t any bigotry.

    It was very comfortable in the slave states to believe no wrong was being committed, no racism; no, it was all part of God’s plan. It would have been more honest to say hell no, we just like enslaving Africans — but not as comfortable.

    It is very comfortable today for some people to believe they’re not bigots, they’re not homophobes; no, gay people don’t have rights, God said so. It would be more honest to say hell no, we just fear and hate gay people — but not as comfortable.

    • 138. John P.  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:07 pm

      Hi Jon,
      I think you hit the nail on the head! Thanks for the post.


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 )

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 prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

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)

  • 4,585,331 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...