VIDEO: Holding NOM accountable for their absurd Iowa Supreme Court ad
September 20, 2010 at 1:08 pm mattymatt 124 comments
By Matt Baume
They’re at it again.
Anti-gay groups like the National Organization for Marriage don’t have any facts to back up their crusade to ban marriage, so their ads all lean on innuendo, suggestions, and “weasel words.” Nowhere is that more apparent than their new ad, which calls for the ousting of Iowa Supreme Court justices based on one single ruling that NOM happens not to like.
If NOM wants to waste their money on these little games, that’s fine. Jeremy already did a spot-on job explaining why ads like these are, in fact, a big waste. But it’s also a good opportunity for us to step back, look at their silly claims, and expose them to the light of day.
Here’s the original:
And here’s my response:
To me, the most offensive thing about this new ad is the phrase “ignoring our traditional values.” Apparently now NOM feels that they are qualified to decide for us what our values are.
Entry filed under: NOM Exposed, Right-wing, Videos. Tags: NOM Exposed.
124 Comments Add your own
Leave a comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
Prop 8 Trial Tracker 
1.
Lesbians Love Boies | September 20, 2010 at 1:09 pm
scribin’
2.
Alan E | September 20, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Are we shiny? (just finished watching firefly and Serenity this weekend)
Back to jury duty selection!
3.
Rhie | September 20, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Firefly and Serenity for the absolute win!
4.
anonygrl | September 20, 2010 at 3:53 pm
And how!!!
5.
JonT | September 20, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Seconded!
6.
Xandoz | September 20, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Yay for fellow Browncoats!
7.
Ann S. | September 20, 2010 at 1:24 pm
ditto
8.
JonT | September 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm
I need more ‘1’s and ‘0’s.
9.
Sagesse | September 20, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Just another lemming. Will read later after work.
10.
Juli | September 20, 2010 at 1:17 pm
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp?pg=1
The worst thing about this article: the whole argument is that marriage between same sex couples does not create a kinship bond, and therefore is unnecessary. Huh? Appallingly offensive. Same sex marriages don’t function to control the sexuality of women. (!) Straight women everywhere should be insulted by that. There is no taboo or illicit sex in our culture. Um, I think its still bad form to have sex with your sister, gay or not. But the main argument, that marriages for gay people do not create kinship bonds of the two families – yes they do! That’s the point. Read it, then throw up a little bit
11.
fiona64 | September 20, 2010 at 1:39 pm
As an anthropology major, I will tell you right this damned minute that the assessment is incorrect.
There are all manner of kinship bonds and types of marriage across various cultures. Just for one example: Elizabeth Blackwood’s outstanding work on “missing man” marriage and matrifocal societies.
Abstract is here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/ae.2005.32.1.3/abstract
Gah. Kinship around the world is not defined the same way across cultures.
Idiots.
Love,
Fiona
12.
Kate | September 20, 2010 at 1:44 pm
How’d you like Harry-the-rhesus-monkey-guy in the footnotes? As a faux anthropologist myself, I thought of you, Fiona, when I read that and wished they’d picked on lemurs instead, just for the double impact said action would have on this board.
13.
Felyx | September 20, 2010 at 3:07 pm
“Every day thousands of ordinary heterosexual men surrender the dream of gratifying our immediate erotic desires. Instead, heroically, resignedly, we march up the aisle with our new brides…”
Sucks to be straight!
14.
Rhie | September 20, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Ugh, that is such a disgusting attitude to take toward marriage – that guy in the quote, I mean.
15.
Felyx | September 20, 2010 at 3:50 pm
This last quote was from Juli’s article above. One big whiny article desperately trying in vain to justify heterosexism. Evidently straight guys are forced to get married and must valiantly suffer to stay with the wives of their choice even when it is against their wills.
The whiny jealousy is so blatantly obvious when the author says, “The relationship between a same-sex couple, though it involves the enviable joy of living forever with one’s soulmate, loyalty, fidelity, warmth, a happy home, shopping, and parenting, is not the same as marriage between a man and a woman, though they enjoy exactly the same cozy virtues.”
BooHoo!!! Dear Deity, how it sucks to be YOU!!!
Instead, the author indicates that straight families are mandatory socialistically imposed ONEROUSburdens for life.
“ The difference is between the duties that marriage imposes on married people–not rights, but rather onerous obligations–which do not apply to same-sex love.”
Wow! Straight guys have the terrible burdensome undesirable (to any normal heterosexual male who agrees with the author) horrific onus to keep the species alive from total eminent extinction… sooooo heroic! (Certainly no place for Lesbians into IVF!)
I say we all laugh at the author and pity him mercilessly!
16.
anonygrl | September 20, 2010 at 4:00 pm
With all that to look forward to in straight marriage, why isn’t EVERY MAN IN THE WORLD gay???
Sometimes you just have to look straight (or perhaps gaily forward) into the eyes of authors like that and ask them, in soothing, compassionate voices “Have you forgotten to take your meds for the last month or so, dear?” then lead them gently back to their padded cells.
17.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | September 20, 2010 at 4:41 pm
@ Anonygrl: And then throw away the keys to said padded cells?
18.
Felyx | September 20, 2010 at 4:50 pm
ZOMG!!! I FOUND IT!!! I FOUND THE HARM THAT WILL BE CAUSED BY GAY MARRIAGE!!!! The movie already came out and I missed it!!!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206634/ (Children of Men 2006)
Oh the horror… THE HORROR!!!
19.
Dave P. | September 20, 2010 at 5:44 pm
… just an aside, “Children of Men” is an absolutely amazing film. Really really good.
20.
Ann S. | September 20, 2010 at 5:46 pm
@Dave P., I most respectfully disagree. The movie differs wildly from the book, which disappointed me greatly.
21.
Felyx | September 20, 2010 at 6:26 pm
I say Children of Men is very relevant as to the harm caused by marriage as it has absolutely nothing to do with marriage what-so-ever… which so far is a better argument than what the opposition has got! <3 Felyx
22.
Dave P. | September 20, 2010 at 6:28 pm
I haven’t read it yet. I often read the book AFTER I watch the movie. That way I enjoy both, even when the movie isn’t as good as the book : )
23.
Ann S. | September 20, 2010 at 6:29 pm
I think if I’d watched the movie first I never would have read the book.
24.
Rhie | September 20, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Dave P – heh my boyfriend is like that. He has read up to the sixth Harry Potter because those are all the movies that are out. He is waiting til NEXT SUMMER to finish the series.
25.
Rhie | September 20, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Well, obviously, we’re all deviants and so incapable of any real feeling -___-. UGH!
And that article is nauseating.
26.
fiona64 | September 20, 2010 at 3:52 pm
“The first is the most important: It is that marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality. The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage.”
ROFLMAO … because no woman is ever raped or degraded nowadays. And someone should ask the FLDS women about concubinage.
I had to do some actual work earlier, and came back to the article. I’m sorry that I am now laughing to hard to read any further.
Love,
Fiona
27.
anonygrl | September 20, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Frankly, after reading that article, if THAT is what heterosexual marriage is supposed to be, I vote that we get to work making sure IT gets banned. That was horrible, and as a woman I am offended and as a human being I am disgusted.
28.
Felyx | September 21, 2010 at 9:33 am
Fiona:
“… because no woman is ever raped or degraded nowadays.”
And most of all they are NEVER raped by kinship!!!
As Evidenced By the Wiki Rape Article…
Source:
Current or Former Intimate Partner (US 26%)
Another Relative (US 7%)
Friend or Acquaintance
Stranger
US Bureau of Justice Statistics 26% 7% 38% 26%
Australian Gov’t Statistics[71] 56% 10% 27% 8%
UK Home Office [72] 45.4% 13.9% 29.6% 11%
So 34% of rapes occurring by ‘kinsmen’ that are actually reported in the US are actually not really occurring since those ‘kinsmen’ are there to protect their kinfolk from rape… How can ANYONE claim conflict of interest there?… !
So there you go… gay marriage and pesky female sociologists are bring down society and NOT the kinsmen all of which are never raping their partners or relative. <3 Felyx
PS: I have heard it said that Satan is the father of all lies… are we sure that he isn't really just the father of all stupidity?
29.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | September 20, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Also, Juli, am I wrong or is this buffoon conveniently ignoring the fact that until very recently, there were no laws in place anywhere that protected women against spousal rape? This whole article struck me as a complete piece of unadulterated, chutzpah-filled misogyny disguised as caring about women and their rights. Somebody needs to take this “man” out and show him what it has really been like for women all these centuries.
30.
Alan E. | September 20, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Was like the 70’s or 80’s when those laws started coming around.
31.
Rhie | September 20, 2010 at 10:33 pm
There is still no federal law that protects women from marital rape, and not all states have such a law. Even some states that do have laws with holes big enough for the entire Dugger family to walk through.
32.
fiona64 | September 21, 2010 at 9:07 am
The first law against spousal rape was established in Oregon, in the case of Rideout v. Rideout. I believe it was the late 1970s (I was in high school … graduated in ’81). Until then, the mere fact of marriage was considered to imply consent under any and all circumstances. Rideout v. Rideout was precedent for a number of other state-by-state statutes.
Love,
Fiona
33.
Rhie | September 21, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Thanks! Will have to go look up that case.
34.
StraightForEquality | September 20, 2010 at 5:52 pm
What century is this guy living in? I don’t think I know any straight couple in recent years (say the last few decades anyway) who didn’t live together for some time (usually years) before getting married.
The kind of marriage situations this relic talks about sound extremely gruesome and loveless. Save me from that kind of world!
35.
Rhie | September 20, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Oh, go hang around a conservative church sometime (or don’t…really). Kids get married WAY too young because they want to have sex and the church says that they have to get married to have sex.
Full disclosure — I got married way too young, divorced four years later. He was a good guy but way too much pressure from church and our families and just…it collapsed. A lot of heartache and legal crap that could have been spared if we were allowed to let everything develop naturally.
36.
Ann S. | September 20, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Ugh, I could not get through that whole article. The community was supposed to protect my virginity until I married? Huh. News to me.
37.
Marlene | September 20, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Yes… that’s why there’s supposed to be the tradition of hanging the matrimonial bedsheeds out the bedroom window, showing the blood, and thus proving you were a virgin.
38.
Straight Grandmother | September 21, 2010 at 9:12 am
Well Juli you sure knew when you posted this that it was going to get a lot of responses, LOL. Congratualtions to all of you who got through the whole article. I had to quit half way through page 2, sjut couldn’t take it any more. While i was reading this I was wondering about the age of the guy who wrote it. I am thinking he’s about 75 years old.
39.
Ronnie | September 20, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Let’s make do an alliteration…I love alliterations…..
NOM loves to practice the art form that was mastered & created by the Nazi propaganda machine with there whacko “weasel words”……lol
X) …Ronnie
40.
Marlene | September 20, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Ronnie, that’s the reason *why* I refer to groups such as NOM, FOTF, ad nauseum as the “religious reicht”!
Their tactics of innuendo and baseless attacks against the LGBT community *exactly* mirrors the Nazi’s attack against the Jews.
AFAIC, there’s absolutely NO difference between the propaganda films The Eternal Jew and Gay Rights, Special Rights!
41.
Rhie | September 20, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Or, for that matter, any real difference between the extreme right and the Taliban. They keep talking about how Muslims want to bring Sharia law as bad thing…and then turn around and say they want -the exact same things-.
42.
Felyx | September 21, 2010 at 9:57 am
The only thing that they don’t like about Sharia law is that it would force them to give up the Christian Cult.
43.
John B. | September 20, 2010 at 1:22 pm
I think it’s important to note that (1) The Iowa supreme court’s decision didn’t come out of thin air–in fact it upheld a lower court’s ruling; (2) two of the justices were appointed by a Republican governor; and (3) the decision was UNANIMOUS. This, I think, is the
strongest defense against NOM’s charges. Really now, all 7 of them are liberal activist judges? Including the Republican-appointed ones? Or maybe, just maybe, these seven judges know more about Iowa state law and the Iowa state constitution that the people at NOM do?
44.
mattymatt | September 20, 2010 at 2:00 pm
That’s an excellent point. Does NOM seriously want all of the judges thrown out? And what’s to stop their replacements from holding the same attitudes? This is clearly just an attempt to rile up NOM’s base.
45.
Gregory in SLC | September 20, 2010 at 5:04 pm
rather confuse NOM base….that video is just bizarre!
46.
Breaking the Silence | September 20, 2010 at 1:27 pm
“At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past.”
-Maurice Maeterlinck
…That notwithstanding, folks like NOM et. al. still give “traditional values” and what-not a bad name.
47.
Straight Grandmother | September 20, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Oh…My…Gawd… Matt, this is your BEST EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Woot Woot!!!!!!!!
You hit it out of the ballpark with this video.
You have reached yoru stride.
You da bomb!!!!
PROPS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Love, it love it, love it!!!!!!!!!!
I love ever one of your precious words in this video, I hope it gets distributed widely.
48.
Gregory in SLC | September 20, 2010 at 5:05 pm
my favorite when Matt invites the “writer” to visit the local library to study up on law ;)
49.
Lora | September 20, 2010 at 8:35 pm
He could have also recommended Schoolhouse Rock!
50.
Rhie | September 20, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Conjunction Junction what’s your function!!
My high school English teacher made the class watch a few videos after one too many misplaced commas in an Honors class.
51.
Lora | September 20, 2010 at 9:36 pm
That’s my favorite, along with “I’m just a bill on Capitol Hill”
52.
Felyx | September 20, 2010 at 1:35 pm
I just love to make really edgy sarcastic commentary that is so off the wall and sounds so unbelievable that people can’t help but to burst out laughing… NOM so kills my buzz!
It is getting to be that the only way one can parody the CINO h8ters is to say exactly the same thing followed by, ‘No really… I’m being serious!’ The rhetoric has gotten so sloppy and unintellectual that Tina Fey doesn’t even need to try!
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/couric-palin-open/704042/
53.
Straight Grandmother | September 20, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Thank you Felyx, just yesterday i was trying to remember that phrase, “Buzz Kill” Completely off topic but thanks.
54.
Kate | September 20, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Richard: Please come get some of these eggs and turn them in to challah! (Yeah, I know; this winter I’ll be griping about now having any…..)
55.
Kate | September 20, 2010 at 1:40 pm
about NOT having any…
edit button, please :)
56.
JonT | September 20, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Oh, I would so dearly love an ‘Edit’ button. Even a ‘Preview’ button would be so… 21st Century. :)
57.
Lesbians Love Boies | September 20, 2010 at 1:43 pm
They do have a widget for wordpress that would give us commenters the ability to preview our posts before posting…or bypass preview and just post.
58.
Kate | September 20, 2010 at 1:46 pm
How can we get it, LLB?? It is so wonderful to be hanging out with other folks who care about such things as accuracy.
59.
Lesbians Love Boies | September 20, 2010 at 1:53 pm
PT88 has to download the plugin from wordpress.org, install it, then activate it.
Unfortunately, we can’t do anything, but perhaps let them know about it.
60.
JonT | September 20, 2010 at 1:58 pm
I, for one would love that. I think it would at least help with my habit of forgetting to properly close bold and/or italics tags.
p8tt admins: Pretty please?
61.
Alan E. | September 20, 2010 at 5:15 pm
I would love that, too. If we don’t get one, we’ll all just have to go on strike!
62.
JonT | September 20, 2010 at 1:41 pm
@Matt: Loved that video. The line: ‘…consult Clippy for assistance.‘ almost caused me to spay my nice monitor with coffee. Tsk Tsk Tsk :)
63.
JonT | September 20, 2010 at 1:43 pm
spay -> spray
My Monitor would not like to be spayed. I’m guessing anyway.
(edit button, please :)
64.
Kate | September 20, 2010 at 1:47 pm
I had heard that your monitor was busy procreating, JonT, so a spaying would still be in order. There just aren’t enough homes for all those unwanted monitor babies, and we sure don’t want teh gayz to adopt them.
65.
JonT | September 20, 2010 at 1:57 pm
You may be right Kate, my monitor is a bit slutty. I tried teaching it abstinence only, but… kids these days. They just don’t listen.
66.
Ray in MA | September 20, 2010 at 4:12 pm
LOL!!!
67.
anonygrl | September 20, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Of course, if you people keep cracking jokes, we will be able to find homes for all those monitor babies to replace the ones that I and others are spitting at while laughing at you!
68.
Phil L | September 20, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Control the part population; have your monitors spayed or neutered.
69.
mattymatt | September 20, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Haha thanks! And watch out for those coffee-spayed monitors. I wonder if the Pope would consider caffeine a form of artificial birth control.
70.
Alan E. | September 20, 2010 at 5:16 pm
I wonder how much longer it will be when the younger folk won’t know who Clippy is and how annoying he is.
71.
Lesbians Love Boies | September 20, 2010 at 5:18 pm
I don’t know who Clippy is.
72.
Ann S. | September 20, 2010 at 5:22 pm
LLB, Clippy is the annoying “helper” in Microsoft Word (and perhaps other MS programs) who pops up when you want him the least.
73.
Lesbians Love Boies | September 20, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Ah, that’s why I never heard of Clippy (been on Macintosh’s since their inception in the 80s).
74.
anonygrl | September 20, 2010 at 5:29 pm
I KNEW there was a reason I liked you LLB!! :)
75.
JonT | September 20, 2010 at 6:02 pm
@LLB: Wat Ann said. Oh, and MS Word is also available on Macs :)
Here’s an amusing Clippy ‘joke’, with some history.
http://www.visar.com/AssistedSuicide.html
76.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | September 20, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Most of my experience is with PC’s, so MIcrosoft, Windows, Office, etc., but I truly did not know his name was “Clippy.” I always just called him “Dippy,” because most of the places where I had access to a computer I could not say his full name out loud without upsetting people due to “profanity.”
77.
Lesbians Love Boies | September 20, 2010 at 6:12 pm
LOL…I sure hope Clippy took on a newer 3D look : )
I know MS Office is available for Macs…but I opt for the free, open source software that’s essentially the same – and free – NeoOffice and OpenOffice.
78.
JonT | September 20, 2010 at 6:29 pm
@LLB: I don’t know if he went more ‘3D’, I hope so too.
I use Linux (and therefore OpenOffice), though I do have XP loaded in a VirtualBox VM for those times I absolutely have to do something in windows (Itunes for example).
I haven’t seen Clippy myself in a long time, but I do remember how really annoying and useless he was. :)
79.
Alan E. | September 20, 2010 at 7:12 pm
I am making the conversion to Mac. I still have mmy desktop at home, but I am using my husband’s old Mac. I got a brand new iMac at work that is so pretty and has bells and whistles and CS4. I change the desktop picture every week just so I can show off my screen to passers by.
At one point, they started giving more friends that you could use instead of Clippy. They did different stupid stuff (on which I wasted many hours instead of doing homework), but they all gave the same lame help tips.
80.
fiona64 | September 21, 2010 at 9:10 am
I had Scribbles, the Siamese cat, instead of Clippy. I liked watching her walk around my screen.
I use Mac at home and PC at work; new version of Microsoft does not offer Scribbles, so I have turned off the assistant.
Love,
Fiona
81.
Dave P. | September 20, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Flawless, Matt. Just flawless.
82.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | September 20, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Late again to the party. That’s what I get for running out to get a flu shot.
83.
Chris in Lathrop | September 20, 2010 at 2:49 pm
I can’t speak for anybody else, but I’m already embarrassed that such twisted excuses for commercials were ever made. Extremely so.
84.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | September 20, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Here’s a link to what the Catholic Anti-Equality DVD and related packaging is about. Paul in Minneapolis sent me the link.
http://www.usccb.org/marriageuniqueforareason/
85.
Paul in Minneapolis | September 20, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Richard, thanks for getting this link posted while I was at work!!
I do not necessarily know that the video available at the above link shows the same content as the DVD that is to be distributed, but it seems likely to me. I found the link in an online Star Tribune article about the bishops’ campaign against same-sex marriage.
The video does not mention same-sex marriage specifically, but there are many obvious references to it. The accompanying material on the site, however, does reference same-sex marriage.
The arguments are the same tired ones we’ve all heard time and time again — there’s nothing new. They’ve just tried to dress it up with a positive-seeming video accompanied by inspirational-sounding music. In the end, you can cover a turd with chocolate and wrap it in pretty paper — but it’s still a turd.
86.
Ray in MA | September 20, 2010 at 4:34 pm
That was the most sickening video I’ve seen in a long time… the main young couple subject is the re-incarnation of Ozzie & Harriet.
What about overweight couples with blemishes and teeth problems living in low income housing? Does their story apply to them too? Soooooooo Hollywood.
Disgusting.
87.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | September 20, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Yes, and if I am going to cover anything in chocolate, it will be a bowl of chocolate ice cream with chocolate cake. Or maybe a Hershey bar. Or a Tootsie Roll. And yes, I have actually seen chocolate-covered Tootsie Rolls in the store. Or is that like gilding the lily?
88.
Dave P. | September 20, 2010 at 5:04 pm
… I just emailed them a modified version of my post above.
89.
anonygrl | September 20, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Paul,
If you read the accompanying PDF study guide, it gets into same-sex marriage. And of course has all the standard nonsense that the religious right always pushes…
“Those who stand for the truth of marriage between one man and one woman are often accused of bigotry or of denying equality and civil rights.”
“… between husband and wife as God intended.”
“…procreative…” although it took them till page 11 to mention the word….
Same old arguments, somewhat nastier in that it is so sugar coated.
90.
Paul in Minneapolis | September 20, 2010 at 6:11 pm
@anonygrl,
Yes, the accompanying material gets to their point eventually, doesn’t it? Their nicey-happy video just tries to butter people up for the eventual anti-gay message. Not sure whom they think they’re fooling.
SSDD….
91.
Dave P. | September 20, 2010 at 4:13 pm
I didn’t see anything in the video that provided any rationale at all for why civil marriage should be limited to opposite sex couples. Not even an attempt at a BAD rationale.
They point out that opposite sex people are required for procreation. Well, duh. This does not in any way even IMPLY that there is a reason civil marriage ought to be denied to same sex couples.
They point out lots of really nice things about being married and why marriage is ‘special’. But these things apply equally well to ALL couples, not just opposite sex couples.
Of course, if you read between the lines a teeny bit, they are implying that ‘special’ is code for ‘denied to gays and reserved only for us straight people’.
So they are essentially saying ‘marriage is special when it is discriminatory’ or ‘marriage is special BECAUSE it is currently discriminatory in many states and countries’. Yeah, ‘let’s keep on discriminating against others who want to marry so we can feel special’.
Great work, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Really Christian of you.
92.
anonygrl | September 20, 2010 at 4:23 pm
I am only 3 minutes in, and the thing that strikes me is that these two, the couple, is they are attractive, but fairly mediocre, actors.
93.
Ray in MA | September 20, 2010 at 4:25 pm
I felt that their “intro” needed some corrections:
Welcome and thank you for being a Homophobe! This material is intended as a catechetical and educational aid to be used as a weapon by a priest, deacon, catechist, teacher, or other bigot. The video, viewer’s guide, and resource booklet form an integrated whole, and as such, complete the proper context of this tool for denying people their right to the pursuit of happiness.
94.
Ray in MA | September 20, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Well here’s your big chance to give them a piece of your mind!
http://www.usccbpublishing.org/ … click on “Contact Us”
or just email:
publications@usccb.org
95.
Dave P. | September 20, 2010 at 5:04 pm
I just emailed them a modified version of my post above.
96.
Ray in MA | September 20, 2010 at 6:16 pm
I almost did the same! (got busy… you beat me to it!)
97.
Sheryl Carver | September 20, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Thanks to you, Richard, & Paul, for the link.
I’m about 1/2 way through the video – can only stand it in small doses. Barfo!
However, I can hardly wait for the 4th in the series. According to the site, it will be “the impact on religious liberty”. That one has GOT to be not just ridiculous, but outright lies. (Note to self, have Pepto Bismal beside the computer before watching that one.)
BTW, did you notice that the potter’s hands in the video are most definitely male. Cuz “God” is really male, ya know, which is why he made Adam first. :-)
98.
anonygrl | September 20, 2010 at 5:55 pm
LOL I did notice that. And he is white. And old.
99.
Mark M (Seattle) | September 20, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Can’t watch from work….will just as soon as I get home
:-)
100.
Ray in MA | September 20, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Matt: Excellent work! But sadly, I feel there are more ignorant people (who suck up that garbage) than there are inteligent people who would say (like me) that this is a MUST VIEW for all.
It does make a great contribution to clarity for some, but we’re back to making our own impact one person at a time… this is a great tool for being prepared to go to battle!
101.
Lesbians Love Boies | September 20, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Funds for the Fundies: I hope they did their 2009 taxes right…otherwise they might be in trouble!
Catholic group funnels millions to National Organization for Marriage
The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal society founded in New Haven in 1881, does a lot of good work. In a report detailing its charitable giving during 2009, the organization noted that while the “Knights and their families are hardly immune to the economic downturn,” they had once again furthered their proud 128-year tradition of service — a tradition including “helping the widows and orphans of the late 19th century” and “providing coats to poor, cold children.”
Add to that list a donation of a whopping $1.4 million in 2009 to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a nonprofit group dedicated to fighting same-sex marriage through the ballot initiative system in California, Maine and other states. In Iowa, the group has already spent $235,000 on an ad campaign aimed at convincing voters to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices over their ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, and before that spent nearly $100,000 on a special legislative election in southeastern Iowa.
More: http://iowaindependent.com/43567/catholic-groups-funnel-millions-to-national-organization-for-marriage
102.
Paul in Minneapolis | September 20, 2010 at 5:03 pm
So that’s how they funded their stupid little tour….
103.
anonygrl | September 20, 2010 at 6:12 pm
AND why they had to HAVE their stupid little tour. In order to keep their tax exemption, they have to do more than just be a PAC that money launders for the church… so the tour was their way of showing “See? We go out and work with PEOPLE! Dozens of them. Sometimes even a dozen at one stop!!!”
104.
Lesbians Love Boies | September 20, 2010 at 5:13 pm
DADT Repeal would destroy opposite marriages and their families…actually it will destroy civilization…screeeeech! Yup, this according to Bishop Harry Jackson and Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council.
Religious Right Panic: “Anarchy” will Result if DADT is Repealed
Apparently if the US Senate repeals Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell this week and allows gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the military, marriage and family will be destroyed, the military will dissolve into chaos, religious freedom will be lost forever, military chaplains will be muzzled, rampant adultery, and there will be anarchy! In other words, gays will destroy not just our military, but our civilization!
That’s the overarching message of a press conference held this afternoon by Bishop Harry Jackson and Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council.
Read more: http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/candacechellew-hodge/3376/religious_right_panic%3A_%E2%80%9Canarchy%E2%80%9D_will_result_if_dadt_is_repealed/
105.
fiona64 | September 21, 2010 at 9:13 am
Wow! The whole government will collapse? That’s pretty impressive!
Idiots.
Love,
Fiona
106.
Lesbians Love Boies | September 21, 2010 at 9:14 am
LOL, they keep saying the Gays have POWER!
107.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | September 21, 2010 at 9:32 am
If we have so much power, then why don’t we have an openly LGBT president?
108.
Lesbians Love Boies | September 21, 2010 at 9:33 am
Perhaps the H8teros are adding it to our Gay Agenda.
??
109.
Juli | September 20, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Yes RAW (stb W-J), the misogyny in this article is deafening. Also not lost on me is the writer’s martyrdom on the cross of heterosexual marriage, a responsibility he has weaseled out of three times. Maybe he would find it less of a burden if he treated his next wife as an equal instead of a child/whore that needed protection from the abuse of others/her own intractable sexuality. Something heterosexuals might learn from same sex marriages…hmmm…Then he too might have the experience of sharing life with a soul mate, who can only be an equal. But the main thing that rang out for me from this piece of ick article, is his presumption that gays and lesbians have an entirely separate value structure than straights have. Did it never occur to him that we have lived in sexual relationships not sealed by marriage because we had no other choice? And why would he presume, among other things, that just because children can’t result from gay incestuous relationships that we would then be fine with it? Maybe he’s been talking to Dr. Hak-Shing William Tam.
110.
Tomato | September 20, 2010 at 5:48 pm
He sounds to me like a man who has very strong homosexual feelings, but has worked hard to deny them and “be straight.” So, he envies homosexuals because they can be who they really are, and he despises and fights them just like he despises and hates his own homosexuality.
He fails at heterosexuality and denigrates women and heterosexual marriage… because he isn’t heterosexual.
111.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | September 20, 2010 at 6:15 pm
His whole article just made me think of all of those “people” like George Rekers who rant and rave about the evils of the LGBTQQIA community, and we later discover that they themselves are closet cases. And as a man, and a human being, I am so depply disgusted and angered by the whole line of trash he was spewing out of his word processor that I had to go and calm down. My first thought was to trash his computer and work toward having him banned from ever being near another one. Nobody should abuse their computer the way he abuses his.
112.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 20, 2010 at 9:33 pm
We straight women suffer in hetero marriage too….when I had to drag my husband down the aisle for both our own spiritual good I BROKE A NAIL.
113.
fiona64 | September 21, 2010 at 9:15 am
And … and … my finger swelled up and I had to wear my wedding ring above my middle knuckle until later in the day. The humiliation of it all!
Both my husband (Captain America when he posts here) and I maintain that we should have just eloped, LOL.
Love,
Fiona
114.
Catherine | September 22, 2010 at 11:37 am
I hate it when that happens! Shouldn’t the institution of marriage protect women from serious physical harm like nail-breaking along with protecting their sexuality?
115.
Anonygrl | September 22, 2010 at 11:53 am
You mean to tell me it DOESN’T? Then I am not getting married! I worked to hard to get my fingernails looking pretty.
:)
116.
NetAmigo | September 20, 2010 at 5:35 pm
The religious right always insists that only they can decide morality for everyone because they assert that only they are God’s agent on earth. If anyone disagrees with that, he or she is a sinner according to them.
117.
Lesbians Love Boies | September 20, 2010 at 6:41 pm
I can’t quote any one or two paragraphs in this article to do it justice. It’s a very good read!
Prop 8 Proponents’ new strategies
When Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown opted not to appeal Judge Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, it was unclear whether the Proponents of Proposition 8, who had been allowed intervenor status to argue on its behalf in trial, had standing to appeal the decision. Case law seemed fairly clear that they did not.
When the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals laid out the timeline for filing, they instructed the appellants to clarify under what legal theory they had standing in their opening brief, due last Friday. The Proponents have now filed their brief.
Oddly, it appears that they are now conceding that the Proponents do not have standing to appeal. They do lay out extensive arguments as to why they should have standing, but they advise the court that it need not agree with them and seems to direct the court to not even consider their arguments.
Because the Imperial Intervenors should have been permitted to intervene, and because as intervening defendants bound by the district court’s judgment they would have standing to appeal, this Court need not reach the question of Proponents’ standing at this time.
Their entire appeal hinges on the legal argument that Deputy County Clerk Isabel Vargas of Imperial County has standing to appeal and it is her appeal that should be heard.
More: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/
118.
Lesbians Love Boies | September 20, 2010 at 6:43 pm
A better link ; )
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/09/20/26385
119.
Ann S. | September 20, 2010 at 10:19 pm
I didn’t get through the entirety of Proponents’ brief, but it’s not uncommon to argue in the alternative. I read it more as though they’re saying to the court, “you don’t have to decide this one if you think it’s easier to decide that Imperial County has standing. Let them have standing and we’ll just go along for the ride.”
120.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 20, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Well, and that made me wonder–isn’t is a bit dumb to make clear your intent to use whoever is granted standing to make your case anyway, when you are denied standing? Doesn’t that come off as an obvious cheat?
I also have wondered about this strategy in light of Jerry Brown’s rationale that just because one person is granted standing it doesn’t automatically confer standing on anyone else who wants to throw their hat in the ring.
121.
Ann S. | September 21, 2010 at 8:01 am
They may have cut some deal with Imperial County and their lawyers to let Cooper and Pugno in as co-counsel, for all we know. They don’t care how the appeal goes forward as long as it goes.
What we were taught about pleading in the alternative in law school is that it’s perfectly OK to deny a charge of breaking a borrowed pot with this plea: “I never borrowed it; it was already broken when I got it; it was fine when I gave it back.”
If you can show just one of those, then you’re OK.
122.
Felyx | September 20, 2010 at 6:59 pm
OT but…..
Is this where the H8ters look for answers?
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2001/1/17/
123.
Sapphocrat | September 20, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Beautiful video, Matt! Just voted it up on YT, and commented. If only Stop8.org had been in charge of the No on 8 campaign (the advertising, at the very least), Prop H8 never would have passed. Great job!
124.
BK | September 21, 2010 at 8:25 am
I love this guy’s videos! :D
I have to show them to my anti-equality friends. (most of whom don’t know I’m gay, sooo… : \ )