NOM forced to pull Lynch ad; we’re forced to look up spelling of ‘schadenfreude’

October 8, 2010 at 7:30 am 82 comments

Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

If one goes to the old version of the “John Lynch: He’s Changed” ad that the National Organization For Marriage/Cornerstone Policy Research recently posted online, he or she will see this takedown notice:

Screen Shot 2010-10-06 At 3.22.22 Pm

That’s because in that ad knocking New Hampshire’s governor, NOM/CPR took it upon themselves to lift a Creative Commons licensed photo taken by local photographer Marc Nozell, without first obtaining Mr. Nozell’s permission (which he clearly requests on his Flickr site). The photo says of the unsolicited usage:

I’m an amateur photographer in New Hampshire and have taken a number of photos of various state and national politicians, some of which I license under a Creative Commons (CC) license. The CC license is a simple way to allow other people to use my work at no fee in exchange for following certain conditions.

The photo in question of Governor John Lynch ( I’ve licensed under a “Attribution Creative Commons” license (

That license requires:

“Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that5054289922 7146967B0D Z they endorse you or your use of the work).”

The ‘you’ in the above paragraph refers to the person using the work, in this case NOM. The ‘they’ is refering to the copyright holder, in this case me.

The National Organization for Marriage ( & Cornerstone Action ( has produced a TV Ad that is uses my photo but does not give me proper attribution and therefore is in violation of the license agreement.

The video can be found on Youtube “He’s Changed” ( where my photo of John Lynch appears 7 seconds into the video. A screen capture can be found here:

I demand Cornerstone Action and National Organization for Marriage cease and desist all use of the “He’s Changed” video on the internet, cable and broadcast TV and other distribution methods.

Additionally, this is directly affecting my right to sell non-exclusive use of my work. Yesterday morning, prior to learning of NOM’s copyright violation, I sold a non-exclusive license for that very same photo to a Washington DC-based production house. It is unclear if that deal is now in jeopardy since it is to be used in a pro-Lynch work.


Marc Nozell

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) & Cornerstone Action are violating my copyright [Marc Nozell Blog]

So now NOM has recut the ad with a new photo, invalidating whatever web links they might have received on the day they launched the ad. Plus there are the costs of getting a new version to stations, the need to explain the confusion, etc, etc. All in all: Another NOM FAIL.

Entry filed under: NOM Exposed, Right-wing.

Guest post: National Organization for Marriage, What Are You Hiding? Helping Iowa become Courageous

82 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Linda  |  October 8, 2010 at 7:39 am

    NOM’s arrogance is unsurpassed. Are there no laws they deign to follow?

    Brian and Maggie–you’re falling, and it’s gonna be a hard landing; brace yourselves.

    • 2. Sheryl Carver  |  October 8, 2010 at 8:17 am

      Linda, Linda, Linda!

      Of course there are laws they follow. God’s Law, don”t ya know? And Natural Law, too. All laws above as interpreted by them, of course.

      The silly non-God-made laws involving campaigns & copyrights, etc, just get in the way of them doing God’s Work.

      The only non-God-made laws they pay any attention to are those that might possibly treat us LGBT folks with some degree (often very little) of equality.

      • 3. Alan E  |  October 8, 2010 at 8:38 am

        Who was it that said recently “the right way is the Christian way, and the Christan way is the right way”?

      • 4. Ann S.  |  October 8, 2010 at 9:17 am

        Alan, I believe AFA said that about the firefighters who let the house burn down in Tennessee over the non-payment of the subscription fee of $75.

      • 5. Bob  |  October 8, 2010 at 9:59 am

        @Ann S. I’ve been waitng for someone to mention that house burning, I’ve been watching it on the news, facepalms, mouth open, that is stupidity beyond words, have they no sense of decency, have our neighbours accross the border finally lost it,,,,, no pay no spray,

        The son was on the news last night, he asked the powers to be to investigate why none of the taxes the community pays goes to firefighting? WOW just WOW I’m sure some must, but the $75 fee, is supposed to teach people to pay for service and be responsible citizens. Glen Beck said the point of letting someones house burn is to set an example to others that they have to be responsible.

        Truly this defies any type of family values, how can families sit an watch their neighbours house burn. Glen Beck says it has to be so or the neighbour would be paying for the othe guys house, Which is exactly what the neighbour tried to do by offering to pay, but they were refused.

        Holy Smokes, and I mean the kind coming from the incense at mass. Those are christian values, spewed by the relidious reicht, due to their fear of social programs, or someone getting a free ride. America is at stake in this election coming ujp.

      • 6. elliom  |  October 8, 2010 at 10:05 am

        Do undo others BEFORE they do unto you.

      • 7. Christian  |  October 8, 2010 at 10:54 am

        @Bob It likely costs more than $75 for the firefighers to travel from a different area to put out a fire in a jurisdiction that is not theirs. If they were to accept $75 per fire, the fire department will lose money, again to fight fires that are not in their jurisdiction. To me, it seems if people in that particular area want a group to put out fires in their area they should start their own volunteer fire department, pay the $75 per year (in advance) for fire departments in other areas to come to them, or collect taxes to start a non-volunteer fire department. While it’s tragic that this particular family lost their home, at what point do we stop expecting people to be personally responsible and start coddling them for their mistakes?

      • 8. fiona64  |  October 8, 2010 at 10:59 am

        To the person who remarked on “coddling” the family whose house burned to the ground while the firefighters said and did nothing (sorry, I cannot see the name right now and did not make a note of it).

        Your comments are the logical outgrowth of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, writ large.

        So, let me ask you this:

        At what point do we force people to pay for road repairs before we stop coddling them? At what point do we force people to pay for police protection before we stop coddling them? At what point do we force people to pay for primary (K-12) education services before we stop coddling them.

        I hope you aren’t using any roads, police protection or K-12 education services at your house (unless, of course, you are paying for them out of pocket), since you seem to think that only those who pay for such things should have access to them.

        Someone offered to pay the man’s fee and it was *refused.*

        This is why I hate Ayn Rand; her ideas only look good on paper, and where the rubber meets the road with real people they cause serious harm.

        /anti-“Tea Party” rant

        No love to those who think it’s okay for someone’s house to burn to the ground,

      • 9. fiona64  |  October 8, 2010 at 11:00 am

        PS — I now note that the person who doesn’t care enough about his fellow man to love his/her neighbor as him/herself has used the name “Christian.”

        How ironic.


      • 10. Rhie  |  October 8, 2010 at 12:48 pm

        Right, as in political Right more and more in the US.

        Oh yea I saw that too. Funny how as soon the story about the house was played on evil liberal media an avalanche of people overwhelmed the family with offers of help.

      • 11. Bob  |  October 8, 2010 at 2:11 pm

        @Christian, whatever it cost for the firetruck to get there, it was in fact there, right in front of the house,

        Oh my , I better stop, there’s no logic, in your notion of coddling people,

        If your house is on fire, you need help to put it out, very simple, whatever form that help or as you say (coddling) takes.

        Did you research or hear the details of the story? I would have to do so to fully understand, because the owners son ask for someone to investigate, if this was doulble billing because they were sure part of their taxes went to fire protection, But none of that matters, if you have the resources at hand you put out the fire, and ask questions and do the billing later.

        Wealthy believers can afford their own fire protection, poor folks are that way cause they don’t believe in the God that would bless them with wealth, the punishment is their house burns. if they went to church and paid their bills that wouldn’t happen, holy crap batman, twisted or what.

      • 12. Marlene  |  October 8, 2010 at 2:46 pm

        Even then, Sheryl they’ll ignore certain aspects of even their god’s law if it furthers their goal of an American Taliban!

        See Eighth Commandment and the repeated violations thereof…

      • 13. Sheryl Carver  |  October 8, 2010 at 6:52 pm

        I may be sorry, but I have to chime in on the Tennessee firefighting issue.

        Disclaimer: I do NOT know anything about Oberon County, TN, nor any more about the issue other than what I’ve read.

        I grew up & have lived most of my life in very rural areas, usually in an unincorporated part of the county. If you haven’t lived in this sort of environment, it may be hard to fully appreciate the differences between this type of life & city/suburban life. The local government rarely has much money, even in a “good” economy, & most residents are very independent folks who prefer to be left alone & NOT pay for services they don’t want or think they don’t need. With regard to firefighting service, some homes can be so remote that they are effectively unreachable should a fire break out, especially in bad weather.

        From what I’ve read about unincorporated Oberon County:
        a. Some areas of the county have NO fire service.
        b. A few areas have contracted with the nearest town to provide fire service on a subscription basis.
        c. People who live in a subscription area know that they must pay $75/year (less than $1.50/week) for this service.

        Presumable, the county residents were satisfied with this arrangement, presumably because they did not want or could not afford to pay for their own fire department. The subscription service allowed some residents to have an option for protection. Again, presumably, people who move to the area are aware of their options, or the lack thereof.

        One can argue about whether or not a subscription service is a good idea. I personally think it should be up to the local residents. However, given that that’s what they had, & given human nature, how many people do you think would continue to pay their annual fee if the firefighters HAD saved the house? Regardless of whether the owner paid the fee AFTER the firefighters showed up. I would bet that you’d see a fairly rapid falloff of payments over the next few years, for the same reason that few people would pay their taxes if there were no penalties for not doing so. Even those with good intentions. It would be, “well, we really need to put a new roof on the house this year, so we won’t pay now. But we’ll pay extra next year.” Right.

        So you’d either end up with NO protection for the County, because the local towns would stop using their tax money to fund the now free service to all unincorporated residents, or all the residents would be forced to pay for fire service with an increase in their taxes. Again, I’m not arguing for any of these policies, but the reality is that it is up to the local residents to decide what they want while understanding that it has to be paid for. Then they ALL have to live with the result (spend more money or have limited/no service).

        My home town had such a subscription service for fire protection, & my brother was one of the volunteer firemen for a few years. He said their policy, should a call come in for a fire at an “unsubscibed” home, was to show up & make sure nobody was inside, & to prevent the fire from spreading to surrounding areas. IF the local residents CHOOSE a subscription plan, I truly believe this is what has to be done.

      • 14. Bob  |  October 8, 2010 at 7:43 pm

        @Sheryl Carver, re the burned house, I suggest that we could follow the news and hope they do a more thorough investigation of the circumstances.

        I too live in a rural area, volunteer fire dept. and yes there are many rural areas in Canada where people choose to live knowing there is no access to fire prevention services.

        But I think you’ve bought into the republican plan of user pay, and no coddling to the point which prohibits you from helping your neighbour.

        What your brother says about subscription service as a fire fighter, he arrives at a fire an just makes sure it doesn’t spread, because the person didn’t pay, to say that is necessary is just soooo much crap..

        You Americans are just so heartless, there has to be a more civil way to deal with that situation, you just don’;t want to find it. How much of a mess is America really in::::??? we’re just starting to find out more and more, these rules are propped up by some really faulty thinking.

        I do know of people who’s houses burnt to the ground because no firefighter could reach them, and a lot where it took so long but by the time the firetruck arrived the house was gone.

        But I never heard of a firetruck watching a house burn because someone hadn’t paid a fee. That is beyond reason.

      • 15. Sheryl Carver  |  October 8, 2010 at 8:06 pm


        My point is that I strongly believe people in a small (population-wise) should be free to choose, but then they have to live with the consequences of that choice. As I said in my previous post, I’m not advocating for any position, as I believe there are too many variables that the LOCAL community must consider before making a decision. However, all things being equal, I would prefer coverage for everyone, but my point is that it really should be up to the community to decide.

        In my opinion (& I totally realize others have a different view), this situation is not so different from thinking that someone who has no homeowner’s insurance should be able to get her/his house damage reimbursed if they pay the annual premium AFTER the damage.

        I believe that competent adults should be able to decide what kind of services they want & are willing to pay for as a community. Again, without more information, it appears that their community chose this subscription option.

        Also, I have not read anything that said the homeowner couldn’t afford the coverage. He apparently decided to take the risk, & now has to live with the result. I am sorry for him & his family, but I strongly believe that, if you are an adult & making an informed choice, you must be willing to accept the consequences.

        You are free to call me heartless, as I have attached my name to my opinion & stand by it. But please don’t generalize & call all Americans heartless. Just like it would be unfair to call all Canadians heartless because one or some Canadians believe or act in a way I might disagree with.

        I, of course, don’t think I am heartless. I earn very little, but spend a lot of my income on a variety of rescued animals. I also spend time every week helping my 90+ friend, who is sadly failing mentally, doing what I can to help her continue to live independently in her own home. Etc.

        I view some things differently from you, Bob. But I really do not think I am heartless.

      • 16. Rhie  |  October 8, 2010 at 9:58 pm

        @Cheryl it is absolutely heartless to suggest that anyone should have let that man’s house burn. There is no other way to spin it.

        As the man tells it – and I have no reason to disbelieve him at all – he and his neighbor had checkbooks out offering to pay the firefighters. So it wasn’t a matter of money at all. As well, the man and his son have testified that other people were given exemptions or allowed to pay after the fact.

        I’m very sorry but those excuses for cruelty – which is what it is – simply don’t hold up.

        If the town needs money, there are other ways to go about getting it. Yes, I think people would still pay. It’s called TAXES. Also most people, really anyone worthy of the title of “person” and not “sociopath” would be sure to help their neighbors no matter what the cost.

        $15,000 plus was raised to help the family from Keith Olbermann’s show. According to NOM and the like he and his viewers are heartless and selfish. Yet it was they, not the so-called Christians – who were able to follow the Greatest Commandment.

        So, the short version is, the money problems don’t matter. Not helping a person in need when you have the means to or excusing that behavior is cruel, heartless, selfish and just plain evil.

      • 17. Dave in ME  |  October 9, 2010 at 5:41 am

        I absolutely agree with Ms. Carver’s position on the firefighting fee. If that is the way the town has it and everybody knows it, then that’s the way it is.

        I think it’s unwise for people to generalize about Americans and republicans. And I don’t think it’s fair to compare the way this town does things to the actions of NOM-they are TWO different issues.

        We don’t live in that town and, while we can have our opinions, we can’t really know exactly how it’s done there. But according to the news stories, he made his decision and he has to live with the consequences. That’s part of being an adult and that holds true in almost every aspect of our lives, from driving a car to drinking alcohol to flying in an airplane.

        As for taking out his checkbook and writing a check then and there, Ms. Carver is right-if that had been allowed, that would have thrown the whole program out of whack. I doubt this fee is extra money for coffee and donuts but money that the department really needs. If people stop paying that fee because they know that they can pay it later, then that money is simply gone and won’t be recovered unless every house of everyone who doesn’t pay burns. It’s economics and if there were plenty of money around, maybe this wouldn’t have been an issue, but there isn’t plenty of money around.

        Taxes-yes, the town could raise money with taxes, but this town didn’t choose that option. I wonder how many other towns do it this way, with the fee, and have it work out well? We won’t ever hear about those.

        Dave Cox in Maine

      • 18. Sheryl Carver  |  October 9, 2010 at 9:04 am

        Thanks, Dave. Given the overall response, I thought that even if someone else agreed with me, they might be very reluctant to write a post.

        Do those of you who think this was “heartless & cruel” want to address why the residents do not have the right to decide what services they want & how they will pay for them? Yes, they could have developed & maintained their own volunteer fire dept. or perhaps negotiate with the surrounding towns & raised their OWN taxes to get fire protection for their areas. They CHOSE NOT to.

        The homeowner had the money to pay his fee, as Rhie points out. He CHOSE NOT to, until it was too late.

        And nobody is explaining to me why this is so different from CHOOSING NOT to pay for insurance, then expecting the insurance company to cover subsequent damage if the premium is paid after the fact.

        I don’t know if the neighboring town has protected unsubscribed residents before or not. But if they had, it’s entirely possible that the town has been seeing a falloff of people paying their fee once it became known that the fire dept. would come anyway. And decided they were sending the message that the rule could be ignored with impunity.

      • 19. Bob  |  October 9, 2010 at 5:54 pm

        @Dave wow, just to much feeling around this one for me….. There obviously is a lesson to be learned from thiis situation,,,and the attention it arises…

        Rather than project out that the lesson should be someone elses, I’m going to take ownership of the lesson, let’s say if it’s a right or wrong thing, you’re right.

        I agree Sheryl, that I have no right to judge your heart, or to generalize that you represent all americans.

        Dave thanks for pointing out that I am a nosy neighbour, who am I to judge what someone else deems to be the proper way of dealing with life issues. I have no idea what the personal choices of another are.

        It’s just myself as a person to automaically ask questions and wonder why, and if that could be avoided. I will attempt to keep my nose out of it.

        Being right bestows upon you both the ability to be reasurred that your system is working, there is no need for having a good look at the situation. to see if the same action could get a differnt result in the future. Nor the need to place yourself in the shoes of the man whose house burned, let alone placing the decision in your hands to say no spray on this one? Being right excuses you from looking at those thihgs.

      • 20. Sheryl Carver  |  October 9, 2010 at 9:17 pm


        We can certainly agree that this issue/event has brought out strong emotions.

        Dave & I both tried to present another view, without calling names, denigrating those who disagreed, nor using sarcasm.

        Speaking only for myself, unless someone really wants to discuss our differing viewpoints, I’m done posting about this issue.

      • 21. Bob  |  October 10, 2010 at 8:41 pm

        perhaps you didn’t literally call them names, but you definetly implied that they were freeloaders, abusers of the system, and that they had to be made examples of, punished, in order to evoke fear in their neighbours to get them to keep paying.

        Economics Dave, not enough money???? time to start following the trail, where is the money, and why aren’t people provided with basic services. who can’t afford it> this is America we’re talking about.

        If they reacted from a kindness of heart, rather than uphold a program based on instilling fear, you dam right that whole program would have been thrown out of whack, and so it should. What about a program based on looking out for one another, one that makes it an emabarrasment to not pay, because everyone wants to do their part. What about a system where they even raise extra donations once a yr. fund drives, as community building and support for these type of persoanl calls, that might throw the system out of whack.

        As for the insurance argument, can’t be compared, insurance happens after the fact, don’t tell me it’s true that people wind up in emergency and if they have no insurance no service???????
        Or they look for insurance before using the jaws of life to pull them from a car wreck.

        As for comparisons to NOM they are making an example of this man, it seems like just an natural impulse, he sinned by not playing his fee, a sin needs to be punished, his example will get others to tow the line, that’s NOM thinking all the way, if the kid didn’t act gay, he wouldn’t have been bullied, he needs to be plunished or other people will act gay. WE need everyone to be the same, no room for deviation, cause then no one will pay their fee, and as a result like you say everyones house would have to burn. My god that whole program hinges on fear.

        Not to mention, someone will have to decide when is the right age to inform the children, that firefighters are not always there to save you from fire, in reallity they have the power to decide whose fire gets put out dependant on a fee that everyone must pay. Sort of changes that friend the firefighter thing. and what builds community.

        The other way it’s similar to NOM is that NOM believes they’re right so end of discussion. And as Glen Beck says this program is right end of discussion.

        The goal could be to investigate the story, follow the money, who know maybe the guy has a deal with the insurance company, and he wanted a new house, but wouldn’t the insurance company make it a conditon for insurance that he buys into the fire insurance program in his area, whatever it is.

        The point is niether of us wants to be right or wrong, but together we want to know the truth of the situation, And the truth can stand on either side or be somewhere in the middle.

        Sarcasm is a literary device for identifying the stupid, it wasn’t meant to make you defensive or feel bad, but to touch your emotions in such a wasy that you would really thing about this.

      • 22. alaneckert  |  October 11, 2010 at 8:53 am

        Perhaps there should be a line in the agreement where if the person did not pay their $75 fee, then they can be billed for the fire fighter service after they come to their house. That’s much like car insurance. Or if not the entire service, at least a large portion of it where $75 would look very small.

      • 23. Bob  |  October 11, 2010 at 9:25 am

        or how bout attaching that 75 dollar fee to the property taxes, and unpaid, they would accrue interest against the persons property,

        There;s got to be many other solutions, gosh, how many tillieons did they spend to bail out wall street.

        The descrepancy between those at the top and the majority of americans, is kept at arms length, and in line by the church, The poor who have nothing, don’t complain, how could they they are making their sacrifice for america, making due, after all look at all the soldiers who die for their right to live in freedom?????

        there’s got to be other solutions , because the way it sounds right now is the program is set up to prevent kindness to be extednded to someone who may not be deserving, and we just couldn’t have that… we have to squander our generousity lest it be wasted…
        NOM’s whole philosophy revolves around their being right about a belief, they so blindly uphold that beleif at all cost, and it’sonly a belief, if they paused for one moment to look at it from another perspective, the belief would be shattered, and they would be left truly experiencing spirituality, which is more frieghting than maintaining the belief at all costs.

        “I don’t know if god exists but it would be better for his reputation if he didn’t” Jules Remard

    • 24. Ronnie  |  October 8, 2010 at 9:08 am

      It’s because they think they are above the law….so sad….<3…Ronnie

  • 25. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  October 8, 2010 at 7:41 am

    p.s. I attended a protest last night…posted details and end of comments here….”happy Friday!”

    • 26. Sara O  |  October 8, 2010 at 8:02 am

      Hi Gregory!

      Sorry all, this is very, very off topic. However, seeing as I might be moving to SLC and I know absolutely no-one there, I am reaching out in the only place I can think of. Gregory in SLC, would you be willing to talk to me about the ins and outs of living in SLC as a very liberal lesbian? If you’re on Facebook, you could friend me:

      Once again, sorry for the OT post. I’m just a wee bit desperate.

      Thank you!!!!

      • 27. Kate  |  October 8, 2010 at 8:04 am

        Very wise choice, Sara O., to contact Gregory — this P8TT family is so valuable to all of us. My guess is that you already have 2 friends in SLC, Gregory and his hubby.

      • 28. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  October 8, 2010 at 8:15 am

        Hi Sara O! Welcome! I don’t have facebook, but would be happy to visit in email Greg dot Enke at gmail Hugs!

      • 29. Sara O  |  October 8, 2010 at 8:29 am

        Thank you, thank you! You are my new hero!

    • 30. Bob  |  October 8, 2010 at 10:17 am

      hey Gregory, wow I was dreaming about you last nite, the pictures and the feelings of the protest give me HOPE so glad you were able to participate, and share this with us.

      What a well organized and thoughtful response, by the Rainbow Tribe, the turn out was amazing, (not only feet, but bodies on the ground Straight Grandmother)

      You did a great job of describing the feeling of being IN COMMUNITY.

      And in spite of all odds, from what I see of the people and the pics, it makes me want to move to Utah.

      WOOT WOOT sending love and thanks cheers Bob

      • 31. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  October 11, 2010 at 6:15 pm

        thanks bob. We have good people in Utah, and I’m particularly fond of Salt Lake City proper as it is majority democrat…We’ve had democrat mayors in SLC itself for years now…..

        Utah gets its conservative reputation from the rest of the State, where republicans and ties to the Mormon church rule. The ultra conservative, ultra frustrating State government causes me to want to leave sometimes but events like this one along with a PFLAG sponsored 3-day workshop I just cause me to not write off Utah just yet. Hope to share new experiences soon.

        p.s. I was once one of those conservative Mormon republicans so I know its possible to learn better ways :)

      • 32. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  October 11, 2010 at 6:17 pm

        left off “I just attended”… PFLAG event was 10/8-10/10

      • 33. Bob  |  October 11, 2010 at 8:37 pm

        Hey Gregory, hope you had a great weekend, and don’t forget to count yourself as ONE of those people in that group that makes up such a great community, you’re connected, and participate, woot woot

    • 34. JonT  |  October 8, 2010 at 2:44 pm

      Subscribing. And nice photos Gregory!

  • 35. Kate  |  October 8, 2010 at 7:53 am

    Congrats to Marc Nozell for successfully enforcing his rights against the work/art-gobbling NOMmonster.

  • 36. Sagesse  |  October 8, 2010 at 7:54 am

    Mainly because of NOM, I already know how to spell schadenfreude. Who knew it was such a wonderful concept.

    • 37. Bob  |  October 8, 2010 at 10:23 am

      I have a german heritage, schadenfreude, sounds german, and seems to be referring to fraud or shady deal, would you be so kind as to post a define the word I know I could look it up but P8TT has kind of become my google source of preference. (I know it’s a choice)

      • 38. Ann S.  |  October 8, 2010 at 10:29 am

        Schadenfreude is pleasure felt due to the misfortunes of another.

      • 39. Bob  |  October 8, 2010 at 10:46 am

        thanks Ann, then that house burning was schadenfreude for Glen Beck. quick response too. yup this is my number one go to site, anyone else got a question.

        here’s a good one if I was American, would you suggest I vote Democrat or Republican?

      • 40. Kate  |  October 8, 2010 at 10:51 am

        Definitely Dem. They’re usually “less worse.” (Yes, in my opinion.)

      • 41. Bob  |  October 8, 2010 at 2:24 pm

        @Kate, thanks for the guts to say definetly Dems. I’m thinking about this situation where you have the two parties, and of course in some states a repub, might be on your side. but a landslide for the dems, would put NOM and the Pope both in their place.

        Hopefully the grassroots thing works for Obama again, cause those repubs are real nut jobs that threaten the world as we know it.

        an by the way Kate, I could have used your goats , yesterday, while trimming back the blackberries that got away on me in my yard, I got all cut up, goats love to eat them, and are great timmers. I used my friends six goats to clean out a ditch one time, and I’ve heard of people hiring out their herds for brush timming.

  • 42. Paulie  |  October 8, 2010 at 7:54 am

    I guess they got tired of paying IStockPhotos :)
    And decided “Free” and fraudulent was better :)

    • 43. Kate  |  October 8, 2010 at 7:56 am

      And in this case, all they had to do was credit the photographer, but they still couldn’t be bothered!

      • 44. Alan E  |  October 8, 2010 at 8:45 am

        Not entirely true. The picture was used in a manner that was against the pol in the pic. That was rule 2 of his very to easy to understand requests.

      • 45. Dave T  |  October 8, 2010 at 9:06 am

        How stupid are these people?

        It’s just… I can’t… How… Argg!

        I want to write something pointing out how simple & easy it is to avoid problems like this, how common sense and common decency requires that you respect the artist’s wishes, but I just can’t find the words…

        The bozos at NOM would no doubt count themselves as economic conservatives – pro-free market, pro-business, low taxes, etc. But here they are trampling all over someone’s economic rights.

        We all know that they don’t care about people’s rights with respect to marriage, sexual freedom, etc. But it’s clear that they also don’t respect rights that I thought they would respect.

        The only conclusion I can draw is that they have a fundamental lack of respect for ANY rights – a fundamental lack of respect for other human beings, whether they are enemies or allies ( I have no idea how this photographer feels about NOM’s positions – he could be an ally of theirs for all I know). If you’re standing in the way of them getting what they want, you will be pushed aside without a second thought.

        And that is the definition of a sociopath.

      • 46. Alan E.  |  October 8, 2010 at 9:26 am

        It’s just… I can’t… How… Argg!

        Looks like a fuse blew trying to think about it.

      • 47. elliom  |  October 8, 2010 at 9:36 am

        Their reasoning frequently causes me to blow a fuse….or maybe just BSOD.

        The light’s a-blinkin’, but noone’s home.

    • 48. Dave in ME  |  October 8, 2010 at 8:04 am

      HA! That’s a good one!

      Dave in Maine

  • 49. Dave in ME  |  October 8, 2010 at 7:55 am

    Subliminate me, please.

    Dave in Maine

    • 50. Lesbians Love Boies  |  October 8, 2010 at 8:35 am

      Already a long morning..and i need P8TT emails – the more the merrier I will get.

  • 51. Anna Bryant  |  October 8, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Can he sue to find the names of the people that funded the production and airing of the ad? Seems reasonable.

    • 52. Bob  |  October 8, 2010 at 10:28 am

      Well I like that idea about suing, NOM’s sloppy work, does garner them a lot of media attention, wonder if they’re able to spin it to their benefit?

  • 53. Jess  |  October 8, 2010 at 8:01 am

    awwww that’s so cute, NOM still thinks they’re above the law. How many times do they have to be busted before they finally take a hint?

  • 54. mackenzie  |  October 8, 2010 at 8:13 am

    I wonder how many time they will have usage rights problems before they get with the program. It isn’t hard if you didn’t create it don’t use it. This was drilled into us in high school and especially in college. I guess i am giving them too much credit assuming that they competed or remember either.

    • 55. Kate  |  October 8, 2010 at 8:23 am

      Or even if they’re educated……

  • 56. Kathleen  |  October 8, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Good for the copyright holder. I wonder what message from their god told them it’s okay to steal other people’s work.

    • 57. Kate  |  October 8, 2010 at 9:07 am

      It’s stipulated.

    • 58. elliom  |  October 8, 2010 at 9:34 am

      Oh, they just ignore those parts about not stealing and bearing false witness. After all, God didn’t REALLY mean it…not for Teh Ghey.

      • 59. AndrewPDX  |  October 8, 2010 at 10:13 am

        Sure.. they call it “Lying for Christ” or something like that… it’s okay to lie and cheat and steal, if it’s done for the ‘right’ cause. And for NOM, that ‘right cause’ is ‘making more money’.

        Hypocrism, the real religion that NOM believes in.

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

      • 60. Rhie  |  October 8, 2010 at 1:01 pm

        Oh have you ever seen someone who claims to take the word of God literally tie themselves in knots trying NOT to take the “Don’t judge” part of it literally?

      • 61. fiona64  |  October 8, 2010 at 4:07 pm

        You know, that whole “lying to protect you from God’s enemies” concept gets up my nose.

        So does “lying to recruit.” I will elaborate.

        I have told this story many times, so if I’ve already done so here I hope you will forgive me.

        My parents converted to the LDS faith when I was in my late 20s. I was very concerned about this, as I had just read both Deborah Laake’s “Secret Ceremonies” and “The God Makers.” They were having the missionaries over frequently, and those young men upset the dog so much that he had to be locked up in another room. He just didn’t like them.

        Anyway, I told my mother that I was very concerned about *any* church that so dictated what you wore that they demanded specific undergarments. She said she didn’t know what I meant, and so I asked her to ask the missionaries about The Garments, saying they would know what she meant.

        The missionaries swore high and low that no one wore those anymore, that it was not required, etc.

        Cut forward several years to my mother visiting me, and what is she wearing under her clothes but The Garments. The cut of these undershirts and long-line underpants are designed to force modest attire on women so that they don’t show.

        Anyway, I reminded my mother of how the missionaries had insisted that these Garments were no longer employed … and yet here she was with her very own set.

        Her response: “Well, they don’t want you to learn about things out of context.”

        Me: “Well, then, why didn’t they just say that instead of you, know, lying to you about the matter?”

        She couldn’t answer me at first, until I pressed her and learned that the missionaries had been specifically told to deny the existence of The Garments.

        I have a *real* issue with a church that tells its missionaries to lie about things in order to gain converts.

        Fiona (whose apartment in Berkeley was visited by missionaries who, without even bothering to ask, presumed that she must be Latina and addressed her en Espanol because she lived in an ethnically diverse neighborhood. They were sent packing with very red ears about how they should not make racist assumptions about peoples’ linguistics or education just because of their address.)

      • 62. Ann S.  |  October 8, 2010 at 4:17 pm

        Fiona, I had not heard that story before!!! That is really awful, blatantly lying to people to get them to convert. I’m so glad we rarely get any missionaries of any religion around here. I am just not interested.

      • 63. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 8, 2010 at 4:49 pm

        @ Ann S. and Fiona – the Mormon Church’s official Missionary Guide instructs missionaries to avoid providing direct answers or solutions to investigators’ questions or concerns – up to and including rhetorical tricks or outright denials of the truth (i.e., lying.) The practice is known as “milk before meat.”


      • 64. Rhie  |  October 8, 2010 at 9:52 pm

        Wow that’s a terrible story. Milk before meat is unfortunately not exclusive to Mormon’s. I went to a Presbyterian church and was told as a teen NOT to tell my friends that I wanted them to come with me to a church group. I was supposed to say “concert” or “sports club” or just to ask them to hang out.

        We were also given incentives, like candy or prizes, to bring people to the group. Yea.

      • 65. Elizabeth Oakes  |  October 11, 2010 at 4:45 pm

        Andrew, it’s called “lying for the Lord,” a policy which essentially says you can lie to get what you want from non-Mormons as long as you’re not lying to other Mormons or Mormon authorities. John Krakauer talks about it in his excellent book on LDS “Under the Banner of Heaven.”

  • 66. Bill  |  October 8, 2010 at 10:09 am

    Breaking News:

    Mormon Church makes changes to Packer’s sermon regarding homosexuality.

    What a bunch of low-lifes. Won’t even take responsibility for their hate speech. So, they put this hate speech out into the ether, then change the transcript when their hatefulness is revealed???????

    • 67. Anonygrl  |  October 8, 2010 at 10:24 am

      There are comments to this story which are probably accurate. Boyd more than likely submitted a written version of the speech for the teleprompters, likely at least a day in advance. When reading a speech, often speakers will improvise a bit, especially in the passion of the moment.

      The most reasonable guess as to what happened is that the on line published version was simply the written version that Packer handed in ahead of time, and then went off script while delivering it. There is probably no intent to change or distort.

      That what he said was not very cool is an entirely different story.

    • 68. Bob  |  October 8, 2010 at 10:39 am

      The fact that protests about his speach, prompted a reaction from the church, is an indication that the Mormon Church felt some obligation to clarify their stance, no matter to what extent, and they certainly didn’t reverse their stand, but it is a display of some communication with the Rainbow Tribe,

      We got them to talk to us. woot woot they know we’re here, and how they offend us. keep the pressure on

    • 69. fiona64  |  October 8, 2010 at 11:02 am

      The full text from the broadcast, with changes highlighted as to the written version, is at

      Beware, there is an apparent invasion of some of the self-loathing Evergreen gays from the Church talking smack about Laura and her message of hope for GLBT church members.


  • 70. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  October 8, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    How many NOM fails before they finally just give up, gather up their toys and go home permanently and leave those of us who are adult enough to know right from wrong alone!

  • 71. Josiah  |  October 8, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    I’ll never forget how to spell “schadenfreude”, thanks to “Avenue Q”:

  • 72. Bob  |  October 8, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    Josiah, fabulous, thanks,,,,,,,, that explains Chrisitians post, above about the house that burned.

  • 73. Dave A  |  October 8, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    After reading these comments, am I the ONLY one here who actually thinks that NOM saw the photo and decided to use it, not necessarily knowing that they needed permission? I mean, how many of them are able to read enough to find out the procedures? LOL. And not that I want to credit them, but when notified of the error, they did the correct thing for once, right? They eliminated all use of the ad with the illegal photo, which is atypical of them. They do enough wrong (an understatement, I know) that maybe we can give them a little credit when they actually DO try to rectify there mistake.

    • 74. Dave A  |  October 8, 2010 at 3:22 pm

      ARGH I mean ‘THEIR’ mistake, not ‘there’

    • 75. Kathleen  |  October 8, 2010 at 3:37 pm

      The account I read at the copyright holder’s blog says that after YouTube pulled the video, NOM uploaded it from their main website, apparently to bypass the pull down. I think it was the ad agency that did the video that finally complied.

      • 76. Dave A  |  October 8, 2010 at 3:47 pm

        AH Then their credit is revoked! :) Silly me to think that MAYBE they might have done something in the proper way!

  • 77. Jackie  |  October 8, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    My grandaughter sent me an article about the hell that women went through to get the vote in America. It suggested that all women need to honor the suffragettes by voting.
    I thought to myself that if every LBGTQ person and their allies honored those who have fought for equality, the guys at Stonewall, the couples who lived their lives in fear of exposure, Dan Choi who was kicked to the curb by his country, Fr. Geoff Farrow who was kicked to the curb by his church, Olsen and Boise , you at TT, by voting we could put an end to much of this kind of garbage that has been written about today. Together we would have a strong voice against these bigots.

    • 78. Bob  |  October 8, 2010 at 7:19 pm

      @Jackie, great post, feel your energy, this election has the potential to change the world, end the bullying, put religion back in the church, and let freedom reign, imagine here is where our goals converge, it not just an LBGTQ issue, it affects everyone.

      Who’s going to run the country Dems or Repubs, we could use this site to take our fight to the people and the polling stations, VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE

    • 79. Rhie  |  October 8, 2010 at 9:47 pm

      And before anyone says that voting doesn’t work, we keep trying it and the same old stuff happens remember this: About a third of the eligible voters actually vote in any given election. the 2008 election broke records at 50% voting. So yes. Voting can make a difference but only if you go do it.

      As my family says: don’t vote, don’t complain.

  • 80. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 8, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    If he loses the deal over the non-exclusivity issue, he can sue NOM for damages (and court costs).

  • 81. Dave in ME  |  October 8, 2010 at 6:56 pm

    A little off topic, but B. S. Brown is sending more money asking emails, lately about their swell new website
    Dear Marriage Defender,

    Just three hours left! One last chance to join us as we press toward our goal of $200,000 by midnight tonight!

    All throughout the evening, the contributions to our challenge keep rolling in. We’re up to $81,139 contributed by 880 generous supporters. Be sure you are a part of this tremendous outpouring of support! Every dollar donated between now and midnight Eastern Time will be doubled by our matching challenge grant.


    I wonder who is doing the matching grant….

    Dave in Maine

    • 82. Kate  |  October 8, 2010 at 7:04 pm

      I think their “matching grant” is bullshit, something NOM invented. It makes it look to their mindless and uneducated donors as though they really should care/contribute because some rich anonymous Santa Claus type is putting up $400,000. That kind of claim makes Ma and Pa Kettle think that surely the Big Donor knows what’s right, and then out come their own $25 or $50 donations so they’ll be supporting what’s “right,” too.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

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

Please send tips to

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

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


TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

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