NOM Opposing civil unions in IL: “We just don’t like the gays”

November 23, 2010 at 8:00 pm 116 comments

Cross posted at NOM Exposed

By Kevin Nix

Of course, we already knew the National Organization for Marriage isn’t fond of the LGBT community. But they just ratcheted things up by making a play in Illinois, where a civil unions bill is coming up for a vote soon. (See their action alert urging their people to write Illinois lawmakers asking them to vote ‘no’ on the bill.)

The bill would allow same-sex couples to enter into a legal civil union in the state; it does not provide for same-sex marriages. An overwhelming 2/3 of Illinoisans support either civil unions or marriage equality.

We’ve heard Brian Brown say before he doesn’t support civil unions. But now they’re actively campaigning against them. NOM is hell bent on blocking any and all recognition for LGBT couples.

HRC continues to mobilize our members in Illinois to make sure legislators hear their support for the bill that Representative Greg Harris, Equality Illinois, and others have been working on for years.

Entry filed under: Uncategorized.

BREAKING: DOJ to appeal Witt reinstatement order in DADT case Senate DADT hearings scheduled for early next week

116 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Kathleen  |  November 23, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    I really don’t like mean people. :)

    Reply
    • 2. Richard W. Fitch  |  November 23, 2010 at 8:04 pm

      Where do you place the line between mean and evil??

      Reply
    • 3. Michelle Evans  |  November 23, 2010 at 8:07 pm

      Why is it that these people hate so much? I can’t even fathom the thought processes that must run through their brains that what they are doing is so “right” according to their way of thinking. I liken this to trying to understand the mind of a killer, and how anyone could even consider taking the life of another. These people are trying to take away our lives every day. Worse yet, people such as Brian, Maggie, and many more, actually make money by doing this.

      Reply
      • 4. Tomato  |  November 23, 2010 at 8:26 pm

        It’s envy. Every single one of them is a closet-case.

        Hate is not the opposite of love. Hate is devotion turned inside-out.

        Instead of being devoted to love and family, they are devoted to the denial and envy in their souls and the yearning to punish those who have the fulfillment they do not have.

        Why do you think Maggie denies her Hindu husband? Doesn’t wear his ring? Won’t take his name?

        Why do you think Brian has so many “alibi” children? Spends all his time away from home? Became obsessed with gays (according to his wife) suddenly 10 years ago?

        Reply
        • 5. Tomato  |  November 23, 2010 at 8:35 pm

          Jesus said it best: “oh, thou hypocrite!” Matthew 7:5

          Reply
      • 6. Straight Ally #3008  |  November 23, 2010 at 11:31 pm

        Worse yet, people such as Brian, Maggie, and many more, actually make money by doing this.

        This is the bottom line: they are professional bigots, this is how they acquire money and power. I suspect they are a mix of bullies, true believers, and closet cases.

        Reply
      • 7. Marlene  |  November 24, 2010 at 7:18 am

        You have to be carefully taught to hate/You’ve got to be carefully taught!

        Reply
      • 8. elliom  |  November 24, 2010 at 7:19 am

        Why is it that these people hate so much?

        Because, ultimately, deep down inside, these ppl don’t like themselves very much. They’re very insecure and self-loathing. They are also incapable of recogninzing or admitting this. So, to make themselves feel better, superior, empowered, they must denegrade and dehumanize others.

        Analogy: There are two ways to think about becoming and being rich. Most ppl are of the first mindset: for me too be rich, I must have more. They earn, invest, etc. These ppl are of the second: for me to be rich, you must have less. And so they set about taking from others, thinking this will achieve their goal.

        Bullies are a type that also has the second mindset. Any wonder why NOM, et al are so against anti-bully campaigns? In the bullies, they see their own reflections.

        Reply
      • 9. Ed Cortes  |  November 24, 2010 at 7:35 am

        I think we should start by revoking any tax-exempt status for ALL organizations on the terrorist list.

        Reply
      • 10. Steve  |  November 24, 2010 at 10:01 am

        Religion. It makes otherwise decent people do horrible things.

        Reply
    • 11. Ann S.  |  November 23, 2010 at 8:29 pm

      Mean people are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.

      Reply
      • 12. Michelle Evans  |  November 23, 2010 at 9:02 pm

        Since we’re talking about hatred, I just had an incident moments ago that I wanted to pass along to my friends here.

        The phone rang and when I answered, the person asked to speak with me. When I told her I was Michelle, she laughed. Instead of ‘getting it’ when I tried to explain that I have a deep voice (since I am a trans female) her response was to continue to laugh and tell me I shouldn’t play jokes on her like that. She asked if she could call back at another time and actually talk to Michelle. When I told her again it was me, she laughed all the louder and then hung up.

        btw, the lady was from the American Legion that was calling and laughing at me, in case anyone was thinking of donating…

        Reply
        • 13. Tomato  |  November 23, 2010 at 9:15 pm

          Next time that happens on the phone, say you are a smoker.

          If that feels like a lie, smoke a cigarette once (don’t inhale! It’ll make you puke!). There, now you are a smoker.

          Being part of the real world, I am often aware of the trans people I have contact with. I had a great conversation once with a speech therapist who teaches folks to change the “gender” of their voice.

          If you don’t have access to a speech therapist, there are at least a few social plays you can make. The smoker one works quite well, it has been used on me and I then assumed the speaker was female with a bad cigarette habit, because that’s how she sounded. I have no idea if she was trans or not, and frankly I don’t care. I knew what social patterns to follow in that phone call and that’s all I care about.

          Reply
          • 14. Felyx  |  November 24, 2010 at 6:37 am

            I respectfully disagree on the ‘smoker voice’ suggestion. I suggest you simply be honest and explain your trans-nature. Be sure to point out that it is offensive phone etiquette for any caller to continue laughing after the first explanation.

            BTW, there is nothing wrong with calling the AL and describing your unfortunate interaction. (If, that is, you want to go to such effort.)

            Good Luck with however you handle the situation. And remember, the lady is probably an ordinary person who would change her attitude once she got ‘ejumakatid’.

            Love you as always Lady Michelle,
            Felyx

        • 15. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 23, 2010 at 9:40 pm

          I get mistaken for a man every time I am at a drive-thru fast food place or on the phone. I lost my higher chords when I was 12. Not the same as you Michelle, but I understand. I so dislike when they do see me and they say things completely out of line, or when I tell them I am a female on the phone and they act like I am lying. What a waste of good oxygen these people use.

          Reply
          • 16. elliom  |  November 24, 2010 at 6:57 am

            I hear ya. I (apparently) have a somewhat androgynous voice, ’cause I get called “mam” on the phone all the time. I usually just go along with it (they are being respectfull, after all). By the time it gets to my name, I get a lot of pregnant pauses, with an “I’m sorry….sir.”

            My rule is, when there’s ANY doubt, don’t guess, ask: “How would you prefer to be addressed?” Works well every time.

          • 17. Alan E.  |  November 24, 2010 at 9:37 am

            My husband often gets called miss or ma’am on the phone. He tends to have a slightly higher pitch voice on the phone. I give him a little heck when he talks to his dad on the phone because he lowers his voice noticeably (at least to me).

          • 18. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 24, 2010 at 4:39 pm

            I get the Miss/Ma’am thing all the time, too.

        • 19. elliom  |  November 24, 2010 at 7:07 am

          Michelle:

          I was a member of SAL for many years. I left ’cause I just couldn’t deal with it anymore.

          You may want to call someone in Member Relations (or whatever they call it) at the AL, explain what happened, and use it as a “teachable moment.” Maybe write a letter (or several letters) to various execs. explaining what happened, with a politely worded request for sensitivity training. A visit with your local Post’s leadership might help too.

          Reply
        • 20. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  November 24, 2010 at 11:31 am

          Why would a person be so rude. Voices come in all ranges. I would never question anyone’s sex because of their voice. I might think I was talking to a different sex, but when corrected, certainly would not laugh or treat them the way you were treated.

          Personally, I would call and let them know they need to do a better job of training their callers.

          Sheryl, Mormon Mother

          Reply
        • 21. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  November 24, 2010 at 1:21 pm

          Michelle, Love 2 you also! Gregory

          Reply
      • 22. fiona64  |  November 24, 2010 at 9:38 am

        Compassion, which is the root of all religion, has gone away as more and more bigots sacralize their behavior.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
        • 23. Steve  |  November 24, 2010 at 3:52 pm

          Compassion has never been at the core of organized religion. Never. Some religious founders may have set some things along those lines at one time, but that was quickly perverted and abused by men who only care about their own power and wealth. Any good that has come out of it along the way is entirely coincidental. Even many people who claim to only do good work have ulterior motives like spreading their faith and converting people – thus increasing the power and wealth of their respective cult.

          Reply
        • 24. Felyx  |  November 26, 2010 at 12:09 pm

          Humans by our very nature are called to share and to love one another and so we tend to codify that into a set of values and mores to be used as a guide to live our lives in a more harmonious way.

          But the appeal to our idealism and mutual love does not go unnoticed by those who have learned that it can be exploited for personal gain.

          When humans are in a state of love and goodwill we tend to be far more generous and willing to commune (go along with the herd). Bigots and opportunists who are hungry for power and material gain have discovered this all too well and will use fear and peer pressure to achieve their goals.

          The Southern Poverty Law Center does a good job explaining how Anita Bryant show evangelicals how to exploit gay hatred for fundraising (profiteering) purposes.

          In other words… spirituality and philosophy are still good things but, like so much of what humans come up with, these things can be used to cause horrific and detrimental circumstances.

          Reply
    • 25. Rhie  |  November 26, 2010 at 1:45 am

      Mean is a very good description of their behavior.

      Reply
  • 26. Sagesse  |  November 23, 2010 at 8:04 pm

    True colours. It won’t help them.

    Reply
  • 27. Ronnie  |  November 23, 2010 at 8:12 pm

    Hey NOM….why don’t you get your repugnant Fascist un-American faces out of our personal lives?…Oh wait that’s right you have no lives other then destroying the lives of others who don’t bow down to you….so sad… > / …Ronnie

    Reply
  • 28. Michelle Evans  |  November 23, 2010 at 8:13 pm

    A bit OT, but I had to share the idiocy of an email received from Eugene Delgaudio this afternoon. He is so ignorant that he doesn’t even understand how stupid his remark is in his latest attempt to solicit funds from his supporters:

    He says: “A Pentagon report on the impact of lifting the ban is set for release Dec. 1st, timed nicely with the return of the new Congress. Of course nobody has asked the soldiers their opinions, and our troops are prohibited from any political activity other than voting.”

    Does he not even understand–or thinks his recipients are so stupid to not understand that the ‘Pentagon report’ to which he refers is exactly asking the opinions of the troops!

    Ed Wood said it best: ‘All Earth men are stupid!”

    Reply
    • 29. Ronnie  |  November 23, 2010 at 8:22 pm

      facepalms……(sighs)….. : / …Ronnie

      Reply
    • 30. JonT  |  November 23, 2010 at 10:10 pm

      Yeah, I got that too. It’s like he just had to grab some random lgbt-related news item out of the ether and use it as a plea for more money.

      He didn’t get any of the facts right :) Typical for old Eugene. Bless his heart.

      Reply
    • 31. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 23, 2010 at 10:12 pm

      Someone needs to give him his ‘sign’

      Reply
    • 32. Straight Ally #3008  |  November 23, 2010 at 11:27 pm

      Reply
    • 33. Felyx  |  November 24, 2010 at 6:39 am

      Ed Wood… Cult hero!!! (Fellow Trans-person as well.)

      Reply
  • 34. Richard A. Jernigan  |  November 23, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    Well, I know two gay Jews in North Carolina who are hell bent and determined to do all we can to keep NOM from getting their way.

    Reply
    • 35. BK  |  November 24, 2010 at 12:59 pm

      Really? Who might those wonderful gentlemen be? ;)

      Reply
      • 36. anonygrl  |  November 24, 2010 at 1:10 pm

        Oh, just a couple of newlyweds. :)

        (OK, it made me all teary typing that.)

        Reply
  • 37. Kalbo  |  November 23, 2010 at 8:29 pm

    Hope IL gets it passed … It’s a half-measure, but progress nonetheless.

    NOM and their ilk swarmed the Hawaii governor (Republican Linda Lingle) to veto civil unions here this year, but like Cali, Hawaii veered left this election, and we will have Neil Abercrombie (D) for governor and an even more Democratic Legislature (Republicans got wiped out, and they weren’t big players in this state to begin with!). Neil’s vowed to pass the CU bill next session! ^_^

    Reply
    • 38. Rebecca  |  November 24, 2010 at 1:19 pm

      It’s certainly a half-measure, but it means so much to me and my girlfriend!

      We’ve had to sit and watch as all the CA news came and went, all the while jealous of the couples that were able to get married in those brief few months. IL is so far behind on this one! Seriously, Iowa has gay marriage and we are just now getting to a civil unions vote.

      Send happy thoughts to IL so my gf and I can be legally recognized!

      Reply
      • 39. nightshayde  |  November 24, 2010 at 1:22 pm

        *sending happy pro-equality thoughts to IL … and to all other states while I’m at it*

        Reply
        • 40. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 24, 2010 at 1:37 pm

          Statewide Gay Rights Group Pushes Back against National Organization for Marriage’s invasion of Illinois

          broad General public overwhelmingly supports proposed civil unions bill.

          Equality Illinois (“EQIL”), the state’s largest organization advocating for full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) people, pushed back aggressively against National Organization for Marriage (“NOM”). NOM announced last week that it is targeting Illinois and the proposed Religious Freedom Protection & Civil Unions Act, which is being considered by the Illinois General Assembly. This week, the Catholic Conference of Illinois echoed NOM’s tactics.

          “NOM’s attacks on proposed civil unions are as misleading as they are predictable,” said Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of Equality Illinois. “I am appalled at the length to which NOM would go to harm our families.”

          The Civil Unions bill has been considered by the Illinois General Assembly for more than three years. The current bill provides urgent protections for same-sex and opposite-sex couples, while addressing any concerns about the law’s impact on religious institutions. We are especially disturbed at the misleading statements by the Catholic Conference of Illinois and Cardinal Francis George that the law would force churches to recognize civil unions. The bill explicitly states that: “Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body. Any religious body, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union.”

          “The Cardinal is either misinformed on the nature of the bill or is lying,” –said Rick Garcia, Director of Public Policy. “The bill has nothing to do with adoption, foster care or the status of marriage, and has everything to do with fairness for same-sex couples.”

          More: http://www.nowingaychicago.com/2010/11/statewide-gay-rights-group-pushes-back.html

          Reply
  • 41. Bob  |  November 23, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    really annoying mother f—-ers aren’t they, exhausting just to tune in and follow from the fozen north, but it is expected, right, I mean from the get go we knew the battle has to be fought in every state. can’t wait for the ruling in the Perry case, it would be my birthday wish that it goes to the supremes and they sing out loudly for the country…..

    geez what a war, you’re fighting on so many levels, so many laws, if something doesn’t pan out I’d suggest really looking into the one goal of amendment to civil righs act. and start marching……..

    Reply
    • 42. Tomato  |  November 23, 2010 at 9:03 pm

      The ultimate problem is… that “they” are OUR people.

      “They” are what we would be, if we weren’t mature enough to look at ourselves and say, “with the honesty of my soul, so be it.”

      “They” are what we would be, if we took the easy way out and fell into hatred, rather than the tough way of following a higher truth (love).

      “They” are what we would be if we were weak, and couldn’t stand up for ourselves.

      “They” are what we would be if we were cowardly, and tried to be one of the cool folks by picking on others to hide what we are.

      “They” are what we would be if we belittled and devalued human life so much that we’d rather sacrifice someone else than let ourselves suffer.

      “They” are our fallen. “They” sold all honor. “They” turned their backs on the Lord Jesus they claim to follow. “They” sinned to the point that mere humans can no longer forgive.

      “They” are in the Lord’s hands now, and only He can judge them.

      If they land in my hands on their way to the Lord, forgive me, for I know not what I’ll do.

      Maggie, Brian, Louis – you are sinners. Jesus weeps for the self-hatred that fills your souls. I cannot forgive you. Jesus can. Pray that He leads you out of your mental illness and into the love He instilled in you before you were born.

      You are here. You are Queer. Get over it.

      Reply
      • 43. anonygrl  |  November 24, 2010 at 1:31 pm

        That is a very good post, Tomato, thank you.

        Reply
  • 44. James Tuttle  |  November 23, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    HEY everyone…you know whats totally fun?? I looked up conservative districts in Illinois according to voting statistics and just used NOM’s page to send some of their representatives a letter to support civil unions. I simply deleted the text and wrote in my own and changed the subject line. If you can fake an address you’re good to go. I know it is a little Machiavellian but I can’t help myself.

    Reply
    • 45. Zachary  |  November 24, 2010 at 6:10 am

      Haha, clever! Nicely played.

      Reply
    • 46. elliom  |  November 24, 2010 at 7:34 am

      JT:

      I’m a bit ethically conflicted with this. I’m not trying to be critical (which, of course, means i am), just wanted to share some thoughts. Feel free to accept or reject any of them, and discussion welcomed.

      I agree, it was an interesting tactic, and we all know NOM’s not above such things, but when we allow ourselves to resort to sneaky tactics, aren’t we just lessening ourselves? I understand the temptation, and I’ve fallen for it myself on occasion, but in the end I’ve never really felt it was worth it. So I try, as much as I can, to hold myself to a higher standard than they hold for themselves. I know that may mean sacrificing some battles, but it’s a pyric victory to win the war, and lose your soul.

      The Prince must be amoral to fulfil his role. I don’t think we have that luxury.

      Reply
      • 47. Alan E.  |  November 24, 2010 at 9:40 am

        I don’t think it is sneaky at all. NOM is providing the contacts to the public, and we are making use of those contacts. The fact that NOM had a pre-written letter set up doesn’t matter because the letter was changed entirely.

        Reply
        • 48. nightshayde  |  November 24, 2010 at 10:52 am

          I think he was reacting more to the idea of making up an address & pretending to live in the district than he was to sending the letters.

          As long as doing so doesn’t legally cross the line into “fraud,” I’m ok with the concept. We can give a voice to people in the district who have no idea what’s going on but who would support marriage equality (or at least civil unions) if given the chance.

          Reply
          • 49. anonygrl  |  November 24, 2010 at 12:05 pm

            And I would be totally ok with using NOM’s form, sending out an email from MYSELF, and telling them “I, like the organization that sponsored this email campaign (and with whom I most emphatically DO NOT agree) am not from your state. If you are listening to anything from them, please understand that there are many more people than just the religious right watching what you do as you make this decision. Please do the right thing, and ensure that equality for all wins the day. Support civil unions. Thanks.”

          • 50. nightshayde  |  November 24, 2010 at 12:20 pm

            Oooh – good response, anonygrl. =)

          • 51. anonygrl  |  November 24, 2010 at 1:16 pm

            OK, I just went and looked… and it looks like NOTHING is going out from there that NOM isn’t reading first. You have to enter your info, then THEY will figure out who it should be sent to. So they will undoubtedly be censoring and not allowing anything that doesn’t support their position through. Not to mention that the way they have it set up, they are also collecting names and addresses.

            So don’t waste your time. Rather, do a little legwork… go to

            http://www.ilga.gov/default.asp

            and send out your emails that way.

  • 52. Larry Little  |  November 23, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    I just don’t know what to say. This is church sponsored terrorism; expelling judges who lawfully disagreed with religion and make it painful to reside in a community where every one else has equal rights “ME”. Do you think any black man in 1940 Mississippi knows the emotional and psychological impact of overt discrimination where the only job open for you is janitor or porter and you can’t sit next to white people? Any form of discrimination hurts the target. Why hate my neighbor instead of love thy neighbor?”

    Reply
  • 53. Michael  |  November 23, 2010 at 9:22 pm

    The shrill anti-gay pressure group NOM is ratcheting up its efforts to achieve its goal to eradicate law-abiding, taxpaying, gay Americans from our nation. I hope someone or group is taking notes and making copies of these web pages/alerts to use in future commercials against NOM when they claim they are only “protecting” “traditional marriage.”

    Reply
    • 54. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  November 23, 2010 at 9:44 pm

      Excellent idea, Michael.

      Sheryl, Mormon Mother

      Reply
  • 55. Ed  |  November 23, 2010 at 9:29 pm

    Good news for RI…..
    http://www.projo.com/news/content/chafee_same-sex_marriage_11-24-10_Q9L3RIP_v11.36d7bf5.html

    NOM’s head is gonna fry like those robots in The Stepford Wives……

    Reply
    • 56. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  November 24, 2010 at 1:50 pm

      @ Ed
      glad for good news! thanks for posting : )

      Reply
      • 57. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  November 24, 2010 at 1:52 pm

        p.s. the part that caught my attention:

        “In his Nov. 16 letter to Plante, Trainor also reiterated Chafee’s belief that: “Marriage equality is a basic right that should be extended to all Rhode Islanders — a question not only of fairness and justice, but of economic development as well.”

        Reply
        • 58. Ray in MA  |  November 24, 2010 at 7:15 pm

          Living in MA and working in RI, I know the local details… the RI legislature blatantly only moves on things that will get them re-elected…this won’t… it won’t progress here until another election cycyle..if at all.

          Chafee got elected with only 36% of the vote… he is desparate for an “in” with someone/something… this won’t be it.

          The only good news here is that there is somone publicly on our side.

          Sorry for the bad news.

          Reply
  • 59. Mackenzie  |  November 23, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    http://www.nomri.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=luLSJ8MQKrH&b=6408147&ct=8918123&notoc=1

    here is the “polling” that NOM uses to say that a majority of RI’s oppose ss marriage…..while these polling questions are grossly leading, none of them ask about support of ss marriage….ridiuclous.

    Reply
    • 60. Ginger  |  November 24, 2010 at 8:52 am

      Oh my god. That is the most obvious biased set of questions I think I’ve ever read. Seriously? There’s no way that survey methodology could get published or taken seriously anywhere that was peer-reviewed or with a real scientific reputation on the line.

      “backroom politicians”? That’s like asking people “Would you rather your child be taught by a nice, college-eduacated straight teacher or by a homosexual pervert?” and then concluding that most parents don’t want gay teachers.

      Reply
      • 61. Alan E.  |  November 24, 2010 at 9:45 am

        I’ve called out survey takers on biased questions before.

        Reply
      • 62. Mackenzie  |  November 24, 2010 at 11:11 am

        yes….well according to the article by Ed, having some retired teacher hired by NOM will only lead to one kind of survey……one in there favor. The sad part is that they use it like it is certifiable and the truth and then their sheople believe. I left a nice little comment on their blog calling them out on the matter.

        Reply
        • 63. Maggie4NoH8  |  November 24, 2010 at 3:57 pm

          I too have posted on their blog… However, I have yet to have a post approved! I’d be curious to see how yours end up – “there” or “not there”.

          Anectodely, I’d say 90-95% of the posts there, are from anti-equality pov. The very few that are pro-equality are “fringe-ish” and I have come to the conclusion “they” write their own counter-posts.

          Reply
    • 64. anonygrl  |  November 24, 2010 at 12:30 pm

      From Wikipedia…

      A May 2009 poll conducted by Brown University showed that 60% of Rhode Islanders support legalizing same-sex marriage, while 31% oppose.[12] A different poll in June 2009 commissioned by the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said that 43% of Rhode Island voters oppose legalizing same-sex marriage, while 36% support it with 17% undecided.[13] But an August 2010 poll done by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research found that 59% of Rhode Islanders supported legalizing same-sex marriage (of that 59%, 38% felt strongly about the issue).[14] Forty-three percent of Rhode Islanders are Catholic,[15] and the survey showed that 63% of Catholics supported same-sex marriage so long as it did not infringe of the church’s right to marry whomever it chooses.

      I looked up the June 2009 poll (couldn’t find the Aug. 2010 actual poll questions). Turns out that respondents to the Quest poll in June 2009 were 56% Catholic, which is WELL above the state average of 43%, and 68% of them were over age 50, with 37% being over age 65. Thus the skew. The question was not posed to them (in June) with the phrasing “backroom politicians” but if you ask the right people a question, you don’t even really need to be that leading in your questioning. It is odd that NOM would phrase it that way on their brag page though, unless it was actually asked that way, since it makes little sense to point out that you are asking badly flawed questions in your surveys. But we are all aware that NOM is not populated by rocket scientists. (Hi Brian!)

      Reply
    • 65. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 24, 2010 at 4:49 pm

      A survey of only 398 voters is conclusive (and apropos) of nothing.

      Reply
  • 66. Leo  |  November 23, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    I’ve long wanted Arisha or someone else with access to Brian to get him to answer on record this simple question: What level of government recognition should same-sex couples ideally have? If his answer is “none,” let him say so.
    Better yet, since he’s opposed to giving same-sex couples all “the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits” of marriage, let him explain exactly which obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits of marriage should be given same-sex couples, and which should not be.

    Reply
    • 67. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 23, 2010 at 9:49 pm

      Leo, I do think Brian has pretty much said, through his own words and his organization, that the GLBT crowd should have no recognition and that we should all get reparative therapy to fix ourselves.

      Reply
      • 68. Leo  |  November 23, 2010 at 10:21 pm

        Got a link?

        Reply
      • 69. Felyx  |  November 24, 2010 at 6:53 am

        I am sure that at a nominally exorbitant cost NOM would be proud and mildly disgusted, all the way to the bank, to provide the reparative therapy at a modest 150 sessions a year plus one week a year of intense Christo-hetero-boot camp for the REST OF YOUR LIFE!!!

        (They don’t just want you soul… they want you mind, obedience and money as well!!!)

        Reply
      • 70. Alan E.  |  November 24, 2010 at 9:46 am

        I think Brian has avoided the questions by saying it’s not up to him and should be up to the people (or something like that). He’s good at not answering the question. The fact of the matter is that his personal opinion is relevant because he is the one out there trying to take rights away from other citizens and telling others what to think.

        Reply
    • 71. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 24, 2010 at 7:51 pm

      Arisha, if you’re reading, next time you’ve got an interview with Brian the Bigot or any of his NOMbie followers, why don’t you ask when they decided to be straight?

      Reply
  • 72. Michelle Evans  |  November 24, 2010 at 1:37 am

    I don’t know if anyone else has caught this yet, but I heard a disturbing ad on the radio this afternoon. Jane Lynch (the evil Sue Sylvester on Glee), who is herself a married lesbian, is now the spokesperson for Target!

    I have to wonder if she is aware that the company now paying for her personality is one that is fighting to keep her equal rights in the closet? Maybe someone should drop a note to her agent.

    Reply
    • 73. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 24, 2010 at 10:54 am

      Really? The TV ads have a woman theat sort of looks like Jane…jogging suit and all but have not heard any radio ads myself. I will certainly keep my ears open for that

      Reply
    • 74. anonygrl  |  November 24, 2010 at 12:36 pm

      What is the current status with Target? Did they not apologize and make some reparations a while back? I thought they had?

      Reply
      • 75. Alan E.  |  November 24, 2010 at 12:39 pm

        That guy lost his race anyways, but the donation can’t go unmentioned at this point.

        Reply
      • 76. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 24, 2010 at 4:56 pm

        They made a backhanded apology, stating that they would have a more stringent review policy re: future donations. There was apparently quite an internal backlash from their LGBT employees. No reparations that I know of, but the race is over.

        For myself, I am willing to give a second chance. There are just too few choices here in the Valley to boycott all the dastardly corporations, and a perpetual boycott without second chances might end up backfiring anyways. Those are my 2¢.

        Reply
  • 77. Hank (NYC)  |  November 24, 2010 at 7:34 am

    I don’t understand why NOM is not on the SPLC list of hate organizations.

    All they do is spew hate and lies to incite the people into wrong action.

    Reply
  • 78. Ronnie  |  November 24, 2010 at 7:38 am

    Employees from the same animation studio that brought us the Toy Story series, Finding Nemo, A Bug’s Life, WALL-E, Monsters, Inc., Up, Ratatouille, Cars, & The Incredibles say “It Gets Better”

    <3…Ronnie:

    Reply
  • 79. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 24, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Senate schedules hearings for DADT report

    Lawmakers won’t get their first look at the Pentagon’s comprehensive report on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law until next Tuesday, but the Senate Armed Services Committee has already planned thorough hearings on the results for later next week.

    This morning, Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., announced that he’ll hold hearings on Dec. 2 and 3 to address the report, both scheduled for 9 a.m. The first day will feature Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and the working group’s co-chairs, Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson and U.S. Army Europe Commander Gen. Carter Ham.

    The second day will include testimony from the four service chiefs, as well as Join Chiefs Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright. Earlier this week, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters he had included his opinions and edits in the final draft sent to Gates, but he would not share those thought publicly unless asked by Congress.

    More: http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/stripes-central-1.8040/senate-schedules-hearings-for-dadt-report-1.126357

    Reply
  • 80. Alan E.  |  November 24, 2010 at 9:26 am

    Late to the party, but it’s sad that we already knew this was coming from NOM. Where is the video of Brian making a claim that civil unions are good enough?

    Reply
    • 81. Sagesse  |  November 24, 2010 at 6:31 pm

      They’re backfilling. Even without marriage equality, there will still be LGBT couples and families, in a domestic partnership or not. They will still live in the neighbourhood, and send their children to school. At school, children will still learn that LGBT parents and families are… gasp…. OK.

      NOM has to make them NOT ok.

      Reply
  • 82. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 24, 2010 at 9:29 am

    Looks like NOM is still gonna lose in Iowa…

    Even with Democrat help, slim chance of Senate vote on gay marriage

    At least one Iowa Senate Democrat who sided with Republicans during the last legislative session in an attempt to force a vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage said he will do so again. Another wouldn’t rule it out. But even with Democrats likely facing a slim 26-24 majority next session, it’s unlikely the GOP could bring a marriage bill to the floor for a vote.

    Senate Republicans last attempted to bring the marriage amendment out of committee in February with a petition signed by all 18 members of their party and five Democrats – three senators shy of the required 26. Three of those Democrats – Dennis Black of Newton, Tom Hancock of Epworth and Joseph Seng of Davenport – remain in office. A fourth, Keith Kreiman of Bloomfield, appears to be headed toward a recount defeat.

    But even if at least two of the Democrats were to join Republicans in signing a new petition that still wouldn’t stop Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs) from blocking a bill coming to the floor. Gronstal has repeatedly said he will never allow a marriage amendment to come up for a vote.

    Hancock said he would probably still sign another petition and would vote in favor of an amendment banning same-sex marriage. Black wouldn’t say whether he supported same-sex marriage, saying he would have to see the language of a new petition or bill before deciding whether to support either.

    Black said he supported the petition in February in the interest of giving Iowa citizens more of a voice on the issue and predicted that a constitutional amendment bill would “pass virtually immediately” in the House next session but would die in the Senate’s judiciary committee.

    Both Black and Hancock expressed sympathy for the three state Supreme Court justices ousted over the issue in the recent retention election, saying they were just doing their job.

    More: http://iowaindependent.com/47858/even-with-democratic-help-chances-of-senate-vote-on-gay-marriage-slim

    Reply
  • 83. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 24, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Antonin Scalia: The 14th Amendment Should Not Apply To Homosexuals

    Speaking on Friday at the University of Richmond, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia denounced the concept of a “living Constitution” and said the 14th Amendment was not written with the intent of granting equal protection to ALL Americans. Just the heterosexual ones.

    “The due process clause has been distorted so it’s no longer a guarantee of process but a guarantee of liberty,” Scalia expounded. “But some of the liberties the Supreme Court has found to be protected by that word – liberty – nobody thought constituted a liberty when the 14th Amendment was adopted. Homosexual sodomy? It was criminal in all the states. Abortion? It was criminal in all the states.” “The way to change the Constitution is through amendments approved by the people, not by judges altering the meaning of its words,” he added.

    Scalia made similar comments in September when he told a San Francisco law school that the Constitution offers no protection whatsoever to homosexuals or females. Gay people and women, he said, should go to their state legislatures and see if “current society wants to outlaw discrimination” based on gender or sexual orientation. In the landmark 2003 Supreme Court ruling overturning laws against sodomy, Lawrence vs. Texas, Scalia was the most vehement dissenting vote.

    More: http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/11/antonin-scalia-14th-amendment-should.html

    Reply
    • 84. Ronnie  |  November 24, 2010 at 9:52 am

      Then um…why does my hard earned money (i.e. taxes) pay for those 14th amendment rights?…FAIL….un-American Fascist Scalia….. >/ …Ronnie

      Reply
    • 85. elliom  |  November 24, 2010 at 10:24 am

      After making these statements, what are the odds that Scalia will recuse himself when these cases come before SCOTUS?

      Zero.

      Reply
      • 86. Sagesse  |  November 24, 2010 at 10:41 am

        This is his long held belief. He expressed it in Lawrence, and will likely continue to express it if Prop 8 or DADT or DOMA come before the Supreme Court. The justices who disagreed with him decided Lawrence, and will decide other LGBT rights issues.

        I can’t for the life of me understand how he can hold the position he does, but he’s not going to change. He has to be outvoted.

        Reply
        • 87. nightshayde  |  November 24, 2010 at 11:02 am

          *votes for a surgical lightning strike*

          Reply
        • 88. Bob  |  November 24, 2010 at 11:41 am

          Sagesse, just wondering if you’ve been following the court case in B.C. regarding polygamy??

          and I don’t know if it’s relevant to post any of that here, but maybe some of the mormons on the site may not be aware, and find it interesting???

          there’s a group of women from washington state who have left polygamist marriages and are attending the trial with interest.

          this site doesn’t need further distractions, from the challenges they’re facing, but if anyone has an interest maybe they could check it out. Polygamy defended under freedom of religion……presently on trial in Canada, as well as one woman with two husbands,

          Reply
        • 89. Michael Adrian  |  November 24, 2010 at 3:26 pm

          Right, Sagesse. He’s not saying he’s against gay people or their rights, but he’s an ideologue with regard to constitutional interpretation. I came across a speech he made a few years ago on this topic and wrote a rambling long-winded journal entry (which can be read here if you care to). http://heybd.livejournal.com/107287.html

          Basically, Scalia believes that, when it was passed, the 14th amendment applied only to black people/former slaves. Due process couldn’t be expanded to other groups because that wasn’t the original intent, and his evidence is that we had to pass the 19th amendment to give women the vote. If due process was all-inclusive, the 19th amendment would have been unnecessary.

          It makes logical sense, but it is anything but compassionate.

          Reply
          • 90. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 24, 2010 at 5:06 pm

            If the 19th Amendment should have been unnecessary for those reasons, neither should the 15th or 24th Amendments have been. Scalia is an idiot.

      • 91. Rightthingtodo TX  |  November 24, 2010 at 11:32 am

        although if scalia was gay, she-who-shall-not-be-named, would claim that he should recuse himself

        Reply
    • 92. Phillip R  |  November 24, 2010 at 11:25 am

      I think what’s really unfortunate about Scalia is that the case is already decided in his mind regardless. The amount of evidence, scientific opinions, etc just don’t matter to him. I would hope that his widely known beliefs would make him recuse himself since it’s obvious how he feels about the matter but it won’t happen.

      Reply
      • 93. Phillip R  |  November 24, 2010 at 11:26 am

        PS…it’s my birthday and I’d love to hear some actual good news if anyone has some. :)

        Reply
        • 94. Ann S.  |  November 24, 2010 at 11:30 am

          Happy Birthday! As far as good news — well, we in the US have a 4-day weekend coming up!

          Reply
          • 95. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 24, 2010 at 11:31 am

            Not all of us : ) but I love working!

          • 96. Ann S.  |  November 24, 2010 at 11:51 am

            Silly me, I clearly have an office worker’s mindset, don’t I? I’m happy for you that you love working!

        • 97. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 24, 2010 at 11:33 am

          Happy Birthday Phillip

          Reply
        • 98. Kathleen  |  November 24, 2010 at 11:54 am

          Happy Birthday, Phillip!

          Here’s good new, especially if you live in California:
          Cooley concedes to Harris
          http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/11/cooley-concedes-to-kamala-harr.html

          Reply
          • 99. Ann S.  |  November 24, 2010 at 11:57 am

            HOORAY! That’s great news! Big thanks to Kathleen for helping monitor the vote counting, too!

          • 100. Sagesse  |  November 24, 2010 at 11:59 am

            Big :).

          • 101. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 24, 2010 at 12:03 pm

            Huge Kathleen – thanks! One more thing I get to be thankful about tomorrow.

          • 102. Bob  |  November 24, 2010 at 12:08 pm

            woot woot Kathleen, good news indeed, been waiting for that, and happy birthday Phillip,

          • 103. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  November 24, 2010 at 2:08 pm

            Woot!! (about Cooley concedes to Harris!) Happy Birthday Phillip! ….I’ll be working all weekend too… and I don’t mind either :)

        • 104. anonygrl  |  November 24, 2010 at 12:46 pm

          Happy Birthday! The sun is shining, the earth is turning, and every time it swings around brings us one day closer to equality.

          The good news is that we are, depsite what it sometimes may seem, winning this war. NOM’s horse droppings are holding less and less attention and even their loyal Mormon audience is starting to rethink, the poll numbers are climbing in our favor, Hawaii and California are heading towards equality as we watch, and the ever shriller and more vitrolic voices raised against us are falling on larger numbers of deaf ears daily.

          The bad news listed here on P8TT is not here to discourage us, but to empower us to action, to keep us in the fight! And it is working.

          Happy Birthday!

          Reply
          • 105. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  November 24, 2010 at 2:22 pm

            Thank you for that anonygrl!

          • 106. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 24, 2010 at 5:08 pm

            Happy birthday, Phillip! And thank you anonygrl for all the rays of sunshine your perspective brings! :)

      • 107. Sagesse  |  November 24, 2010 at 11:34 am

        It’s not a question of ‘beliefs’, but rather of ‘judicial philosophy’. Scalia has a framework for looking at the law and the constitution, and his decisions are consistent with that framework. These aren’t beliefs as in religious beliefs or personal preferences. They are founded in his understanding of the law.

        I still don’t understand how he gets there, but his judicial philosophy is not grounds for recusal.

        Reply
  • 108. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 24, 2010 at 11:23 am

    Reply
    • 109. Rightthingtodo TX  |  November 24, 2010 at 11:49 am

      but don’t the fbi-cited numbers undo the “progress”?

      Reply
    • 110. Sagesse  |  November 24, 2010 at 8:37 pm

      A ‘cultural reckoning’. I like that idea.

      Reply
  • 111. Mike M  |  November 24, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    Well as someone who actually lives in Illinois, the Civil Union thing is as good next step. Our last disgraced Democratic Governor pushed non-discrimination bills and signed executive orders to pave the way for Civil Unions. Our new Dem Governor is pushing Civil Unions. He’s doing so because his recent opponent was to the right of Hitler, and the people the Republican took money from expected him to introduce a bill to criminalize homosexuality. With the majority of legislators coming from the Large population centers in the north the dems still control both houses here but don’t have the two thirds vote to overturn the DOMA measures already passed. If Civil Unions pass it will put the idea in the downstater’s heads that gay marriage is inevitable so that in a year or two when it comes up no one will be move to march on the capitol in protest. We love our corrupt officials here but we hate to have conflict just as much. Laws pass here because they are inevitable not because they are a good idea or right.

    Reply
  • 112. Mark  |  November 24, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    Cooley Concedes To Harris In Calif. Attorney General Race

    November 24, 2010 10:43 AM

    LOS ANGELES (AP) — Republican Steve Cooley is conceding the California attorney general’s race to Kamala Harris, giving Democrats a sweep of all statewide offices.

    Cooley spokesman Kevin Spillane said Thursday that there aren’t enough outstanding votes for Cooley to overtake Harris.

    Spillane said Cooley called Harris Thursday morning to congratulate her.

    The San Francisco district attorney becomes the first woman and first minority elected as California’s top law enforcement official.

    Harris defeated Cooley in a bruising north-south battle between the top prosecutors from California’s two most prominent cities. Cooley is Los Angeles County district attorney.

    Harris is up by 51,000 votes, a half-percentage point margin, with 150,000 votes still uncounted.

    She replaces Democrat Jerry Brown, who gave up the office in his successful bid for governor.

    Reply
    • 113. anonygrl  |  November 24, 2010 at 12:50 pm

      Wooot!! THERE is some good news! Thanks Mark!

      Reply
  • 114. Ronnie  |  November 24, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    Openly Gay singer, Joe McElderry’s, (winner of the UK’s X-Factor, Season 6, 2009) music video for the upcoming Narnia film from Disney…..<3…Ronnie:

    Reply
  • 115. Bob Barnes  |  November 24, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    The People of California™ have spoken! They have voted in all the major candidates that said they support Marriage Equality. Guess NOM better do a better job on that spin.

    Reply
  • 116. Sven  |  November 24, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    Not sure if this was commented on before but clicking on the action alert link took me to forms I could fill out in favor of stripping gays of our rights. I noticed the title of the email and text could all be modified. I wonder if we could use their own “action alert” utility against them, chaning all the fields to pro-equality messages. I’m not sure what the final emails would look like though and I wouldn’t accidentally want it to look like i’m a NOMbie.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

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

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

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

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,308 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...