Videos: Elephant’s feat: To keep dancing on others’ ring fingers, rights?

December 23, 2010 at 12:47 pm 64 comments

For more details on NOM’s involvement with potential chairpeople of the Republican Party, see my post here. -Adam

Cross-posted at Good as You

By Jeremy Hooper

Three candidates for the chairpersonship of the Republican National Committee recently sat down with Susan B Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser and National Organization for Marriage Chair Maggie Gallagher to answer questions pertaining to choice and marriage. Here’s what they had to say (with videos fast forwarded to Maggie’s marriage part):

Saul Anuzis:

Gentry Collins:

Reince Priebus:

Because equal rights are for some, “culture wars” are for political gain, and big tents are for hippies.

Stay divisive, GOP!

Entry filed under: NOM Exposed, Right-wing.

What can be done over the next two years Golden Oldies open thread, December 23rd

64 Comments Add your own

  • 1. bJason  |  December 23, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Join Feed Equality for the (virtual) Festivus Feast! Going on now.
    Ann S., Elliom, Lesbians Loves Boise and I are there at the moment.
    take the FB link above then click on the second link to the chat room!

    • 2. Ann S.  |  December 23, 2010 at 1:14 pm

      Happy Festivus, everyone!

      • 3. Straight For Equality  |  December 23, 2010 at 2:26 pm

        Yes, happy Festivus!

    • 4. Kathleen  |  December 23, 2010 at 1:47 pm

      Happy Festivus! Hope to get there; lots to do here.

      • 5. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 23, 2010 at 2:05 pm

        Come join if only to say hi! We’ve aired some grievances, but mostly miracles.

        • 6. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 23, 2010 at 3:33 pm

          It runs until 11pm EST – so join when you can

    • 7. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 23, 2010 at 3:40 pm

      I meant to say all is welcome – we are currently in progress and will be there until 11pm EST

      • 8. elliom  |  December 23, 2010 at 3:42 pm

        And I gotta say, havin’ a lot of fun, to boot!

  • 9. Sagesse  |  December 23, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    Subscribing to watch later.

  • 10. Shannon  |  December 23, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    These guys have certainly studied the talking points… and they seem to have passed in reciting them!

    • 11. BK  |  December 24, 2010 at 4:50 am

      It’s like… “Oh, I remember what Maggie wants to hear! Maybe she’ll campaign for me if I blab off her talking points… get on her good side…”

      D’oh! Everything they say was a jumbled-up version of what Maggie et al have already said! Grrr…

  • 12. Ronnie  |  December 23, 2010 at 1:27 pm


  • 13. Brittney  |  December 23, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    You have got to be kidding me. These guys don’t know what they’re talking about. I am so sick of hearing “We’ve got to protect the sanctity of marriage” What sanctity? Have you even looked at the divorce rate?? If anything we’ll be preserving it not destroying it. Ugh, I despise politicians.
    And Maggie needs to go crawl in a hole somewhere.

    By the way, Merry Xristmas to everyone from my wife and I!!!

    • 14. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  December 23, 2010 at 2:41 pm

      Merry Christmas to you two as well!!!

  • 15. bryce  |  December 23, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    no synopsis of what they say? thats 45 minutes worth of video!

    • 16. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  December 23, 2010 at 3:00 pm

      ‘They’ keep forgetting that not all of us can watch video…really wish people would post a quick blurb along with videos telling us a little bit about what’s being said….a synopsis as you say would be awesome!

      • 17. BK  |  December 24, 2010 at 4:55 am

        WELL, Kids…marriage…devalue…mom…God…children…dad…sanctity…my marriage…blahblahblah…

        Oh, and they imply that marriage has been the same for 3000 years…

        Basically, you don’t have to be psychic to predict everything they said.

  • 18. Straight For Equality  |  December 23, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    Did you hear one single candidate that didn’t use God as the reason why he was “pro-life” and for “traditional marriage”? Please! Your religious beliefs and Bible are not relevant to the laws of this country.

    • 19. Marlene  |  December 23, 2010 at 2:58 pm

      Don’t you know that god is a Republican and wants *everyone* to vote his way?

      • 20. Michelle Evans  |  December 23, 2010 at 3:05 pm

        Yes, and god is always on the side of America, or whichever side you happen to be on at the moment. How many times have we seen the excuse that god is behind us when we are trying to kill the soldiers of the other side? So much for god loving everyone equally, and all that garbage. And so much for god being all about peace, too.

        • 21. BK  |  December 24, 2010 at 4:58 am

          Pfft… God about peace… (rolls eyes)

          sigh I wish people would actually look into what their prophets taught.

          • 22. Steve  |  December 24, 2010 at 7:53 am

            Agreed. The God of the OT is a malevolent, genocidal monster.

            And Jesus isn’t really all that great either:
            “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”
            — Matthew 10:34-39 (Luke 12:49-53 is similar)

            You can certainly explain that away, but there are plenty of teachings in the NT that just as vile and repugnant as all the evil in the OT. The concept of eternal torture in hell didn’t come along until gentle, loving Jesus.

          • 23. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 24, 2010 at 8:44 am

            And actually, that concept did not become fully developed as such until Saul of Tarsus changed his name to Paul.

    • 24. Leo  |  December 23, 2010 at 3:02 pm

      Well, they were asked how their positions had been shaped. It’s no secret that religion often shapes people’s positions. It can’t be used as a rationale to defend a bad law in court, but that’s a different question.
      What I would have liked to see, though, is them being asked, “make your best case for […] to an atheist

      • 25. Straight For Equality  |  December 23, 2010 at 3:24 pm

        Good points, Leo. And your question would be a good one, but they wouldn’t ask it because that would open the way for showing the lack of rational reasons.

      • 26. Steve  |  December 24, 2010 at 4:23 am

        Well, to me anyone who lets religion influence their life to such an extent or admits so in the course or an election campaign is not electable.

        • 27. BK  |  December 24, 2010 at 4:58 am

          Unless they’re Republican and live in a red state…

    • 28. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  December 23, 2010 at 3:05 pm

      I will keep my Constitution out of your Bible provided you keep your Bible out of my Constitution.
      Seems simple enough to me :-)
      And heck I even consider myself Christian and I get how simple a concept this is… UGH!!!

      • 29. Straight For Equality  |  December 23, 2010 at 3:27 pm

        I will keep my Constitution out of your Bible provided you keep your Bible out of my Constitution.

        Mark, I like that!

        • 30. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  December 23, 2010 at 3:40 pm


      • 31. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 23, 2010 at 9:12 pm

        Yes, but you are a true Christian, not a sheeple pseudo-Christian. And you have a brain and know how to use it. You have critical thinking skills, rationality, sanity, all of the stuff that they are lacking.

        • 32. Mark M  |  December 23, 2010 at 11:22 pm

          You give me far to much credit my friend

        • 33. Steve  |  December 24, 2010 at 4:25 am

          The No True Scotsman fallacy doesn’t really work. They think they are the true Christians and that everyone else is weak and false.

          The solution would be to do what Christians have always done: kill each other over it ;)

          • 34. BK  |  December 24, 2010 at 5:02 am

            Assuming there is a God imagine how weird it would be if we commenters turn out to be on the wrong side of all this. God would have a LOT of explaning to do. ;)

  • 35. Straight For Equality  |  December 23, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    And although I am a couple of days late, happy winter solstice!

  • 36. Mackenzie  |  December 23, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Too bad the only argument they have is that all the little children of the world need a mom and a dad to grow up to be hateful like them. Since I love to be the thorn in the side of these people I am off to comment on all three of these youtube videos, lest NOM attempt to use it for propaganda. What a bunch zeros.

    Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays – depending on what you prefer!

  • 37. Leo  |  December 23, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    Docket Text:
    Received original and 6 copies of Amicus Curiae – Pending John Doe pro se amicus brief in 6 pages. Served on 12/22/2010. Major deficiencies: untimely, insufficient brief copies. Unable to notify prospective amicus of deficiencies because no acceptable or usable contact information provided.

    Pro se and anonymous — an interesting combination. Is that actually allowed? If so, it would seem that you can file the most frivolous stuff without fear of Rule 11 sanctions.

    • 38. Ann S.  |  December 23, 2010 at 5:17 pm

      They can’t sanction John Doe because he gave NO contact info. It’s the most ridiculous thing.

      UPDATE: John Doe pro se delinquent ridiculous filing, read it and LOL:

      • 39. Kathleen  |  December 23, 2010 at 5:32 pm

        Warning. It’s a real hot mess of crazy.

        • 40. JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA)  |  December 23, 2010 at 5:44 pm

          You aren’t kidding, Kathleen. I could only skim it for fear my eyeballs or my brain (or both!) might explode. The name-calling is particularly mature and “helpful” to his case. Geesh.

          • 41. BK  |  December 24, 2010 at 5:13 am

            Aaaaaah! He used wikipedia as a source! (take that, teachers…) :P

        • 42. Sagesse  |  December 23, 2010 at 5:54 pm

          I am speechless.

        • 43. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 23, 2010 at 6:21 pm

          hot mess of crazy is going lightly on John Doe.

      • 44. Leo  |  December 23, 2010 at 5:45 pm

        Well yes, that’s what I meant — you can’t be sanctioned if you file anonymously and pro se. (If you file anonymously through an attorney, they can at least sanction the attorney.) It seemed surprising to me that this would be allowed, since it means one can use the court with immunity as a publishing vehicle for anything, from “come join my Ponzi scheme” to “all judges should burn in hell.”

      • 45. Peterplumber  |  December 23, 2010 at 5:53 pm

        WOW, that guy is one sick individual.

        He gave an email address in that brief,
        We should bombard him with gay sex stories, since he seems to like writing about them.

        • 46. Ann S.  |  December 23, 2010 at 6:35 pm

          Odds are he just pulled that out of his, um, elbow. Don’t give him the satisfaction.

          • 47. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 23, 2010 at 6:49 pm

            it’s a real email address: I checked at

          • 48. Ann S.  |  December 23, 2010 at 6:51 pm

            Thanks, LLB. I still wouldn’t write to him. I wouldn’t want that nutcase to have my email addy.

          • 49. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 23, 2010 at 7:20 pm

            very true

      • 50. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 23, 2010 at 6:13 pm

        Yes, big warning as to the graphic descriptions in this.

        • 51. BK  |  December 24, 2010 at 5:20 am

          psst… He’s a weirdo! Really! I have no idea what the heck is wrong with that guy. He scares me.

      • 52. Michelle Evans  |  December 23, 2010 at 8:25 pm

        Actually I would hope that the filing of this document with the 9th Circuit might aid our side in that it clearly shows the animus against the LGBT population that was talked about in court.

        And, of course, the judges on the panel will really give lots of weight to arguments that are backed up with citations from Wikipedia and NARTH! Both outstanding supporters of truth–not!

    • 53. Ray in MA  |  December 23, 2010 at 5:42 pm

      That John Doe lives in Feekazoid City.

  • 54. Sagesse  |  December 23, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    It’s always risky to attribute a strategy and an objective to NOM… they can drive a bus around CA, stopping at some scheduled stops, speaking to… oh, fives of people, and say they are reaching out to hispanic voters.

    Raises the question of how one reaches the 168 delegates, leaders of state Republican organizations, to influence their vote for RNC chair. Ask leading questions of three candidates and post the interviews online? One wonders about the three candidates, including the incumbent, who (weren’t invited) (declined) to be interviewed.

    As usual NOM is making a big show of participating in the debate… but is anyone listening? And is anyone who is listening going to vote for the RNC chairman? Smoke and mirrors and spin.

  • 55. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 23, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    Will look at the videos more fully after I finish eating. I don’t want to waste food by spewing it at my laptop screen.

    • 56. BK  |  December 24, 2010 at 5:22 am

      Haha. Might want to wait a while after eating… don’t want any indigestion of sorts. :)

  • 57. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 23, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    And again, I forgot to click the button!

  • 58. Jim  |  December 23, 2010 at 7:09 pm

    I also prefer reading text to watching videos. So, to help out this time, I transcribed them:

    (MG): Maggie Gallagher
    (SA): Saul Anuzis
    (MD): Marjorie Dannenfelser

    MG (5:36): “Well, thank you first of all Marjorie for setting this up for us. How did you come to the position you hold on marriage?”

    SA (5:43): “You know, marriage is an institution that’s been around for over three thousand years. It’s part of our faith, it’s part of our culture, and [for] someone who’s brought up in a Judeo-Christian values [system] I think it is a very natural thing. And obviously [for] somebody who’s been married for 26 years and believes that that is the way a family should be formed, I think it’s very important to have a mother and a father, if possible, an active mother and an active father in the raising of your children. And you know family — what’s different about this country [from] any other country in the world is that we really do value those social [and] religious institutions, that in many cases are slipping away around the world. And I think if you take a look at how our culture is falling apart or fails at many times, I think much of it can be brought right back to the family unit. You know we here in the United States still value a family unit. And — unfortunately it’s fading — but in many parts of the world that has become you know kind of blase for them, almost a second thought, whether you’re married or not is irrelevant, whether you have children out of wedlock is irrelevant, whether you have a mother and a father that raises a child becomes irrelevant, and I think that reflects on their societies, and ours. And what makes us a little bit different, and why I believe in the whole concept of American exceptionalism — I do think we’re better, I do think we’re different, I do think we have the kinds of beliefs and faiths in our system and the process that made us who we are today. And I think that is the strength of America, and that is the strength of the kind of American exceptionalism that Ronald Reagan once talked about.

    MG (7:15): Would you continue to discourage candidates from mentioning the issue on their websites at all? …that’s been a policy…

    SA (7:24): No.

    MG (7:25): And as chairman, what specifically would you do differently than the current or recent past administrations with regard to marriage? Would you highlight them in political advertising, or put more resources into the issue? What’s your opinion on that?

    SA (7:40): Yeah, well, look. I think it is a fundamental issue and it’s a very important issue. I think that people care that you are a family person, a family man so to speak. I think the fact that I’ve been married now for 26 years. I have four sons. Oftentimes the fact that I have a family is something that is positively reflected, and looked upon with respect to people in the political community. So I don’t think that —

    MG (8:04) We just saw that lovely Christmas card —

    SA (8:06) Thank you very much!

    MG (8:07) …who the guy in the statue is?

    SA (8:09): Yeah, that’s Sparty, he’s the Michigan State University icon there and —

    MG (8:16): Majorie was going, “I hope that’s not Gerald Ford.”

    SA (8:19): No, no, no. That’s — Listen, I think we all wished we looked like that. I think that was definitely one of those mythical —

    MG (8:22): ..put this now on the SBA list website so they can see what we’re talking about.

    MD (8:29): Oh, it’ll be there.

    SA (8:30): Sure, sure, yeah, let them see what the family looks like. But, you know, look, you know — By the way, we took that when we thought Michigan State was going to the Rose Bowl. And my wife and my oldest son, my wife’s a Michigan State graduate, my son is at Michigan State right now, so our family lives out here so we tend to be big fans, but anyways —

    MD (8:47): You gotta recruit some daughters-in-law into that crowd.

    SA (8:50): Yeah, yeah, that’s — I think we’re doing —

    MD (8:52): She’s nominated there.

    SA (8:53): There you go. We’ll be in good shape.

    MG (8:58): Alright, well thank you.

  • 59. Jim  |  December 23, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    And here’s another transcription:

    (MG): Maggie Gallagher
    (GC): Gentry Collins

    MG (9:38): So you’re at a cocktail party in Washington and you’re the new RNC chairman, and somebody — we won’t name names, but maybe they’re a big Ron Paul fan, or maybe they work for Cato — comes up to you and says, “The Republican party really needs to drop this marriage issue. It’s not a good issue.” What’s the best case that you would make for why we can’t abandon the idea that to make a marriage you need a husband and a wife?

    GC (10:03): Well, first of all, if the next RNC chairman is spending his or her time at cocktail parties in Washington DC, they’re not doing the job. They ought to be on the phone talking to major donors so that we can resource the kind of candidates that can win. But I’m not trying to dodge the question. Look, I can speak from personal experience, and I think that there’s all kinds of evidence all over our society that raising children takes a mom and a dad. And it takes a very committed mom and dad. We — not only are we raising four kids, but we’re home schooling those four kids and we have all kinds of blessings. Yet we know how tough it is in this day and age, in this society, to raise kids to live in this society the kind of lives that we all hope our children can live. That takes a mom and it takes a dad. And the first mission, the first responsibility in our marriage, and I think in every marriage, is raising our kids and raising them as well as we know how. That happens when you have a mom and a dad, it happens when you have one man and one woman, in a marriage.

    MG (11:19): So what’s the harm of same-sex marriage?

    GC (11:24): The harm of same-sex marriage is that it — a number of things, but principally — that it devalues the relationship that is shared by my wife and I, and other committed married couples, men and women around the country.

    MG (11:42): So on to a more political question, thank you very much. I — again following Marjorie’s lead, this is more about resources — so the surveys uniformly show that 80% of Republicans support the idea of protecting the traditional definition of marriage. And in particular in the last election cycle in 2009 and 2010, Republicans who support gay marriage, from Dee Dee Scozzafava to Bill Binnie to Tom Campbell, have lost in GOP primaries pretty decisively. In every state where — in 31 different states — where the people have had a chance to vote on this, they have rejected the idea there’s a right to same-sex marriage, and voted for the traditional understanding of marriage. Yet we know that many candidates have been discouraged directly by the RNC about speaking up on this issue, even a mention on the website. We understand, by the way, that this is not the flagship issue on the minds of voters, so we’re not proposing that people run on this as their main issue, but it’s the total avoidance of it, at all, which is I think disturbing, especially to those of us on the front line and the grassroots, that we have gathered who care about this issue a lot. So I’m wondering if you would continue this policy or would you encourage candidates to make their position on marriage clear and to try to draw distinctions?

    GC (13:09): Well, a couple of thoughts. First, I would encourage candidates to make their positions clear. In fact, I’ve been — as I’ve been talking to members about how we positively impact turnout in 2012, I frequently hearken back to 2004, and of course as you recall, just as a political matter, most of the exit polling late into the evening on election night in 2004 predicted that Senator Kerry would become president, and that that would happen in a landslide way, and part of the reason that he didn’t, part of the reason that that exit polling was wrong, was that marriage amendments on the ballots in key states, and I’m thinking, for example of Ohio now, but there were others, fundamentally altered the way the turnout worked. Not only was it more Republican, but it was more conservative. Whether it was partisan or not, those voters not only came out to do the right thing on the marriage amendment, but they voted for the Republican candidate for president, and helped us carry that election. And so not only is it the right thing to do for the country, but politically it’s the right thing to do as well. I might — as you know, I’m a vocal critic of the performance of this current chairman, though I might add that I’ve had an inside seat. I’ve had a good chance to see what happens at the RNC. And I can tell you that I have never witnessed — as much as I’d love to tell you that it was something that I’d change as chairman — I have never witnessed anybody at the RNC discourage a candidate from making clear their position on this or the life issue, and so while I’d love to tell you that I’d change that policy, that’s not a policy at the RNC that I’m aware of. I think many times, there are other national political organizations that get involved in primaries, that have a variety of public policy positions that they want to espouse, and sometimes there are people who misunderstand that as the national party, or view it as the national party pretty broadly making those kinds of statements. I really do think, again, as much as I’d love to criticize the current administration for a variety of things, that’s not a policy that I witnessed in my time at the RNC. It’s clearly not one that I would support, and the direct answer to your question is I would encourage candidates to make clear their positions, both on life and marriage, as well as a variety of other issues.

    MG (15:33): Thank you so much.

  • 60. Jim  |  December 23, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    And here’s the third transcription:

    (MG): Maggie Gallagher
    (RP): Reince Priebus
    (MD): Marjorie Dannenfelser

    MG (6:11): So here’s my first question: You’re elected chairman of the RNC, of course you’re out in the country raising money and working with donors, but you’re also here in DC on the inside of a lot of these insider conversations. And one of our more — we won’t name any names — but one of our more libertarian brothers in the GOP comes up to you and says “Why should we be involved in this marriage issue at all?” Right, what’s your best case? You’ve got two minutes or less, thirty seconds. What’s the case you make for why this is an important issue?

    RP (6:42) It’s an important issue because I believe that marriage is a gift from God and the sanctity of marriage ought to be protected and there are certain legal definitions that are not just legal and not just protected by our Constitution but that are also protected by the sanctity of marriage given to us by God. And I don’t believe that the comity clause in the Consitution allows for activist judges to redefine what marriage is. I believe that that’s why the majority of states certainly agree that marriage needs to be between one man and one woman. That’s what we’ve done in Wisconsin. I was a part of that. I was helpful to make sure that that happened. I was helpful to our attorney general to make sure that this happened. I believe it’s important. I believe the Defense of Marriage Act is important. And I think that it’s something that certainly as chairman of the Republican National Committee, we ought to be committed to. Our platform is strong in that area. I think if anyone reads our platform on marriage, certainly I think that the Republican Party has hit on all cylinders on that issue, and I have no beef with any part of that platform that’s set forth within the Republican National Committee.

    MG (7:53): I just want to clarify, when you said “comity clause”, I heard “comedy clause”…

    RP (8:06): It’s also called the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

    MG (8:10): Thank you. So he says “What’s the harm of gay marriage?” What’s your short answer?

    RP (8:16): Because I think marriage is defined to be between one man and one woman. The harm is I think that children are better off with a mom and a dad. I certainly admire single parents; I know it’s tough. But at the end of the day, I think a mom and a dad are important to a child’s life. I mean, I have two kids, and I think both my wife and I provide different types of nuturing to our children. I think that’s really important. I think that’s what God intended, and that’s what I believe, and that’s what I would adhere to if I were to be chairman of the national party. That’s what I’ve adhered to as chairman of the Republican party of Wisconsin.

    MG (9:03): Well, thank you. And of course Wisconsin did pass a marriage amendment in 2006 by a 60% to 40% margin, so you’re probably very aware that one of the things we’re struck by is because our victories aren’t relayed or magnified by the press, even on Fox News, many even insider politicians seem to be unaware of the unbroken string of victories on the marriage issue, that more than 80% of Republicans strongly support the current definition of marriage. The last election cycle saw the beginning of the emergence of a kind of pro-gay-marriage, fiscally-conservative candidacies — Dee Dee Scozzafava, Bill Binnie, Tom Campbell — and they were all soundly rejected by the GOP primary voters. And not only in red states, but in relatively blue or purplish states like Wisconsin and Maine and California, voters again and again reject same-sex marriage. But there seems to be a sense in Washington that what we hear from candidates is the RNC or other organizations like that are actively discouraging candidates from making their position on marriage known, mentioning it on their websites. We do understand that this is not going to be the top-line issue, we’re not asking people to make this their biggest advertising budget. But it is striking given its unbroken record of success, how many Republican candidates are just not making a distinction clear. And I’m wondering whether you at the RNC would continue that policy, or whether you would encourage candidates in many places to drive distinction on the marriage issue and make it part of their package?

    RP (10:47): Well, I don’t think that’s actually part of a policy at the RNC at all, but I think individual candidates make choices on what they think is going to move voters. But personally, certainly if it’s an issue that a candidate feels strongly about, or if it’s an issue that voters want to know about, I don’t see any reason why you wouldn’t state your position. You’re right, a majority — an overwhelming majority — of states have already passed these amendments because that’s what people want. I’m sitting here in Wisconsin. I can guarantee you that even though many times we’re a blue state, in fact we flipped almost everything red this past year, but —

    MG (11:25): A lot of those formerly blue states did.

    RP (11:26): Right!

    MD (11:27): Congratulations!

    RP (11:28): Thank you! But, the people here believe that marriage ought to be between one man and one woman. I mean, we had to go through a constitutional amendment to say that, even though our current law was that marriage was between a husband and a wife, but we were fighting over what a husband and a wife was, so we had to pass an amendment to say that it was a man and a woman. I mean these are the fights that are going on in America. And I think the bigger issue here isn’t really what individual candidates want to do. I think our bigger challenge is that we’ve got courts that are out of control. We’ve got judges that are legislating. We have judges in different states that want to use that full faith and credit clause to impose their will on the rest of the country. And that’s not what the founders of this country intended. That’s certainly not what I think God intended. And it’s certainly not what I individually believe and would intend to do if I were to be elected chairman of the party.

    MG (12:33): Well, thank you.

    • 61. Mark M  |  December 23, 2010 at 11:26 pm

      Thanks SO much for all that work Jim!
      You’re awesome!!!

      • 62. BK  |  December 24, 2010 at 5:26 am

        Lots of text! Thank you!

  • 63. Carpool Cookie  |  December 24, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    I’m watching the 1st one…Can the dimwit woman shut up and ask her question? The guy is getting a really glazed over look on his face, and you know the reception via their computer screens aren’t that great.

    He’s thinking, “Whaaaat is she getting to?? Is she DONE??”

  • 64. Carpool Cookie  |  December 24, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    Oh no. Priebus just said he feels we all must lead “Mission Driven” lives (!)


    Sounds like there’s homework involved!!


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)

  • 4,585,332 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...