Thanks for the push, Maggie. We like this Michigan poll too

January 7, 2011 at 4:00 pm 155 comments

It is a spin, spin, spin world indeed when 55% becomes an “only” number.

Aside from the undecided numbers here, I think it would be fascinating to focus group Michigan residents on the issue after they know more about the economically stimulative benefits of marriage. I have family in the state and economy/jobs has, is, and will be the #1 issue for a long time, to the point that the attitude is if it creates jobs, it’s sure worth considering. I’m willing to bet some minds would be changed -Adam

Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

This is how Maggie Gallagher, writing for the NOM Blog, presents new Michigan state polling data:

Screen Shot 2011-01-07 At 9.49.48 Am

[NOM BLOG]

So okay, let’s start with the “only 55 percent” claim. Are we seriously at a place where Maggie is painting a certain subdivision’s majority support for marriage equality as a good sign for her side? Because it wasn’t too long ago — as in HDTV was already around — that all breakdowns in all polls were under the 50% mark. If Maggie wants to look somewhat favorably at majority percentages like this one, in a world where support firms up every time a new voter turns eighteen, then that’s her prerogative. But we don’t believe she believes it. Not really.

But beyond just that: The actual WDIV/Detroit News/Glengariff Group Inc data paints an even more favorable pic than Maggie’s purposely limited presentation would have one believe.

By a margin of 38.5%-50.2%, Michigan voters oppose allowing gay men and lesbians to get married. 54.9% of Democratic voters support gay marriage, 42.3% of Independent voters support gay marriage, but only 19.6% of Republican voters support gay marriage.

But when asked if they support granting the alternative of civil unions to provide the legal benefits of marriage while still preserving the word marriage as something between a man and a woman, voters support civil unions by a margin of 55.7%-36.5%.

63.7% of Democratic voters, 61.1% of Independent voters and even 44.3% of Republican voters said they could support civil unions for gay and lesbian Michiganders.

There is a strongly difference by gender specifically on the issue of marriage.

Men oppose marriage by a margin of 33.0%-56.7% But women SUPPORT same sex marriage by the narrow margin of 44.0%-42.6% Men support civil unions by a margin of 55.7%-36.7%. Women support civil unions by a nearly identical margin of 55.7%-36.3%. Men appear to have a strong reaction to the word ‘marriage’ that women do not share.

Michigan Voters Survey (pdf) [Glengariff]

Funny that Maggie completely overlooks civil unions (which, at the end of the day, NOM almost ways disfavors, even if they’re less forthright about it).

But beyond even that data, there’s one more important piece that Maggie fails to mention. In the marriage question itself, there is a pretty high “don’t know/refused” percentage, and an undeniably small opposition figure:

Screen Shot 2011-01-07 At 9.58.54 Am

11.3% didn’t answer? Hmm. There are multiple reasons why folks might fall into that category. But most opponents of marriage equality are pretty darn forthright about it. We’d def. go out on a limb and say a larger portion of that 11.3% will move our way over the years, especially if we just keep telling our stories.

And finally: The fact that only 50.2% in total voiced opposition, and only 42% of them strongly? That’s pretty soft for someone like Maggie, who relies on a motivated opposition to turn out on election day. No wonder she ignored it.

If this poll is truly representative and a question of marriage inequality again makes its way to Michigan’s polls, will Maggie able to hold onto/turn out enough of this 50.2%, or to convert enough of the undecideds to put her fight above the bare majority threshold? Perhaps. But tick, tick, Maggie — 18th birthday party invites go out every day.

**

*NOTE: An earlier version of this post suggested that Michigan did not yet have a constitutional ban. In fact, the state did pass a ban in 2004 — One that banned both marriage and civil unions.

Interestingly, they did so by 58.6%, which would seem to further highlight that momentum is on our side, not Maggie’s.

Entry filed under: Marriage equality.

Admiral Mullen on certification of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal: “we won’t dawdle” Open thread: Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords shot, along with others

155 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Ann S.  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    Scribin’, but no time to read right now.

    Reply
    • 2. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:06 pm

      Reply
    • 3. Kathleen  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:13 pm

      Reply
      • 4. Peterplumber  |  January 7, 2011 at 6:18 pm

        Reply
      • 5. Ed Cortes  |  January 8, 2011 at 9:45 am

        scribin’ late

        Reply
    • 6. JonT  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:51 pm

      will catch up later.

      Reply
  • 7. Kathleen  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    This TX divorce upheld, but on procedural issues. Doesn’t tell us what might happen next time in TX:
    http://www.sdgln.com/commentary/2011/01/07/same-sex-divorce-upheld-texas

    Reply
  • 8. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    One thing that is also overlooked is that the numbers are changing daily – our favor. 20 years ago the slant moving upward for Marriage equality was slow; 10 years ago a little faster upward movement; the last two years – sharp curve.

    Reply
  • 9. Rhie  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    Watchin…

    I was going back through earlier posts and noticed something cool that I’d like to see brought back. If a commenter had a particularly interesting or intelligent or even just funny comment it was edited into the main post. Sometimes those discussions sparked new posts.

    Maybe we can do that in the next year too? :)

    Reply
    • 10. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:44 pm

      That’s a great idea Rhie – something I miss too.

      Reply
    • 11. Carpool Cookie  |  January 8, 2011 at 12:13 pm

      Maybe there can even be a default whereby my comments are brought up into the body of the article? Shouldn’t we explore this? I think so.

      Reply
      • 12. Kathleen  |  January 8, 2011 at 12:14 pm

        I’d vote for that feature. :)

        Reply
        • 13. Carpool Cookie  |  January 8, 2011 at 2:58 pm

          Why hasn’t it appeared yet? Checking the box.

          Reply
  • 14. Owen  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    That’s actually a really discouraging poll, IMO.

    I just hope Michigan is more conservative than they’re considered with some of these projection systems.

    That New York Times Article had it at an estimated 44 percent support in 2010.

    Reply
    • 15. Tomato  |  January 7, 2011 at 6:14 pm

      I lived in Michigan, briefly. (and it wasn’t my choice)

      It was a soul-killing, crushingly horrible place. I met MANY full-grown adults (like, in their 40’s) who had NEVER been outside the state… and had no desire to go across the state lines even in their middle age.

      Trust me, Michigan is more conservative than they are considered.

      (look what happened with the closet-case Asst AG and his obsessive harassment and stalking of a male U of M student. And Ann Arbor is THE hotbed of intelligence in the state!)

      Reply
  • 16. nightshayde  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    I wonder if it’s one of those states where support for marriage equality jumps when it’s explicitly spelled out that no church/religious institution has to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

    Reply
  • 17. Jeremy  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    A decline of 8% in the OPPOSE column to gay marriage (2005-ish to today) would be a 1.33% decline in opposition per year. This tracks pretty close to the movement on the question nationwide.

    Based on state and national polling, I believe that by 2013 there will be consistent +50% support for gay marriage. Once we reach that magic point, we should start investing in ballot initiatives to undo the gay marriage bans passed in the last 15 years (assuming the SCOTUS doesn’t get there first).

    Reply
    • 18. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:46 pm

      That’s when NOM will say it should be voted only through their bought and paid for legislators.

      Reply
  • 19. Ronnie  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    This is so typical of NOM, Maggie Gallagher & the rest of her ilk…..It never fails….they are filled with lies, misinformation, conveniently left out facts that would otherwise subvert their ideology & schema, half truths, the laughable ignoring of facts/polls/statistics/studies/reports that completely debunk their ideologies, illegally using other people’s copyrighted material to beg for money…I mean garner support (like I have said in the past) for their ill-fated cause, & harming others just to fulfill their arrogant, selfish, gluttonous desire & thirst to control every single aspect of every single person’s life with their elitist, autocratic & theocratic version of an “Aryan” way of life…….Pick, choose, & discard is not just a game created to get kids to help sort through the rice for the perfect grains….No, no….that is one of NOM’s favorite games….beggars can’t be choosers NOM….just saying….. ; )

    <3…Ronnie

    Reply
  • 20. Kevin  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    Jeremy Hooper is right to point to the strong shift in support in younger demographics. But emphasizing a 5% majority among self-identified Democrats with 42% general opposition is as much of a disingenuous spin as anything coming out of NOM. These numbers are dismal, but expected. Not only is Michigan an extremely conservative state, but it’s economic depression extends far, far beyond the recession as experienced by the rest of the nation. The economic pain has run much longer and much deeper than almost anywhere else, and it is extremely unlikely that a major shift in public opinion about same-sex marriage can be effected there anytime soon.

    Reply
  • 21. Mark  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:21 pm

    I’m tired of Prop 8. Let’s talk about prop K9 for a minute. We should amend the constitution so that I’m allowed to marry my dog. She is a legal adult, and in dog years she’s actually older than I am. We already live together, and though we can’t biologically reproduce, I’m raising her puppies with her that the sperm donor dog left behind at my house. Let’s face it, we love each other, are already living together as a family anyway. We need the tax cuts and legally-recognized benefits that a court calling our union a “marriage” would give us. To not allow our union to be recognized as a marriage is to deny us of our civil rights. My puppies deserve to have their mom and me their legally-married mom and dad. I’m tired of all of the biggotted specists out there! One day, after all of my beastialty-loving friends and our minority lobbying efforts are justified, man and his real best friend, his dog, will stand hand in hand, sing “we shall overcome” and be out of the dog house forever! Life feels different when you’re married…to your dog.

    Reply
    • 22. Ronnie  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:27 pm

      Yeeeeeeeeaaaah..NO…The Constitution applies to humans…nice try though….. 8 / ….Ronnie

      Reply
    • 23. JonT  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:29 pm

      Good luck with that. Let me know when you’ve trained your dog, er, wife-to-be to understand and sign a marriage license.

      Make sure you get a pre-nup!

      PS: Troll harder.

      Reply
      • 24. Ann S.  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:32 pm

        Nice one, Jon.

        Reply
        • 25. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:26 pm

          Shouldn’t that be a “pre-pup,” Jon? :)

          Or maybe “pre-nip.”

          Reply
          • 26. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:27 pm

            pup-nup

          • 27. JonT  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:20 pm

            Ha! Yes, it should be :)

    • 28. Joel  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:57 pm

      If you can get your dog to give informed consent as an individual to the contract of marriage, you should 1. call David Letterman and get her on “Stupid Pet Tricks” and 2. marry the bitch.

      Let us know how that goes for you!

      Reply
    • 29. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 7, 2011 at 6:06 pm

      Wow. I never thought of it that way, Mark. You’re completely right, and I’m surprised nobody has put forth such a coherent and well-reasoned critique of the pro-gay-marriage side of the debate so far. I’m completely swayed and renounce any ties and promises to help the LGBT community push their horrid, bestial agenda. Thank you for your amazing insight.

      /sarcasm

      Reply
    • 30. Peterplumber  |  January 7, 2011 at 6:26 pm

      that was funny! Thanks for brightening up my grueling day! :-)

      Reply
    • 31. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:38 pm

      Isn’t it disturbing how all anti-equality people think about is bestiality, child molestation, and what other people do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Like, obsessively! It’s all they talk about! Have you ever noticed how THEY keep bringing these things up, not us? Bleeccch! We may be gay and straight allies, but those people are perverts.

      Reply
      • 32. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:38 pm

        Amen Elizabeth!

        Reply
      • 33. JonT  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:58 pm

        +1 :)

        Reply
        • 34. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:01 pm

          That being said, it is true we recognize a “wide stance” when we see one. :)

          Reply
          • 35. BK  |  January 8, 2011 at 12:53 am

            *smacks forehead* (shakes head, grinning)

      • 36. Evelyn J. Brooks  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:00 am

        That’s what I keep saying. I was just in an argument with someone and I swear he wouldn’t stop talking about sex!

        Reply
    • 37. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:49 pm

      Hello, troll! One question. Have you been able to find the decree of the divorce that qas granted to your only two brain cells? It is very obvious from your post that they have not been in communication with each other for quite some time now, so you may want to go somewhere and find some more brain cells so that they will no longer be lonely, and so that they can actually turn their thought processes toward learning the difference between those whose sexual orientation happens to be LGBT and those who are perverted enough to attempt to have sex with an animal.

      Reply
      • 38. BK  |  January 8, 2011 at 12:54 am

        Tsk, tsk, Richard. No polygamist marriages between brain cells! You should know that already.

        /sarcasm

        Reply
    • 39. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 8, 2011 at 7:26 am

      I wonder where these trolls go at night, after they’re done thinking they’ve been clever? Under a rock? Into a cave? Into a bog? RNC chairman’s office? Junior High? Other detestable and inhuman place?

      Reply
      • 40. Mackenzie  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:36 am

        hahaha AWSOME!

        Reply
      • 41. DaveP  |  January 9, 2011 at 3:02 pm

        They turn off their mommys computer and go up the stairs out of their parents basement and they go to bed. Tomorrow is a school day.

        Reply
    • 42. Evelyn J. Brooks  |  January 8, 2011 at 8:44 am

      “She is a legal adult,”

      She’s not a legal anything, she’s a dog ie not a united states citizen. If you can’t see that argument coming then you have no business holding commentary.

      Legally marrying your dog is a good example of how you would truly redefine the marriage institution. If people could marry dogs then animals would need a whole host of sweeping legal protections, not to mention citizenship. There are tax issues and property issues as well. Gay people on the other hand do not have to change the legal institution of marriage in order to benefit from it.

      That’s not even getting into the obvious fact that animals cannot consent. Second of all, I don’t think you understand the issue here, the satire is kind of lost when you realize that no one here is really TRYING to amend the constitution in the first place.

      Reply
      • 43. Mark  |  January 8, 2011 at 11:03 am

        Gosh, some of you really got your fake flamingo feathers all up in a ruffle with that one! Making it so men can marry men, and women can marry women, would promote no more or less of a sick joke than me marrying my dog, whether the constitution would have to be amended or not. Besides, in several states around the union, it would require a constitutional amendment. The reason the founding fathers didn’t put it in the US Constitution that homosexual marriage was outlawed is because no one back then could have imagined that our country would grow to be so sick that this issue would even be debated at a national level.

        Reply
        • 44. Ronnie  |  January 8, 2011 at 11:15 am

          Nah…you’re the sick one, Mark…completely & 100% mentally disturbed…seek help…from an actual mental health professional…. 8 / …..Ronnie

          Reply
        • 45. Christian  |  January 8, 2011 at 11:20 am

          Our founding fathers could not have imagined the Internet would ever have existed. By your reasoning, the first amendment protections of the press and speech do not apply to what we put on the Internet. Therefore, the US government can censor anything you or I say (including these blog comments) on the whim of whoever is in power.

          If you want to limit the discussion to marriage rights. Do you think the founding fathers imagined that whites and blacks would ever want to get married?

          Reply
        • 46. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 8, 2011 at 6:14 pm

          Well Mark darling, as people like you keep proving: men who are obsessed, virulently anti-gay marriage activists are quite frequently repressed homosexuals themselves (or not even repressed–often practicing but closeted.)

          So keep visiting us, and after you come out/are discovered we’ll be here to get you up to speed on the laws as they affect you.

          As for your poor dog–she deserves a better owner.

          Reply
        • 47. Steve  |  January 8, 2011 at 6:56 pm

          Anthony “Fat Tony” Scalia is right with you

          Reply
        • 48. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 8, 2011 at 7:47 pm

          Mark, the only sick joke here is your hatred. Why don’t you stick around for a while, read things, expand your mind?

          Reply
        • 49. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 9, 2011 at 12:34 pm

          Actually, you are the sick one. There is nothing sick about two consenting adults who love each other enough that they want to have the formal, LEGAL, CIVIL recognition of that love, and to insure that their spouse is protected against people like you who would try to steal everything from the surviving spouse, simply because you are so insecure in your own masculinity that you can only think with one head, and that being the one between your legs. Try using the head that is above your shoulders for a moment, and then take all of your gay jokes and insert black, Jewish, Mexican or some other term if you really want to see just how ridiculous and slimy you are.

          Reply
      • 50. Kathleen  |  January 8, 2011 at 11:06 am

        Of course. There’s no school on Saturday. I guess we’ll have to put up with this until his mom calls him to lunch.

        Reply
    • 51. Mackenzie  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:21 am

      your dog does not pay taxes, is not a legal US citizen, and cannot consent to a marriage it doesn’t understand.

      Reply
    • 52. fiona64  |  January 9, 2011 at 2:08 pm

      Can your dog read and understand a marriage contract? If so, let me know — I’ll be right there on the courthouse steps to defend the rights of sapient animals.

      Until then, STFU, troll.

      We’re talking about real people and real lives.

      Reply
  • 53. Sagesse  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    This is a good response from Michigan, which is around the middle of the pack (of states) in terms of acceptance of LGBT rights.

    I like the way fivethirtyeight tracks these things. This is a bit dated (2009) but the trend is probably reliable.

    http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/06/gay_rights_are.html

    Reply
    • 54. Kevin  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:35 pm

      You’ll notice that all those circles are unfilled, meaning even with 80% support, there is no statutory language barring discrimination in housing on the basis of orientation. Welcome to the mitten!

      Reply
    • 55. Mackenzie  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:51 am

      …..we need more Iowa’s on that graph

      Reply
      • 56. Kathleen  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:57 am

        We’re all working on it!! :)

        Reply
  • 57. Josh  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    Sorry, I know this isn’t exactly related to Michigan, but it’s upper-midwest and nom is deeply involved with it. Maybe the story could be a post here on P8TT. The lies continue in the push for another pro-discrimination state amendment. :-(

    http://minnesotaindependent.com/75958/minnesota-family-council-to-hold-marriage-amendment-course-for-legislators

    Reply
    • 58. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:41 pm

      I cringe every time I see that photo of Peter Sprigg…ugh.

      Reply
      • 59. Manilow  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:43 pm

        wow – how much makeup is he wearing? That in and of itself should be illegal.

        Reply
        • 60. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:44 pm

          It looks like a morgue photo.

          Reply
          • 61. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:29 pm

            He should get lessons from some guy who knows how to do good makeup on guys. Hmmm, I wonder where one could find a guy like that??

    • 62. Sagesse  |  January 8, 2011 at 9:25 am

      Sounds like an excellent opportunity for a counter-protest outside the event, and media to document who goes. Wonder how hard it would be to get tape of what is actually said… (cringe!).

      Reply
  • 64. Josh  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    What’s that little smile symbol at the bottom center of this page, in the yellow just below the white space?

    Reply
    • 65. JonT  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:46 pm

      According to firebug, it’s an image on stats.wordpress.com – I’m guessing for for the purpose of counting page views.

      Reply
    • 66. Sarah  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:52 pm

      It’s them watching us… hahaha, probably something to freak out the super-observant people. And now everybody will want to know. :)

      Reply
      • 67. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 7, 2011 at 6:10 pm

        Great. Now Louis (Hi, Louis!) has gone and embedded himself all up in our P8TT.

        Reply
      • 68. nightshayde  |  January 7, 2011 at 6:42 pm

        It’s been there for ages!

        Reply
    • 69. Kathleen  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:54 pm

      I thought it was a smudge on my monitor. :)

      Reply
      • 70. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 7, 2011 at 6:52 pm

        I think it’s just smiling at us all – happy to see us back!

        Reply
      • 71. Josh  |  January 8, 2011 at 8:06 am

        haha, I thought that too for a moment. I’m just glad I’m not the only who could see it. ;-)

        Reply
  • 72. Ronnie  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    Athlete Ally launched to fight homophobia
    Jan 5th, 2011 by Jim Buzinski.
    http://outsports.com/jocktalkblog/2011/01/05/athlete-ally-launched-to-fight-homophobia/

    Hudson Taylor, the former University of Maryland wrestling star and now assistant wrestling coach at Columbia University, has launched a new project aimed at making sports a safe place for gay athletes.

    Athlete Ally is a website paired with a YouTube channel with the goal of getting pledges from athletes, coaches, administrators and fans (regardless of sexual orientation) to end homophobia in their sport. Taylor’s outlines his mission on the home page of Athlete Ally:

    “I created the Pledge so that we, as an athletic community, can take proactive steps to end homophobia in sports. When we inspire entire teams and athletic departments to commit to a new standard of athletic integrity, we will change the environment in locker rooms and on playing fields. Adding your name to the growing list of supporters is the first step to make a difference.” ~ Hudson Taylor

    (me) awesomeness….here Straight Ally, Athlete, Coach & All-American Wrestler Hudson Taylor saying “It Gets Better”……..<3….Ronnie:

    Reply
    • 73. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 7, 2011 at 6:13 pm

      Epic WIN!

      Reply
    • 74. Tigger  |  January 8, 2011 at 12:03 am

      This guy is saving lives on a daily basis. His words have so much power. Having been an elite athlete and hearing all of the homophobia on the field and in the locker room, its guys like him who are secure in their masculinity and outspoken on the matter of equality who have a profound impact on the folks around them. Thank you Hudson!!

      Reply
  • 75. John B.  |  January 7, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    Hmmm, I wonder how those numbers compare to 10 or even 5 years ago? Funny, Maggie doesn’t say.

    Reply
  • 76. Joel  |  January 7, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    I lived in MI for six years, where once, Mark and I were kicked out of an apartment because our “lifestyle.” Regardless of what the polls say, I’m quite sure that MI will be one the last states to enter the twenty first century, and it will be done with much dragging, kicking and screaming.

    Reply
    • 77. Kathleen  |  January 7, 2011 at 6:29 pm

      FWIW, back in the ’70s, I had landlords refuse to rent to me because I was a single parent. One told me they didn’t see how I could take care of the property if I had to work full time.

      Reply
      • 78. Joel  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:10 pm

        Mark had a procedure done for a delicate condition at UMC there; a pre-cancerous tissue was found in his colon (and removed). The doctor, head of colorectal surgery at the time, told him he had cancer because he’s gay!

        Reply
        • 79. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:13 pm

          So incredibly ignorant and stupid doctor. I hope Mark put him/her in their place.

          On an aside, I recently told one of my doctors I was gay and she said, “cool.” Younger doctors are so with it!

          Reply
          • 80. Michelle Evans  |  January 7, 2011 at 11:22 pm

            Oh, I’d love to get into a discussion of the ignorance of doctors when it comes to LGBT issues. The doctor treating me for my two broken legs in ’09 took away my blood thinners (which is required for someone in that situation–regardless of being straight or trans (as in my case)–because I was trans and needed my hormones. She thought that because I insisted on continuing my hormones that she would teach me a lesson about how wrong I was to be trans by giving me blood clots.

            So much about doctors being there to help in a time of need.

            And then I could throw in the ER doctor who raped me, and the doctor I went to for help, who refused to lift a finger…

          • 81. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 8, 2011 at 7:34 am

            Michelle, I’m so sorry to hear you went through that! Both so-called doctors are completely inhuman, and deserve to be thrown to the lions. I hope you didn’t stop with your unsuccessful complaint about the rapist, and that you got the malpractician, and the negligent one, too! There just aren’t words strong enough for people like that. GRRRR!!!

        • 82. Kathleen  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:19 pm

          Joel, that’s horrible!

          Reply
          • 83. Joel  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:37 pm

            Oh Kathleen, you have no idea! That was the short version, LOL. But it’s well behind us (no pun intended. Really).

          • 84. Kathleen  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:42 pm

            Don’t get me started on doctors…. as someone who deals with the medical profession a lot because of a chronic illness, I am very thankful for the good ones, but seriously tempted to do violence to MANY of the others.

  • 85. Kathleen  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:16 pm

    If you haven’t already, I strongly suggest everyone read this moving article by Kerry Eleveld, her last for The Advocate before she leaves for EqualityMatters.org
    http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Washington_D_C_/View_From_Washington_Final_Column/

    Reply
    • 86. JonT  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:17 pm

      Great article. Thanks Kathleen! :)

      Reply
    • 87. Sagesse  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:04 am

      Great article. I look forward to seeing what Equality Matters is able to achieve.

      Reply
    • 88. Sagesse  |  January 8, 2011 at 11:37 am

      Speaking of moving on, I received an e-mail from Eden James who’s now at Change.org.

      This one of a select group of organizations I invite into my inbox (and allow to send me news and the usual periodic requests for money). Another that is very useful is Americans United for separation of church and state.

      Reply
  • 89. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:32 pm

    Yes, and we all know that Maggie and Brian will only support allowing the people to vote on our civil and human rights until the tide turns deeply enough against them that they will try to use the court system and the very same “liberal, activist judges” that they are currently demonizing in order to try and turn back the tide.

    Reply
  • 90. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    Some days we find the really ignorant…here is an example, his name is Bob Ellis:

    Playing Word Games With Marriage

    The push for the insane concept of homosexual “marriage” in Rhode Island provides a good illustration of how liberals try to change words and terms to dupe people into falling for bad ideas that they would otherwise reject.

    As homosexual activists push to counterfeit marriage in the Rhode Island legislature, some are arguing over the term “civil unions” versus “marriage.” Some people are intellectually shallow enough to be okay with “civil unions” for homosexuals while still choking somewhat at the idea of homosexual “marriage.”

    While I suppose it is commendable that these people retain enough function in their moral compass to let them know that something is desperately wrong with the idea that two men or two women could form a “marriage,” it is sad that these people lack the mental rigor to recognize that “civil unions” are nothing but an intermediate step utilized by homosexual activists to, in the parlance of the frog in the pot, turn up the heat more slowly and thus not alarm the frog into jumping out of the pot. Put simply, the term “civil unions” is designed to give homosexuals almost all of what they want (societal approval of their immoral, unnatural and unhealthy sexual behavior) while fooling some people into thinking they aren’t giving up the defense of the important institution of marriage. Such techniques are especially effective on busy people, the generally uninformed, and those who have only a rudimentary sense of morality and reality.

    But that isn’t the only game homosexual activists are playing with language in Rhode Island.

    From the Providence Journal:

    Meanwhile, a New York-based advocacy group registered its own opposition to the term “same-sex marriage.”

    The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said it would prefer the media and the public use the phrase “marriage for gay and lesbian couples” rather than “gay marriage,” “same-gender marriage,” “same-sex marriage,” etc.

    “The reason is this,” said media field strategist Justin Ward. “Gay and lesbian couples are not looking to change the institution of marriage; they want to be a part of the institution as it exists now.”

    Yes, even these terms remind people too much of what is really at the heart of the issue.

    You see, that is why homosexuals prefer the term “gay” rather than “homosexual.” “Gay” has historically meant “happy.” It also helps keep the mental gears of cognizance from engaging, as happens when we use the term to describe this behavior: homosexual. “Homosexual” reminds us that we are talking about (a) a behavior, and (b) a behavior that is sexual. Most people, even many who have drifted far from most moorings of morality, still realize that sexuality is something that is deeply intimate, important, private, and moral. When people are devoted to promoting a sexually immoral behavior, the last thing they want people thinking of is the moral aspects of the issue. Thus, they prefer “gay” over “homosexual.” It enables them and those they wish to persuade to avoid what the issue is really about: sex.

    More: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/playing-word-games-with-marriage/

    Reply
    • 91. JonT  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:26 pm

      Heh, this guy is funny.

      I stopped trying to win an argument by insulting the intellectual capacity of my opponent when I was, oh… 15?

      Poor little guy. He’ll learn someday.

      Reply
    • 92. Kathleen  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:37 pm

      He’s just jealous that his brother Perry is so successful.

      Reply
      • 93. JonT  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:54 pm

        Yes! I wear Perry Ellis! :)

        Ahem.

        Reply
    • 94. Carpool Cookie  |  January 8, 2011 at 2:51 pm

      I have never cooked a frog in a pot, so I cannot quite identify with his argument.

      Reply
      • 95. elliom  |  January 9, 2011 at 4:36 am

        It’s from a common myth that, if you drop a frog in boiling water, it will jump out, but if you put it in cool water, and then slowly raise the temp, the frog (being cold blooded) won’t notice the gradual change, continue to sit there, and eventaully die.

        Reply
  • 96. Joel  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you in community here for the love and support you showed my husband yesterday. It meant so much to him, and to me.

    I didn’t think it appropriate to post this in David’s memorial thread.

    Thank you all, for much needed support during a difficult time! We love you all.

    Reply
    • 97. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:47 pm

      Although this isn’t David’s thread – I agree.

      The entire P8TT community is full of love. It has baffled me to see so many straight supporters who have really dedicated their time here for this cause. I wish I could be 1/10th the kind of great people they are.

      My admiration can’t really be put into words (I am a picture kind of gal) but I want to join Joel in saying we love you all!

      Reply
      • 98. JonT  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:29 pm

        Virtual group hug!

        Reply
    • 99. Kathleen  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:44 pm

      The feeling’s mutual, Joel. And count me in on that group hug!

      Reply
  • 100. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:31 pm

    Tony Perkins is upset! I don’t care and am happy about it.

    Parent One, Parent Two to replace references to mother, father on passport forms

    Goodbye, Mom and Dad. Hello, Parent One and Parent Two.

    The State Department has decided to make U.S. passport application forms “gender neutral” by removing references to mother and father, officials said, in favor of language that describes one’s parentage somewhat less tenderly.

    The change is “in recognition of different types of families,” according to a statement issued just before Christmas that drew widespread attention Friday after a Fox News report.

    Official announcement of the change was buried at the end of a Dec. 22 news release titled “Consular Report of Birth Abroad Certificate Improvements” that highlighted unrelated new security features.

    The new policy is a win for gay rights groups, a vocal and financially generous Democratic voting bloc that has pushed for the change since Barack Obama began his presidential transition in late 2008. The decision follows last month’s vote to end the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which gay leaders consider one of their biggest victories in years.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010706741.html

    Reply
    • 101. JonT  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:51 pm

      Excellent. Whenever TP gets mad, a kitten gets his wiskers. Or something like that.

      I especially like how he tries to imply that this change was somehow a shady, secretive affair — ‘buried’ at the end of a PR.

      Those sneaky gays! They’re everywhere!

      Really, anything that pisses off TP tends to be good news for me.

      Reply
    • 102. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:57 pm

      And I am playing “I Feel for YOu” by Chaka Khan on the world’s most nanoscopic iPod! Poor tony Perkins. Cry me a river, little boy pretending to be a real man!

      Reply
    • 103. Kathleen  |  January 7, 2011 at 9:11 pm

      I was wondering how long it was going to take for the nut jobs to pick up on this story and run with it. Yes, everything that upsets TP makes the world a better place.

      Reply
      • 104. BK  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:08 am

        Wait… what? Everything that upsets Toilet Paper makes the world a better place? I didn’t know Toilet Paper had feelings… : \

        Reply
        • 105. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 9, 2011 at 12:12 pm

          And there is the fact that toilet paper, unlike Tony Perkins of FRC, actually has several useful purposes in this world.

          Reply
          • 106. BK  |  January 10, 2011 at 10:54 am

            Aha, good one, Richard. But I’m fully confident that TP could easily fulfill the role of toilet paper. Oh, and pun intended on the roll. :)

    • 107. Sagesse  |  January 8, 2011 at 11:55 am

      This from the original press release. Has the man never heard of adoption?

      “The dictionary defines ‘birth’ as ‘the emergence of a new individual from the body of its parent’ or ‘the act or process of bringing forth young from the womb.’ Since science has yet to create an artificial womb, in the human species that ‘body’ or ‘womb’ always belongs to a female parent, i.e., the mother. And since science has yet to master human cloning, the newborn human being has always received half of his or her genetic inheritance via the sperm of a male parent, i.e., the father. It would be helpful if a certificate related to ‘birth’ would identify which is which.”

      http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/state-departments-abolition-of-motherhood-and-fatherhood-takes-political-correctness-to-a-new-level-113093259.html

      Wonder how long it will take before the Washington Post stops guoting the head of an SPLC-designated hate group in its pages. Does that mean FRC is the least disrespectable of the despicable lot that could provide the ‘balancing’ quote?

      Reply
      • 108. Bill in San Diego  |  January 9, 2011 at 7:54 am

        The Post is running a brilliant piece by marriage historian Stephanie Coontz on today’s opinion pages. It’s titled Gay marriage isn’t revolutionary. It’s just the next step in marriage’s evolution and she references Judge Walker’s decision.

        Bill, mostly a lurker

        Reply
        • 109. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 9, 2011 at 9:27 am

          And the next logical step will be allowing for multiple marriages. Once polyamorists can legally become polygamists, we get to watch the State Department blow Tony’s mind yet again with passport applications allowing for parents 3, 4, etc. LMQuestioningPolyAO!

          Reply
          • 110. Rhie  |  January 11, 2011 at 6:48 pm

            Yup. Can’t wait. Nothing wrong with any of that, as long as all are consenting adults.

    • 111. Carpool Cookie  |  January 8, 2011 at 3:03 pm

      Great news! Me like’ee.

      Reply
  • 112. Ed  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:01 am

    You know…I don’t wish death for or upon anyone. That being said…..I wish certain individuals (not people, as people have compassion) would just *go away*…..

    Reply
    • 113. BK  |  January 10, 2011 at 10:57 am

      I can make arrangements. ;)

      Reply
  • 114. Mandi  |  January 8, 2011 at 5:14 am

    I have to admit that I have been a resident of Michigan for quite some time. I second the thought that Michigan tends to be more conservative than people count on. That’s not because of strong personal beliefs. You have to keep in mind the strong manurfactoring history of Michigan and that generally speacking the population is less educated than one would hope. I’ve found that a lot of my fellow citizens are very easily swayed by the type of tv ads that NOM tends to run. (Had many tell me that it had to be true because it was on tv and they weren’t aloud to lie.) Recent years have more and more people going to college and opening their eyes. I helped fight the constitutional amendment and so know that we could have won then if people had been better informed. The shear number of people that bought the lie hook, line and sinker was astounding. Please don’t give up on Michigan. And if we tie it in to a better economy we’re even more likely to win.

    Reply
  • 115. Joel  |  January 8, 2011 at 9:43 am

    I feel like fighting trolls today. Any lurking under the Rainbow Bridge?

    Reply
    • 116. Joel  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:06 am

      No? Well here’s a troll joke, then, for slow Saturday. So far off topic that it barely be seen by the naked eye:

      There was a village of peace-loving Trids who lived in a small village, across a bridge from the marketplace. One day, a nasty troll took up residence under the bridge, and started to kick the villagers off the bridge whenever they tried to go to market. The Trid Village Council sent all of the best people to reason with troll, to no avail. One by one, they were all kicked off the bridge, and no one could get to market.

      Finally, the village Rabbi took it upon himself to go. He clambered on to the bridge and shouted “Come on, you troll! Come kick ME off the bridge!”

      Laughter came from under the bridge, and a deep, gnarly voice called out “Silly Rabbi! Kicks are for Trids!”

      Reply
      • 117. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:51 am

        I love that joke! :)

        Reply
  • 118. Sagesse  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:02 am

    Break the Silence: Wisconsin

    http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Commentary/Break_the_Silence_Wisconsin/

    Reply
  • 119. Mandi  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:22 am

    @Joel
    very cute joke!

    Reply
  • 120. Sagesse  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:25 am

    Not sure how this actually works, but a positive step. How can CC and P8TT use this resource?

    Gay Giving 2.0

    http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Commentary/Gay_Giving_20/

    Reply
  • 121. Sagesse  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Tee hee. This is just too funny to watch. Anti-gay groups purging themselves from the conservative body politic.

    Heritage Foundation and Media Research Center Join CPAC Boycott

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/heritage-foundation-and-media-research-center-join-cpac-boycott

    Reply
    • 122. Kathleen  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:44 am

      What I find particularly hilarious is this is all because of GOProud, which as far as I can tell, is a pathetic excuse for a lgbt rights group.

      Reply
      • 123. BK  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:48 am

        Hey, if they’re measured by their success…

        Reply
      • 124. Kathleen  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:56 am

        BK, hadn’t thought about it before, but this driving away of the most right wing factions from the GOP pow-wow is probably their greatest success! hilarious.

        Reply
      • 125. Ann S.  |  January 8, 2011 at 5:02 pm

        Maybe they’re into SM? It’s the only reason I can think of for them to invite Coulter to speak at their convention.

        Reply
    • 126. Sagesse  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:45 am

      I would have said this idea was premature, except for the article I just posted where the rabid socially conservative groups are boycotting CPAC because GOProud is there.

      How Gays Can Save the Republican Party

      http://daily.gay.com/hot_topics/2011/01/how-gays-can-save-the-republican-party.html

      Reply
  • 127. Ed Cortes  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:43 am

    Remember, if “Only 55%” of California voters had voted NO on prop8, it wouldn’t have passed!

    Reply
    • 128. Kathleen  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:46 am

      More to the point it was “only 52%” who voted yes, yet NOM considers that an overwhelming mandate.

      Reply
    • 129. BK  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:49 am

      Dang electoral activists.

      Reply
  • 130. Sagesse  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:50 am

    “This is not about politics. Not about referenda or court battles. Not about “protecting marriage,” like Cornerstone and their allies at the National Organization For Marriage always claim. What this shows, with 100% certainty, is that the group that’s most prominently, most vocally hoping to reshape the marriage debate in the Live Free or Die State is also hoping to reshape gay people’s very cores of existence in ways that fly in the face of ALL credible science.

    They have now put this into the debate. It’s up to us to make sure every single state lawmaker knows it. ”

    Exclusive: New Hampshire’s leading ‘protect marriage’ group pushing gay ‘cures’

    http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2011/01/exclusive-new-hampshires-leading-protect-marriage-group-pushing-gay-cures.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+GoodAsYou+%28Good+As+You%29

    Reply
    • 131. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 8, 2011 at 11:02 am

      Dear Kevin Smith,

      Sir, I am troubled. I still haven’t received the title papers on that bridge yet…

      Reply
  • 132. Sagesse  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:54 am

    David Boies Loses Daughter to Cancer

    “Earlier this week Karen Ocamb of LGBT POVreported that condolences to the family can be sent via the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which has organized the Proposition 8 suit, at mail@afer.org.”

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/01/07/David_Boies_Loses_Daughter_to_Cancer/

    Reply
    • 133. Kathleen  |  January 8, 2011 at 11:03 am

      Oh wow. This is the first I’d even heard of her illness. I know she worked with her father on a number of important cases, including Perry. How devastating. She was so young.

      Reply
    • 134. Ann S.  |  January 8, 2011 at 5:04 pm

      That’s very sad. She died much too young.

      Reply
  • 135. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 8, 2011 at 11:01 am

    Dear Kevin Smith,

    Sir, I am troubled. I still haven’t received the title papers on that bridge yet…

    Reply
    • 136. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 8, 2011 at 11:03 am

      Oops… posted in the wrong spot. XD

      Reply
  • 137. Ronnie  |  January 8, 2011 at 11:57 am

    CONGRESSWOMAN AMONG THOSE SHOT IN ARIZONA
    http://www.towleroad.com/2011/01/arizona.html

    A gunman shot and injured several people, including Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, this morning at a Safeway supermarket in Tuscon. According to The Tuscon Citizen, 40-year-old Giffords, who was holding an event at the store, was shot in the head at close range.

    Update: Several news outlets are now reporting that Giffords has succumbed to her injuries. At least six others have also been confirmed dead.

    (me) maybe it is just a coincidence that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is an Equality Supporter (member of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus) ….maybe it is just a coincidence that she was amongst those that Sarah Palin is targeting to replace with one of her (Palin) candidates to overturn the Health Care Bill…..

    Hmmmmmm….

    Rest in Peace Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizono….we will make sure your murderer is brought to justice…….: I ….Ronnie

    Reply
    • 138. Kathleen  |  January 8, 2011 at 12:05 pm

      Melanie and lezgetreal has a source on scene. Source confirms the congresswoman is in surgery. Melanie’s updating regularly
      http://lezgetreal.com/2011/01/reports-gabrielle-giffords-shot-in-the-head-five-others-wounded/

      Reply
      • 139. Kathleen  |  January 8, 2011 at 12:05 pm

        that’s meant to read “Melanie of lezgetreal”

        Reply
      • 140. Kathleen  |  January 8, 2011 at 12:13 pm

        Oops. it’s Bridgette P. LaVictoire who is reporting at lezgetreal. sorry for misreporting.

        Reply
      • 141. Ronnie  |  January 8, 2011 at 12:31 pm

        Apologies….CNN is reporting that she is in surgery…..I hope she is ok…..this is chaos…..so many different stories are coming in…..good thing they caught the guy though…. : I ….Ronnie

        Reply
  • 142. takemusu  |  January 8, 2011 at 11:59 am

    Sorry for the thread hijack but …. does anyone know what AZ congresswoman Gabriella Gifford’s position was on marriage equality?

    I’m trying to follow the latest news. Word is that she and several of her staff have been shot.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-c_n_806211.html

    Reply
  • 143. takemusu  |  January 8, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    oops, Ronnie, you beat me to it.

    Reply
  • 145. Ronnie  |  January 8, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    http://www.towleroad.com/2011/01/congresswoman-giffords-name-on-sarah-palin-target-list.html

    CONGRESSWOMAN GIFFORDS NAME ON SARAH PALIN TARGET LIST

    While we still don’t know much about the motives of the 21-year-old gunman involved in today’s tragic shooting, Gabrielle Giffords’ name was included on a target list put together by Sarah Palin. This list focused on ousting from office 20 members of Congress in Republican districts who voted for President Obama’s health care reform bill calling for them to be replaced “with good conservatives.” As you can see, sniper scope graphics blanket the “Take Back the 20” map.

    (me)……hmmmmmm …… : I ……Ronnie

    Reply
  • 149. Sagesse  |  January 8, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    Tentative DADT Repeal Process Revealed

    http://lezgetreal.com/2011/01/tentitive-dadt-repeal-process-revealed/

    Reply
  • 151. Bob  |  January 8, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    words escape me!!!! such tragic news, being reported here today,,,, sadness overwhelms me,,,, I and many others across the border in Canada stand in solidarity with all the folks here on p8tt, fellow freedom fighters…

    and a word to President Obama, his comments that these actions don’t belong in a free sociiety,,, what planet is he presently on,,,, oh how sweet that denial,,,, he thinks he’s the ruler of a free society, while the kids have been dying all around us, and the freedoms of LGBT people are presently being bought and fought for,,,, Please Mr President, ensure equality and freedom for all, so the killings can stop,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the world watches in horror….

    Reply
  • 152. Sagesse  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    Speaking of non-profits abusing their tax exempt status. From Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

    ““If these multi-million-dollar ministries are already misusing their donations for personal gain, imagine how much more dangerous they would be operating in the world of partisan politics,” said Lynn. “I don’t want to see Pat Robertson and other TV preachers using their tax-exempt empires to give backing to favored candidates, and I don’t think most other Americans want that either.”

    Under current federal law, all non-profit groups holding a 501(c)(3) tax exemption are forbidden to intervene in partisan elections. This ensures that money donated to these groups is used for charitable purposes, not political ones.”

    http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2011/grassley-investigation-of-tv.html

    Reply
    • 153. Rhie  |  January 11, 2011 at 6:46 pm

      Unfortunately, there are plenty of legal ways to influence the vote. A pastor can’t say “hey vote for Mr X!”. A church CAN hand out a Voter’s Guide that lists candidates and their positions, with big red Xs next to positions they don’t like e.g. pro-choice stances. A church also can say that real true Christians vote a certain way on issues, and if they even think about voting any other way they go to hell. They can say that a certain candidate is a bad person because of their vote or stance on an issue. They can say that a Christian cannot be a Democrat or vote for Democrats.

      And they do.

      Believe me when I say, this absolutely influences votes. And should be illegal.

      Reply
  • 154. Justin  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    Didn’t Maggie claim that the 51% margin with which Maine’s ban on same sex marriage passed was an “overwhelming majority?” That woman is more full of sh!t than a newborn’s Huggies. Horrible, horrible woman.

    Reply
    • 155. Carpool Cookie  |  January 8, 2011 at 3:09 pm

      “That woman is more full of sh!t than a newborn’s Huggies.”

      :o

      ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

      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)

  • 4,585,293 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...