NOM nostalgic for ’90s, for the discriminatory laws if not the Doc Martens

January 16, 2011 at 6:59 am 153 comments

Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

NOM has never met a body of lawmakers whose pro-marriage equality law they will not overturn. But when it comes to Republican-controlled Congress of 1996 and their (unconstitutional) Defense of Marriage Act, the flawed procreation arguments were apparently infallible. And of course those dang activist judges and dirty progressives are being somehow out-of-line when further tests and reconsiderations are put into modern-day effect:

“The DOJ brief amounts to collusive litigation, failing to even offer to the court, much less vigorously defend, the reasons Congress laid out in the statute when it passed DOMA—especially responsible procreation. This is an attack not only on marriage, but on the prerogatives of Congress. The Executive branch should not attempt to exercise this kind of retroactive line-item veto over a bill passed by Congress,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM.

DOMA, which was passed by bipartisan majorities in 1996, defines marriage for the purpose of federal law as the union of one man and one woman. In the statute, Congress laid out four reasons justifying this definition of marriage including “responsible procreation.” Courts in New York, Maryland and elsewhere have accepted this reason as the rational basis for marriage’s definition. The DOJ brief formally defending DOMA, pointedly and explicitly repudiates the idea that responsible procreation is a purpose of DOMA, significantly undercutting the efforts of the Congress.

“All the parties to this litigation want the court to strike down DOMA; this is clear from their behavior, no matter what President Obama and his politicized DOJ pretend to convey to the public,” said Brown, “If Obama’s DOJ had merely honestly refused to defend the law, the court would likely have permitted another party to intervene to defend the law. Obama’s DOJ is trying to retain control so it can lose this case.”

NOM Responds to Obama Administration’s Failure to Defend DOMA and Congress [NOM]

Well look, we’re not going to really defend the DOJ’s actions here. If the administration, through its reasoned read, sees DOMA as unconstitutional, then it’s certainly odd that they have to defend it. It’s annoying that we even have to unpack this cognitive dissonance.

But the bottom line here in terms of Brian and NOM is not the DOJ’s defense or lack thereof, but the merits of this flawed law. Once again we see Brian trying to hold on to the ridiculous procreation basis, an argument that might have flown back when this nation’s marriage equality conversation was in its widely unrealized infancy, but one that fails every fair test put upon it here in 2011 America (where gays in five states and D.C. are marrying without incident). Brian and NOM keep working this procreation argument because they know its the best “logic” they have, playing to the same sort of kid-based fears that have reduced this national dialogue in ways immeasurable. But fortunately for us, this “best argument” is still quite bad. At some point NOM staffers are going to have to come up with something, anything else if they want to be seen as a stable of political tiger rather than one of political dodos.

Entry filed under: DOMA trials.

Happy anniversary, P8TT Obama Losing on Purpose? This Week in Prop 8 for January 17, 2011

153 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Sagesse  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:28 am

    BB has no class. He doesn’t like Doc Martens either?

    Reply
    • 2. Kathleen  |  January 16, 2011 at 8:02 am

      Reply
      • 3. Ann S.  |  January 16, 2011 at 11:14 am

        Lookie, I figured out (with help from Kathleen and LLB) how to make the checkmark on my Mac. Lookit ma, no hands!

        Reply
        • 4. Kathleen  |  January 16, 2011 at 11:19 am

          Nice!

          Reply
        • 5. Sagesse  |  January 16, 2011 at 11:22 am

          Ann S, we are all soooo proud of you.

          Reply
        • 6. Ann S.  |  January 16, 2011 at 11:26 am

          It’s the little things, huh?

          I’m slowly but surely getting used to my new Mac. No more guilt from surfing the ‘net (and possibly picking up spyware, not that that might have happened to me a couple of weeks ago and taken up a whole day of the tech guy’s time) on my work-issued computer.

          And, not to be completely off-topic, the 90s? Pfffft.

          Reply
        • 7. Carpool Cookie  |  January 16, 2011 at 11:59 am

          “Lookie, I figured out (with help from Kathleen and LLB) how to make the checkmark on my Mac. Lookit ma, no hands!

          Shock and awe!

          Reply
        • 8. RebeccaRGB  |  January 16, 2011 at 6:36 pm

          It’s not a checkmark, it’s a square root sign.

          THIS is a checkmark: ✓

          Reply
          • 9. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 6:37 pm

            Uh oh. Is there going to be a test?

        • 10. Ed Cortes  |  January 17, 2011 at 7:49 am

          hehe – copy and paste works on a check mark!! :)

          Reply
      • 11. Straight For Equality  |  January 16, 2011 at 11:54 am

        Reply
      • 12. JonT  |  January 16, 2011 at 4:40 pm

        Reply
    • 13. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 8:26 am

      Naah, he wears Manolos at home….*wink*

      Reply
      • 14. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 16, 2011 at 8:35 am

        And the stilettos on them are probably higher than Carrie Bradshaw’s ever thought of being.

        Reply
        • 15. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 8:43 am

          I think marabou mules are more his style, and I’m sure some nice silk ladies things under that brown suit would cut down on the chafing….all that manly rough wool tailoring wreaks havoc with the epidermis dontcha know.

          Reply
          • 16. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 16, 2011 at 9:03 am

            Yes, especially if he wears leggings or jeggings under his suits. But then, that is why I prefer cotton suits or a well woven gabardine. They wear well, and they don’t chafe.

  • 17. PhillyKarl  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:43 am

    I don’t know why, but today I’m feeling sorry for all the straight couples that NOM shits on in order to further their “responsible procreation” argument. NOM shits on the childless straight couples who do not want kids, NOM shits on the straight couples who have kids from previous marriages, NOM shits on the straight couples who cannot have their own kids, but have foster kids or adopted kids, or use surrogates or sperm donors to have kids. NOM shits on all of them just to keep marriage equality from happening. If only straight America knew how many of their own marriages were being denigrated in order to further NOMs cause.

    Reply
    • 18. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:58 am

      Thanks, PhillyKarl! Childfree by Choice™ is no easy way to live, and definitely, NOM shits upon us and all the other non-biologically-nuclear families out there.

      I also have to wonder, where is NOM’s repudiation of Octomom? Where is the repudiation of parents who refuse to get married? Where is the repudiation of couples who neglect or otherwise abuse their children, especially the ones whose children end up in foster care because of it? Where even is NOM’s repudiation of letting parents do life-threatening jobs, such as serve in combat or fight fires, as accidents in such jobs tend to deprive one or more children of their own, “rightful” parents? And of course there’s NOM’s complete refusal to acknowledge the existence of opposite sex parents who believe in equality for all, yet speak for them anyways.

      Reply
      • 19. Ed Cortes  |  January 17, 2011 at 7:52 am

        I’ve always wondered why nom never speaks up about turning the “sanctity” of marriage into a television show!

        Reply
        • 20. Mouse  |  January 17, 2011 at 9:02 am

          I’ve never wondered that. It’s always been obvious that NOM is anti-gay and only anti-gay, they never follow through on their “logic” to the full extent and always attack gays. They’re not subtle about it, and they are nowhere near as clever as they think they are.

          If NOM were really interested in some crazy agenda to ensure children be raised by their biological parents they would also have to be against:
          divorce
          premarital sex
          extramarital sex
          adoption
          marriage of infertile couples
          marriage of couples who choose not to have children
          marriage of the elderly
          vasectomy and tubal ligation
          abortion
          remarrying, especially with kids from previous marriage involved

          They attack none of these things, which makes no sense if their goal really was “We want responsible opposite-sex couples raising children they made with their own sperm and egg within a marriage structure.” They only attack gays any way they can.

          They continue to make the responsible procreation argument even though it has been shown time and again (and half a second of rational thought easily concludes) that preventing gays from marrying one another does absolutely nothing toward forcing heterosexuals toward that fake goal, and that allowing us marriage equality does nothing to prevent straight people from getting married, having kids with their spouses, and raising them in the imaginary ideal way.

          Reply
          • 21. Peterplumber  |  January 17, 2011 at 1:53 pm

            I just read NOM’s Amicus brief for the DOMA case.
            In the introduction, they state thier sole purpose is against LBGT people, and nothing to support anything about marriage other than to keep us from marrying.

            “NOM was formed in response to the need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures and it serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level, having been described by the Washington Post as “the preeminent organization dedicated to preventing the legalization of same-sex marriage.”

  • 22. BK  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:55 am

    The NOM leaders (you know who you are) and followers need to find a psychologist. These people have some serious mental issues going on here.

    Reply
    • 23. Carpool Cookie  |  January 16, 2011 at 12:04 pm

      Agreed. I can’t figure out if they buy their own cr@p….or are just selling a message they know there’s a [though limited] audience out there for.

      Somehow, I just can’t fathom that they really believe what they spout off. But I (a child of the 1970’s California) was never raised with people like them. My single-parent mom was always off at some dance class or poetry workshop, so it’s really hard to identify with their whole world…

      Reply
      • 24. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 17, 2011 at 8:27 am

        As a child of conservative ancestry and geography I can understand their perspective somewhat . However, the longer I’m open to voices of reason, my memory and relate-ability fades…and I wonder how I was so disillusioned for so long….

        Reply
        • 25. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 17, 2011 at 8:34 am

          to further clarify…I used to believe their(Brian Brown & company) position was the correct one and observed other devout church persons who faithfully believed in man/woman marriage only is worth defending…..but somehow Brian and Maggie do not convince me as sincere…that they truly believe what they preach….or maybe they do have psychological/social psychological issues they are dealing with?

          Reply
          • 26. Peterplumber  |  January 17, 2011 at 8:49 am

            That is the trouble with being raised in a closed community with little outside exposure. All your knowledge and educations comes from that community and you never get to see any other way of life. So you grow up thinking that THIS is the only way.
            My partner has cousins in a conservative family, and they older boys are now in college. My partner said something funny the other night, like, all your knowledge is dumped on you from an ice cream scoop. PLOP, there it is and that’s all you get.

          • 27. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 17, 2011 at 9:55 am

            I appreciate your comments here PP @ P8TT! Plop!! yep got a BIG SCOOP of Central Utah Vanilla growing up ; )

  • 28. Ronnie  |  January 16, 2011 at 8:11 am

    I see Brainless Brian Brown Suit & NOM are still attacking LGBT families, single parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, surrogate/in-vitro parents, & legal guardians….in other words…..every single family that doesn’t form how NOM demands….every single family that doesn’t fit into their delusional fantasy word mold of what they consider “ideal”….NOM, with all do respect……GROW UP!!! & get over yourselves…..<3…Ronnie

    Reply
    • 29. Ronnie  |  January 16, 2011 at 8:19 am

      Oh & NOM keeps on attacking those couples both LGBT & Straight who do not want to have children for various reasons that are private to those couples…but you know NOM doesn’t care about our privacy & personal choices because they are selfish & only care about the money in their pockets….wait…did I just say that?…I mean “traditional marriage”……. XP …..Ronnie

      Reply
    • 30. thoughtful  |  January 16, 2011 at 4:48 pm

      What, you mean your name isn’t Wally or Beaver?

      Reply
  • 31. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 16, 2011 at 8:12 am

    While we here can use logic, NOM and those who are cut from the same bolt of cloth only have warped logic to use. And in their warped logic, they are the only ones who are right, and anyone who disagrees with them even on the placement of a semi-colon or a period is wrong. They will not be happy unless they have a theocracy and then only if they are the ones running that theocracy. Well, if they want a theocracy so damned badly, let them move somewhere as a group and form one! But they really need to leave everyone else alone! Since when do they get to tell me how I can live my life, and who I can marry?

    Reply
  • 32. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 8:24 am

    It’s always very telling to me that the NOMers are SO OBSESSED with sex. Legal marriage is about so much more, so many rights and responsibilities that have nothing to do with sex.

    IMHO, it’s not the argument of “responsible procreation” (which is code for “religious intolerance of sex outside of marriage”) that’s tapping into the minds of their core, it’s conservative America’s fear of sexuality. This is why their message sticks in a certain (older) demographic, and why younger kids are like, you know, meh about defending “traditional marriage.”

    I’m not afraid of sex, or gay people, or childlessness, or any of it. I am afraid of ‘traditional marriage” and the misogyny, dominionism, and homophobia it stands for. Yikes.

    Reply
    • 33. Bennett  |  January 16, 2011 at 11:39 am

      Yes, so obsessed with it, but so not ready to have an honest conversation about it. I think if a real conversation got started about it, religeous bigots would be falling all over themselves rushing to accept marriage equality in exchange for shuting that conversation up!

      Reply
  • 34. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 16, 2011 at 8:38 am

    It was never about procreation or the welfare of children; it has always been about hating teh gheyz.

    Reply
    • 35. Ed  |  January 16, 2011 at 8:44 am

      Of course it was and always has been about the children….We know this to be *true* because thats what NOM says. And we all know they would *never* lie…..

      Reply
      • 36. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 16, 2011 at 8:55 am

        … or evade taxation.

        Reply
        • 37. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 8:58 am

          *gasp* *scandalized*

          Reply
          • 38. Bennett  |  January 16, 2011 at 11:57 am

            Matthew 19:9 says that a man who divorces his wife and marries another is committing adultery unless she has committed fornication (not adultery by the way, whats up with that).

            But what about the children “of” the marriage that will be denied their biological mother i’d like to know, and (gasp!) have to live with some tramp that dont have such high standards? Should they suffer just because some good Christian man dont want to do it with their mother any more cause she didnt stay just his bitch?

            What does that say about marriage being about raising children. Oh, I forgot, at that time, maybe it was ok so long as the children participating in stoning their biological mother!

          • 39. Bennett  |  January 16, 2011 at 11:59 am

            As you can see, marriage was about owning a little piece of somewhere that no man had gone before. Less about responsible procreation. And even less about forgiveness.

          • 40. Bennett  |  January 16, 2011 at 12:15 pm

            You know. They didnt have buzz words back them, but essentially we are talking about closure.

          • 41. fiona64  |  January 17, 2011 at 6:38 am

            Bennett, in the scriptural reference it basically means the man can divorce the woman if he finds out that she was not a virgin prior to marriage. If she commits adultery, it’s a different punishment (being stoned to death). These were both considered crimes against the *man,* because his property (the woman) was “damaged.”

            Love,
            Fiona

          • 42. Bennett  |  January 17, 2011 at 9:33 am

            Finona, In spite of my course characterazation, the text really flys in the face of “responsible” procreation being the primary purpose for marriage. Would you agree?

          • 43. fiona64  |  January 17, 2011 at 10:18 am

            You’re right, Bennett. Why? Because “traditional marriage” was a business proposition between two families, sealed by handing over a piece of property (the woman) from one owner (her father) to another (the husband).

            Love,
            Fiona

    • 44. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 16, 2011 at 3:29 pm

      You know what, I take it back. It’s always been about getting money through hating teh gheyz.

      Reply
      • 45. Mouse  |  January 17, 2011 at 9:33 am

        I’ll bet the day it stops being profitable to hate us, they stop the attacks and move on to the next get-rich-quick scheme.

        I’ll bet the day it starts being equally profitable to fight on our side, they jump ship and pretend they never worked so hard to rid the world of us.

        Reply
        • 46. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 17, 2011 at 11:22 am

          Absolutely – look at how DADT died with a whimper, relatively speaking, when public opinion turned against them. And yes, decades from now, much as they say they always worked against racism, they will say they supported LGBT rights. There’s not even a shadow of a doubt in my mind about this.

          Reply
  • 47. Peterplumber  |  January 16, 2011 at 10:05 am

    What bugs me most about NOM is the fact that they are closely tied to the Mormons. At least financially, if nothing else.
    Have you ever heard the story of how the Later Day Saints came about? Read it here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

    I find it amazing how one crazy person can build a following which today numbers around 14 million.

    Just s snippet from the story regarding marraige….
    During the early 1840s, Smith unfolded a theology of family relations called the “New and Everlasting Covenant” that superseded all earthly bonds. He taught that outside the Covenant, marriages were simply matters of contract, and Mormons outside the Covenant would be mere ministering angels to those within, who would be gods. To fully enter the Covenant, a man and woman must participate in a “first anointing”, a “sealing” ceremony, and a “second anointing”. When fully sealed into the Covenant, Smith said that no sin nor blasphemy (other than the eternal sin) could keep them from their “exaltation,” that is, their godhood in the afterlife. According to Smith, only one person on earth at a time—in this case, Smith—could possess this power of sealing.

    Smith taught that the highest exaltation would be achieved through “plural marriage” (polygamy), which was the ultimate manifestation of this New and Everlasting Covenant. Plural marriage allowed an individual to transcend the angelic state and become a god by accelerating the expansion of one’s heavenly kingdom. Smith taught and practiced this doctrine secretly but publicly denied it. Nevertheless, Smith taught that once he revealed the doctrine to anyone, failure to practice it would be to risk God’s wrath.

    Reply
    • 48. Bennett  |  January 16, 2011 at 11:19 am

      Look. Have you actually looked at those tablets with your own pair of magical spectacles? I dont think so! So dont pew pew what you dont know nothing about. As far a I am concerned, religion, like everything else, is best “made in the USA”.

      Reply
      • 49. Peterplumber  |  January 16, 2011 at 11:56 am

        Obviously, I can’t look upon them, because the angel took them back up to heaven after Smith was done translating them.

        Reply
        • 50. Ann S.  |  January 16, 2011 at 12:13 pm

          And the glasses.

          That said, we have some awesome Mormon members here, and although the LDS church is not for me I don’t like to see bashing of Mormons or any other religious people here.

          Reply
          • 51. Peterplumber  |  January 16, 2011 at 12:20 pm

            Oh, I wasn’t bashing, per se, but did you read the part where Mormans think that a theocratic monarchy was the ideal form of government?

          • 52. Steve  |  January 16, 2011 at 1:06 pm

            Love the believer. Hate the belief system.

            Mormonism is more insidious than other Christians sects in that is has some very obvious cult-like characteristics. There is a higher than average amount of group-think, coercion and social blackmail. So even if people see through the con, they may have difficulty leaving the environment – especially when it means cutting all their social ties.

            In a way I sometimes pity the people trapped in rigid belief systems. But I have no sympathy for ones who voluntarily stay even though they could quit without consequences.

          • 53. JonT  |  January 16, 2011 at 4:47 pm

            …but did you read the part where Mormans think that a theocratic monarchy was the ideal form of government?

            Don’t most (if not all) organized religions believe this?

          • 54. JonT  |  January 16, 2011 at 4:50 pm

            Mormonism is more insidious than other Christians sects in that is has some very obvious cult-like characteristics.

            I don’t know about that. I don’t see any religion as intrinsically superior or inferior to any other…

            But that’s just me (who doesn’t follow any religion).

          • 55. Peterplumber  |  January 16, 2011 at 4:58 pm

            JonT
            Well, we know that may be true, to some extent, but the USA was founded on a principle of religious freedom and a separation of church & state.
            In other words, keep religious beliefs out of government policy.
            In other words, defining marriage between one man & one woman because “God said so” should not be a valid argument in federal court.

          • 56. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 17, 2011 at 10:05 am

            thx Anne : )
            @ I don’t like to see bashing of Mormons or any other religious people here

    • 57. Carpool Cookie  |  January 16, 2011 at 12:14 pm

      Out of respect for the very lovely, and beloved, LDS members we have here and on our side, I will refrain from commenting.

      But I find the Mormon church history…um, fascinating.

      It’s interesting that the wikipedia article on the act of “Temple Sealing” addresses it as (basically) the equivelant of heterosexual marriage…yet under the first few Prophets, males could also be sealed together to find each other in the afterlife (!) It was called The Law of Adoption, and the men took on the same last name.

      There’s some quote out there by either Joseph Smith or Brigham Young (the first 2 leaders, who were, incidentally, sealed together) about how they saw the male/male sealings as being even more sacred than the male/female sealings…and how these would eventually be done in a Temple chamber built directly ABOVE the room where the male/female sealings were carried out. (Misogynistic much?)

      Then the male/male sealings eventually caused too much conflict, and were discontinued.

      Reply
      • 58. Bennett  |  January 16, 2011 at 12:26 pm

        In spite of my propensity to poke them with a stick, I repect people of faith who keep their religeon as a matter of the heart, conscience, and personal walk. I dont even mind personal evangelism directed my way. I am sorry for lumping everyone together with the NOM variety. That is not my intention. Mormans have some interesting beliefs.

        Reply
        • 59. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 16, 2011 at 3:31 pm

          As George Carlin put it, “Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself!”

          Reply
    • 60. Chris B  |  January 16, 2011 at 1:19 pm

      I also heard that in early mormonism, marriage was also the only way a mormon woman could get to heaven. her husband decided which of his wives (or all of them) would join him in heaven. That’s why it was good for a man to marry several wives, so they could get to heaven.

      Reply
      • 61. Carpool Cookie  |  January 16, 2011 at 2:50 pm

        Oh, but this is a slippery slope!!

        I cannot say more…no, not a word.

        Oh god, I’m doing it…!!!…One of they early prophets answered the question “Do the black people go to the Celestial Kingdom?” by saying, “Yes, they get to go to Heaven, where they are our servants.”

        Reply
        • 62. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 17, 2011 at 10:24 am

          I agree many of the beliefs of Mormon church are remarkable…..but not so outlandish to me as beliefs of many other religions and traditions. My favorite (so far) discussion of this is:
          http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Joseph-Campbell-and-the-Power-of-Myth/60030375.

          Until I found Joseph Campbell’s work I was starting to develop hate and resentment toward a church that I felt betrayed by on many levels…reminiscent how mad and disappointed I was when my mom told me about Santa Claus. My mom is one of the best Christians (and practicing Mormon’s) I know of. Others here are also lovely examples of practicing their faith, yet maintain their own ability to think and defend equality.

          I’m not so sure I can personally justify perpetrating Santa Claus myth, but it seems there is some function in the tradition. I don’t have much use for religion personally, but it seems to enhance the lives of many. Unfortunately religion is often used as a weapon of fear to justify hate and discrimination.

          Reply
          • 63. Steve  |  January 17, 2011 at 11:04 am

            It would be awesome if people treated god(s) the same way as Santa Clause. They are both just stories and myths. In theory, teaching children that one thing they always believed in was a lie should make them more skeptical in general. Unfortunately, the pervasive indoctrination with religion counteracts that.

        • 64. Peterplumber  |  January 17, 2011 at 11:13 am

          @Steve
          Regarding God(ess) as a myth…
          Most religions are faith based. That means, the only way to get anything out of religion is to have blind faith in the doctrines and covenants of that religion.
          I can’t quote chapter & verse, but I remember a story in the Bible where a sick woman was following Jesus, and reached out & touched his robes. Jesus cured her, just because her faith was so strong.
          John 3:16 says, he who believes in my shall not perish, but have everlasting life”.
          They demand blind faith from their followers.

          Reply
          • 65. Carpool Cookie  |  January 17, 2011 at 12:05 pm

            “Most religions are faith based. That means, the only way to get anything out of religion is to have blind faith in the doctrines and covenants of that religion.”

            Harvard just participated in a study identifying that one thing people can “get” out of belonging to a religious community is the satisfaction of fellowship. I don’t know that one must be a True Believer to cash in on some of that, it probably applies to many involved church members.

            —————————————————————————–

            http://channels.isp.netscape.com/whatsnew/package.jsp?name=fte/secretingredient/secretingredient

            It’s long been known that people who regularly attend a church or synagogue are happier than people who don’t. But WHY?

            Now researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Harvard University have identified religion’s “secret ingredient” that makes people happier: Social interaction.

            While a religion’s theology and spirituality may attract someone to go to worship services in the first place, it is the social aspects of religion that ultimately lead to life satisfaction. “In particular, we find that friendships built in religious congregations are the secret ingredient in religion that makes people happier,” says study co-leader and sociology professor Chaeyoon Lim.

            Along with co-author Robert D. Putnam of Harvard, the team analyzed data from the Faith Matters Study, a panel survey of a representative sample of U.S. adults in 2006 and 2007.

            The findings:
            • 33 percent of people who attend religious services every week and have three to five close friends in their congregation report that they are “extremely satisfied” with their lives. “Extremely satisfied” is defined as a 10 on a scale ranging from 1 to 10.
            • 23 percent of people who attend religious services only several times a year, but who have three to five close friends in their congregation are extremely satisfied with their lives.
            • 19 percent of people who attend religious services weekly, but who have no close friends in their congregation report that they are extremely satisfied.
            • 19 percent of people who never attend religious services, and therefore have no friends from congregation, say they are extremely satisfied with their lives.

            “To me, the evidence substantiates that it is not really going to church and listening to sermons or praying that makes people happier, but making church-based friends and building intimate social networks there,” Lim said.

            Why? People like to feel that they belong. “One of the important functions of religion is to give people a sense of belonging to a moral community based on religious faith,” Lim explained. “This community, however, could be abstract and remote unless one has an intimate circle of friends who share a similar identity. The friends in one’s congregation thus make the religious community real and tangible and strengthen one’s sense of belonging to the community.”

            The study findings were published in the American Sociological Review.

    • 66. Michelle Evans  |  January 16, 2011 at 2:53 pm

      One guy also created Scientology. Don’t know if I’d call him crazy, per se, in that he did it specifically as a way to make money. He was a pulp science fiction writer who figured out how to get people to send him lots of money, and it’s been working for the “church” hierarchy ever since. Still amazing how many people have fallen for the garbage, and wondering why it appears a disproportionate number happen to be movie and tv stars. Curious.

      Reply
      • 67. Michelle Evans  |  January 16, 2011 at 2:55 pm

        And since we’re on the subject of religion, and specifically Mormons, Big Love final season premiere starts in a few hours. Will be interesting to see how they do this season with their main character trying to make polygamy legal again.

        Reply
        • 68. Carpool Cookie  |  January 16, 2011 at 6:43 pm

          Big Love is such a well done show!

          I wait until a TV season is over to rent a whole shiw at once. I can’t stand waiting between episodes if I like the story!

          Reply
      • 69. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 16, 2011 at 3:02 pm

        I beleive that was L. Ron Hubbard, or Ron L. Hubbard. I know the book that lays everything out about Scientology is called Dianetics.

        Reply
        • 70. Michelle Evans  |  January 16, 2011 at 3:14 pm

          Richard, Yes the book is Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard. However, his initial foray into Scientology was through an article written in a pulp sci-fi magazine. I believe it was either Amazing or Astounding, but not positive. At the time he was living in a home in Pasadena with a group of other writers, and also some who were rocket scientists and founders of the Jet Propulsion Lab. The entire group was into very bizarre religious ceremonies, primarily, but not solely, as a way to try and bring in more money.

          Hubbard was also an interesting figure in that for many years after he died, there were still sci-fi books being published that he supposedly wrote! (And it wasn’t as if there was a backlog he created before he died, just that publishers continued to use his name because it was familiar to the book-buying public.)

          Reply
          • 71. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 3:19 pm

            *gasp* using religious ceremonies to bring in MONEY? *scandalized again*

            Good thing no one ELSE ever thought of doing that!!!!

          • 72. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 3:20 pm

            The “publishing books long after you’re dead” trick is pretty good, though. :)

          • 73. Michelle Evans  |  January 16, 2011 at 3:35 pm

            If anyone here might be interested, there is a fascinating book on this subject:

            “Strange Angel: The Otherworldly Life of Rocket Scientist John Whiteside Parsons,” by George Pendle

            Although the book focuses primarily on Parsons, he was one of the people living with Hubbard when he came up with Scientology, and the background of all that is included.

            Outside of LGBT issues, my passion (and Cherie’s, for that matter) is with the human exploration of space. This was the reason I first picked up this book, since Parsons was one of the founders of JPL. ‘Strange Angel’ definitely went in many directions I never envisioned when I first started reading, and the history of Hubbard was a true eye-opener.

          • 74. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 3:44 pm

            I guess that’s why there’s all that space-based stuff in their creation myth, huh? And why you find out there’s an alien at the end.

          • 75. Michelle Evans  |  January 16, 2011 at 3:52 pm

            Yes, that’s true. However, in many ways, can’t the same be said concerning the origin stories for just about any religion?

          • 76. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 3:56 pm

            Well–yeah…except the rocket part, I mean. :)

          • 77. Michelle Evans  |  January 16, 2011 at 4:15 pm

            I don’t know about that. So many ancient origin stories have things that can be interpreted as off-world technological origins. Although believe me that I want to say right up front that I am not advocating any ‘ancient astronaut’ theory or anything like that, just what various texts and other sources talk about. Look at the book of Ezekiel in the bible, and many people have said that it discusses UFO visitations.

            Greek and Roman myths, not to mention Christianity, all start out with beings in the sky, flaming chariots, that sort of thing. They just didn’t know what rocket science was all about at that time. :-)

          • 78. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 4:35 pm

            Well, things in origin stories can be interpreted in LOTS of ways, not only as off-world technologies. There are many other explanations for lights in the sky and plenty of natural phenomena that would account for such stories. Many of those phenomena were known at the time too, at least to the Babylonians and other cultures that valued higher math and astronomy. And it’s funny how “presentism” sneaks into interpretations too–e.g., there’s no record I know of where say, some Renaissance guy postulates that spaceships came with angels in them. Rockets and space travel didn’t start showing up in the discussion until science fiction made them cultural memes, along about the time of Jules Verne/H.G. Wells.

            All I’m saying is: Scientology is the first religion I know of that specifically refers to space travel in spaceship thingies, which could possibly be explained by the fact the guy who invented it was living with rocket scientists. Coincidence? Hmmm.

            My father-on-law was at JPL for decades, I’ll have to ask him what he’s heard about Hubbard etc. Do you know how long Parsons was there? (no worries if you don’t know offhand, I’ll prolly end up getting the book, or I can just Wiki it.)

          • 79. Michelle Evans  |  January 16, 2011 at 5:23 pm

            That’s certainly one of the main things about religion in general, in that each one we have here is based upon whatever the relevant level of civilization was at the time. And the interpretation, sometimes thousands of years later, can differ wildly from what the original writers intended–as amply evidenced by the way so many on the side of NOM, AFA, FRC, and such like to interpret the bible in ways the writers never envisioned, even literally changing words in various translations to fit their specific likes and dislikes.

            That is one of the things I always found fascinating with religious texts in that not one of them makes an accurate prediction about even one thing that would happen sometime in the future, one piece of knowledge that was unknown at the time of writing, which later proved correct, such as the Earth is round, or it is just one planet in one solar system, in one galaxy, of which there are billions and billions of other galaxies. If there was ancient knowledge of something unknown such as this, it would go a long way to making the texts a lot more credible.

            As for Parsons at JPL, I don’t recall off hand how long he was there. He had a very checkered history, with sometimes being in favor and sometimes not. It’s been a few years since I first read the book about him, but one that I will probably take another look at sometime since it was so bizarre and fascinating.

          • 80. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 5:42 pm

            Excellent! Thanks for the book recommendation Michelle, I’ll go to the library website and see if I can reserve it right now. “Bizarre and fascinating” sounds like a great read!

  • 81. Bennett  |  January 16, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Ah, thats rich! If thats a fact, then why didn’t the angel just deliver them right to Mr. Smith in Salt Lake instead of burying them in Iowa or somewheres? First class pick up id say, but for the delivery, not so much.

    Reply
    • 82. Carpool Cookie  |  January 16, 2011 at 12:18 pm

      To be fair, and so it does not send the message we’re picking on our Mormon friends and P8TT members, we should remember that all faiths have their….contradictory elements.

      It seems to come with the territory or entering the world of the fantastical.

      Reply
      • 83. Carpool Cookie  |  January 16, 2011 at 12:22 pm

        I mean to type “of entering”, above.

        Happy Sunday.

        Reply
        • 84. Carpool Cookie  |  January 16, 2011 at 12:25 pm

          Uh, and that should read “meant to type…”

          I am giving up now.

          (Maybe the ghost of some Prophet is demonizing my computer???)

          Reply
          • 85. Bennett  |  January 16, 2011 at 12:29 pm

            Uh, miss cookie? Me thinks you cant help being a little sarcastic as well. You are making me laugh.

          • 86. Kate  |  January 16, 2011 at 5:26 pm

            Oh Cookie, I love you! You always make me laugh.

          • 87. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 17, 2011 at 10:35 am

            ditto ! : D

      • 88. JonT  |  January 16, 2011 at 5:17 pm

        Agreed CC. All religions I know of have had to ‘adapt’ to changing information about the universe and the increasing enlightenment of society.

        That’s why I tend to reject outright the whole concept of a religious ‘Absolute Truth™’, that all religions I know of espouse.

        Mormanism didn’t allow black people to join, until society basically forced them to. Catholicism and Christianity supported slavery and murder, until society made those views untenable.

        If the so-called ‘Absolute Truth™’ of god is so malleable to a changing and modern society, then the whole concept is meaningless.

        When was the last time someone was stoned to death for working on the sabath or for adultery(*)?

        Appealing to superstition to explain things we do not understand is as old as the human race.

        Some people use religion to provide them with comfort or guidance.

        Others use it as a means of acquiring money and power. Still others use it as a weapon to further their own nefarious goals, with the convenient side effect of acquiring money and power (like NOM).

        I hope for a future in which the vast majority of the human race replaces superstition with logic and reason and a esire to understand what the universe is and how it works. A future where we will look upon the religions of today, the same way we tend to look upon the sun worshipers of millenia ago.

        [* at least in western societies.]

        Reply
        • 89. Peterplumber  |  January 16, 2011 at 5:22 pm

          Uh oh, you spelt Mormonism incorrectly. Watch out for the wrath of the intellectuals on this site.

          Reply
          • 90. JonT  |  January 16, 2011 at 5:58 pm

            My apologies – I meant no offense.

            One of the main reasons I hesitate to even discuss religious matters.

            My father has a rule at the dinner table during christmas/thanksgiving:

            Thou shalt not discuss politics or religion at thy dinner table.

            :)

          • 91. Bennett  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:14 pm

            Too easily impressed Peter. Might not have been a real intellectual. Did you check their intellectual ID card?

        • 92. Straight For Equality  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:01 pm

          “I hope for a future in which the vast majority of the human race replaces superstition with logic and reason and a esire to understand what the universe is and how it works. A future where we will look upon the religions of today, the same way we tend to look upon the sun worshipers of millenia ago.”

          JonT, I agree completely!

          Reply
    • 93. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 16, 2011 at 12:21 pm

      There is also the fact that at the time, Joseph Smith was somewhere in the state of New York. Salt Lake City was where the LDS church settled after being run out of a lot of other places by the locals. Salt Lake City was not the original starting place, only the final refuge to keep from being stoned or whatever else the locals were cooking up. So, obviously, you also need to read up some more about the LDS church. If a Jew can do it, so can you. As for me, I have to know what motivates others to do what they do, and one of the ways I find out what those motivations may be is to continually study other religions, particularly the events, culture, and other aspects of the beginnings of those other religions.

      Reply
      • 94. Bennett  |  January 16, 2011 at 12:45 pm

        My upbringing in an atmosphere of conflicting religeous beliefs, studying religion as a personal quest for truth, attending religeous schools and universities, and working for the past decade on a derivative version of the King James Bible, have left me with a little knowledge. I have a habit of deliberately seeding my comments with inaccurate information when accuracy isnt necessary for the point to be made. Diabolical I know. Im not really ignert (ignorant, see).

        Reply
        • 95. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 16, 2011 at 12:54 pm

          Just so you are aware that you will be called on it here. I too was raised in a variety of religious denominations, and finally discovered my Jewish heritage just after meeting my husband two years ago, so I rarely joke about religion, and I rarely seed my comments with inaccurate information about religions. for one, I don’t feel it is very respectful to the religious views of others, and by extension, it is not respectful to me.

          Reply
          • 96. Santa Barbara Mom  |  January 16, 2011 at 4:22 pm

            Thank you, Richard. Your posts are the only ones that reflect the intellectual person that you are, unike the posts of Peterplumber, Carpool, Bennett, etc whose posts come from sources of who knows where………………and who repeatedly misspell the word “mormonism”, which only reflects their ignorance on the subject.

          • 97. Peterplumber  |  January 16, 2011 at 4:41 pm

            Wow, Mom, sorry if my misspelling hurt you.
            What I was getting at is the Mormon’s beliefs on marriage and theocratic government are THIER beliefs and nobody’s beliefs should be pushed on anyone else. Please don’t think, that because I am a plumber, I am uneducated.

          • 98. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 16, 2011 at 4:43 pm

            Thank you, Santa Barbara Mom. I also have friends here in NC who are Mormon, and they have also told me some of the same bits of LDS history that I have read here. Not that the leader of the local ward is one of them, mostly ordinary everyday rank and file members. What is really funny is that one of my Mormon friends has a style of beard that when we first met caused me to think he was Amish. Full chin beard, no mustache. And there are things that are not necessarily from Wikipedia WRT to the history of every known religion that many would prefer stay hidden. And there are many who do not want the truth about Islam to be widely known, or else they will have to do away with so many government agencies that came into existence during the Bush administration. I know too many Muslims to blame all of them for the actions of a few extremists who were not true Muslims, but only hiding behind that religion to justify their terrorism. But then, that is another whole site in and of itself.
            How are you and your family doing, by the way? Hope all is well with all of you.

          • 99. Santa Barbara Mom  |  January 16, 2011 at 5:00 pm

            Peterplumber, you’re misspelling doesn’t hurt me and I never said you are uneducated.

          • 100. Santa Barbara Mom  |  January 16, 2011 at 5:02 pm

            HI Richard, we are all well, thank you. In fact, my son has Monday off so he and his boyfriend came down from San Francisco to spend the week-end with us. We had a double-date last night……….lots of fun!

            Thoughts of you everyday, as I”m loving my Scentsy!!

          • 101. Santa Barbara Mom  |  January 16, 2011 at 5:04 pm

            Whoops, should have proof read my own post #69. Correct it to read “your”.

          • 102. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 16, 2011 at 6:38 pm

            Glad you are loving it. IN fact, I have gone from being a Scentsy host to being a Scentsy consultant. I figured, the way the parties were starting to grow, I might as well go that route. It will make it easier for you to get in touch with me any time you need to order anything.

        • 103. Ed Cortes  |  January 17, 2011 at 8:09 am

          There are DIFFERENT versions of the bible????? ;) I thought that the bible was the “truth”! Tat means that there are different versions of the “truth”? Who made them up? I’m sooo confused now.

          Reply
  • 104. Rae  |  January 16, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    Brian Brown from NOM, must be gay!. Why would someone spend all of his energy the way he does if was not!

    Reply
    • 105. Ann S.  |  January 16, 2011 at 4:51 pm

      I think it pays him pretty well, for one thing.

      Reply
  • 106. Rob  |  January 16, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    I read all the comments on NOM’s webste to their “NOM Responds to Obama Administration’s Failure … ” article and barely 10% of them, if that, are sympathetic to NOM’s position against marriage equality. Any idea as to why this might be? I can think of a few like there could be more of “Us” visiting their site than there are or “Them” visiting ours but that’s seems kind of a simplistic explanation. Maybe their people are warned against visiting sites such as ours lest the be “Led astray”.

    Reply
    • 107. Peterplumber  |  January 16, 2011 at 2:26 pm

      Even NOM’s own followers are tired of the “procreation” rant over & over again. They don’t much else to talk about amongst themselves. The only posts that get more than 2 or 3 comments are when pro-equality folks are commenting and the NOMers go on the defensive.

      Reply
  • 108. NetAmigo  |  January 16, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    Let’s hope Brian Brown’s conspiracy theory is correct that the Obama Administration is falsely defending DOMA solely to prevent outfits like his NOM from mounting a real defense.

    Reply
    • 109. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 3:41 pm

      Yeah!…a real defense like the one they mounted for Prop 8!

      “Don’t throw me in that there briar patch!!” Br’er Brian says, still sweating from the realization that (even if NOM/ProtectMarriage ARE granted standing to appeal the Prop8 ruling) they-all don’t have a logical leg to stand on with a “real defense” and all that there “evvy-dense” them courtspeoples been goin’ on about.

      But Br’er Brian, he knew that being in that briar patch was the best place for him to be! long as he could convince everybody that he really hated being there.

      So the Big Bad Obama Administration mounted an defense themselves and threw Br’er Brian in the briar patch, saving him and his friends from yet another expensive embarrassment, yessiree. But did he say so? Nope. He just crept on outta that briar patch and went on home to bed. THE END.

      Reply
  • 110. Sagesse  |  January 16, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    Well this could be interesting. The chief justice of the Iowa supreme court is doing outreach.

    Chief justice to meet critic of court’s gay marriage ruling

    http://www.radioiowa.com/2011/01/16/chief-justice-to-meet-critic-of-courts-gay-marriage-ruling/

    Reply
    • 111. Ann S.  |  January 16, 2011 at 6:00 pm

      That is just laughable that the guy from the Family group is “confident” that the chief justice will resign after he’s asked to “pray and search his heart” or whatever phrase that guy used. I’m pretty amused. There’s my chuckle for today.

      Reply
    • 112. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 6:07 pm

      Aww, disappointed after reading the article, i thought it was going to be a cage match or something.

      Reply
      • 113. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 16, 2011 at 6:58 pm

        That would not be fair, Ann, and you know it. It is not very sportsmanlike to get into a cage for a battle of wits when your opponent is so obviously unarmed!

        Reply
        • 114. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 16, 2011 at 6:59 pm

          Sorry for the goof, Elizabeth. Once again, I am wishing we had an edit button here! But still, you have to admit it would not be a fair cage match!

          Reply
          • 115. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:06 pm

            Dude–Who worries about fairness at a cage match? If the larger ethical issue of untrammeled violence doesn’t bother, why worry about whether it’s FAIR?? What are ya, his MOM???

            (besides, the Justice has a gavel thingy, so he’d win anyway.)

          • 116. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:13 pm

            True, but in all honesty, I don’t want the judge to get his robes dirty having to get that near this fool! And we know that the ages never get washed out between matches! I would like to see them on PIers MOrgan Tonight on CNN, though! That would definitely be entertaining.

          • 117. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:14 pm

            It’s true, the drycleaning bill would be enormous. And that’s taxpayer money we’re talking about.

  • 118. Sagesse  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    Speaking of nostalgia, check out the NOM-like size of the crowd.

    Tea Party rally focuses in gay marriage in Iowa

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ia-teapartyrally,0,3987568.story

    Reply
    • 119. Peterplumber  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:12 pm

      What grounds can they use for impeachemnt?

      Reply
      • 120. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:15 pm

        Ya know Pete: I bet they’re asking themselves the very same question. :)

        Reply
    • 121. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:17 pm

      About 35 people gathered for a Tea Party rally in Council Bluffs calling for a ban on gay marriage and stricter abortion laws in Iowa.

      NOM is jealous.

      Reply
  • 122. Kathleen  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    I laugh every time I see this picture of Brian Brown. “On Top” has taken to using it every time they do an article referencing him.
    http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=7326&MediaType=1&Category=26

    Reply
    • 123. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:23 pm

      OMG. I thought you were referring to his expression and his spit-do….but then I read the caption.

      Reply
      • 124. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:41 pm

        Actually, I am wondering how many bryls had to die to make that much brylcreem for Brian’s hair? And also whether he ever washes it between applications? Of course, WRT the caption on the bottom, perhaps the controversy is that Brian thinks he is a beauty queen when everyone else knows he is not!

        Reply
        • 125. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:48 pm

          He reminds me of those grim looking little boys in department store family portraits, who had their hair combed special for the occasion and could not be cajoled into smiling.

          Reply
          • 126. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 16, 2011 at 8:25 pm

            Or someone with very bad gas cramps!

          • 127. Elizabeth Oakes  |  January 16, 2011 at 8:30 pm

            Ack Richard, what horrible timing! My husband and I are just about to sit down to watch “Gaslight” and now my mind is going to be on a very wrong track. Bad Richard, bad!!! :P

    • 128. Kathleen  |  January 16, 2011 at 7:34 pm

      :)

      Reply
  • 129. Ronnie  |  January 16, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    Ok several congratulations that need to go out tonight:

    – 1st congrats to all the winners of tonight’s Golden Globe Awards.

    – To Annetter Bening on winning the Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Motion Picture, Comedy for “The Kids are Alright”

    – To Jane Lynch on winning the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress in a Series, Miniseries or Motion Picture Made for Television for her role as “Sue Sylvester” on “Glee”

    – To the Cast, Crew, & Creators of “The Kids are Alright” for their winning the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture, Comedy or Musical.

    – To the Cast, Crew, & Creators of “Glee” for their winning the Golden Globe for Best Television Series, Comedy or Musical.

    – & to Chris Colfer for winning the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor in a Series, Miniseries or Motion Picture Made for Television for his role as “Kurt Hummel” on “Glee”.

    Here is Chris Colfer’s acceptance speech…for those who can’t watch the clip, the folks over at Towleroad.com transcribed it for everyone:

    “To all the amazing kids that watch our show, and the kids that our show celebrates that are constantly told ‘no’ by the people and the environments, by bullies at school that they can’t be who they are or have what they want because of who they are, well (holds up award)…screw that kids!”

    <3….Ronnie:

    Reply
    • 130. Michelle Evans  |  January 16, 2011 at 9:18 pm

      Speaking of awards, I’d have to give The Simpsons this evening an award for being really bad. Anyone else catch the show tonight? Their depiction of gays and transsexuals was just horrible. Maybe I didn’t get the joke for some reason, but this would be right up there with all time worst shows concerning LGBT on TV.

      Pretty much every person they showed was a stereotype, and as a trans person I was very offended by what they did with their group of supposed drag queens. Coming from the Simpsons, Cherie and I were even more surprised because we just never expected anything like that from them.

      Reply
      • 131. JonT  |  January 16, 2011 at 11:06 pm

        Hmm – just watched it.

        I can see what you mean, but I think the stereotypes were part of the humor:

        ‘Mo’s quote: “Like all gays, I’m attracted to all men” :)

        Comic ‘Gay’ Man: Most insidious stereotype ever!

        Oh yeah.

        And the Chihuahua with the disco collar made me LMAO :)

        I didn’t see the harm – thought it was pretty funny IMO.

        Reply
  • 132. MichGuy  |  January 17, 2011 at 3:30 am

    UPDATE: on women in Militray
    It appears one of the final barriers of discrimination in the military is up for review, and is long overdue in my opinion. Heres to providing females access into combat MOS’, ground combat units and recognition of their commitment to the defense of the US.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/14/women-allowed-combat-unis-report-says/?test=latestnews

    I served with Females in the Army as a Military Policeman and had no issue.

    Reply
  • 133. AB  |  January 17, 2011 at 4:10 am

    What I don’t understand is this: the logic that Congress used to bas DOMA has been rejected by Supreme Courts in Iowa and Massachusetts and Connecticut, to name a few. They were also rejected in California; and, in federal court over challenges to same-sex marriage laws, the law failed before a federal judge and prove to be one of the more unpersuasive arguments they have in the appellate court (which is why they have had to result to this new argument about the Crawford case).
    Now, presumably Mr. Brown knows all of this. And if he knows all of this, then one question looms: why would he want to press this tired assertion in yet another court? It seems to me like the Obama administration is actually doing the right thing (that is, if they want to win, which I would prefer NOT to see) by looking away from arguments that have been proven failures. Brian Brown should be thanking them!
    Albert Einstein is frequently quoted (and perhaps misquoted) as having said: “Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.” If this is true, then Brian’s defense of DOMA is, truly, an insanity defense.

    (I accidentally posted this first under the happy anniversary thread. I blame it on sleep deprivation.)

    Reply
  • 134. Kathleen  |  January 17, 2011 at 8:43 am

    What DOJ Thinks of the Defense of Marriage Act Doesn’t Matter Much, Andrew Cohen writing for The Atlantic

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/what-doj-thinks-of-the-defense-of-marriage-act-doesnt-matter-much/69626/

    Reply
  • 135. Ronnie  |  January 17, 2011 at 9:04 am

    Sony Pictures Entertainment Employees say “It Gets Better”….<3…Ronnie:

    Reply
  • 136. Josh  |  January 17, 2011 at 9:27 am

    Kinda off topic, but just read this article and wanted to share. This woman has everything so backwards. My jaw dropped reading what she says.
    http://minnesotaindependent.com/75517/family-council-claims-success-in-stopping-anti-bullying-efforts-in-anoka-hennepin

    Reply
    • 137. fiona64  |  January 17, 2011 at 9:37 am

      I’ll take “Bigots Always Blame Their Victims” for $1000, Alex …

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 138. Josh  |  January 17, 2011 at 11:02 am

        I know, how sick to say that more GLBT kids coming out increases/causes the bullying. Then she says “this lifestyle” is so dangrous and unhealthy. If kids could get accurate and complete education on sexuality and the risks and prevention of diseases, that would help them to be both mentally and physically healthier. No matter how many times two STD-free guys have sex, an STD won’t spontaneously develop. Risky sexual interactions are what spreads STDs, not the sexual acts themselves or the gender of the participants.

        Reply
      • 139. Josh  |  January 17, 2011 at 11:08 am

        Also, these groups have to continue with the lie that our sexuality is somehow taught to support their other lies and to continue raising money. It’s sad that so many people believe the junk these groups say and ignore the actual professionals, yet when their kid gets sick, who do they go to for help and believe their advice? Yep, the same doctors who they won’t believe about human sexuality.

        Reply
    • 140. JonT  |  January 17, 2011 at 5:30 pm

      Perhaps someone should send this poor excuse for a human being the following link Kathleen just passed on to me.

      http://prideinutah.com/?p=8242

      In Minnesota too. Nice work Barb Anderson.

      Reply
  • 141. BK  |  January 17, 2011 at 9:48 am

    This probably sounds awkward, but is there a way to find another person to write pieces for P8TT? Adding a new front-page voice to the mix would help spice things up. :)

    Reply
    • 142. fiona64  |  January 17, 2011 at 10:20 am

      BK, several months ago nominations were taken. Some of the nominees (myself included) declined. Rob T. is one of the new voices. You might want to look for his articles.

      Reply
      • 143. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 18, 2011 at 8:33 am

        what we need is new equality victories to write about! Difficult to get down about discrimination that affects so many of us : (

        p.s. yep, I voted for fiona to write for P8TT!

        Reply
  • 144. Ronnie  |  January 17, 2011 at 9:51 am

    Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) spoke with the ladies of “The View” this morning, reiterating her commitment to bringing Marriage Equality to New York….<3…Ronnie:

    Reply
    • 145. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 17, 2011 at 11:25 am

      super glad these issues talked about openly/positively on National Television : )

      Reply
    • 146. Joel  |  January 17, 2011 at 11:33 am

      I never realized what an ally we have in Sen Gillibrand! I think I focus on studying our enemies too much.

      Thank you, Senator!

      Reply
      • 147. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 18, 2011 at 7:21 am

        too true! McCain and others grab the attention….Sen Gillibrand is enthusiastic and impressive!

        Reply
  • 148. Straight For Equality  |  January 17, 2011 at 10:06 am

    The NPR station here in NH just had a one-hour program on Bayard Rustin, “a black, gay, Quaker who brought Gandhian non-violent protest to the Civil Rights movement in America.” Interesting program! They credited him with teaching MLK about non-violence as a protest technique.

    Reply
    • 149. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 18, 2011 at 7:19 am

      tx for reminder of Bayard Rustin! I’ll watch the program!

      Reply
  • 152. Rhie  |  January 17, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Watching

    Reply
  • 153. Carpool Cookie  |  January 17, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    Yes, he was a fascinating person…and very close to Martin Luther King. Unfortunately, he did not receive the credit he deserved at that time.

    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)

  • 4,585,303 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...