If NOM’s Louis Marinelli wants high road, he *must* take responsibility for past tracks

January 22, 2011 at 6:21 pm 57 comments

Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

Today on NOM’s official Facebook wall, moderator Louis J. Marinelli posted this clarification:

Screen Shot 2011-01-21 At 10.15.41 Am

Which we hope is true. Genuinely. We’d love to see NOM supporters stick to issues, not personal attacks (something that’s been problematic on that Facebook wall).

But here’s the really big sticking point for us. This is the same Louis J. Marinelli who, in the very recent past, used the highly-repudiated Paul Cameron’s research to say that “gays have shorter life spans.” The same LJM who said he thinks all gays are single, even if they are married or in a committed relationship. Who tweeted that Peter LaBarbera of the incredibly eye-opening (and personally-targeted) “Americans For Truth” group is merely “tell[ing] the truth about homosexuality.” The same LJM who once said that marriage equality is “a mockery and a hijacking of the civil rights movement,” who flat-out called gays an abomination, and who said that “Deviance” describes actions or behaviours that violate cultural norms – homosexuality is far from a cultural norm. Therefore, it is deviant.” The same LJM who’s claimed that “Homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong and harmful to society,” who’s emphatically stated that “there shouldn’t be any recognition of homosexual relationships because that is saying that homosexuality is OK,” who tweeted that “what they do is blantantly [sic] immoral. :) [smile his own], ” who has compared our unions to that which might exist between a sterile brother and sister, and who even resorted to blanket character assassination in saying that one should “#nevertrust activists of the homosexual agenda – they are deceitful people who care only about themselves and not what’s best for society.” The same man who made an egregious video declaring that modern LGBT rights activists want the “3 P’s: Prostitution, pedophilia, and polygamy“.

http://www.goodasyou.org/player.swf

And this is the same Marinelli who has also hit up this site’s comment threads, continuing his attempts to link gays to pedophilia and polygamy. It wasn’t five or ten years ago he did this — it was all within the past year and change.

So again: We sincerely hope Louis is sincere in his call. But both he and NOM will have to forgive us if it takes a little more than just a Facebook wall to scrub away what we have already seen.

Especially since almost every single time one pulls the NOM thread — virtually. every. single. time. — one finds a NOM ally that does, undeniably, focus on homosexuality and its “cure.”

***

*NOTE: As you can see by clicking the links, many of Louis’ old comments are now scrubbed. But deletion is not an apology, nor is it responsibility for what he chose to put into the public discourse. Especially considering that it was while Louis was making these comments that he and his efforts came on NOM’s radar.

Entry filed under: Right-wing.

NH Republican leaders may postpone marriage vote The Prop. 8 Trial a Year Later: The Education Continues

57 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Bennett  |  January 22, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    Expand contract develop refine radicalize lie incite rethink strategy scrub moderate, remessage. Where do I go from here? Is this really where I intended to be?

    It’s nice to see louis develop along his path to self discovery.

    Reply
    • 2. Kathleen  |  January 22, 2011 at 10:56 pm

      Just scribin’

      Reply
      • 3. Ed Cortes  |  January 23, 2011 at 9:02 am

        ditto

        Reply
  • 4. Ann S.  |  January 22, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    Ω

    Reply
    • 5. JonT  |  January 22, 2011 at 7:55 pm

      Reply
      • 6. Peterplumber  |  January 22, 2011 at 8:06 pm

        ♂♂

        Reply
        • 7. Straight For Equality  |  January 22, 2011 at 8:11 pm

          Reply
          • 8. RebeccaRGB  |  January 22, 2011 at 10:12 pm

  • 9. Mark M (Seattle)  |  January 22, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    Poor poor Louis…I almost pity him…so ignorant, naive, foolish, and careless. Once you place something into CyberLand it’s there forever. He can hide from the truth, deny the truth, or simply try to ignore it, but WE know :-)

    Reply
  • 10. Kate  |  January 22, 2011 at 6:58 pm

    Nothing but covering his ass with Facebook for when his site gets reported for its hate speech.

    Reply
  • 11. Ronnie  |  January 22, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    “Homosexuals have the right to live as they choose but they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else”

    Really Louis?…..I will eventually fall in love with a man (the same gender as myself) & I will choose to marry him & he will do the same….that is how I, a homosexual, choose to live my life…as a man married to a man, & when we are ready financially & having made the decision as mature adults & a couple, we will have children either through surrogacy, adoption, or both……oh but wait….I can’t do all of that because Louis selfishly does not want me too unless I do it how Louis & NOM demands….Louis, don’t be an oxyMORON by first saying “you can do whatever” but then in the very same sentence say “but you can’t do that”……. 8 / ….Ronnie

    Reply
    • 12. Ray in MA  |  January 22, 2011 at 7:55 pm

      Ronnie: “I will entually fall in love with a man (the same gender as myself) & I will choose to marry him & he will do the same.”

      You’re right Ron, and every second of that love will be worth the wait.

      Reply
  • […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Scott Wooledge, Testimony. Testimony said: If NOM's Louis Marinelli wants high road, he *must* take responsibility for past tracks: http://wp.me/pLuL9-29R […]

    Reply
  • 14. Sagesse  |  January 22, 2011 at 7:17 pm

    Louis has instructions from NOM. If their name is on this site, the verbal gay-bashing has to stop. This time next year, NOM cannot afford to be officially promoted by SPLC to hate group status… they have to clean up their act. They can still associate with Tony Perkins and Bishop Jackson and Bob Vanderplatts, but they have to be ‘for traditional marriage’ and against campaign funding disclosure… and nothing else.

    Reply
  • 15. Rhie  |  January 22, 2011 at 7:33 pm

    I think it is so cute when people try to scrub comments for PR reasons. Those comments are archived somewhere, by someone. The internet, and things said on it, never really go away.

    Reply
    • 16. RebeccaRGB  |  January 22, 2011 at 10:16 pm

      “Trying to get something off the Internet is like trying to get pee out of a swimming pool.” — Joe Garrelli, NewsRadio

      Reply
  • 17. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 22, 2011 at 7:46 pm

    Yes, let’s see some real apologies. This is not one.

    Reply
  • 18. Ray in MA  |  January 22, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    Louis, too late, the damage has been done.

    Your damage has been so demeaning… this doesn’t come close to any resolution… may your God rot you in hell for such a feeble attempt (and that would be too generous).

    Reply
    • 19. Ray in MA  |  January 22, 2011 at 8:12 pm

      Liar!

      Reply
  • 20. Ray in MA  |  January 22, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    A friend of Louis J. Marinelli:

    Reply
    • 21. Josh  |  January 24, 2011 at 3:58 pm

      He didn’t give one answer that would stand up in court. Huh, I woner why?

      Reply
  • 22. Ray in MA  |  January 22, 2011 at 9:13 pm

    Beyond Jeremy’s polite post:

    (another video from Marinelli’s official YT channel)

    Reply
    • 23. JonT  |  January 22, 2011 at 10:11 pm

      Haha, I love the Stalin-esque marching music.

      Reply
    • 24. Sagesse  |  January 23, 2011 at 5:28 am

      Quibbles.

      There are so many ways to interpret ‘every living creature of every kind on the earth’.

      And in what version of the Bible does the word ‘homosexual’ appear?

      Reply
      • 25. fiona64  |  January 24, 2011 at 10:53 am

        First appearance of the word in a Bible: The American Bible, in 1973.

        The word itself wasn’t even coined until the late 19th C., but it took almost another 100 years before it turned up in a version of the Bible.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
        • 26. fiona64  |  January 24, 2011 at 10:53 am

          Oops, my bad. It was not The American Bible, but *an* American Bible: the New International Version (NIV).

          I checked my own facts, LOL.

          Love,
          Fiona

          Reply
          • 27. Sagesse  |  January 24, 2011 at 11:57 am

            Indeed, my very point. Sigh.

          • 28. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 24, 2011 at 3:25 pm

            And in the verse about the three types of eunuchs, Rabbi Yoshua ben Yosef of Nazareth first speaks of those who were born eunuchs, which was the term of his time for those who are born LGBT, and he stated at the end of that passage that all three types of eunuchs are children of G-d and blessed of G-d. You would think that more of those who claim to follow him and who say that he is the OEM of the human race would listen to him and accept this fact. However, those who cannot accept this fact are those who are so insecure about their own sexual orientation and have been so browbeaten about that fact that they are only doing what they think is expected of them, hoping that it will get them into a better place after they leave this plane of existence. won’t they be surprised when they see all the glitter upstairs!

          • 29. Josh  |  January 24, 2011 at 4:00 pm

            You rock, Fiona :-)

    • 30. Martin the Brit  |  January 23, 2011 at 8:25 am

      A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…

      Reply
      • 31. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 23, 2011 at 8:31 am

        Martin, we really need to find a way to help you cross the pond for a visit. I for one want to meet the man behind all these comments. Thank you for a very deep belly laugh to start my Sunday morning!

        Reply
        • 32. Martin the Brit  |  January 23, 2011 at 8:51 am

          Aww, I’m so very flattered. I’m glad I can brighten someone’s day at least if nothing else. And I certainly wouldn’t turn down a holiday opportunity lol.

          I really hope I don’t come across as frivolous but I just can’t get over how ridiculous the rhetoric is from NOM and co. We just don’t seem to have to put up with anything like that in the UK. I’m sorry that this is an everyday reality for you and other posters in the US but laughter is such a good therapy, and my non-existent-god, is there a lot to laugh about here.

          Anyway, have a scone – we don’t do cookies here I’m afraid :-P

          Reply
          • 33. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 23, 2011 at 3:42 pm

            That’s okay. I have been wanting to try scones for a long time. Actually, I have been scouring various places looking for a cookbook with recipes for scones so I can add them to my repertoire.

          • 34. Chrys  |  January 23, 2011 at 5:39 pm

            Richard, my lady has an orange scone recipe that is to-die-for good. Drop me an email (chryssalys@aol.com) and I’ll get it out to you (once I get her to write it down!).

          • 35. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 23, 2011 at 6:25 pm

            Will email you in just a few minutes. Just got through submitting my first consultant order to Scentsy, and will go into my other email to email you. Having trouble with Yahoo lately, so will do it from my work email.

          • 36. Chrys  |  January 23, 2011 at 7:18 pm

            Just sent it out to you, let me know if you don’t get it.

          • 37. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 23, 2011 at 9:25 pm

            I got it. No wonder they don’t last long! I am going to the grocery store tomorrow and make puppy dog eyes until I am given the green light to make them. Of course, when I show BZ the recipe, that will probably do for the puppy dog eyes. Then the fun part will be keeping them away from the three four-legged puppies!

          • 38. Martin the Brit  |  January 24, 2011 at 11:39 am

            Sort of off topic, but apparently I spoke much too soon. Not a day after I express, in a rather cavalier fashion, how ‘We just don’t seem to have to put up with anything like that in the UK’ comes this gem from the Daily Mail:

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1349951/Gay-victims-prejudice-risk-new-McCartyites.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

            An article that successfully manages to invoke nearly every myth and falsehood about LGBT people to ever be vomited from the twisted and repressed minds of eloquent, upstanding and morally wholesome bigots everywhere, includes the words ‘agenda’, ‘propaganda’, ‘brainwash’, ‘moral norms’, ‘totalitarian dictatorships’, an ironic misuse of a George Orwell quote and completed with the vivid imagery of ‘penalising religious people’, hysterical overtones and vague premonitions of an authoritarian gay apocalypse.

            So, it’s safe to say that I’ve learnt my lesson now.

            *adjusts paisley scarf*

            …Sigh…

            I hope your scones turned out well, Richard.

          • 39. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 24, 2011 at 3:31 pm

            Will have to find out tomorrow. With the bill errands we had today, did not get to go to the market for the necessary things we are missing. Looking forward to them, though. Will post pictures to my flickr and Facebook when I bake them the first time.

  • 40. Sheryl Carver  |  January 22, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    Ah, yes, the ultimate way to avoid responsibility for a whole lotta bigoted behavior & hateful speech: its all God’s fault! “We’re just doing what God wants us to.”

    This seems to me to be the worst form of blasphemy.

    Reply
    • 41. Josh  |  January 24, 2011 at 4:07 pm

      I think some who use the Bible against GLBT people fight it so strongly because they are realizing that they were duped into believing what they were told and they’re pissed. They don’t want to admit they were so easily fooled so they keep going along with them and they’re just bitter. Hmm, just a thougt I had.

      Reply
  • 42. Canadian JAG  |  January 22, 2011 at 11:36 pm

    Looks like they are preparing themselves for some big push! They realize the anti-gay tactics aren’t winning the majorities it used to so they are trying to appeal to more moderates with a “traditional marriage” plea, it is smart on their behalf which worries me that they may be smartening up…. Everyone needs to keep up their efforts and not let NOM distort people against true equality!

    Reply
  • 43. chris from co  |  January 23, 2011 at 5:29 am

    Love the sinner hate the sin. Don’t you love it when someone shakes your hand and says “a pleasure to meet you”, and turn around and tell others I will pray for him. Do they really think we don’t know the difference. Gay people learn quickly when there is a threat we have to or we will find a knife in our back. This is familiar territory for us.

    Reply
    • 44. anonygrl  |  January 24, 2011 at 6:56 am

      One of the most obnoxious phrases ever to come out of the Christian repetoire… “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” I’ve never encountered a case of a person who actually used that phrase who was not a smarmy bastard on some level. Ever.

      The following is a theoretical discussion, because I do not, in any way, think that LOVE is a sin.

      If you actually love the sinner you know better than to SAY you hate the sin, because you have to, on some level, accept that the “sin” is part of who the sinner is. Even if it is a sin you, personally, would not participate in, you are lying if you claim that you hate the sin and love the sinner at the same time. You cannot hate a part of a person and love the whole person. You may not LIKE the sin, (in which case, don’t do it) but in order to love the sinner, you must tolerate the sin, accept it, forgive it and move past it.

      So my suggestion, give up the hate. It is not a very Christian thing to hold on to.

      Reply
      • 45. fiona64  |  January 24, 2011 at 10:55 am

        It’s not even out of the Christian repertoire: it’s a quote by Gandhi.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 46. Josh  |  January 24, 2011 at 4:13 pm

        They think it makes them sound kind and loving and it also keeps reinforcing the LIE that being gay is a sin. The more they repeat it, the more people will hear it. Many of them do believe being gay is a sin because they’ve been deceived by sinful men, the “wolves in sheep’s clothing” so to speak.

        Reply
      • 47. Josh  |  January 24, 2011 at 4:17 pm

        Whenever I point out that they are misleading GLBT people and that they are the true “wolves” they get so mad. I say they have turned what is good into evil or any other similar phrases that they like to use against people like Gene Robinson or Mel White. It really pisses them off, but I’m pretty sure I’m right.

        Reply
        • 48. Josh  |  January 24, 2011 at 4:28 pm

          This just goes to show how important it is to keep religion out of our politics. The majority religious or otherwise belief that gays should not have equality should have no place in this country. It’s about the equality we deserve and need, given to us by the Constitution.

          Reply
    • 49. Phillip R  |  January 24, 2011 at 10:03 am

      Yea, that phrase has always annoyed me. Always seemed to me it was just an excuse to look down on someone without admitting that you were looking down on them. Weird and passive aggressive.

      Reply
  • 50. Bennett  |  January 23, 2011 at 10:13 am

    Dear fellow fringe groups and extreamists,ugandians at heart, fundamentalist sheep, and our fiends at Pawlenty Palin 2012, all you holy warriors for the cause . . .

    Warmest greetings. On direction from our central base, we have to “go away” for a while and focus on things from another angle. So, while we won’t be as visabilty in touch during the next phase, and may even have to publicly disavow our association and common cause as a public relations necessity, keep strong, and know that we will soon be tongether again celebrating our common victory.

    Louis,

    Reply
  • 51. Dave T  |  January 24, 2011 at 7:43 am

    We respectfully request those who disagree with us not to attack our supporters for their beliefs – LJM

    Oh, come on. People who hold stupid beliefs should expect to be criticized, especially if they’re not willing to listen to reason.

    Reply
    • 52. Phillip R  |  January 24, 2011 at 10:05 am

      Whether they are stupid or not, people shouldn’t be afraid to stand up to criticism for their beliefs. Criticism keeps our thoughts, beliefs, etc constantly evolving and changing.

      If you want your beliefs to be part of a national platform and group and your beliefs are used to shape others, then you most definitely should be ready for criticism. It’s not like you are keeping your opinion to yourself.

      Reply
  • 53. James Sweet  |  January 24, 2011 at 10:31 am

    I don’t care what he’s said in the past, “Please don’t criticize us for being bigots, because you see, our religion tells us we have to be bigots” is not the “high road”.

    If your beliefs tell you homosexuality is morally wrong, then your beliefs are stupid. I will not apologize for saying so.

    Do I think this stance will change the mind of anyone whose religion tells them homosexuality is morally wrong? Of course not, but neither do I think that being super nice to them will change their mind either. I’m after the next generation, and this generation’s fence-sitters. The message young people need to hear is not that “oh gee, it’s a matter of personal belief whether homosexuality is immoral or not” — no, the message young people need to hear is “the only people who think homosexuality is immoral are people who are old and uncool and kinda stupid.” That’s how you win hearts and minds.

    Reply
  • 54. fiona64  |  January 24, 2011 at 10:50 am

    Hi, Louis! Bless your heart!

    Love,
    Fiona

    Reply
  • 55. Joe  |  January 25, 2011 at 11:28 am

    From Webster’s:

    mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

    It has never been redefined. Heterosexual couples continue to live under the first definition. Allowing same sex couples to marry merely expanded the definition. Saying something “changed” for heterosexual couples is like saying something “changed” for white people by allowing interracial couples to marry.

    Reply
    • 56. anonygrl  |  January 25, 2011 at 11:35 am

      Precisely.

      Reply
  • 57. None of us are this courageous | Jami Leone  |  April 8, 2011 at 10:07 am

    […] Opinion about retractions […]

    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...