On hominids, ad hominem: Enemy of our ring fingers says we hate rest of body

January 24, 2011 at 12:54 pm 122 comments

Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

We’ve endured scores of insults and slights in this wholly unprovoked, wholly unnecessary “culture war.” But “enemies of the human body” might just be a new one:

As time goes on, it will become more obvious that “marriage equality” requires us, men, women and children alike, to ignore biology. Some women who have children with female partners will find that sharing the care of her child with another woman, is not the same as sharing the care of her child with the child’s father. Some men who agree to be sperm donors as “friends” will find that they want more of 6A00D8341C503453Ef0134869B7735970C-1a relationship with their own children than they had anticipated. And some children are going to have feelings about their absent parents, uncomfortable questions about their origins, and complex emotions about being partially purchased.

Advocates of same sex marriage typically respond, “That’s just biology,” as if biology were nothing. These advocates are asking people to set aside the natural attachment of parents to their own children, the natural difficulties of treating another person’s child as if they were your own, the natural desires of children to know who they are and where they came from. And these advocates are asking the whole of society to ignore sexual differentiation in parenthood: no mothers, no fathers, just generic parents. These enemies of the human body seem to forget that there are no generic people, just men and women.

As acceptance of gender-neutral marriage spreads throughout society, some same sex couples will not be “gay:” they will be forming same sex unions of convenience. And even among the gays and lesbians who marry, not all of them will be the most committed ideologues. Some will just want to live the ordinary lives that advocates of same sex marriage have been promising them. But biology will assert itself.”

Jennifer Roback Morse from the National Organization For Marriage’s Ruth Institute

“Wait, that’s the full spectrum of biology,” said even a particularly restrictive practitioner of evangelical homeschooling.

Stay classy, careless limitation.

***

*Of course NOM loves this. They’re prominently featuring Jennifer’s piece on the NOM blog.

***

*Oh, and as for referring to certain kids as “partially purchased”? How unbelievably brutish can one get?! It’s not even a gay-specific knock: It’s an all-encompassing affront to a myriad of situations that fall outside of Morse’s accepted “norm.”

Entry filed under: Right-wing.

Cold in New Hampshire, but warm stories A Preview of 2011’s Marriage Equality Fights

122 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Carpool Cookie  |  January 24, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    Does this mean Ms. Morse wants to do away with adoption and assisted fertilization, etc., for everyone?

    I didn’t think so.

    Reply
    • 2. Sagesse  |  January 24, 2011 at 12:58 pm

      CC, why not? (sarcasm)

      Reply
    • 3. Joe  |  January 25, 2011 at 11:22 am

      Well that’s what I thought. So if a “friend” donates an egg for a heterosexual couple and has a child, does that make their relationships any less valid? Or if a heterosexual couple decides to ignore biology altogether and never have a child, are they ignoring their god-inspired duty to procreate?

      Reply
  • 4. Jonathan H  |  January 24, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    Oh, so all stepparents are wicked, then?
    I’m also intrigued by the idea that a division must be made between men and women, that they cannot be considered jointly as “people”.

    Reply
    • 5. Carpool Cookie  |  January 24, 2011 at 1:13 pm

      “Oh, so all stepparents are wicked, then?”

      Of course they are! Rent a Disney movie sometime!!

      Jeez.

      Reply
      • 6. Chris B  |  January 24, 2011 at 1:42 pm

        I think Ms. Morse HAS been watching too many Disney movies: where step-parents are evil, couples marry only for love and live happily ever after, there is no divorce, there is no abuse, there are no unwanted children and every parent who wants a child can have one.

        Anyone can look out in the world and see that children with a mother and father don’t always have a happy, healthy childhood; loving parents sometimes are unable to have children through natural means, single women get pregnant–on purpose or accidentally; parents are forced to raise children without a spouse due to divorce, desertion, and death; kids raised by single parents can turn out fine; children are not raised in a vacuum: they have male and female relatives and other role models in their lives–besides just their parents.

        i don’t know where Ms. Morse buys her rose-colored glasses, but the fact that a child is raised by his or her ‘natural’ parents does not guarantee a thing. It would almost seem more accurate to say–based on Ms. Morse’s logic–that poor people shouldn’t have kids since kids do better in middle-class and upper-class families, and that no child should be forced by society to live in a poor home.

        Reply
        • 7. AndrewPDX  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:55 pm

          I have to disagree with your first paragraph. Jennifer and these NOMzies do NOT believe that “couples marry only for love”… They believe “couples marry only for procreation”.

          WE are the ones who are fighting for our chance at “happily ever after”.

          Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
          Andrew

          Reply
          • 8. Chris B  |  January 24, 2011 at 3:08 pm

            Oops, my bad. You are correct. The only reason people marry is so they can procreate.

        • 9. ol&p  |  January 24, 2011 at 3:34 pm

          We should take them at their word. Children should only be raised by their biological parents. No divorce. No adoption. No single motherhood. Children who are victims of any of these situations brought about by the selfish parents, and those who may have a natural parent die, should evidently be put to death, per the NOM logic. There is nothing else to do with them, after all they have already been born and do not have the rights of an embryo.

          I hope the snark comes through.

          Reply
      • 10. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:51 pm

        CC you made me spit soda pop out of my nose
        LOL

        Reply
      • 11. Liz  |  January 24, 2011 at 4:21 pm

        Too, funny! =D

        Reply
  • 12. Ann S.  |  January 24, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    Consider this the mandatory reminder that sometimes opposite-sex couples marry for convenience also.

    Reply
    • 13. Mouse  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:35 pm

      I always laugh at the arguments that go “If same-sex couples had the freedom to marry, then they would also have the freedom to abuse marriage in precisely the same ways that opposite sex couples have been abusing it for centuries.

      Reply
      • 14. Bennett  |  January 24, 2011 at 5:08 pm

        Yeah! I for one intend to some serious gold digging soon!

        Reply
        • 15. Carpool Cookie  |  January 26, 2011 at 11:47 am

          Yes…we all have to hit the gym…maybe a little waxing…

          Reply
  • 16. Rhie  |  January 24, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    oh dear…

    Reply
    • 17. Carpool Cookie  |  January 24, 2011 at 1:16 pm

      That’s my usual reaction, too.

      It’s like…I’m often just glaze-ily flummoxed.

      Reply
  • 18. fiona64  |  January 24, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    “These advocates are asking people to set aside the natural attachment of parents to their own children, the natural difficulties of treating another person’s child as if they were your own, the natural desires of children to know who they are and where they came from. ”

    Stay classy, NOM. ‘Cause you just insulted every adoptive parent out there, gay or straight.

    And, of course, have insulted every survivor of child abuse whose parents did not feel “naturally attached” to them.

    Ugh.

    Love,
    Fiona

    Reply
    • 19. Mouse  |  January 24, 2011 at 1:43 pm

      If parents had a natural attachment that was guaranteed, I could see how asking them to set that aside would be a bad thing. There is no guarantee that “natural” parents will be good parents, and plenty of evidence of parents who are bad for their children despite the magical biological ties they share. Because those ties don’t actually have any magic.

      What difficulties are there in treating another person’s children as if they were your own? If you are evolved and mature, you can recognize the needs of a child and step up and take responsibility. If you are an immature, narcissistic crackpot, I can understand how that might be difficult to do.

      And desires for origin stories? You know what children desire more than that? They desire to grow up in a place of love, where they know they are wanted. They don’t care what color or gender or religion or nationality the people who take care of them are, they just care that there are people to take care of them.

      Reply
      • 20. Carpool Cookie  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:01 pm

        “And desires for origin stories? You know what children desire more than that? They desire to grow up in a place of love, where they know they are wanted.”

        Yes…and they can also have BOTH.

        You can tell your child where they came from, biologically, and how they then came to live where they do. Most people don’t keep deep dark secrets about a child’s origins these days, like in 1921.

        One of my lesbian friends asked one of our fellow alumni to father a child for her after she married. They checked into a motel for three days and had sex round the clock. The (adorable!) child sees his dad every few years when they’re on the east coast and my friend sends him pictures every few years…it’s really no big deal, for them.

        It’s called helping someone in need.

        Reply
    • 21. Matthew  |  January 24, 2011 at 5:17 pm

      The regular comments on the NOM blog routinely attack American families along with Glbts. They like to say things like ‘adoptive parents aren’t real parents’

      It’s no wonder they are so close to being classified as a hate group. They’d rather nuke marriage for everyone then let a certain 5% of the population enjoy the same rights.

      Reply
  • 22. maga  |  January 24, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    It sort of makes sense, if you haven’t actually paid attention to any biology since the death of Louis Agassiz.

    If you’re going to try for a secular argument, you kind of need to do a tiny bit more work than just search-and-replacing “God’s plan” with “biology”.

    Reply
  • 23. Ronnie  |  January 24, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    Yup, as always the repugnant Jennifer Roback Morse disrespects all those who do not fall into her Fascist, un-American, inhuman, heartless, soulless, selfish, elitist, heterosexual supremacist, “Aryan” wannabe, delusional fantasy world…with-all-do-respect, Jennifer….SHOVE IT!!!!…..<3….Ronnie

    Reply
  • 24. anonygrl  |  January 24, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Correct me if I am mistaken, but doesn’t Ms. Morse have an adopted child?

    Perhaps we should be concerned for that poor kid!

    Reply
    • 25. Carpool Cookie  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:24 pm

      ARE YOU SERIOUS???

      oh..my..god..

      Reply
    • 26. Bennett  |  January 24, 2011 at 5:16 pm

      If so, at least she has some real life experience to back up her assertion–provided she had trouble bonding with the child. I wonder if she every got that under control. I do hope the child is OK.

      Reply
      • 27. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 24, 2011 at 5:31 pm

        Or maybe she is fearful that her child will go looking for the biological family and totally reject her! I am adopted, and yes, I did go looking for my biological family when I was an adult, but it was not in any way an attempt to reject my adopted family. I was looking for answers that my adopted family did not have, even though they were friends with my biological family. I was looking for medical information, and what ultimately drove a huge wedge between my adoptive family and me was their fear that I was rejecting them. they began treating me differently when I began my search, and after my adoptive mother passed away, things were never the same between me and my sisters. And yet, I know other adoptees whose adoptive parents accepted the fact of the search and even welcomed it, saying that they felt it was adding to their family as well. And that was indeed the result of the search. The biological family and the adopted family blended into one big interconnected family.

        Reply
    • 28. Peterplumber  |  January 24, 2011 at 6:25 pm

      From Wikipedia…

      Morse is a married mother of two: a girl born in 1991, and a Romanian boy she adopted that same year, at the age of 2.

      Reply
      • 29. Tomato  |  January 24, 2011 at 7:28 pm

        And by now that boy who was 2 when adopted in 1991 is 22 years old.

        How does he feel, hearing his “mother” say you can’t love another person’s biological child as much as your own?

        “Sorry, kid, I don’t love you as much as I love your sister. And I don’t mind telling the whole world. It’s all about me, so suck it up and smile for the cameras.”

        Reply
      • 30. Chris B  |  January 25, 2011 at 5:21 am

        I have heard stories about kids from Romanian orphanages and how they are overcrowded. The kids suffer neglect and don’t bond with adults when they are babies and can develop RAD (Reactive attachment disorder) which may lead to interpersonal and behavioral difficulties in later life.

        I can’t say this is the case, but if her adopted son had any type of attachment problems from neglect when he was a baby (no matter how minor) Ms. Morse may have come to the conclusion that all adopted children can’t really bond with their adopted parents and that there is some magical bond between a child and it’s birth parents.

        Just a theory.

        http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/317/unconditional-love

        Reply
        • 31. Peterplumber  |  January 25, 2011 at 5:24 am

          That’s a very good theory. If she is basing all adoptive kids on her own experience, she would come to that conclusion.

          Reply
          • 32. Chris B  |  January 25, 2011 at 8:26 am

            Another theory: knowing that you are adopted or knowing that your child is adopted may make you act or think differently, even on a subconscious level.

            I think all kids, at some point in their lives, think they are different, or that they parents aren’t being fair, etc. Knowing that you *are* different might give some weight and validity in the kid’s mind to these irrational thoughts that ‘natural’ children don’t have.

            Those subconscious (or conscious) behaviors might cause that feeling of ‘not bonding’ and the blame could be placed on adoption. When the truth is, many ‘natural’ children are also distant from their parents for other reasons but they can’t blame it on adoption.

          • 33. Peterplumber  |  January 25, 2011 at 8:44 am

            When I was a kid, I had a friend who was one of three kids. All three were adopted. Two of them were nice normal rational kids. The third was a wild child. She used to scream at her parents, ” I don’t have to listen to you, you’re not even my real parents!!”.
            The conditions all three kids were raised in were equal. The parents loved the third kid as much as the other two. I really can’t explain her behaviour, unless it was something ingrained in her before the adoption.

          • 34. Rhie  |  January 25, 2011 at 12:35 pm

            Genetics aren’t determinate but there are some traits that are simply nature. Some kids are just less obedient or even criminal no matter what their parents do or don’t do.

        • 35. anonygrl  |  January 25, 2011 at 9:26 am

          And if she is basing her whole theory about adopted kids on that one case, she should say “I was unable to bond with MY adopted son” not “NO ONE is able to bond with an adopted child”.

          It goes a long way to proving she is not any sort of legitimate researcher/authority on the subject.

          Reply
      • 36. Hank (NYC)  |  January 25, 2011 at 6:47 am

        Wow – and she is so American that she couldn’t even adopt an American baby. She had to leave the country.

        It really gets me that this woman and others thing babies and children are being ripped from their parents and handed to gay parents.

        Children get adopted for so many reasons and from many varied places. When they go up for adoption, there is no option of their biological family – so this whole arguement is just spin for more bigotry. Gets the sympathy vote and riles the sheeple thinking someone is trying to break up their family.

        Pisses me off.

        Reply
        • 37. Tomato  |  January 25, 2011 at 6:34 pm

          She’s so “American” she couldn’t adopt a “COLORED” baby….

          There are many children languishing in our foster care system because they have the “wrong” skin tone. My minister adopted 5… there are enough that Ms. I-Can’t-Honestly-Take-My-Husband’s-Name-Whole-Heartedly-Like-A-Christian-Woman-Should could have filled her house without leaving the country.

          Adoption should be about the child’s needs, not about the parents’ desires.

          Reply
          • 38. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 25, 2011 at 7:47 pm

            Thank you, Tomato, and AMEN! And legalizing our marriages is about protecting not only ourselves as adults, but also boosting the protections and provisions we can make for our children!

      • 39. fiona64  |  January 25, 2011 at 8:33 am

        “Romanian boy she adopted that same year, at the age of 2.”

        Uh-huh. In the early 1990s, adoptions from Romania pretty much amounted to human trafficking, as children were basically for sale to well-to-do adopters.

        What was that about children being “partially purchased”?

        I’m sorry to have to say this, but for a *long* time, until regulations were tightened, adoptions from Romania and some other countries were ways to guarantee a child to the highest bidder without having to be vetted as thoroughly as they would have been when trying to adopt in the US. And I, for one, am grateful for the reforms that changed that.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
        • 40. Rhie  |  January 25, 2011 at 12:26 pm

          I was just going to post this. I don’t now about Romania specifically, but I do know that many children adopted from other countries have been ripped from their parents. The case in Haiti is unfortunately common all around the world.

          All the more reason to clean up our screwy child “protection” system in this country.

          Reply
  • 41. Jon  |  January 24, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    So I take it NOM also opposes sperm donors for opposite-sex marriages? NOM is expanding its mission to regulate straight marriages now, it seems.

    Reply
    • 42. Mouse  |  January 24, 2011 at 1:46 pm

      Their arguments always have those side effects, but don’t worry, they support everything their arguments don’t except for gays.

      Reply
  • 43. Vaati  |  January 24, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    Considering the many different kinds of families she just attacked I wouldn’t think any adoptive straight couples would support NOM either.

    The fact of the matter is some straight people lack the instincts and mindset needed to parent children and even though they have all the necessary “parts” they should never be allowed to reproduce. Biologically gay people make sense, we can act as spare parents when the above straight parents fail their children and they end up in state care.

    They try to frame it as if there’s actually a competition between straight and gay adoptive parents, when for those foster kids it’s really just ‘parents’ or ‘no parents.’ There aren’t enough couples or single adults who will take children in PERIOD, let alone enough to have this asinine debate.

    What we know about nature is it can be very cruel and one of the few wonderful things about humans is their ability to overlook differences and take on children they didn’t produce, to love them and care for them as their original parents failed to do. It takes people with very large hearts to do that and to bash those people is utterly offensive and downright ignorant, whether they are straight or gay.

    Reply
    • 44. JonT  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:44 pm

      Well said Vaati!

      Reply
  • 45. LCH  |  January 24, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    These people so devoid of empathy and humanity that it is beyond their capability to imagine the love and joy that exists everyday in families that aren’t Leave it to Beaver.

    It makes me want to vomit at the cruelty of the implications of their philosophy when you think about the children who need adoptive parents.

    Finally as a straight married middle aged woman who has no children, I am personally offended.

    Reply
    • 46. Sheryl Carver  |  January 24, 2011 at 4:06 pm

      LCH syas, “These people so devoid of empathy and humanity …”

      You forgot intelligence, rationality, respect, & a lot of other attributes usually displayed by mature adults & many children.

      Reply
  • 47. Casey  |  January 24, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    I mean…is she TRYING to to make people hate her? Besides all of the perfectly logical dismantling of her so-called “arguments” inthe comments above, it seems obtuse and sadly out of touch to claim that we are all “just men and women”. Really? So there are no intersex folks out there, right? No one is transgender, and every single person’s natural state is a body that matches their true gender, and everyone of course wants children, and obviously every straight person is an incredibly responsible parent.

    Tell that to the hundreds of kids I see each year whose “natural” families did them so much harm that they had to be removed, and placed in – you guessed it – foster or adoptive homes, where most of them thrive on the love of their new families.

    Ugh. She makes me want to bathe.

    Reply
    • 48. Mouse  |  January 24, 2011 at 1:53 pm

      It’s sad that they fail to understand to logical conclusion and outcome of their stupidity:

      They claim: There are important distinctions between men and women.

      What they don’t comprehend this means: It’s okay to discriminate based on gender.

      If their fringe agenda were only attacking gays it would be bad enough, but their crazy is so much more dangerous than even they realize.

      Reply
      • 49. John  |  January 24, 2011 at 3:02 pm

        YES, EXACTLY!

        They believe that women are the “helpers” of men, and should take their direction, always, from “men”. That’s because women are nurturing, loving, and empathetic, but men are powerful, courageous, and leaders. Men are good at math and are “visual”. Women are emotional, but not logical. Of course since men are leaders, the “masculine” traits are more important.

        And it’s okay for a man to not love, not be nurturing, and not try to understand his wife. Because those are only things women do. He’s a man, after all.

        And a woman cannot be logical or a leader. Her job is to find a man to lead the family and then to serve that man.

        What hogwash.

        It all comes down to authority – putting women under men and men under other men (in the church). Yuck. And to think that I escaped from that belief system not very long ago…shudder.

        Reply
        • 50. Casey  |  January 24, 2011 at 5:41 pm

          This line of thought is what disturbs me as such a strong undercurrent to their main “hate the gays” platform – everything they say and think is about power. The power of one group of people over another – adult over child, man over woman, religion over secularism, wealth over poverty, caucasian over absolutely any other skin color. It’s a BS social hierarchy that helps them justify misogyny, heterocentrism, disrespecting children, etc. It seems like they feel so out of control, so fearful that someone else may have power – even shared power! – that they formulate such ridiculously silly arguments like the one outlined here. I live with frustration, perhaps, and sadness at times, but I can’t imagine being as terribly fearful as she so clearly is. I pity her.

          Reply
  • 51. Manilow  |  January 24, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    What a wonderfully horrible picture to go along with a wonderfully horrible woman.

    Reply
    • 52. Bennett  |  January 24, 2011 at 5:19 pm

      Caption: “Eat you din din Blanch.”

      Reply
  • 53. Ronnie  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    America’s ‘Traditional Marriage’ Supporters More Divorce-y, Studies Show Posted January 24th, 2011 by Evan Hurst
    http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2011/01/14385/

    Divorce is more common among conservative Christians and young people, according to a recent study.

    University of Iowa sociology professor Jennifer Glass presented her study on skyrocketing divorce rates in regions highly populated with conservative Christians to an overflowing crowd in Burdine Hall on Friday.

    “Politically and religiously conservative states, especially in the Deep South, exhibit higher divorce rates than politically and religiously liberal states in the Northeast and Midwest,” Glass wrote in her study.

    (me) hmmmmm….”protect” marriage….head-desk….. : / …Ronnie

    Reply
    • 54. LCH  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:16 pm

      Of course its easier to blame others for “attacks” on marriage than to look at what’s wrong with your own social group.

      Reply
      • 55. Carpool Cookie  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:28 pm

        But wait….maybe all the christian couples are divorcing because…gulp…we invented Marriage Equality : o

        Is that what’s going to be thrown at us next?

        Reply
        • 56. John  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:59 pm

          Just an interesting tidbit…since gay marriage has become legal in several states, divorce is at the lowest rate since the late 70s. “Despite” legal gay marriage in many states.

          (what happened in the 70s? The right wing will claim “the sexual revolution” happened. Everyone else notes that wives and husbands didn’t have to prove unfaithfulness or abuse to divorce due to no-fault divorce laws being passed then; Yet NOM has led exactly ZERO battles to repeal no-fault divorce. I suspect it wouldn’t be popular even among their supporters).

          Reply
    • 57. Rhie  |  January 24, 2011 at 5:22 pm

      Well yea. The Religious Right pushes children for all intents and purposes to marry way too young and for all the wrong reasons. It’s no wonder they divorce.

      Reply
      • 58. Bennett  |  January 24, 2011 at 5:42 pm

        Yes, the earlier they can get their children married, the more credible their claim that none of their children are, well, you know. (Here’s a clue, that lady who used to be witch, and never did it, is against it).

        Reply
  • 59. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    JMo has lost touch with reality and… we’re surprised? ;)

    Reply
  • 60. Carpool Cookie  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    Oh my….there were about 20 comments over on the NOM site this morning, now there are only 4. And they all looked civil to me, anyway.

    What a bunch of losers!

    Reply
    • 61. Mouse  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:37 pm

      They are allergic to reasonable discussions that disagree with them. They will leave up the most vitriolic of comments that come from their supporters.

      Reply
      • 62. JonT  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:47 pm

        Yeah – I wonder why anyone that’s sane and reasonable even bothers posting over there.

        Reply
        • 63. Maggie4NoH8  |  January 24, 2011 at 4:04 pm

          Just to aggravate them? Give the moderator something to do with his/her time?

          Reply
    • 64. Peterplumber  |  January 24, 2011 at 6:17 pm

      One of the posts still remaing includes the following:
      we don’t want our kids… to have to suffer as a homosexual in a heterosexual society. Our kids are being taught conservative values

      IN other words, their kids are being taught that they better commit suicide if they even THINK they are gay.

      Reply
      • 65. Peterplumber  |  January 24, 2011 at 6:22 pm

        dammit, I KNOW I closed the italic…

        Reply
        • 66. Jennifer Gail  |  January 24, 2011 at 7:47 pm

          Pesky html. (Hopefully that fixed it?) Or if not, lets try

          Diversity and acceptance are so much better, on all levels, than the inward-turned rigidity and rejection this screed of hers demonstrates. And I have to admit that everytime I see something by or about her I flinch a little to see ‘Jennifer’ there attached to such unloving words.

          Reply
        • 67. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  January 25, 2011 at 12:14 am

          @Peterplumber
          Code study suggests that you did try to close italics, but did it a bit wrongly: instead of [/i] you put [i/] (square brackets used instead of angle brackets to prevent italicizing).
          Let me try to get rid of it in my little test:
          Test.
          Doubt it will help, but wanna try anyway.

          Reply
          • 68. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  January 25, 2011 at 12:16 am

            One more test...

          • 69. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  January 25, 2011 at 12:17 am

            Woe is us, no luck.
            Wordpress need to work on their filters.

  • 70. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    Sorry, whenever a group with such a high percentage of creationists among its members invokes biology, it’s time to just point and laugh hysterically.

    Reply
    • 71. Kate  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:52 pm

      Yeah, they ought to stick with mythology.

      Reply
  • 72. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    (shaking my head)
    What a pitiful excuse for a human being….so very sad

    Reply
  • 73. John  |  January 24, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    “These enemies of the human body seem to forget that there are no generic people, just men and women.”

    I guess my wife doesn’t exist (born intersexed). Grrrr. I know it’s inconvenient for small minds to acknowledge her existence and our marriage as valid, but we’re not going away.

    Real life is a bit more complex than these types like. They want it to be black and white, yes or no, right or wrong, male or female. Real life is more complex.

    For instance, opposite sex biological parents don’t always give a flying leap about their kids, and plenty of non-biological parents would sacrifice their own lives to protect their children. But apparently the abusive biological parent is worth more than the loving adoptive parent. Ick. Or they seem to think that heterosexual sex somehow magically makes things perfect. They need to read more of that book they claim to follow.

    This garbage is proof that NOM and others miss the boat on marriage. They forgot marriage and parenting involves love. How can anyone that leaves out the most important thing about marriage and parenting be taken seriously by anyone?

    NOM: IT’S ABOUT LOVE! As a taxpayer, I wish every kid was raised not by “mother and father” but rather by a parent or parents who truly love the child with the sacrificial love that Christ showed on the cross. That’s a tiny bit more important than where the sperm or egg came from. I know you’re obsessed by heterosexual sex, but imagine how wonderful childhood would be if all children had that kind of love in their lives.

    Reply
    • 74. Gaydad05  |  January 25, 2011 at 4:57 pm

      I am an adoptive parent of a just turned teenage son. We have been a family for half of his life, and while I hesitate to hold myself up as an example of anything except what NOT to do, I will say that our father-son bond is real, natural, and as deep as any parent-child relationship I have known. Nurturers make the best parents. Biology only creates the kid. I would feel sorry for this woman and her manifold personal flaws were she not trying to do tangible harm to gay people and anyone in an adoptive family.

      Reply
  • 75. Kathleen  |  January 24, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    I look forward to the day when these people have been relegated to a small room somewhere, with only themselves as an audience.

    Reply
    • 76. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  January 24, 2011 at 3:22 pm

      A small padded room perhaps :-)

      Reply
  • 77. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 24, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    She just made an enemy of our government. Sad for her, good for us.

    Reply
  • 78. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 24, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    Leave it to Jenny to prove once again that she is not really a woman. She is nothing but a pretender to the title. To be a woman, she would have to have more class, more empathy, and more actual, honest caring for others. To be honest, I really wonder if Jennifer Roback Morse is even human. She does not seem to be endowed with the milk of human kindness. She seems more like a robot.

    Reply
  • 79. Mandi  |  January 24, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    Way off topic, but only caught a snipet on the news and was concerened. Has anyone heard from our lovebirds since the terrorist attack on Moscow?
    )0( Mandi <3

    Reply
    • 80. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 24, 2011 at 4:17 pm

      Just heard from Papa Foma. They are safe. I was asked to pass on their appreciation for everyone’s concern. Fortunately, where they are located is about 200km away from that airport. On a related note, how are things going for you, Mandi?

      Reply
  • 81. Maggie4NoH8  |  January 24, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    You know, I wonder…

    Would Maggie G. would be so anti-equality if:
    1) she had not gotten pregnant at an early age and
    2) the father of her child had not skipped out on his responsibilities…

    Bitter is never becoming…

    Reply
    • 82. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 24, 2011 at 4:35 pm

      And it ages you so fast! I have noticed that people who hold onto bitterness look 80 when they are 40. And people who let go and live their lives contentedly and with happiness look 40 when they are 80.

      Reply
  • 83. 415kathleenk  |  January 24, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    i just went over to NOM real quick and found this little gem
    “A gay writer speaks frankly about redefining marriage
    Share169 21
    Gabriel Arana at the American Prospect:

    On Feb. 5, I’m getting married here in the District.

    This has made me look at the gay-marriage debate in a slightly different way.

    … [And] as I’ve planned my wedding — making lists, updating them, and re-updating them; deciding whether we’re doing a first dance (we are, though our dads aren’t included); and whether we want to change our names (we don’t) — I’ve been confronted by the numerous ways in which we are, in fact, redefining “marriage.”

    … In the end, we decided to write the ceremony ourselves. But once I was faced with a blank Word document, I realized that while I have written numerous political articles about why same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, I had never thought through what exactly it meant on a personal level. From a legal standpoint, the meaning is quite clear: Civil marriage confers a number of concrete privileges — tax breaks, adoption rights, hospital visitation — that are desirable and, in the interest of equality, shouldn’t be withheld from gay couples. Socially, extending marriage rights validates gay partnerships. None of these, though, seems to touch on the real substance.”

    this is a snippet from a long article-I am not .quite sure what their point is in posting on NOM. But the comments contain the usual brain dead drivel plus a surprising number of ‘our people.”

    Reply
    • 84. GT  |  January 24, 2011 at 5:09 pm

      I think this person got something wrong. It’s like the beginning of Father of the Bride. In no way are we changing or redefining the concept of marriage. Weddings, however, may have some understandable alterations.

      Reply
      • 85. John  |  January 24, 2011 at 5:19 pm

        Exactly. And plenty of heterosexual weddings are unique too. My wife and I wrote our own ceremony, had a friend officiate, used non-traditional procession music, invited only people who we *wanted* there (so not a lot of family!), etc. Oh, and it was religious – just not of the authoritarian traditions. I am VERY glad we had *OUR* wedding and not someone’s storybook wedding. There’s nothing wrong with a unique ceremony.

        Reply
  • 86. Kathleen  |  January 24, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    I’ve been away from an internet connection, so don’t know if this has been reported yet:

    UPDATE Perry case:
    Letter from City and County of San Francisco to the California Supreme Court re: the pending Certification request, asking that the Court reformulate the questions.

    I’ll be back online in a couple of hours if you have any questions.

    Reply
    • 87. Sagesse  |  January 24, 2011 at 6:47 pm

      Damn, Therese Stewart is good.

      Italics unintended :).

      Reply
    • 88. PoxyHowzes  |  January 24, 2011 at 7:01 pm

      Good on San Francisco! IANAL, but I’ve been bothered by that “refused to do so” and “duty to do so” language since I first read the 9th’s questions.

      When you come right down to it, does anyone *ever* have a “duty” to appeal a decision by a federal district court? The “winner” cannot appeal, and the “loser” always has the option to pick up their marbles and go home.

      I think Ms. Stewart’s revision and explanation are a very nice and polite slap in the face(s) of the 3-Judge panel of the 9th, whose language, if not their concept of the law, was pretty sloppy here, IMHO.

      Reply
    • 89. Maggie4NoH8  |  January 25, 2011 at 9:47 am

      Just a curiosity question… Who are all the people that were served this letter? I understand all the lawyers involved should get it, but some of the names/addresses don’t look lawyer-ly… is it a courtesy to interested person(s)?

      Reply
      • 90. Kathleen  |  January 25, 2011 at 10:05 am

        The list includes people who submitted amicus briefs (or their attorneys). If there are any who don’t fall in that category, let me know.

        Reply
    • 91. SoCal Dave  |  January 25, 2011 at 10:06 am

      I think the revisions are brilliant, but I wonder if this is a common practice? PoxyHowzes called it a “polite slap” to the 9th panel. Is it likely to be received that way?

      Reply
      • 92. PoxyHowzes  |  January 25, 2011 at 12:28 pm

        Perhaps I should have used a milder term — something like “end run.”

        I think that Ms. Stewart could be taken amiss equally by the California Supremes: who asked her to lecture them about the law?

        But I also think words like “refuse” and “duty [to appeal]” seriously distort the actual situation “on the ground” as it were.

        Reply
        • 93. SoCal Dave  |  January 25, 2011 at 12:36 pm

          Thanks, PoxyH. I agree about the substance – the words “refuse” and “duty” seem so loaded. I’m still wondering if “question revision” of any kind is out of the ordinary, or just business as usual. I never heard of it, but that could be said for 95% of the things I’ve been learning here.

          Reply
        • 94. Sagesse  |  January 25, 2011 at 1:20 pm

          If I recall, the 9th Circuit in its request gave the CA Supreme Court permission to reformulate the questions. The recent filings just weigh in on how they might want to do that. While Stewart’s letter is pretty direct in setting the record straight, it’s probably not offensive to either the 9th Circuit or the CA Supreme Court.

          Reply
          • 95. Kathleen  |  January 25, 2011 at 4:21 pm

            Wouldn’t have mattered if they’d given permission or not. Fact is, the California rule which permits other courts to submit questions for certification makes it clear that the Court may reformulate the question, at their discretion.

        • 96. Kathleen  |  January 25, 2011 at 1:42 pm

          Lawyers for both sides “lecture” judges about the law all the time. It’s their job.

          Reply
          • 97. SoCal Dave  |  January 25, 2011 at 2:58 pm

            Thanks Sagesse and Kathleen. Great info!

  • 98. Bennett  |  January 24, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    Jennifer is no Maggie. Both are wrong, but Jennifer cant even structure an argument to appear credible.

    Reply
  • 99. Bennett  |  January 24, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    As for the “uncomfortable” quesitons about origins . . . What are they telling kids now, the story about the stork?

    Reply
  • 100. Peterplumber  |  January 24, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    Slightly off topic, but I was watching a show about the 911 tragedy last night. I was suprised to find out that Ted Olson’s third wife, Barbara Olson, was a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed into the E Ring of the Pentagon.

    Reply
    • 101. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 25, 2011 at 6:43 am

      oh my goodness…

      Reply
      • 102. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 25, 2011 at 6:48 am

        Yes, this is true. And Ted credits his current wife, Lady, for being the reason he accepted the Prop 8 case.

        Reply
    • 103. Straight Dave  |  January 25, 2011 at 8:51 am

      And guess who was an invited guest at his latest wedding – Justice Anthony Kennedy. Not close enough for a conflict of interest, but perhaps enough to show compatibility on some level. It’s just a matter of time….

      Reply
      • 104. Ann S.  |  January 25, 2011 at 2:02 pm

        A bit OT, but I’ve started reading The Nine: Inside The Secret World of the Supreme Court (I don’t know why I’m bothering to try to italicize the book title, LOL), and I’d forgotten that Kennedy was nominated after the Bork nomination failed (and another one failed after Bork).

        Poor Reagan — tried to get Bork, and got Kennedy.

        ;)

        Reply
        • 105. Rhie  |  January 25, 2011 at 2:06 pm

          So…the nominations got borked? :)

          Reply
        • 106. Sagesse  |  January 25, 2011 at 2:22 pm

          It’s a good book, Ann. You’ll like it. Read it about a year ago.

          Reply
  • 107. Sagesse  |  January 24, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    Maroon – A term of derision often uttered by Bugs Bunny when referring to an interaction with a dopey adversary. It is a mispronunciation of the word “Moron”

    Maryland’s Don Dwyer Still Fussing Over Gay Marriage Recognition

    http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=7386&MediaType=1&Category=26

    Reply
  • 108. Michael  |  January 24, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    Shrill anti-gay activist Morse, of the radical anti-gay pressure group Ruth Institute reviles, attacks and bashes all sorts of families. (While conveniently ignoring the part of Scripture which warns her that revilers are going to hell). By her warped definition, “family” is redefined to ‘man/woman/child’. Any child being raised by any relative, friend, step parent or adopted family is tossed aside. Does this mean we can vote to stop heterosexuals who adopt children from marrying?

    Reply
  • 109. PaulaO  |  January 24, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    I think it is like this:

    We say we want cookies. We may even want cookies with chocolate in them someday.

    They say we want to do away with cake. That we believe chocolate is safe and normal inside a cookie when they have studies to prove that chocolate is best in a cake and to put it in a cookie is limiting the growth of the chocolate. That our desire for cookies is detrimental to chocolate. That our desire for chocolate in our cookies is detrimental to their desire to have chocolate in their cake.

    All I want is a cookie. They can have their cake. They can have their chocolate. I want cookies. With chocolate chips. Can my desire for chocolate chip cookies really hurt their cake? They think so, yes.

    Reply
  • 110. Ray in MA  |  January 24, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    Elton John ‘Fed Up’ With Religious Anti-Gay Rhetoric

    (but bigots like Rush L must be OK?!?!…)

    http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=7380&MediaType=1&Category=22

    But he does put it very diplomatically:

    “…I don’t have everything because I don’t have the respect of the church or like politicians who tell me that I’m not worthy, that I’m lesser because I’m gay. Well, fuck you!”

    Reply
    • 111. Santa Barbara Mom  |  January 24, 2011 at 7:05 pm

      I was so gratified today when a DJ (Dave Perry) on a very popular radio station, 99.9 KTYD in SB made mention of Elton John and his disgust at the US for treating him like a second class citizen in regards to marriage equality. And then Dave added “Elton John should be glad he’s not a citizen of the US because then he would be paying taxes and still be treated like a second class citizen.”
      Yay, that went out all over the air waves!!!

      Reply
  • 112. Sagesse  |  January 24, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    From the hearing in Iowa today

    Same-sex marriage arguments: This is about rights, speakers say

    http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/01/24/same-sex-marriage-arguements-this-is-about-rights-speakers-say/?odyssey=mod|lateststories

    Reply
  • 113. Sagesse  |  January 24, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    From the Iowa Independent

    Hearing on gay marriage ban scheduled for today

    http://iowaindependent.com/51270/hearing-on-gay-marriage-ban-scheduled-for-today

    Reply
    • 114. Edward Gould  |  January 24, 2011 at 8:49 pm

      Jennifer Roback was quoted as saying:

      “As time goes on, it will become more obvious that “marriage equality” requires us, men, women and children alike, to ignore biology. Some women who have children with female partners will find that sharing the care of her child with another woman, is not the same as sharing the care of her child with the child’s father. Some men who agree to be sperm donors as “friends” will find that they want more of a relationship with their own children than they had anticipated. And some children are going to have feelings about their absent parents, uncomfortable questions about their origins, and complex emotions about being partially purchased.”

      Well I hate to disappoint her but if she really knew any gay/lesbian people with children she would be surprised how well the children know in some detail how and why they were conceived. Some of them are probably better prepared with the facts of life than probably most 6th grade teachers wouldn’t touch with a 6 foot pole.

      You see we are not hung up on sex talks like you have with your kids. We talk open (age appropriate) about sex unlike most straight people who are afraid to even talk about sex with their children. We have been brought up in such households and find that being open about sex is the best thing that can happen with children. They do not develop hangups like straight couples have.

      You are projecting your immature attittude about sex on us. We are not hung up like the straight community.

      Go peddle your gossip filled talk someplace else.

      Reply
  • 115. Sagesse  |  January 24, 2011 at 8:57 pm

    Seems like something we would read.

    What’s the Least You Can Believe and Still Be a Christian?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-thielen/whats-the-least-you-can-b_b_811353.html

    Reply
  • 116. BK  |  January 25, 2011 at 4:39 am

    Hey, did the format of this website change? It’s different from what it usually is. There’s light blue and green for the colors, and the happy family at the top disappeared. Any info?

    Reply
    • 117. BK  |  January 25, 2011 at 4:41 am

      :/ My writing is in italics, and that’s without any HTML.

      Does this change things? (I used the )
      Or this? (Using the )
      This is weird. (Tried )

      Reply
      • 118. BK  |  January 25, 2011 at 4:43 am

        Wow. This is confusing. As an aside, this makes the comments harder to read (in my opinion). Looks very flowery, too, with the italics and the colors.

        Reply
  • 119. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 25, 2011 at 6:41 am

    sorry if this is a duplicate, but saw this article in Grocery Store while traveling over the weekend and it made me feel very happy to see Sir Elton John with his family : )

    http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=7390&MediaType=1&Category=22

    Reply
  • 120. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2011 at 6:44 am

    Even if the premise of this argument were factual, i.e. that biological impulses would invariably make same-sex marriages more challenging, my question would be — so?

    Depression seems to have a genetic component, and as my wife can attest, it’s more challenging being married to someone who struggles with depression. Should people diagnosed with clinical depression not be allowed to get married, because of biology? “There are no generic people, only the depressed and not-depressed.” Hmmm….

    Reply
  • 121. JoeRH  |  January 25, 2011 at 7:37 am

    This woman is a monster. These people are so putrid. What better way to avoid your own ugliness than to attack a minority group? And it aint just her personality that’s fugly… Woof!

    Reply
  • 122. SoCal Dave  |  January 25, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    My sister has two sons, one biological and one adopted. She seems to think she loves them both just the same. Go figure. :-S

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

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

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

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

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

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