Thursday, November 17, 2011

NOM's Double standard

Ruling Clears Way for Prop 8 to Eventually Head to the US Supreme Court

Washington — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised the decision of the California Supreme Court recognizing that California law gives initiative proponents the right to defend their own initiative, and predicted the ruling would speed the case to the US Supreme Court where NOM expects a victory. NOM was the largest contributor to qualifying Prop 8 to the ballot and has invested substantial funds in the defense of the initiative in court.

It has been nothing short of shameful to see Governor Jerry Brown, his predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Kamala Harris abdicate their constitutional responsibility to defend Proposition 8 in Court,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “Although today’s ruling from the California Supreme Court confirms that the proponents of Prop 8 have the right to defend their initiative when the state officials refuse to fulfill their sworn duty, it is gratifying to know that the over 7 million Californians who supported the initiative will have a vigorous defense of their decision in our federal courts.”

The decision of the California Supreme Court today now will be considered by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which must ultimately decide whether the right of Initiative proponents recognized under state law meets the requirement for legal standing in the federal court. While the decision of the California Supreme Court is not binding on the Ninth Circuit, it seems certain that the Ninth Circuit would not ignore the advice, having asked the California Supreme Court to address this legal question.

“With this victory in hand, it is time for the Ninth Circuit to move the Prop 8 litigation forward to its eventual decision by the US Supreme Court,” Brown said. “We fully expect the Ninth Circuit, the most overturned court in America, to invalidate Prop 8, finding some phony right to same-sex marriage in the US constitution. However, once this case gets out of San Francisco and reaches the US Supreme Court, we fully expect to be victorious.”

So Mr. Brown, I have to ask you. Why are you praising Ms. Belforti for not doing HER responsibility when it comes to handing out marriage licenses (you know, her state-appointed job...sort of like a constitutional responsibility) but condemn Mr. Schwarzenegger, Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris for doing the same? That's kind of a HUGE double standard there, Mr. Brown. Unfortunately, double-standards are what I've come to expect whenever I hear anything from your organization.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Sex on Glee and NOM's animus

Entertainment Weekly:

The couples losing their virginity? Finn and Rachel and…Kurt and Blaine! Yep, the couple — who was featured on the cover of [Entertainment Weekly]’s Gay Teens on TV issue – finally decide to take the next step in their relationship. It’s all handled very delicately and is incredibly moving. I can’t think of another network series that’s taken a teenage gay relationship so far or been so progressive. The moment is instigated when another teen, Warbler member Sebastian (Grant Gustin), aggressively pursues Blaine. The trio actually have a very amusing triple date to West Lima’s only gay bar Scandals and run into none other than Karofsky (Max Adler). Look for a great moment between Karofsky and Kurt.

What does this have to do with marriage? This just furthers my earlier point that NOM has a deep animus towards gays and ANY portrayal of them on television. Let's look at some comments so far, but believe me there will be more to come later in the day.

Here's a brilliant one from j. fox

I hope there are complaints to the FCC, advertisers and network. This is brainwashing and corrupting the minds of young TV viewers.

You hope people complain about a gay sex scene on TV because it is "brainwashing". I really don't think I need to say anything further, his own idiocy speaks for itself. Here's another one from Louis E., a self-proclaimed anti-gay democrat.

EW should get complaints about the use of the word "progressive".

Your complaining about using a word in an article is hilarious. It's almost like your a devout-Glenn Beck follower. And I happen to think acceptance of homosexuality is very progressive.

Here's another winner from Jeff
If the producers of GLEE get away with this, then it won't be long before other producers of other programs will do the same. It won't be long before homsexual couples get married on TV programs. So yes, we need to stand against what the producers of GLEE are doing. It has EVERYTHING to do with marriage.

Thank you for answering what it has to do with marriage. I would like to point out that in 2002 the World Wrestling Federation (now WWE) had a gay couple almost get married on TV, so I don't see what your issue is. And honestly, gay marriage is part of life. Accept it. Showing it on TV isn't a bad thing.

Here's a good one from BDW

The lbgt doesnt get it. We that believe that marriage is between a man and woman, and we that do not approve of or support homosexual life styles are sick and tired of having it shoved in our faces,of having you agressively attack our beliefs, of you agressively indoctrinating our children fromm hollywood to high school. We will not be silent. We will not just go away.

No, we get it, but let's be honest here for a moment. It's not being shoved in your faces anymore than homosexual people have heterosexual life shoved in their face everyday. We don't attack your beliefs, we question the merits behind your beliefs. And it is not "indoctrinating" your children. It is giving them information that gay people do exist, are quite happy, and lead happy lives. The shear ANIMUS you show in wanting them irradiated from television is mind-boggling.

Here's a good one from M. Jones

Is this really the kind of pseudo reality we want to promote? How can we have a marriage society for supporting the begetting of children when we are encouraging a lifestyle of teenage Sodomy? We have lost our moral compass, I hope the GOP can and will fix this in 2012.

How is this pseudo reality? Gay people have sex. Gay marriage exists in 6 states and in the District of Columbia. And honestly? You're disapproving of how people have sex? I can't think of anything MORE BIG GOVERNMENT than that. Good luck with the GOP, bedroom-monitor. (P.S. Give it a try, it is amazing)

I do think the post of the day comes from John, tho

It has everything to do with marriage. This show makes homosexuality look normal and natural. If it looks normal and natural, then there should be no problem with allowing gay marriage. Problem is, it's not natural, and it's not normal. 3% is not normal.

Thank you again for pointing out what it has to do with marriage. But my question for you is, why is abnormal bad? Are buildings natural or normal? They don't naturally occur in nature, after all. Fact is, it is natural and it is perfectly normal. Your 3% figure might be off, but it begs the question: what percentage qualifies as "normal"? I want a serious answer to this so I know who I can discriminate against without concern.

More to come as these comments get posted. Seriously, this is comedic gold. It is my fondest wish that someone would publish all of these comments in a book just to show how full of animus NOM and its supporters are, as well as how ludicrous their arguments are.

Here's another winner from Louis E
Wren,there is no excuse for anyone (including homosexuals) NOT to be "antigay".The "gay" attitude toward homosexuality is totally incorrect and any action in accordance with it,accommodation of it,or uncritical presentation of it is harmful.(Noting again,I am a non-religious lifelong Democrat).

Oh Louis E., thank you for admitting that you are antigay. You just admitted there's no excuse not to be antigay. Your animus and the fact that NOM allows such blatant homophobia to be displayed on it's MODERATED comment board just demonstrates that there is no logical (read: unemotional) reason to oppose gay rights. And lifelong Democrat? How old are you, again? Remember back when Democrats had a strangehold on the south and vehemently opposed the ending of slavery?

Cain not signing marriage pledge

Steve Deace writes at TownHall:

Cain has refused to sign the National Organization for Marriage’s pledge, and told CNN’s Piers Morgan he would not protect marriage as president. Cain’s campaign hid the fact one of its top advisers was a homosexual activist. If all of these facts were applicable to a Democrat, how many of those currently complaining about a smear campaign against Cain would be saying the exact opposite, and demanding a thorough explanation from that candidate or that he get out of the race? (

Really? Attacking Cain because of the PRIVATE life of one of his advisors? Suggesting that that would influence his political opinions? Wow, NOM, that's low. And also completely ignoring the fact that people who HAVE signed the pledge (Perry, Santorum, Bachmann, Pawlenty) have kinda died in the polls and are at this point considered longshots to win the nomination. There's also Romney, who flipflops on everything and is blatantly pandering towards the right-wing base to try and win the nomination. I'm not saying that the marriage pledge IS A DEATH SENTENCE TO ONE'S CANDIDACY, all I am saying is that the people who HAVE signed it have fallen considerably in the polls since signing it.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

NOM's stolen photo

For this one, I've decided to break it down by sections, because, quite frankly, Mr. Brown is ridiculous. My responses will be in italics

My Friends,

Rachel Maddow and her friends on the left are all atwitter about a photo collage created for the website that NOM is sponsoring with allies in New Hampshire who are working with us to repeal same-sex marriage there.

You may recall that marriage was redefined in New Hampshire in 2009 after Tim Gill funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into the pockets of Democratic legislators and Governor John Lynch. Lynch ran for office as a traditional marriage supporter, but he betrayed the people of New Hampshire when he agreed to sign the same-sex marriage legislation into law

Brian, who are you to attack Tim Gill for funneling money towards campaigns? After all, Brian, aren’t you pledging 2 million dollars to defeat the four Republican Senators who voted for marriage equality in NY? With all due respect, Brian, you don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to money issues, given NOM’s history of flouting campaign finance laws. Second, he didn’t BETRAY anyone. A majority of senators voted for it, and he signed it into law. You see, Brian, our government works by electing representatives who vote for us. Those representatives voted for it and Lynch agreed to sign it. That is not betrayal, that is how government works.

NOM is committed to overturning that terrible legislative decision, and the people of New Hampshire are with us. Last year, voters in dozens of towns passed referenda demanding their right to vote on the definition of marriage. The referendum measures passed overwhelmingly (the average vote was 63% Yes to 37% No). Not a single town that considered the issue defeated it. Then a year ago, the voters threw out the Democrats who had voted to redefine marriage and replaced them with an overwhelming pro-marriage majority!

Terrible in your opinion. Popular opinion would suggest that you are in the minority, Brian. And Brian, there is not “right to vote on the definition of marriage”. Why? Because, as much as you like to argue that marriage-equality supporters are trying to “redefine” marriage, allowing the populace to vote on a definition of marriage is by its very nature redefining something. Additionally, it sets two dangerous precedents. 1). Allowing the majority to vote on the rights of the minority, and 2). Allowing popular opinion to determine “definitions”. I’m sure Sarah Palin could scrounge up enough support to make refudiate a word.

It's no accident that Maddow and her allies in the gay activist community chose Tuesday to issue their breathless "expose" about NOM's photo "controversy"—on Tuesday the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee voted overwhelmingly to repeal same-sex marriage! Neither Maddow nor her friends at the Human Rights Campaign can defend imposing same-sex marriage on New Hampshire with no vote of the people

Gay marriage has NEVER been imposed on anyone, Brian. We have three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. In cases like Massachusetts and Iowa, the judicial branch ruled that marriage equality was constitutional. In New Hampshire, the legislative branch voted on marriage. The people voted by voting in their state representatives and senators.

So they issue "reports" and press releases criticizing NOM over a photo collage! They object to us using a photo of a crowd scene, which symbolizes the tens of thousands of New Hampshire voters who are part of our effort. They're upset that the photo was not taken at a NOM rally. Seriously?! NOM using a common use photo in the public domain is considered a great scandal, yet they can redefine marriage—the most important social institution of society against the wishes of New Hampshire voters—and nobody is supposed to object?

Okay, Brian. I’ll play your game. So, I have taken the liberty of making a (badly) photoshopped image of a Nazi rally in WWII Germany, and superimposed your image over that of Hitler. I mean, a public image is a public image, right? And It’s not the photo that matters. It is symbolic of the effort of traditional marriage supporters like yourself. And again, it wasn’t against the wishes of New Hampshire voters. They voted in those politicians to represent their views. That, and again, public opinion supports marriage equality.

It's as if the institution of marriage gets mugged, and they complain about speeding in the neighborhood when someone rushes it to the hospital!

Mugged? Really? That’s the analogy you’re going to use? That’s pretty tasteless of you considering all of the gaybashing that goes on in the real world and bullying that leads to suicides, and the callous response of teachers, who tell students to "act less gay". But then again, Brian, I expect that from you, given your deep ties to the Catholic Church who says that the devil causes gayness. And I don’t know about you, but most people I know that have gotten mugged didn’t need to go to the hospital; they need to go to the police station to report it, and when they do, they don’t speed to get there or run. And just so we’re clear, you’re advocating speeding (breaking the law) in order to “fix marriage”. If that’s not Machiavellian “ends justify the means” I don’t know what is.

Let's teach Rachel Maddow and her pals at the HRC what's really important in this debate in New Hampshire. We've swapped out photos on the site to avoid the distraction, now it's time to focus on the real controversy.

So you stopped plagiarizing and are now ready to focus on “the real controversy”. Would that be you now asking people to donate only $99 so that they can remain anonymous? Washington State ruled that there is no threat of harassment, after all, so what are you people afraid of? Don’t you want to take a public stand against marriage? Hell, Strom Thurman took a public filibuster stand against equal rights for blacks in the fifties.

Join with us to restore the law to what it was before Tim Gill and John Lynch hijacked it following hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions.

Call your legislators and ask them to support HB437 to restore marriage as the union of one man and one woman and reinstate civil unions for gay couples. And please make a contribution of $43.70 to help us win this battle. This is going to be a tough fight. Maddow and her uber-liberal allies can be expected to try every dirty trick in the book to defeat us because they know that if we are successful, it will be a tremendous setback for them. But by supporting HB 437 and making a contribution of $43.70 (or whatever you can afford), you'll be showing the left that we are going to win!

Hijacked? Are they terrorists now? And they didn’t hijack anything. IT WAS VOTED ON. Stop spreading your lies, Brian, because people will always be there to call you out on them. And $43.70 is a cute donation total. I like that you also failed to mention that it allows for civil unions for incestuous couples, too. Just for the record, you are okay with brother and sister marrying and having kids if it means marriage is “one man one woman”. And you can’t really accuse others of using dirty tricks, given that NOM bussed in supporters to protest gay couples getting married in NY on July 24th, and that NOM constantly ignores campaign finance disclosure laws. NOM also has tried numerous scare tactics regarding children to try and win.

Mr. Brown, your attempt to get attention from the real issue here is far from admirable. NOM blatantly LIED to misrepresent its own public support, and then, when called out on it, says that it did not matter. It is great to know that you are okay with telling lies to support your own position, Mr. Brown. I can see that Ms. Gallagher has taught you well.

Sunday, October 30, 2011

NOM's animus towards gays

NOM likes to argue that it "Defends traditional marriage and the faith communities that sustain it". Except they reach much further

Homosexual groups in Scotland have received nearly ten times as much Government funding as church groups over the past decade.

New figures reveal that since 2001-2, three homosexual lobby groups have received a total of £5.9m. However over the same period only £600,000 has gone to church groups.

Christian groups Solas and CARE for Scotland as well as a national newspaper criticised the news.

This has nothing to do with marriage, nor does it have anything to do with the USA. They are not an "international" organization for marriage, after all. But I suppose I could forgive ONE blog article on the matter.

If we said it, we'd be homophobes.

We have no clue how representative Richard and Jeremy are, but gee, does FOX think they could be?

Watch and let us know what you think:

Really? Commenting on a show on the FOX network? read some of the comments, people want to boycott the network over this. But hey, let's give NOM the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this really does have to do with marriage...except their tweet accusing Hollywood of "trying to normalize homosexuality" towards children... Just for the record, that means NOM dislikes it when gay people are in shows on TV. NOM wants to remove gays from television, because it might give children and teens the idea that it is "okay to be gay."

NOM also tries to defend a teacher who said (indirectly, but you can tell) on her PUBLIC facebook page that homosexuality breeds like cancer. This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with marriage, mind you. But hey, maybe I'm over-reacting. It's not like NOM has tried to play the victim or say that parents need to be notified of a play consisting of two boys kissing being shown in school . Speaking of school, NOM is against LGBTQ history being a part of the curriculum.

Ireland had its presidential election over the weekend and Sen. David Norris (who jumped back into the raceafter withdrawing over a scandal involving his support for pedophilia) came in a distant fourth:

David Norris had led polls early in the race to become Ireland's president, before he dropped out and then jumped back in amid a scandal. But the senator, who could have become the world's first openly gay president, has conceded defeat today.

Early poll results show him finishing a distant fourth, and so Norris became the first candidate to congratulate Labor Party candidate Michael Higgins on what appears to be his win. -- The Advocate

What does an IRISH presidential race have to do with marriage? What's it have to do with America? And WHY is NOM trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia?

So, just to recap. NOM thinks all gays are pedophiles, are against gays being on TV or on stage, or being part of a school curriculum, and has the audacity to claim that "Christians are in the closet" (previous link on victim). NOM has a DEEP animus against gays. Don't let them tell you otherwise; all evidence shows that they have a deep, deep animus

Monday, October 24, 2011

Brian Brown's "bipartisan"

"John Boehner and the House are stepping in to do the job that President Obama refused to do: defend a law passed by bipartisan majorities. The cost of hiring lawyers to defend DOMA should be deducted from the budget of the Justice Department," said Brian Brown, President of NOM. "The $1.5 million cost of defending DOMA represent less than one-one hundredth of one percent of the Justice Department's huge $28 billion budget. President Obama's defection of duty is responsible for incurring this cost; he should trim some fat and find the money to pay for it."

Really, Brian? You have the gall to try and repeal the law passed by "bipartisan majority" in New York, and THEN TRY AND DEFEND ANOTHER ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT'S BIPARTISAN? And who are YOU to criticize someone not doing their job, when you blatantly defend the cowardly New York clerks who refuse to issue gay marriage certificates (a sin of hubris, mind you, putting one's "religious" [I use the term loosely, given the blatant cherry picking of a 2000 year old book] and call them heroes?)

Brian Brown, you are a hypocrite of the highest order and I sincerely hope you have some sort of epiphany so that you may realize how morally bankrupt you truly are, you money-stealing law-breaking right-wing sycophant.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Bible Quotes from Comments

This one is just too good to pass up, from Faye.

Why is part of the Bible quoted, "Render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's, and render unto god what is god's."

But these parts of the Bible are ignored:

"G-d said, 'It is not good that man be alone'. . .and G-d built the rib that He had taken from the man, into a WOMAN, and He brought her to the man."

"Male and Female, He created them. G-d blessed them, and He said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply.'"

"Therefore shall a man leave his father (not 2 fathers) and his mother (not 2 mothers), and he shall cleave unto his wife (not his husband)."

"Like the practice of the land of Egypt in which you dwelled, do not do."

"You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination."

Green because I want to mix it up. But to answer Faye's question, those parts of the bible are probably ignored for the same reason these quotes are ignored.

Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall bean abomination unto you (Leviticus 11:12)

They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh. (Leviticus 21:5). This refers to priests, but I know plenty of bald priests that do not have beards.

Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee. (Leviticus 19:19)

When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

“‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they will be unclean till evening. (Leviticus 15:19-23)

Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:31) ~ Would you really want someone to deny YOU a marriage license?

So please, if you want to quote the bible, quote other stuff from the Old Testament as well, Faye.