Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

BREAKING: NOM diverts tour, heads to South Bend for City Council meeting tonight… NOMTourTracker.com to follow

NOM Tour Tracker Right-wing

by Eden James

We just learned from a source on the ground that NOM is breaking from its planned route to the next stop in Madison, Wisconsin, to cover a major event in South Bend, Indiana, three hours due north of Indianapolis (earlier report from today’s Indianapolis event).

Tonight, the South Bend Common Council will be voting for the fourth time on an amendment to the city’s human rights ordinance that protects residents on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity with respect to employment (PDF link. This is a letter by the sponsors filing the amendment. The meat of it is actually the FULL ordinance, and the UNDERLINED sections are the ADDITIONS to help LGBT people).

This will be our pro-equality side’s fourth attempt at winning the vote (previous versions of the bill pertained to housing AND employment). Two other cities in Indiana — Bloomington and Indianapolis — already has such an ordinance on their books. In 2006, we lost by a 5-4 vote. The hearing for the most recent vote went until midnight and we again lost by one vote. This time, we’re told our side has taken its time to ensure we win it, and that all our supporters show up.

Because we’re not the kind of organizers to let NOM go unchallenged, Courage Campaign’s trackers are responding in kind by breaking off the trail to head to South Bend as well. Arisha, Anthony, and Phyllis are headed straight there as you read.

If you are in South Bend, or nearby, please consider heading to the fourth floor of the County Council building to show your support and show NOM that we are going! The vote is at 7 pm, and it’s at the corner of Lafayette and Jefferson:

[googlemaps http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=south+bend+county+council&sll=38.896143,-77.045617&sspn=0.007916,0.01929&ie=UTF8&hq=county+council&hnear=South+Bend,+St+Joseph,+Indiana&ll=41.675156,-86.253276&spn=0.007597,0.01929&z=14&iwloc=A&cid=17156902038345551544&output=embed&w=425&h=350]

Indiana Family Institute, an anti-equality organization, is asking its supporters to gather at 3 PM local time in advance of the vote at 7 PM. We’ll have more details on our side’s plans to counter them as we confer with local organizers. For now, if you can make it, arrive early- we’re told it may be crowded.

Keep an eye on NOMTourTracker.com for more as it comes. We may continue to refresh this thread or create a new one for the event tonight, starting in less than three hours.

UPDATE BY EDEN: Our team arrived at the City Council meeting a little while ago and they are going to be posting updates soon. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, a post by NOM blogger Louis Marinelli claims that NOM is NOT diverting its tour to South Bend. Apparently, the information we got earlier was not accurate. Was it a head fake by NOM? Who knows, but it doesn’t much matter. We’ll be in Madison on Tuesday to document what happens at the next stop on the #NOMturnoutFAIL and we’ll be in South Bend tonight to document what happens with this amendment to the city’s human rights ordinance.

The more important question: Why is NOM avoiding the South Bend Common Council meeting? After all, it would seem to be a critical event directly connected to NOM’s mission. And it’s only three hours away from today’s tour stop in Indianapolis.

Is NOM concerned that anti-equality forces will lose the vote and they don’t want to be present for the embarrassment? Maybe they don’t want anyone to know about their association with some of the South Bend crazies that are bound to show up (based on what has happened in the past)?

As our press guy has said quite often, either you’re with folks like Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps or you’re against folks like Fred “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” Phelps.

Which is it, NOM?

UPDATE BY ARISHA:

From the noisy NOM rally in Indianapolis to a quiet overflow room at the South Bend City Council office, equality organizers in Indiana had their hands full on Monday.

More than 200 South Bend residents (about 80% seemed to be equality activists) sat quietly as the Common Council heard argument from proponents and opponents of Ordinance 30-10, a proposed bill that would amend an existing employment non-discrimination ordinance to include protection for sexual orientation and gender identity.

Five voted in favor of postponing the proceedings and four opposed the motion (all four expressed opposition to the ordinance). There was only one councilmember, Al Krisits, who voiced support for the bill, the other four said that they were willing to keep listening. It seems Councilmembers who are supportive want to make sure concerns are addressed before voting to enact the ordinance. Essentially, they punted.

“I only wish we could have this sort of turnout at other council meetings,” commented Councilman Henry Davis who later voted against the amendment because it violated “his moral fabric.”

“We tried this in 2006 and lost 5-4, but we’re hopeful,” stated Deb Drummond, a South Bend resident.

South Bend Common Council
The South Bend Common Council considering the ordinance

During the hearing, each side was given close to 45 minutes to present their cases in support, with a short rebuttal period at the end. Each councilmember then had an opportunity to comment.

Equality supporters stressed how an amendment of this nature would not have a large impact on the city, as whole – highlighting statistics indicating that claim increases would be marginal – and would serve to incentives more LGBT families to move to the city.

“A number of people have left here because they want to be in a place they’re protected,” stated Tricia Waynscott. “I’m not going to say this [ordinance] is going to change the climate entirely, but I think it will have some impact.”

“GLBT people, when they’re looking for a job and a home that’s one of the first things they look at,” continued Drummond. “I know it was for us; we ultimately decided to move [to South Bend] anyway.”

The audience at the hearing
The audience at the hearing

Opponents argued that an amendment would damage the small business owner leading to a negative impact on job growth in South Bend and further cited concerns about the religious exemption included in the amendment.

“One of the factors [small business owners] consider when choosing [a market] is local [law]” stated one opponent. “Why should a small business come here and stay here and have to deal with this legal risk? [. . .]Passing this ordinance would be a job killer.”

“We are wasting precious resources on an issue this is not about civil rights. [. . .],” stated another opponent of the ordinance. “Jesus never condoned this and the civil rights platform never supported it.”

In rebuttal, the Human Right Commission attempted to address the opponents’ concerns about the religious exemption.

“The [Human Rights] Commission is not going to be in a position to parse out religious doctrine,” a Commission representative stated attempting to reassure the council during rebuttal. “If a religious organization says that [they refused to hire someone because of religious purposes] [. . .] we will take them at their word.”

Councilman Rouse, who doesn’t seem quite inclined to support the amendment, made the following interesting statement:

“As far as I’m concerned, [the former-felon] is the most discriminated class in America,” Councilman Rouse said. “When you go to apply for a job, there’s a box asking whether you’ve ever been convicted – there is no box asking whether you’re” gay or lesbian.

“When we raised taxes, we didn’t get the hate mail we’re getting in this case,” stated Councilman Oliver Davis before making a motion to postpone the decision to address “vagueness concerns raised by opponents.”’

Tags: ,

85 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. anonygrl  |  July 26, 2010 at 6:43 am

    I JUST sent the following email to the local ABC affiliate in South Bend, and will see if I can find some other tv stations to send it to…

    "The National Organization for Marriage is on tour attempting to drum up support to keep marriage between one man and one woman.

    However, tonight they appear to be breaking from their tour route to attend an event in South Bend. The South Bend Common Council will be voting for a fourth time on an amendment to the city's human rights ordinance that would protect residents from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in issues of housing and employment.

    As NOM has long said that they stand FOR the rights of the LGBT community, and the only place we disagree is on the definition of marriage, we assume that they will be attending the event to show their support for the LGBT community, and in this we hope to stand WITH them and show that even if we disagree on some basic, important issues, we can come together for this one and stand shoulder to shoulder.

    On the other hand, if NOM shows up and stands against us in this issue, we will be saddened to find that their claims of support and of not being bigots holds no truth. We are also attempting to reach out to them right now to find out how best we can stand together, if, indeed, they wish to do so.

    This could well become a national story, and might be something you want to cover.

    Thanks,
    Vienna Hagen"

  • 2. Ronnie  |  July 26, 2010 at 6:43 am

    I mean really….NOM don't say you are "ONLY" about Marriage if you're going to go after everything & anything that has to do with LGBT's livelihoods…LIARS!!!!!

    > ( ……Ronnie

  • 3. Sagesse  |  July 26, 2010 at 6:48 am

    Can't wait to see how this plays out. Subscribing.

    Oh, and congratulations on a great day in Indianapolis :).

  • 4. John  |  July 26, 2010 at 6:59 am

    I think it shows NOM's true colours, and that is a good thing. It is about being anti-gay in the end (as we have known all along) I hope the media (any media) will pick up on this story.

  • 5. Dave P.  |  July 26, 2010 at 7:17 am

    You're my new hero, anongrl! Go get 'em, tiger!

  • 6. AndrewPDX  |  July 26, 2010 at 7:24 am

    Awesome! I'd love to be there to watch the dueling banjos; I'm sure it will be entertaining, regardless what side NOM tries to support :)

    Love,
    Andrew

  • 7. Anonygrl  |  July 26, 2010 at 7:24 am

    Is there anyone there who can get a message to the Equality people in South Bend? Tell them to meet the NOM bus with cheers of "Thanks for standing with us! Thanks for showing you DO believe in our rights!"?

  • 8. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 26, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Submarinelling

  • 9. Ann S.  |  July 26, 2010 at 7:36 am

    A friend of mine was going to go see if there would be a counter-protest in Madison tomorrow. I've alerted her that they're not headed their way after all.

    Too bad these folks can't keep to a consistent message that they're only about marriage huh?

    Maybe they'll still head to Madtown later. I would hate for the UW students to miss out on the chance for a good, rousing counter-protest.

  • 10. Sagesse  |  July 26, 2010 at 7:39 am

    Well said!

    NOM’s policy on babies
    http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/25/24665

  • 11. Anonygrl  |  July 26, 2010 at 7:44 am

    I would bet that they ARE headed to Madison after the show tonight. It is a detour, not a substitution. Tell her to go anyway!

  • 12. Anonygrl  |  July 26, 2010 at 7:46 am

    Not to mention, if the protesters show up and hold a "Yay for Gay Marriage" rally with NOM as a no show, how great would THAT be?? :)

  • 13. Dave P.  |  July 26, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Absolutely! If they're a no-show, we'll outnumber them "x" to zero, which is fine. But who knows – maybe they'll reconsider this detour idea and head directly to Madison as originally planned. We need to make sure our side is represented and gets some exposure to the public and media regardless if they show up in Madison or not.

  • 14. Ann S.  |  July 26, 2010 at 7:59 am

    On FB there are 7 signed up to attend NOM's event, and 529 signed up for the counter-protest. Yay! I'll tell my friend to show up anyway.

    FB page for the counterprotest: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10094114962

  • 15. Beth  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:00 am

    According to Louis "blog" they are on their way to Madison and not stopping in South Bend.
    http://louisjmarinelli.blogspot.com/2010/07/updat

  • 16. Anonygrl  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:02 am

    WE WIN!! If they cancelled the South Bend stop, it means that the only reason they were going was to be AGAINST us, and they thought the better of it!!!

    If that doesn't prove the point that they are bigots, nothing does!

  • 17. Anonygrl  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:05 am

    ROTFL. We are stalkers now, according to Louis. So the fact that we refuse to let them spread their hateful message unanswered makes us criminals in his eyes.

  • 18. Beth  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:07 am

    I also find it weird that all of the comments on his site have disappeared due to the new widget he added.

    *in church lady voice* "How Convenient"

  • 19. Dave P.  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:08 am

    Awesome! When do we get our trench coats?

  • 20. Anonygrl  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:15 am

    I kind of hope that the news in South Bend covers the event expecting NOM to show up.

    We can then say "Well, we were told they would, and looked forward to them supporting us. Sad that they missed it."

  • 21. fiona64  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:16 am

    Louis has a new comment widget set up — and I am able to post using my Yahoo ID; my LiveJournal ID is still blocked.

    Louis, you are a very sad little man.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 22. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:16 am

    According to Lou's blog:
    "We'll be meeting up with Brian Brown and his family, which are returning to the tour with us in Madison."

    UGH!!! Boring Brian Brown Suit is back :-(

  • 23. fiona64  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:19 am

    Hopefully he's stopped off at 1-Hour Martinizing …

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 24. Dave P.  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:21 am

    Fine by me. He's doing their cause as much damage as anyone. Keep yapping, Brian. Let the whole country see the lies, the anger, and the bigotry that is NOM.

  • 25. PamC  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Awesome article. Loving the reminder that we are in another rising tide of history.

  • 26. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:25 am

    I just left this post on Ole Lou's blog:

    "It is truly sad that NOM decided to not attend the meeting/vote in South Bend as indicated earlier. Would have been a wonderful experience to have stood shoulder to shoulder on a LGBT issue.
    Since NOM has said they only disagree with us on marriage I can only assume you would have been there in support of the issue and not against."

  • 27. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:26 am

    True enough….kinda like having him whre we can keep an eye on him. Hard to be a good stalker otherwise LOL

  • 28. fiona64  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Hi, Louis!

    Guess what, folks? Louis has banned me yet again from posting under his swell new system — because I called him out for banning me. My LiveJournal ID is *still* blocked; I can't even use it under OpenID. And now he has blocked my Yahoo account — under which I outed him for blocking me.

    It must be horrific to be you, Louis. All you have are lies, bitterness and hatred — and a desire to silence anyone who is willing to stand up against you.

    Why do you hate straight women, Louis? I've said it before and I'll say it again: scratch a homophobe and a misogynist will bleed.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 29. Kathleen  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:34 am

    Yeah, me too. I wonder how NOM will spin this as somehow just protecting the "sanctity" of marriage.

  • 30. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:41 am

    I guess this is where their true colors are shining through.

  • 31. Anonygrl  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:41 am

    I left a very similar message. Yay!

  • 32. l8r_g8r  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:42 am

    It is absurd that NOM gets away with their lies. Everyone knows they're lying. Everyone knows that they are acting the way they act because they believe that opposite-sex couples are superior to opposite-sex couples. Use whatever words they want — "children do better when raised by a man and a woman" — "I could never share my child with another woman" —

    Fact: If A is superior to B, by definition B is inferior to A. According to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, it is in violation of the 14th Amendment to enact laws for the sole reason of treating a group of people as inferior.

    But this goes to a point that was made yesterday — is it a choice to be gay? If everyone can simply choose their partner, and they do not have to choose a same-sex partner, then placing a restriction is not a class-based restriction because we're all the same, whether we label ourselves as gay/straight/bi/alien/whatever. There is no class to discriminate against.

    If, however, as the CA Supreme Court recognized, "Because a person's sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one's identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment."

    I'd like to note that during the whole Proposition 8 campaign, I walked my neighborhood and knocked on doors of people with Yes on 8 signs in the neighborhood. Only one person opened the door to me, but he told me flat out that he didn't want to talk about it. He had the audacity to put a sign in his front yard to declare his support for a discriminatory law (it's discriminatory on its face, period — whether it is unlawfully discriminatory is up to the courts) but didn't want to have a conversation about it. That is what these cowards do.

  • 33. Anonygrl  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:50 am

    Dunno, but I sure hope they are all pink!

  • 34. Alan E.  |  July 26, 2010 at 8:52 am

    ditto and ditto and ditto

  • 35. Em  |  July 26, 2010 at 9:01 am

    A shame our information seems to have been "faulty"…. I'm sure we would all have enjoyed witnessing another resounding humiliation on NOM's part.

    I hope somebody will still at least mention in passing how that vote turns out? I'm all invested now. XD

  • 36. fiona64  |  July 26, 2010 at 9:04 am

    We'll see how long it takes Louis to ban my Disqus profile and delete my comment …

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 37. Ann S.  |  July 26, 2010 at 9:11 am

    OK, I sent the info on the Madison counter-protest to some friends there, and the info on the Mpls/St. Paul counter-protest to some friends there. Busy, busy, busy.

  • 38. Ann S.  |  July 26, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Oh, here's the info for the St. Paul counter-protest: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=14206526247

  • 39. Anonygrl  |  July 26, 2010 at 9:14 am

    Two thoughts on "faulty" info. First, they were going to go, but someone in NOM realized how it could ONLY be a disaster for them if they showed up, so they skipped it. Second, someone thought feeding faulty info might send the intrepid NOM Tour Trackers off on a wild goose chase.

    Hey, guess what? When the NOM Tour Trackers DO make the event, it is great publicity for the folks in South Bend who are trying to do the right thing. So any way you look at it, this whole little detour has worked in our favor.

    (I want to know how it came out too!!)

    Thanks NOM!

  • 40. fritz smith  |  July 26, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Seeing this at 6:30 pm. Damn. Cant' make it to South Bend. 2 1/2 hours away. Just want to say how desperate this is ~ South Bend is THE Catholic enclave in Indiana. Notre Dame and all … Maggie is desperate, hope all the 'advanced' notice does something! Please keep us updated!

  • 41. Dave in CA  |  July 26, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Posted in the previous thread, but repeated here:

    Does NOM in any place, any literature, any public rally, ever encourage straight couples to adopt children? Ever? Do they lift one finger, donate one dollar, advocate in any way for children who are in the system, to be adopted out?

    Or is their ONLY concern with adoption the notion that some gay couples are allowed to adopt the unwanted offspring of irresponsible heterosexual procreation?

    Would they rather these children remain in the foster care system?

    Someone in the press needs to investigate how (if at all) they advocate for adoption policy and the affected children, and question them about this.

  • 42. Rhonda  |  July 26, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Marriages up, divorces down in Iowa http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/state-and-re

    By Rod Boshart Lee Des Moines Bureau | Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 5:39 pm | No Comments Posted

    DES MOINES – Iowa ended a four-year slide in the number of couples getting married last year, but experts say the turnaround could have been aided in part by an April 2009 court ruling that legalized same-sex marriages.

    Also, Iowa posted the lowest number of divorces since 1970 with 7,286 dissolutions, according to preliminary statistics issued by the state Department of Public Health.

    "That's really good news," said Laurie Linhart, a lecturer in Drake University's Department of Culture & Society who specializes in marriage-related issues.

    Preliminary vital records compiled by state officials indicate 21,139 marriages occurred in Iowa last year – the most since 2000 and the first increase since 2005. The 1,573 jump in marriages over 2008 included the first-ever same-gender unions that took place statewide after the Iowa Supreme Court overturned a state law that defined marriage as only between one man and one woman.

    Separate data from state health officials for the period from April 27, 2009, through last March 31 indicated that 2,020 same-sex couples – 728 male partners and 1,292 female partners — were married during that time span while 16,869 opposite-gender marriages were recorded. Records were not available solely for the 2009 calendar year.

    Justin Uebelhor of One Iowa, the state's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organization, said the landmark Iowa court ruling triggered a spike in same-sex marriages as couples with Iowa ties or partners with no previous Iowa connection took advantage of the newly created legal status to tie the knot. "There are quite a few couples that I've seen getting married this summer – your typical wedding season," he added.

    Susan Stewart, associate professor of sociology at Iowa State University, said marriage rates nationally "have never been lower" so there's a good chance the new phenomenon of same-sex marriages weighs into Iowa's increase. "It would seem like a big coincidence if the same-sex couples getting married weren't part of this," she said.

    Linhart attributed the overall rise in Iowa marriages and the decline in divorces to a trend toward women and men waiting until they're older to get married. She said rising education levels and higher incomes also help, along with the fact that times of war and economic upheaval tend to push people toward situations and relationships that provide comfort and security.

    Mike Hartwig, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center's Marriage Matters initiative, said he has seen similar factors at play along with a renewed interest among couples to make their marriages and relationships work.

    "Young people are really waking up to the idea that two are indeed better than one. They can accomplish a lot more, faster, economically, raising kids, that kind of thing. It's just a better way to do life," he said.

    Hartwig said an economic downturn can spur a marital rise, but Stewart said recessionary times can have a depressing impact on both marriages and divorces because it's expensive to do either.

    While marriage is on the uptick in Iowa, Linhart said, not all couples are going that route.

    "The co-habitation rate is higher than we've ever experienced in history and I think we'll continue to see that," she said. "It's even become a step in the courtship process. Most young people will live with their spouse before getting married. They go from dating to living together as a step toward getting marriage."

    Stewart said Iowa's U-shaped pattern of divorce that grew steadily from 7,188 in 1970 to a peak of 12,071 in 1981 before gradually slipping back down to 7,286 last year reflected the effects of Iowa elected officials adopting a no-fault divorce law in 1970.

    Iowa vital statistics on marriages and divorces

    Year Marriages Divorces

    2009 21,139 7,286

    2008 19,566 7,752

    2007 19,885 7,622

    2006 20,060 7,949

    2005 20,419 8,148

    2004 20,455 8,305

    2003 20,371 8,285

    2002 20,406 9,113

    2001 21,127 9,542

    2000 21,792 9,756

    Source: Iowa Department of Public Health

  • 43. Dave in CA  |  July 26, 2010 at 9:46 am

    I am serious – they need to be called out on this. What is their solution – FOR THE CHILDREN – if gay couples should not be allowed to adopt. Wait until someone gets around to adopting them? Remain in the system indefinitely?

    Or to paraphrase Maggie, perhaps they are not the adopted children's keeper?

  • 44. Jamie  |  July 26, 2010 at 9:51 am

    Preventing gay couples from getting marriage does nothing to prevent them from adopting. Gays and lesbians can adopt children in all but a handful of states.

  • 45. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 26, 2010 at 9:58 am

    According to NOM, if the children are not your biological children, and you are not the biological mommy and daddy, then they aren't really your children, and youaren't really parents. Yes, they would rather that all the children who are currently in foster care or in orphanages remain there until they age out of the system.

  • 46. Anna Bryan  |  July 26, 2010 at 10:05 am

    Any update? All my twitter followers are dying to know what happens.

  • 47. Eden James  |  July 26, 2010 at 10:08 am

    I just posted the following to the thread. See below.

    Arisha should be sending an update from South Bend soon. Stay tuned.

    Thanks for tweeting!

    ——-
    UPDATE BY EDEN: Our team arrived at the City Council meeting less than an hour ago and they are going to be posting updates soon. Stay tuned.

    Meanwhile, a post by NOM blogger Louis Marinelli claims that NOM is NOT diverting its tour to South Bend. Apparently, the information we got earlier was not accurate. Was it a head fake by NOM? Who knows, but it doesn’t much matter. We’ll be in Madison on Tuesday to document what happens at the next stop on the #NOMturnoutFAIL and we’ll be in South Bend tonight to document what happens with this amendment to the city’s human rights ordinance.

    The more important question: Why is NOM avoiding the South Bend Common Council meeting? After all, it would seem to be a critical event directly connected to NOM’s mission. And it’s only three hours away from today’s tour stop in Indianapolis.

    Is NOM concerned that anti-equality forces will lose the vote and they don’t want to be present for the embarrassment? Maybe they don’t want anyone to know about their association with some of the South Bend crazies that are bound to show up (based on what has happened in the past)?

    As our press guy has said quite often, either you’re with folks like Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps or you’re against folks like Fred “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” Phelps.

    Which is it, NOM?

  • 48. Timothy Kincaid  |  July 26, 2010 at 10:09 am

    Guys… I really don't think they are going to South Bend.

  • 49. Dave in CA  |  July 26, 2010 at 10:10 am

    But one of the key points of their speechifying, scare-mongering, is that children need to be raised in a one man / one woman marital / family unit. On his blog, Louis has implied that gay couples should not be adopting children. Maggie repeatedly goes on about children need to have a father and a mother, preferably their biological partners.

    There are only so many ways a child can come into a same-sex couple household, ex:

    a) adoption by a same sex couple
    b) surrogacy, in vitro, other medical assistance
    c) if opposite sex parents split and the child goes into same-sex parenting situation
    d) birth parent(s) die or are otherwise rendered incapable of rearing their own children

    Same sex coupling does not lead to irresponsible procreation, as they pointed out in the Prop 8 trial, so that is not really at issue here. That was laughable, nonsense issue. What's at issue, then, from a NOM perspective, is how children end up in a same-sex parent household. That is a separate issue from marriage (if sometimes related to it).

    So what is NOM's solution – from a child's perspective – to the above situations?

    Should adopted children be forced to remain in the foster care system until such time as an opposite-sex parental set decides to adopt them?

    Should in vitro children not be born at all? It would have been better for them never to have been born at all?

    Should a child always go to the straight parent of one-time opposite-sexed parental couple, and never to the same-sexed parent? (I am talking about the case where one member of the parents comes out later in life, or at least, after having been in a straight, child-bearing marriage)?

    If they are so concerned about the children, someone ought to be asking them these questions. And ask for evidence of their solutions and how they – NOM – are helping improve the lives of those children. These issues are tangential to the issue of gay marriage.

  • 50. Ray in MA  |  July 26, 2010 at 10:11 am

    "The Brown family had some business to tend to" …

    It took that long to get that smell out of his suit… the smell of HATE.

    He had the wrong approach:
    http://www.thathomesite.com/forums/load/cleaning/

  • 51. Dave in CA  |  July 26, 2010 at 10:17 am

    And it would require an interviewer who does not rest with their pat, non-answer "children need to be raised by their biological father and mother." That does not answer the question, which is, "And what do you, NOM, suggest be done with those children where bio mom and dad is not an option?" And do not let them spin it, change the question, or dance around it.

  • 52. Anonygrl  |  July 26, 2010 at 10:19 am

    The NOM folks have said earlier that they were not, despite passing the information to the NOM Trackers that they were. So we are there in South Bend, they are not.

  • 53. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 26, 2010 at 10:19 am

    Or maybe they aren't quite ready to show all of their true colors.

  • 54. fritz smith  |  July 26, 2010 at 10:36 am

    "The more important question: Why is NOM avoiding the South Bend Common Council meeting? After all, it would seem to be a critical event directly connected to NOM’s mission."

    Three words ~ Roman Catholic Church

  • 55. Ann S.  |  July 26, 2010 at 10:49 am

    Sorry, could you 'splain that one a bit more?

  • 56. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 26, 2010 at 10:51 am

    Why would that be a reason for them to avoid it. This is one time when the LD$ and the RC are working together for the same goal–marginalizing and eventually exterminating the Rainbow Tribe.

  • 57. Sagesse  |  July 26, 2010 at 11:16 am

    @Dave in CA. You are looking for logic in a pile of… illogic. None of their arguments hang together.

  • 58. Anonygrl  |  July 26, 2010 at 11:27 am

    But not ADMITTING that fact, Richard. NOM is still refusing to disclose who their supporters are. "for fear of retaliation." Maybe being in the same town would be hitting too close to home?

  • 59. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 26, 2010 at 11:39 am

    Why should South Bend, Indiana, be any different than the stop where Brian Brown actually made it a point to go up to the Knights of Columbus and shake hands with them after thanking them at the microphone? I believe that was in Trenton? That means the RC connection is already out in the open, so being in South Bend should not have made any difference.

  • 60. Greg in OZ  |  July 26, 2010 at 11:40 am

    Can somebody who has already created an account on Loius's blog ask why he is constantly banning Fiona? Call him out on it. She is obviously getting under his skin!
    I'd do it, but am at work and am having a hard enough time jsut reading all the posts here!!!!
    Greg in Oz

  • 61. Dave in CA  |  July 26, 2010 at 11:44 am

    I just want them on record about these questions.

  • 62. Sagesse  |  July 26, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    I don't think NOM ever had any intention of going to South Bend. Maybe it was broken telephone, maybe it was misdirection, but to get involved with the vote in South Bend is way too far off message for them.

    Still very persistent on the part of the intrepid Tour Trackers :).

  • 63. Anonygrl  |  July 26, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    I dunno, I was just conjecturing.

  • 64. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 26, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    Yes, but it is good that you feel so comfortable here that you can post your conjectures. This allows everyone to learn more about the ins and outs of who is trying to keep us oppressed as well as to learn more about how they go about attempting to reinforce, and even to increase that oppression.

  • 65. Eden James  |  July 26, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    testing

  • 66. Sagesse  |  July 26, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    Seems to be the day for history lessons (a good read):

    A “Revulsion Letter” for the Supreme Court

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-francis/a-revulsion-letter-for-th_b_659596.html

  • 67. anonygrl  |  July 26, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    Sent my message to two other stations in South Bend but gave the local FOX affiliate a miss. They probably wouldn’t cover it anyway.

  • 68. NG  |  July 26, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    While Louis may be able to ban you from commenting on his blog, he cannot delete your Disqus account.

  • 69. Michael  |  July 26, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Why are radical anti-gay activists still using the same outdated arguments agaiinst equality that they used in the 1970's? Dozens and dozens of cities and states have pro-equality employment laws. There has been no negative effects. Do not let unrepentant homophobes lie about the effects (in order to promote their anti-gay agenda) when we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.

  • 70. NOM embarrassed (yet agai&hellip  |  July 26, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    [...] BREAKING: NOM diverts tour, heads to South Bend for City Council meeting tonight… NOMTourTrack…  |  July 26, 2010 at 1:38 [...]

  • 71. Dan Hess  |  July 26, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    Is anyone else noticing that this page is now officially illegible? 0_o

  • 72. junebug  |  July 26, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    Dear Tour Trackers,
    I am avidly following your coverage of the tour, and I thank you for it. I'm a little surprised by the tone of some of the posts, though. I went to Camp Courage and have been active with a CC equality team, and it seems like the Courage Campaign promotes the idea that we shouldn't taunt our opponents, belittle them, call them bigots, etc. I'm sure it's nasty listening to the Nommies spout their homophobic messages on the tour, but I wonder if it doesn't inspire them to fight us harder (or at least judge us more harshly) when they hear us ridiculing them for their "embarrassing" turnout failures, etc. What do you think?

  • 73. Alan E.  |  July 26, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    …but they won’t have the full support to be able to do so, especially when it comes to parental rights and taxes.

  • 74. (VIDEO) NOM supporterR&hellip  |  July 26, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    [...] still waiting on news to come out of the South Bend City Council meeting. Meanwhile, Bil Browning, founder of the Bilerico Project, was also in Indianapolis today. He [...]

  • 75. RebeccaRGB  |  July 26, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    Someone screwed up the HTML something terrible.

  • 76. anonygrl  |  July 26, 2010 at 11:31 pm

    Perhaps it does spur them on a bit, but my feeling is this. Our side is being carefully coached not to be confrontational and name calling in person. We are trying to be cordial and polite while firm and getting our points across. HERE however, we are basically a group of people at a party with friends, and we have a bit of the "let your hair down and vent" thing going on.

    No, we should not be unnecessarily rude and violent. We should not advocate violence, we should not be vitriolic. But this is a place where I think it is permissable to be a little snippier and more pointed in our criticism. If the other side doesn't like it, they are free to come in here and discuss it with us, we would welcome their input (notice how little of it we actually get, though), or, if it bothers them, they can go away.

    All in all, I think it is BETTER that the venting happens here, where one can get a little sympathy, not stir up direct physical confrontatin, and be reigned in by the rest of our group if it gets out of hand (as does happen, with gentle reminders, all the time).

  • 77. anonygrl  |  July 26, 2010 at 11:32 pm

    "confrontatin" was supposed to be "confrontation"

  • 78. Peter Blaise  |  July 26, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    > {Wow, you gotta redesign your CSS page layout — the comments along the side blend into and overwrite the story — see it via Opera — ecchh!]

    How about being funny, like the converse / adverse picketers wherever the Westboro Baptist Church insaniacks go, signs like:

    "Let he who is without stones cast the first sin"

    "Jesus tie dyed for our shirts"

    "We're all children of God-the-Father, who have been denied our God-the-Mother"

    "Are YOU my mother?" — Baby Huey

    Chant:
    "What do we want?"
    "Gay Sex"
    "When do we want it?"
    "Now!"

    Have fun — these people are so in much self-inflicted pain, we all need a little entertainment and pressure relief.

    Then we can try to connect with them, help them get over their fears, and help them start to recognize that their own parents, their own siblings, their own children, their own customers, coworkers, and bosses, their own service providers, and those who fights to keep them free ARE ALL GAY!

    We gotta stop the fear from turning to anger and hate. Let's get started … with a laugh! ;-)

  • 79. Dan Hess  |  July 27, 2010 at 2:32 am

    Oh gods, we could have the little boy in the gas mask from Doctor Who with the caption "Are you my mummy?" Brilliant!

  • 80. Peter Blaise  |  July 27, 2010 at 2:44 am

    Yes, yes, that's the ticket — laugh it up!

  • 81. Dan Hess  |  July 27, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Hm. New subscription system == fail on my part. I don't think the borky HTML on this page is, though. Would an admin mind fixing it? I'd really like to read the updates and can't with the blue and white bars blocking half the text.

  • 82. Truth Wins Out - A Wee Qu&hellip  |  July 27, 2010 at 11:27 am

    [...] whose definition is supposedly the only place they disagree with the gay community…why does NOM divert it’s road show to South Bend Indiana to be there while The South Bend Common Council votes (for a fourth time) on an amendment to the [...]

  • 83. (VIDEO) NOM supporter’s&hellip  |  October 12, 2010 at 10:55 am

    [...] out the news from the South Bend City Council meeting. Meanwhile, Bil Browning, founder of the Bilerico Project, was also in Indianapolis today. He [...]

  • 84. virtual office indiana  |  July 18, 2013 at 2:55 am

    I am no longer certain where you are getting your information, however
    good topic. I needs to spend some time finding out more or
    figuring out more. Thank you for great info I was in search of this information for my
    mission.

  • 85. James Dyson  |  March 3, 2014 at 10:59 pm

    I know this web page offers quality dependent articles and extra stuff, is there any other website which
    presents these kinds of stuff in quality?

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!