Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Two amazing videos from St. Paul + analysis

NOM Tour Tracker Right-wing

By Adam Bink

Some more coverage and analysis from yesterday’s events in St. Paul, where despite the largest turnout of the tour for NOM, equality supporters still had greater numbers:

  • Video highlight: watch Arisha spar with Brian Brown over what he thinks of Larry Adam’s “lynching” sign, Brian’s attempts to change the topic to signs he finds “inappropriate”, and why he tried to get our NOMTourTracker.com videographer arrested in Annapolis:
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x14TLLyWWUo]

  • Yesterday,
  • Yesterday, Brian Brown said:

    “We’ve taken great pains to make clear what were all about. We view ourselves as a new civil rights movement … committed to something that in the 1960s was key: the right to vote.”

    As I wrote on Tuesday, it’s a laughable, even appalling statement. Civil rights is all about extending rights, while Brown supports amendments like the 2004 Federal Marriage Amendment that would, for the first time in our nation’s history, amend the U.S. Constitution to restrict rights rather than extend them. And as Chris Geidner points out, civil rights leaders like Julian Bond pointed out at the National Equality March that he believes the spirit of the 1960s movement is with the side for equality, not Brown and his cohorts (and I would add Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, a civil rights hero in his own right, and many, many other leaders to that list, as well).

  • Craig Cady raises the question of whether it’s more strategic for equality supporters attending NOM events to remain silent and let NOM’s own twisted logic speak for itself, particularly given that NOM’s goal is to make themselves look like an oppressed minority. See Brian Brown’s e-mail from yesterday:

I thought I had heard and seen it all, but the radicals reached a new low yesterday in Madison, Wisconsin. NOM and its supporters gathered peacefully in Madison to pray for marriage and to stand in support of marriage remaining a sacred union between men and women.

We were honored to have Bishop Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison address the crowd. Bishop Morlino spoke of the need to love one another even as we disagree on the issue of same-sex marriage. Yet when he led the crowd in the Lord’s Prayer, the gay marriage radicals screamed and booed him.

I actually agree with Jack Craver’s response, which is that if the message and delivery are done well, it can be better than silence. I would point to the rally organized in the Minnesota State Capitol rotunda yesterday and the positive, calm chant the pro-equality supporters said. Here’s the video again:

Very powerful and a positive frame, as is the rest of the speaker’s address. I’ve been to other rallies where we’ve calmly sung “This Land Is Your Land” over homophobic speeches. There are ways besides silence to win the message of the day, and our side is finding them.

91 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:25 am

    Undergraphing

  • 2. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:33 am

    BusScribing

  • 3. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:35 am

    Subsandwich

  • 4. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:35 am

    UGH…helps to tick the boxes :-)

  • 5. NetAmigo  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:38 am

    We should stop turning to unqualified, ignorant and oftentimes prejudiced preachers and priests for instruction on medical and mental health issues, as sexual orientation. Turn to the professionals and scientists in the field. They overwhelmingly support the end of legal discrimination against gay people.

  • 6. Sagesse  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:39 am

    Showing up.

  • 7. Alan E.  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:40 am

    I posted this in the previous thread, but I thought I would post it here, too. What if two people got married at the Iowa stop? It would be legally recognized, but it would have to take a lot of strength from those involved plus a lot of support from the surrounding community. You might have to get a permit, but This would make a fantastic point! We are getting married, we have been getting married, and we will continue to get married!

  • 8. Alan E.  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:41 am

    And I forgot the check the box.

  • 9. AndrewPDX  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:57 am

    Heh… So, I was talking with a friend about the hurtful lies NOM propagates, and he gave me a confused look. Turns out, he hadn't heard of the National Oranization for [hetero-only, maybe Christ-unlike-only and white-only too] Marriage.
    He only knew of the NOM NOM song; you know, those YouTube videos with the cute chipmunks and whatnot eating stuffs, with this cheerful 'NOM NOM NOM' song (let's see if I can post the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMWi7CLoZ2Q ).
    So, he was trying to imagine squirrels misquoting biblical passages.
    Now, in a reverse image, watching these videos, I couldn't help but imagine changing their hateful rhetoric with this song instead. Much more entertaining, don't you think?

    Love,
    Andrew

  • 10. Ronnie  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:05 am

    ROFL….AndrewPDX……"squirrels misquoting biblical passages"….I love it

    <3…Ronnie

  • 11. Sam  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:07 am

    Whether it is silent like Saint Paul or it was like Madison, as long as its not like the Rhode Island response, I'm fine with it. NOM can make themselves the minority all they want. Once people know that they want to discriminate, people who are smart enough that gay people are no threat will not support them. The gay community needs to reach out and educate people about civil marriage equality. That's all there is to it and so far, the polls are heading in the right direction. It would be faster if more people put time into it.

  • 12. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Checking in for the emails.

  • 13. anonygrl  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Showing off!

  • 14. Sagesse  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:17 am

    Brian Brown: "You're not a part of our movement if you espouse hatred. Period."

    You have to understand, tho, that 'telling the Truth' is not hatred. How could we be so dense as to not understand the difference.

  • 15. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Because we actually use logic and the truth, rather than trying to twist the truth. The ones who are truly dense are MG, BB, and LJM, along with all of their rabid, radical supporters who are what I call CINO's (Christians In Name Only).

  • 16. John  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:26 am

    subscribing

  • 17. Alan E.  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:26 am

    The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon – Thurs 11p / 10c<td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'Gay Reichs<a> <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.comhttp://www.thedailyshow.com<a href=”http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/” target=”_blank”>Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor<a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Tea+Party&#039; rel="nofollow">Tea Party

    A wonderful segment from the Daily Show about the German Pink Shirts and their fascist Glitzkriegs.

  • 18. Alan E.  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:26 am

    OK embedding might not work, but here is the link:
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-28-201

  • 19. Dave in Maine  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:27 am

    That sounds delicious!

    You know, that SNAP thing is a pain in the neck when trying click the reply link!

    Dave

  • 20. nightshayde  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:30 am

    If you can't be in NOM and espouse hatred, there wouldn't be a NOM.

    Maybe they hate because they love… yeah, right.

    Saying "We don't hate gays — we just find them less worthy of rights and protections than any other group of people in our society (well – except maybe for undocumented immigrants)" makes no sense. It's like saying "we don't endorse discrimination – we just want to protect marriage."

    If you want to eliminate rights and protections for a segment of the population, how does that show anything but hatred? If you endorse policies which are discriminatory, you endorse discrimination. Duh!

  • 21. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:32 am

    That guy is as nuts as Brad Brandon…

    But, I love when the interviewer says, "That which you secretly hate the most – you secretly are." That guy suddenly saw headlights coming straight at him.

  • 22. Alan E.  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:33 am

    I posted this before watching the rest, but Lt. Dan Choi is in the panel of gays near the end! Plus, wait for the reaction of the people sitting in the lobby. The person with the bright bag looks like he is about to run.

  • 23. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:42 am

    And…on the lighter side of things…


    10 Stand Up Comedians Take On The Stupidity Of Gay Marriage Bans

    If there’s one issue that is important to every gay and lesbian person in a long term relationship it’s that of gay marriage. Currently only legal in six five states – Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont – this not only means that we aren’t allowed to make a public commitment of love to each other but also means we miss out on crucial protections that heterosexual couples have.

    It’s an emotive issue that has inspired a very passionate marriage equality movement. It’s also an issue that a lot of comedians find ample material in, mostly because of the stupidity of the fools who think the world will fall apart when two gays get hitched, as these 10 videos prove:
    <a href="http://www.queeried.com/gay-marriage-comedy/
    ” target=”_blank”>http://www.queeried.com/gay-marriage-comedy/

  • 24. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Okay, strike that!

    here is the link without the strike
    http://www.queeried.com/gay-marriage-comedy/

  • 25. Keegan  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:43 am

    Ok don't LYNCH me for saying this but I think that Arisha is getting to be a bit antagonistic. I love her and met her on the Indianpolis stop but I think that constantly asking Brian's opinion on Annapolis is a poor political move. It dilutes the issue at hand. We've now given him more and more opportunities to disown those supporters that cast a bad light on his group. Same goes for our side in Providence. I thought it was a terrible decision for them to approach the podium in any fashion and shout at someone speaking.

    Brian makes good points about decency and decorum. His supporters may not always abide by it but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't either. Its good to be civil. And I think Arisha was comparin apples to oranges. "I'm gonna kidnap you," is frightening, where as offering a magic trick is not harassment. The parents can ask him to leave them be and the magician must oblige but it certainly isnt worth getting upset over.

    As for the priest, he is a devout Catholic (I was raised such, now I'm openly gay) and so upholds the views of the Church. I disagree with the facts that he state, about lesbians choosing to be gay,etc; however, his views are those of the Church and have "logic" depending on your interpretation of the Bible. The issue there is that this is a political debate about rights and legality, not whether the Catholic/Christian God says yea/nay. His points are interesting to hear but to argue with them is to argue with the heart of Catholicism and you will not win that battle. The essence of Catholicism is in Tradition and Scripture and that will not change anytime soon.

    Overall, I believe our movement and tour tracking is a brilliant idea. Numbers are important b/c it does make the news as it did here in Indy. But the one line that came out of that news report was that it was that there was "violent language" from our side. There is emotion in this debate. So much that we can't possibly ignore it, on either side of the fence. But we need to remain calm and argue the political points, the legality, and leave the emotion behind. We will not convince Brian Brown that it is OK to be gay. But maybe we can prove that he has no legal footing if we focus on that…I hope this all makes sense. I am proud to be a gay American and I am proud to support the Courage Campaign, but if we don't refocus our efforts on a succesful approach, we will simply look like a bunch of angry people with signs b/c the rest of the world "disapproves" of us.

  • 26. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:45 am

    AWESOME IDEA!!!
    May not be enough time to pull it off however…what with getting a license and such.

  • 27. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:46 am

    LOL I haven't laughed that hard in days!!
    Thank you Andrew!!!

    NOM NOM NOM
    "In the Beginning Dog created the heavens and the earth"…..

    LOL

  • 28. Sagesse  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:50 am

    This is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time.

    Can anyone identify the rest of the 'panel'? The fellow next to Dan Choi is David Mixner, I think.

  • 29. PamC  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:58 am

    "The privilege of absurdity; to which no living creature is subject but man only."
    Author: Thomas Hobbes

    I think the priest is abusing the privilege.

  • 30. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 2:59 am

    I like that! I call them 'Bumper Sticker' Christians….those that put a sticker on their car that says 'Jesus Loves You' and than they run you over with said car….. UGH!!!

  • 31. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:06 am

    I actually agree with most of what you posted Keegan.
    It's time we acknowledge what we did WRONG, learn from it and move beyond it.
    Stop asking BB the same questions…why not ask him about things like:
    1: "If not marriage what rights of LGBT people DO you and NOM support?"
    2: "Why when LGBT people bring ther pets namely dogs to the rally it is seen as 'attack animals' but when NOM supports bring their pets no mention is made?"
    3: "Why doesn't NOM support and uphold 'Seperation of Church and State'?
    4: "How can ones religious beliefs dictate how another person is to live their life?"

    Things like that would be wonderful to try and get a responce from him on.

  • 32. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:09 am

    Again, BB is being dishonest. Not that it surprises me.

    Rob Tisinai, one of the most outspoken proponents of same-sex marriage, and one who most definitely terrifies the opposition to equality in marriage, has often and clearly stated that he does not condone use of the words "bigot" or "hater" willy nilly without attributing it to a specific action.

    The Box Turtle Bulletin nearly immediately posted on their blog disapproval of the behavior of those who entered the rally and started a shouting match with BB (which our friend Louis immediately picked up and posted on his website).

    What BB is not saying is that those incidents he is holding up as evidence that "supporters of same-sex marriage" support this kind of behavior were all by the same people, who were fired up, angry, and confrontational. They have a right to be fired up, angry, and confrontational. They may not have been respectful, but they were not abusive, threatening, or breaking any laws. To use those incidents as evidence that all supporters of same-sex marriage approve of that kind of behavior is ridiculous.

    We here on this blog had our own discussions about it, both in approval and in opposition. The fact is that our community is more heterogeneous than their community so we a whole lot more variety in our life experiences. There are gay people of every race, creed, color, and national origin. There are supporters of marriage equality of every race, creed, color and national origin.

    Moreover, it scares me that BB honestly believes that his right to freedom of speech comes with the right "not to be harassed." In my six years of law school and practice I have never heard such an outrageous statement. If anyone, anywhere, has actually heard that the first amendment comes with the right not to be harassed by those with opposing views, please please point me to the case that says it.

  • 33. Dave in Maine  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:10 am

    Say what you want about threats and intimidation, but how many supporters of "traditional marriage" have been beat up and killed simply for existing as someone who supports that.

    All across the country gays and lesbians are beat up and sometimes killed only because they are gay.

    Their "victimness" and their hiding behind it makes me sick.

    Dave

  • 34. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:11 am

    Oh, and I wanted to say hi specifically to Fiona, whom I haven't had the pleasure of sharing in discussions with since last year on the Sac Bee articles.

  • 35. Zachary  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:11 am

    Sorry, but I found Arisha's interview of Brian to be pretty weak. If I had the chance to talk to Brian Brown, there are so many questions that would come before this nonsense about Larry Adams or a guy handing out cards with the Ten Commandments on them.

    She keeps asking about these people who Brian has no responsibility for, when she should have been throwing him questions that hold him squarely accountable.

    Ask him why his efforts to "protect" marriage entirely ignore other threats to the institution such as divorce or adultery. Make him squirm as he tries to explain why homosexuality is a choice without sounding like a total idiot. Ask him questions that really get to the heart of the matter and stop quibbling (for the second time) over the videographer in Annapolis.

    Waste of precious time with Brian in front of the camera, in my opinion.

  • 36. Dpeck  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:13 am

    I agree completely. We need to use the same arguments and make the same points as those used in the Prop 8 trial. We need to keep pointing out to the public and the press that there is no legal, rational basis for marriage discrimination and that it is wrong and un-American. If the opposition says "but it goes against our religeous beliefs' we do not argue that their beliefs are wrong (although an awful lot of people feel that they are wrong), we counter this by saying 'REGARDLESS of some people's beliefs, all citizens are entitled to equal legal rights and equal legal protections. People are entitled to believe and worship however they choose, but they are NOT entitled to deny equal rights to other citizens".

    These points should be consistent. They should be reflected in the messages on our signs at the rallies and they should be reflected in our words directed at the opposition and most importantly to the press and general public.

  • 37. Keegan  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:17 am

    I love intellectual discussions :) Thank you for agreeing with me. That is my point exactly. Our debates and conversations are getting so convoluted that is difficult to seem united on on point.

  • 38. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:21 am

    Mark,

    I really like the way you think and absolutely am impressed by your ability to come up with solutions to issues.

    I think that it would be great if Arisha could ask some of those questions, rather than going back to the same issues of whether or not the behavior of those few folks in Providence were acceptable or not. (I think it's silly that BB keeps using the word "Acceptable" because I would think it's not acceptable to take away rights of other people because you disapprove of them, but that's just me).

    Another question that someone posted yesterday was: "Which of the 1138 federal rights do you think that same-sex couples should be denied?"

    Another one that could be asked is "What do you think of Governor Lingle's decision to veto a civil union law in Hawaii under the impression that it was too much like marriage?"

    If we still want to go on about the Providence situation, we could ask "Have you e-mailed, written to, or otherwise communicated with the leaders of Queer Action Rhode Island to determine their position on what you describe as the 'situation' in Providence?"

  • 39. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:25 am

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM

    Check it out.

    HONOLULU — Six gay couples in Hawaii are filing a lawsuit Thursday asking for the same rights as married couples, three weeks after Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed a same-sex civil unions measure.

    The lawsuit doesn't seek the titles of "marriage" or "civil unions" for gay partners. Instead, it requests that the court system extend them the benefits and responsibilities of marriage based on the Hawaii Constitution's prohibition against sex discrimination.

  • 40. Linda  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:29 am

    Keegan, I agree with you. It's hard to leave the emotion at the door, but we do have to learn how to do that. We need to remember that we are not asking to be welcomed 'into the fold'. We are simply saying that our rights do not magically disappear just because they don't 'believe' in what we are. It is the hardest thing for these fanatical right-wing religious folks to grasp–that the laws of our country are not bound by what their religion teaches.

    Obviously, they have come up with their own version of how/why we are gay. There's no point in arguing whether we're born that way, or made to be that way. The point is, we ARE…and we are still protected by our Constitution. We have rights that cannot be denied us because what/who we are is in disagreement with someone's church doctrine. That's our point. Accept us or don't accept us, that's their right. They can teach their children to hate us; they can preach about our damnation from their pulpits; they can cross the street when they see us coming; fine, shun us. But they canNOT pass laws restricting our rights solely based on their religious beliefs/prejudices. That's what our message needs to be.

    We are normal. We have normal, loving relationships; we have normal, loving families; we hold normal jobs. Our presence at these rallies needs to demonstrate this, I think. We cannot let their elitist condescension stir up our emotions. And we cannot afford to take on an elistic or smug attitude ourselves. Our focus must remain on our mission–Equality Under the Law–not equality in the church, or equality in people's views of us.

    One of the requirements for Democracy to work is Majority Rule/Minority Rights; that's what we're working for, here. That's why this is a Civil Rights movement and not a religious debate.

  • 41. AndrewPDX  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:30 am

    Agreed… I don't see them supporting the anti-divorce movement or such. If they're sooo certain that bio-mommy&daddy are best, then why aren't they picketing adoption agencies? Or, if non-bio but at least hetero-couples, shouldn't they push legislation that keeps single people from adopting, while at the same time adopting hundreds of kids themselves?

    I just wish they'd stop pretending to be anything but a hate group.

  • 42. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Subscribing

  • 43. Wade@MacMorrighan.Ne  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:47 am

    Ummm….does anyone else wonder why they are suddenly invoking religion, now, when their initial claims when Maggie was "President" of NOM was that they were trying to appeal to non-religious reasons for denying Gay people equality under the law?! In fact, this was the chief strategy in California and Maine as disclosed by the PR firm they hired in order to change the debate from one of Civil Rights for a minority to one of individual rights and having the gov't directly interfering in their private lives, especially with respect to their children!

  • 44. Rev. Will Fisher  |  July 29, 2010 at 3:49 am

    I am so proud (in a straight kind of way). At 2:20 into the video of the rally, the camera pans past a woman in a black shirt and white clergy collar. Rev. Michelle Morgan is a classmate of mine from seminary. Michelle is a smart, brave, and faithful Christian (who happens to be gay). You go girl!!!! You do the Episcopal Church proud. To the P8TT and NOMTT readers: I apologize for the misguided and immoral words and actions of many of my fellow Christians. Stay strong! Not only is the marriage equality movement on the right side of the Law and History, but you're also on the right side (believe it or not) of the Holy Bible. The Episcopal Church welcomes you.

  • 45. anonygrl  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:08 am

    OK… earlier today I was feeling that we were drifting here too close to the "AAAH! BIGOTS!!! You are all evil bastards and we must destroy you!!!" side of the argument, even though I completely understand the impulse to do so when feeling constantly attacked.

    I started writing an essay in response about the nature of "hatred" in this issue, and why each side uses it against the other but does not see it in themselves. I will post it later, when I finish it…

    Then I popped back in to see how things were going and I find all you wonderful people discussing the need to reign in that very rhetoric, to get back to the basics of our argument, to be the better people we know we are. On this kind of a topic it is VERY easy to slide into the "get in your face" confrontational stance when provoked. And we have been provoked. But it is better to not do so, and it is great to see a calm discussion of exactly where that line is drawn, and how to avoid being pushed over it.

    So I just have to say, "Have I TOLD you lately that I love you? You guys are GREAT!". Once again I will say we all know that in the end love beats hate every single time, and you all are the living proof of that. Thanks for being you!

  • 46. Zachary  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Totally. And this is the stuff we should be pushing – civilly, of course – in interviews.

  • 47. Chris B  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:33 am

    Mark:

    I think Arisha is being very polite and courteous (I haven't seen all the interviews, though) but I agree that I would like to see her some other questions like:

    –If you are opposed to gay marriage, what about civil union and laws that would would give gay couples the same rights as marriage?

    –What is NOM doing to protect marriage by stopping or slowing the 50% divorce rate?

  • 48. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:01 am

    I'm just tossing this out there to get a discussion going. How do you think they would react? Are these questions we want asked? Hi, Louis!

    I might ask: If, as you often say, this is about giving children the best chance of being raised only in a family where there is a mother and a father, how does denying same-sex couples the right to marry accomplish that?

    And depending on their answer, you might follow up with: Oh, so your real purpose isn't to deny marriage rights, it's that you don't want gay people to raise children – either adopted or their own? I still don't understand how denying gay people marriage keeps them from raising children.

    And if you have no objection to gay people raising children, why don't you want the children in these families to have the greater stability afforded them by having their parents married?

    These should be asked calmly, and when wrapping up the interview, thank the person for clarifying his/her position.

    I, too, would like to see these interviews provide an opportunity to get clarification of real goals, how they think denying marriage accomplishes those goals, and if their position is based on religious beliefs, why they think it's okay to legislate based on those beliefs.

  • 49. Chris B  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:01 am

    Two comments (regarding the priest clip):

    First:

    He says people who perform oral sex are the "abused" partners and are unequal to the recipient, and that both partners should be equal in the act.

    I don't want to offend anyone, but consider the biblical practice of foot washing. The act of foot washing is to humble yourself before another–becoming a servant to your spiritual brother/sister. Can't sex be the same way? I'm sure there are many straight married people out there who have joy in pleasuring their partner–and don't feel weaker or less than their partner. Just like many people enjoy buying gifts for others with no desire for reciprocation–there is joy in giving. When should we start taking sex advice with someone who has never had sex–especially someone who views sex as icky and dirty and only done to make babies?

    Second:

    He mentioned the lesbian "choice" statistic. I think the word "choice" is a really tricky one when it comes to being gay. At some point I "chose" to act out on my gay feelings (which I had most of my life). So in that sense it could be considered a "choice". In society, heterosexuality is seen as the norm, so any deviation has to be some kind of conscious choice to move from the "normal" path. That being said, the "choice" is based on deep-rooted feelings and emotions. People don't chose to be gay on a whim, they choose to act on the hard-wired feelings, emotions and attractions deep down inside.

    So if someone asked me when I chose to be gay, I might offhandedly say "in my late 20s." And I would assume that's where a lot of those statistics come from–the casual and unscientific/non-technical use of the word "choice".

  • 50. Ann S.  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:09 am

    How did I miss this one? Subscribing.

  • 51. Alan E.  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:10 am

    Solution: 69. Each party is equal.

  • 52. Kathleen  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:24 am

    Yes, that's David Mixner. I recognize Michael Crawford (back row, middle)

    Michael Vernon Hunt says on his facebook page that the other two are Jamie McGonnigal and Corey Johnson.

  • 53. John  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:42 am

    You are spot on! Thank you for saying it.

    The again, I think these counterportests are live improvisations, or experiments in finding the right approach, finding the right words, the right questions etc. And we are getting there. There will be mishaps and mistakes, but we are improving. It just shows how much we have to learn in getting our points accross in the most effective ways possible

  • 54. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:53 am

    THANK YOU REV. FISCHER!!!

  • 55. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:54 am

    HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE :-)

  • 56. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 5:57 am

    @ l8r_g8r : Thanks! I've been enjoying your posts as well

    @ Chris B: I agree that Arisha has been very polite with her questioning…all be it redundant. Time to move on and get some new info if possible out of the NOMbies

  • 57. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:00 am

    I for one love you too anonygrl !!
    :-)

  • 58. Owen  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:10 am

    Very well said.

    I have nothing but contempt for Brian Brown and his ilk.

    But it is this very contempt that drives my desire to present my case in a civil, rational manner.

    You see, they *want* us to get mad. They want us to shout at them. It creates the dialogue that they strive to fabricate. It paints a picture that they can caption with the words: "EVIL MARRIAGE OPPONENTS INTIMIDATING PEACEFUL TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE SUPPORTERS!"

    They want us to be the aggressors, so that they can twist the situation and make themselves look like the "true victims."

    If you really dislike NOM, and the rest of these contemptible charlatans, your best course of action is to conduct yourself in a way that doesn't play into their hand and just focus on victory. Victory for our side is the best elixir.

  • 59. Bob  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:11 am

    yup Wade, it's interesting how they wound up with the Catholic Bishop taking the stage, then the Baptists, it is becoming a real showing of true colors, the great religious divide,

    hopefully we'lll get more of a showing of affirmjing congregations on our side, and be able to more clearly see the ongoing process of religious reformation,

    it mainly hinges on those who believe in the inerrancy of scripture, as being the one's who are NOM supporters, paying the money banking (literally) on fear, which they instill in their followers, that literally they must defend the Bible as inerrant, word of God, if they fail they are doomed.

    affirming churches do not hold so fast to the belief in the bible as being the inerrant word of God, this is the core of the difference between us

  • 60. StraightForEquality  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:18 am

    Subscribing!

  • 61. NetAmigo  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:27 am

    Becker aught to turn his attention to a real problem, sexual predator priests who sexually molest children.

  • 62. Dave in CA  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:27 am

    "He says people who perform oral sex are the “abused” partners and are unequal to the recipient, and that both partners should be equal in the act."

    The Reverend is projecting. That is why it does not occur to him that the "giver" might be enjoying the act of giving pleasure to a partner. As Chris B pointed out, there can be joy in giving.

    Gah… do his parishioners go to him for couple counseling and advice? I hope not for their sakes.

  • 63. JonT  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:47 am

    Commencing Orbital Insertion.

  • 64. JonT  |  July 29, 2010 at 6:52 am

    Ok, so that was pretty funny. nomnomnomnom. :)

  • 65. Straight Ally #3008  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:23 am

    Given the fascination of some of the NOMites with certain sex acts, I'm sorely tempted to post the remix of Martin Ssempa's infamous "Eat da poo poo" speech. I'll leave that to others. >;-D

  • 66. Straight Ally #3008  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:32 am

    Amen to that. Rev. Fisher, may I invite you to sign The Clergy Letter Project? I've often compared the overall goals of creationists to that of the "traditional family values" crowd – and the former are effectively part of the latter. You'd make a wonderful addition to the list.

  • 67. Heather  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:36 am

    Wow Brian just doesn't want to let go of the Providence event! I organized it…..Maybe I should draw something up and give it to Arisha to give to him.

  • 68. Heather  |  July 29, 2010 at 7:55 am

    After consulting with the rest of Queer Action and the community the answer is….there will be no apology.

  • 69. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Thanks, Heather. Will there be any statement? I don't believe any apology is needed, but I do think that a statement that we support the efforts of those in favor of marriage equality in Rhode Island and beyond, and understand the hurt and pain felt by all members of the GLBT community who are confronted with the message that they are unequal and unworthy of equal rights.

  • 70. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Blah, hit submit too soon…

    … would be effective.

  • 71. Sagesse  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:04 am

    It should be entirely up to you (the organizers) and your group.

    And we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that BB and NOM have not apologized for anything they or their followers have done. When asked, they just turn the conversation back to something 'unacceptable' that was done to them.

    It's one of their rhetorical games.

  • 72. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 29, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Notice also that the only ones BB says are "harassing" him are those whose POV does not agree with his.

  • 73. JonT  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:23 am

    Personally, I don't think one is required. :)

  • 74. Heather  |  July 29, 2010 at 9:46 am

    We feel like NOM completely smeared us and made a lot of false claims against us so an apology is not necessary. Plus NOM continuously twists everything that is said so it's probably best to be silent right now. NOM is more than welcome to contact us if they would like to have some dialogue with us!

  • 75. JonT  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:06 am

    @Heather: 'We feel like NOM completely smeared us and made a lot of false claims against us so an apology is not necessary.'

    Yes, they did. And just look at Albany, almost the complete opposite of RI, and what did the nomo's report?

    Gay Attack Labradors(TM), and horrible 'staring homosexuals' that prevented a poor mother from seeing the podium and feeding her hungry child. Bah.

    Yep – no apology necessary. Keep up the good work! :)

  • 76. St. Cloud, MN: Dueling ra&hellip  |  July 29, 2010 at 10:59 am

    [...] the day so keep refreshing to stay up to date. Don’t forget to check out this morning’s video and analysis from the stop in St. Paul, as well as photos and a summary on what happened there [...]

  • 77. l8r_g8r  |  July 29, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    I like that — NOM is more than welcome to contact us if they would like to have some dialogue with us! It's so infuriating how BB keeps talking in that clip about how he hasn't heard anything from QARI, but he never approached anyone to dialogue and then he claims he didn't even know about the noose sign until Arisha mentioned it. That's a flat out lie. How could anyone NOT see such a sign in such a small area? Anyway, I digress.

    Plus NOM continuously twists everything that is said so it’s probably best to be silent right now.

    I hadn't thought of that. It is probably very true. If something is despicable, I wouldn't put it past NOM to do it.

  • 78. Anonygrl  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    How about for Washington DC? Three days before the ceremony one must apply, and the paperwork costs $45.00 total, looks like. Oh, and you need a legal type officiant to perform the ceremony.

    Anybody interested?

  • 79. Ann S.  |  July 29, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    Doo eeet!!!

  • 80. Franck  |  July 29, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    Dave, my parents once went to the priest for help saving their failing marriage. What ensued was a long period of the lowest kind of public humiliation for my family, especially my mother.

    The priest ended up causing my parents' divorce to happen two years earlier than they intended to, and it has pretty much caused the Church to lose my whole family as members: my brother and I had always been agnostics and only went to Church to please our parents, and the parents never trusted the Church for guidance again. I think none of us has attended mass for years now, and none of us feels like going again.

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1134 days, as of today.

  • 81. funkifried  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:35 am

    Question here: the article above says about the Federal Marriage Amendment, …"like the 2004 Federal Marriage Amendment that would, for the first time in our nation’s history, amend the U.S. Constitution to restrict rights rather than extend them."

    Would DOMA not be counted as a complete restriction of rights or am I missing something? Thanks!

  • 82. funkifried  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:40 am

    Hi Mark

    Brian did say in Maine (right before the vote) that NOM supported civil unions… because NOM doesn't want to discriminate. Ahem.

  • 83. Alan E.  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:10 am

    The article is referring to a Constitutional amendment, and DOMA is just congressional law. One point, though: wasn't the alcohol prohibition meant to take away rights too?

  • 84. funkifried  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:17 am

    P.S. Isn't NOM sinning by working on Sundays? Hmm…

  • 85. funkifried  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Ah, okay but the different states have made amendments to their constitutions re: DOMA – it's just not federal, I see. Thank you!

  • 86. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:25 am

    Not if they are resting from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. That is the Sabbath. Sunday is the Lord's Day, in remembrance of the Resurrection.

  • 87. NOM in Rochester, MN: Ret&hellip  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:43 am

    [...] moving equality rally under the rotunda in the Minnesota State Capitol, by clicking here and here [...]

  • 88. Watch: Interview with NOM&hellip  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    [...] Read more…. Tags: Amp, Oral Anal Sex, Oral Sex [...]

  • 89. Josh  |  August 1, 2010 at 1:33 am

    Is there any validity to the priest's statement that anal sex causes gastro-intestinal problems? I was under the impression that if done properly it doesn't cause any physical harm.

    On another note, sex between straight or gay people can be selfish and only one person getting off by it. Sex between two men or women can be fulfilling and amazing for both people. I would argue that eperiencing the emotional connection physically through sex is the same for gay and straight people, but they don't want to think of us as being capable of the same human emotions and feelings that they have. That would lead them to see us as equal and they just won't have any of that.

  • 90. Josh  |  August 1, 2010 at 1:40 am

    Right, we confront nom about things that have happened at these events we don't like, but they can't contact the groups they have an issue with?

    They just want to keep collecting their evidence of the violent gays and our attempt to stiffle their civil rights.

    They have no interest in honesty or the truth. Any means necessary is their tactic.

  • 91. cheap uggs alabama  |  December 7, 2011 at 12:46 am

    strongzz Thanks a lot for sharing this with all of us you really know what you are talking about! Bookmarked. Kindly also visit my website =). We could have a link exchange contract between us!

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!