Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

NOM ally Louis Marinelli: Your marriage isn’t a marriage unless I say it is

NOM Tour Tracker Right-wing

By Adam Bink

Louis (hi, Louis!) has done it again. Here’s his post responding to the picture I posted yesterday of a couple married in Iowa (h/t Good as You) (bolding mine)

We are going to Sioux City because we are holding a rally there on Tuesday to stand up for geniune marriage between a man and a woman. I say geniune, and I’ve made this point before, because a piece of paper doesn’t make you married. A piece of paper gives you access to a series of benefits afforded to married couples but it doesn’t make you married.

I say this because of this picture taken by one of our stalkers over at the NOM Tour Tracker.

It’s a sign held by one of our opponents today in Des Moines (we held a good rally there earlier today at th State Capital) was holding a sign that said she was married to her parner for 9 months and was thanking the State of Iowa for that.

These people are not married.

Marriage is between a man and a woman and taking something and molding it into the shape of marriage and then giving it the name of marriage doesn’t make it marriage! It is merely a mockery of marriage and that is what these so-called “same-sex marriages” amount to.

What this reasoning amounts to is that institutions are always static. No doubt, in the world of such activists, extending voting rights to African-Americans or women doesn’t make them voters, and extending citizenship to undocumented immigrants doesn’t make them Americans. After all, you can take the right of the vote, which was originally intended for whites only, and extend it to African-Americans or women, but that doesn’t make them voters, right? And to Louis, marriage is between a man and a woman because that’s the way it always has been. Because in the history of the world, institutions like voting or citizenship or marriage have never been, you know, expanded or anything.

I’m also fascinated by the view that personal views triumph over civil law. As Jeremy Hooper writes:

[Louis' piece is] A body of thoughts that really tells you everything you need to know about the anti-marriage equality movement. Because here we have a jurisdiction that does, empirically, have civil marriage equality on a state level. Civil marriage, we will remind you, is the only kind of marriage equality for which the organized LGBT activist movement is fighting. And it’s in place. Right now. Today. In Iowa. Two men or two women can go to the city hall and get a license.

Yet Louis Marinelli, based on nothing but his own personal faith, says, “Nope, don’t think so.”

Since Louis reads our little blog here, I have two questions for him:

1. Was President Obama born in the United States?

2. Does his birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health documenting his birth in Honolulu make him a American?

I’m looking forward to seeing if Louis (a) is a birther, but more interestingly (b) believes a U.S. birth certificate merely “gives you access to a series of benefits”, or actually makes one an American. Let’s see how far his logic goes. We’ll await your response, Louis.

In the meantime, I have news for him. His views on what do and do not make a marriage can apply to him and his significant other. That’s his business- and that’s as it should be. The rest of us seek the freedom to marry under civil law. Live and let live, Louis.

160 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:32 am

    Good God, man!
    Marinelli is just crazy, like everybody else from that NOM bunch!

  • 2. Matthew  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:35 am

    Funny. So why is NOM against states allowing same-sex marriage if they don't even consider it a "real marriage"?

    Makes no sense to me.

  • 3. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:35 am

    P.S. I want my mockery paper from the government, even if it's not a real marriage according to Mary Nelly. :P

  • 4. sneaks911  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:37 am

    they don't haffta make no stinking sense.

  • 5. Christoph  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:37 am

    Louis has a birth certificate, but that does not make him real! I think he's make believe!

  • 6. Papa Foma  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Sub-subbing under Rusky Scriber! Bring on the crazies!

    Thank god for MaryNelly, who else could have summed up our position so eloquently. You can call marriage whatever the fuck you want to call it but hell if I am not going to get my piece of paper!

    This ultimately is what NOM will have to live with… the knowledge that they don't have to validate anything regardless of how little anyone cares!

    Viva La Paper!

    Felyx

  • 7. Kathleen  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:39 am

    I say again, if it's only a "piece of paper" and having it doesn't create a "real marriage" – then what does he care who gets it? Seems we've finally convinced NOM to see the light. Tour over?

  • 8. Ann S.  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:41 am

    I agree. Good God, man!!

  • 9. Felyx  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:42 am

    (Sorry everyone, using Papa's computer and forgot to change the handle!)

  • 10. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:42 am

    I spit on my monitor when I read your questions to ask Louis…

    and I GOTTA subscribe to this post!

  • 11. nightshayde  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Fine — give them a paper that gives them all the rights and benefits of being married. What harm can that do if you don't consider them married with or without that official piece of paper?!

    YOU don't have to call them married. I will call them married. The government will call them married. I'm sure they'll be happy with two out of three (especially when the remaining one is relegated to history's pile of "attitudes that used to be ok but are now considered abhorrent).

  • 12. PhillyKarl  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Do you think that its just a coincidence that all these NOMers that deny the evolution of marriage also deny Darwinian evolution? Me thinks it is more than just a coincidence. They just HATE evolution, period.

  • 13. Rebecca  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Louis, I don't care if you reconize same-sex marriage or if it's valid before God, which is what I'm sure your main criterion is.

    I just want the state-recognized kind! So get your overly religious nose out of politics, which is secular by design and definition.

  • 14. Felyx  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:45 am

    For that matter, even if he gets a voter registration card can we still invalidate his vote?

    (Remember, it's just a piece of paper… it doesn't make his vote real!)

    Felyx

  • 15. Lauren  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:49 am

    I bet Louis wasn't hugged enough as a child.

  • 16. Rebecca  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:53 am

    I'm curious about how the NOM folks would discuss common-law marriages, which are still so frequent that the IRS recognizes them on tax forms.

    Look, Louis! Two people who have no piece of paper saying they are married. Yet their rights are respected as spouses and they are treated legally (and when separating) as a married couple.

    Or would you say they are fornicators living in sin cause they don't have the paper? I thought the paper didn't mean anything!

  • 17. Sagesse  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Louis is terminally logically challenged. To quote my post from the last thread:

    The long and winding road of NOM-logic seems to be taking a new curve. Both Louis in his blog post and BB seem to be saying: the only marriage is religious marriage (and we own the definition of religious marriage). Any law or legal recognition of marriage is illigitimate. What five states and DC have done is illigitimate, the marriage licence means nothing, the legal rights that go with marriage mean nothing.

    Huh? If the people vote…. it’s the….law?

    Do these people ever get dizzy?

  • 18. Felyx  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:59 am

    "…I am attacking the misunderstanding these women share about marriage. And that misunderstanding, that fallacy, is that marriage is only about love and commitment."

    I agree with NellyMary. Love and commitment is only for gays. That is why that are called gay. Gay people enjoy and value happiness.

    Breeders only need to get on with the birthifying. They don't really need any paper work for that. The paper is really just for people who want to love each other and commit to each other and take care of each other with all the rights and benefits entitled to them. Birthers just need to keep the baby factory going. That is what Institutionalized Marriage is all about. Not love and commitment; just poppin' out babies.

    NOM you win! We are totally defeated and will see it your way. So, we will just take our love and commitment (with accompanying paperwork thank you) and leave your Genuine Marriage alone!

    Felyx

  • 19. Randy  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:00 am

    Right on, Rebecca!

  • 20. Alan E.  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:03 am

    From the comments to the front page! (subscribing)

  • 21. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:06 am

    (Subbing)
    But while I'm here!
    I'm beggining to believe that Louis does not know what "Real Love" is. With or with out the piece of paper it is the "LOVE" in the relationship that makes it a marriage.So deny it if you must Louie, its as real as any other marriage, paper or no paper!
    And Louie, the more words that come out of your mouth the more pathetic and just plain uneducated you make your self out to be. You do not fool us!
    You don't piss me off any more because all I can do is laugh at your idiot(ology). You are NOT helping either cause Louie, you are waisting your time! Hello Brian, you are waisting your time as well!
    I'm still "Married" in California by the way and that peice of paper looks great on the mantle! Love Tim…

  • 22. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:08 am

    hehehehehehehehehe

  • 23. Linda  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:08 am

    My question to NOMbies–
    Is the US a Democracy or a Theocracy?

  • 24. Rebecca  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:09 am

    I think the dizziness might be the cause for some of their faulty logic, which in turns adds to more illogical spinning, and more dizziness, and it just keeps going and going and going…

  • 25. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:11 am

    Do you know they disagree with Darwin or are you just assuming so?
    I happen to not agree with Darwin's 'theory' either…what does that have to do with anything?

  • 26. Owen  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:11 am

    Good news out of Minnesota:
    http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/9969593

    As NOM continues to try to politicize the SSM fight in MN, the candidates supporting SSM are expanding their lead over Republican Tom Emmer in the polling.

    Minnesota could be the second-largest state to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, and the largest state to grant it through legislation (and not the courts), as soon as next year.

  • 27. Rebecca  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:12 am

    What they want looks a whole lot more like a theocracy, which ironically enough, would make our government closest to…..Afghanistan under tha Taliban. Because that's the kind of thing that happens when religion rules government.

    They say "let the people vote" but what they really mean is "let white Christians vote."

  • 28. JonT  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:13 am

    I concur Kathleen. Since having the piece of paper clearly doesn't mean anything to them, there's no need for the nomos to continue their tour.

    Buh-bye!

  • 29. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:14 am

    I asked Louey that very question on his blog…and SHOCK, he didn't answer me LOL

  • 30. Randy  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:15 am

    Seems to me that some straights made "a mockery of marriage" a long time ago. Why can't we?

  • 31. Sagesse  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:21 am

    I smell NOM blood in the water in MN. Sincerely hope so.

  • 32. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:22 am

    We are going to fix it! My dad has an "Ultimate set of tools" as Spicoly put it many years ago! LOL

  • 33. Steve  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:24 am

    It's not even true that marriage has always been between a man a woman. There have been cultures that allowed two persons of same gender to marry. You can find some cases of that in ancient Rome for example. Of course that was before religious institutions and government got involved in the marriage business and it was more or less an agreement between two people or two families.

  • 34. James in Hollywood  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:29 am

    So…Louis is fighting against something that – in Louis's brain – does not exist? This is getting weirder and weirder.

  • 35. Kim  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Guys, be nice to Louis. The more I read from him, the more I suspect he is a closeted homosexual. In general, the more hateful the message, the more likely they want to prove they are not what they hate. Just like the guy with the two nooses, he was an ex-gay who had found Yahweh. So, give Louis a break and have mercy with his tormented soul.

  • 36. James Sweet  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:31 am

    Duh, theocracy. Don't you read the Constitution? I believe the First Amendment goes something along the lines of, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religions that aren't mine"

  • 37. nightshayde  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Make that "straight white conservative Christians." Bonus points if you can figure out how to keep the women out of it.

  • 38. nightshayde  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:36 am

    We'll see if my comment shows up over there. I had to shorten it a few times to meet the maximum of 4096 characters (it would be ever-so-helpful if there was a character counter on that site), so if something gets posted, it won't be my original message … but here's the whole thing:

    Hi, Louis. This is my first time posting on your blog — so please bear with me if I don't have all of your beliefs and arguments pegged quite yet.

    Do you believe that a marriage has to have a religious component in order to be considered a true "marriage?

    If so, which religious institutions' ceremonies do you think should "count?" Are couples (gay or straight) married in a Reform Synagogue by a Rabbi actually "married?" Are couples (gay or straight) married in an Episcopalian Church actually "married?" How about couples (gay or straight) married via a Wiccan ceremony?

    What about couples comprised of divorced Catholics? Do they get to marry again in a different church and have it count as "marriage" whether they're gay or straight?

    Do you recognize couples (gay or straight) married in secular ceremonies as "married?"

    If your church doesn't recognize same-sex partnerships as valid and doesn't choose to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, that's an excellent reason for people who attend your church to not enter into same-sex partnership. Freedom of Religion — got it.

    How, though, does the religious freedom you so clearly value benefit churches whose clergy/members want to bless same-sex unions? Isn't telling them they're not allowed to marry same-sex partners a violation of THEIR religious freedom?

    I understand this relatively new-fangled idea of marriage being all about procreating and raising children (I say "new-fangled" because this idea really has only been around for a relatively short period of time — certainly it's a much newer idea than the "traditional marriage" of the past in which women were treated as property rather than as equals). I want to know, though, how it applies to couples who can not procreate (either because of medical reasons such as a woman having undergone a hysterectomy or tubal ligation, or a man having had a vasectomy or testicular cancer, or a woman being post-menopausal, or being a same-sex partnership), or who do not wish to procreate? I have a number of straight married friends (and one straight couple who will be married this coming January) who want absolutely NO part of having or raising children. Unless I'm mistaken, they're just as married as my husband and I are (yes – we're a straight couple) even though we've chosen to reproduce and they haven't.

    You are certainly free to believe that marriage was created by a higher power. Since I don't believe in a higher power and am very comfortable with the notion that man created marriage (just as man created religion), I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that the only valid reason for marrying someone is that you care for that person very deeply and can't imagine spending the rest of your life without that person. A significant part of being married is in how you view your partner — you want to love, honor, and cherish someone you love — and you want to take care of each other as long as you are both able to do so. In my mind, there's no actual relevance to the type of reproductive organs that either person possesses.

    Why should your definition of marriage trump someone else's? When marriage equality is achieved throughout the country (as it has been in a handful of states and in a number of countries), you will still be free to consider legally-married people as not "really" married — but those people will have the rights and benefits accorded to married people by the government. You won't be harmed by the fact that there are "not really married" married people all over the place, but the people who CAN have their relationships and their families legally recognized will certainly benefit.

    I don't know for certain yet whether my little girl was born straight, lesbian, or somewhere in-between. Statistically speaking, she's more likely to grow up and fall in love with a man rather than a woman — but I'll be happy if she finds her soul-mate & lives her life with someone who always treats her with dignity, kindness, respect, and yes – love. That's the kind of relationship I have with her father. No matter what, though, she will grow up knowing that her parents really do love her and support her — and that we will fight for her rights if we need to fight for them. She'll also know that if she's straight, we'll be fighting for the rights of her friends no matter what their sexual orientation happens to be.

    Discrimination is wrong. Whether based in religion, tradition, ignorance, or any combination thereof, it's wrong. Whether endorsed by the majority or the minority, it's wrong. Equal rights should be guaranteed — not voted on. The courts exist partially to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. When the courts affirm the rights of a minority (even in the face of howls from the majority), they're doing their job — and when the Supreme Court finally affirms marriage equality (it's only a matter of time), they will have FINALLY done their job on this issue.

  • 39. Dave in Maine  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:41 am

    The putz.

  • 40. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:46 am

    And I guess that according to Mr. Humpty Dumpty, the only religious marriage ceremonies that count are the ones performed by whichever church he claims to go to, which would leave out all of us who are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, Zen, or any other faith system that does not coincide 100% with his.
    Hi, Louis! How about getting a REAL life, so that you don't have to go about destroying everyone else's with your infantile blathering?

  • 41. Linda  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:47 am

    Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

    Damn those revisionists! They totally left that last part out of my history books!

  • 42. Dave in Maine  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:47 am

    Well, I can understand his point of view. It's like a woman adopting a child-she's not the child's REAL mother. Just cuz some stupid piece of government paper says so doesn't mean that it IS so.

    Dave

  • 43. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:48 am

    Would you have hugged him???
    icky

  • 44. Timothy Kincaid  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:49 am

    The amusing part is that

    YOU CAN ALREADY GET A RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE RECOGNIZED BY GOD AND CHURCH IN ALL 50 STATES.

    The United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalists already conduct same sex religious marriages.

    When Louis says that those marriages are not real and that the state should not recognize them, he's really saying that the state should establish his religion as the official religion and deny the UCC and the UU any claim to religious freedom.

    NOM claims to support religious freedom but they do exactly the opposite.

    And it is going to become more and more apparent when the Episcopal Church finishes their rites and when the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA) all being within the next decade to conduct same-sex marriages.

    Then it will be NOM, the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the various pentecostal churches demanding that the government recognize their religious rites and deny those of the mainline churches.

    And even Scalia would see through that.

  • 45. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:49 am

    Check the new Texas books…I'm sure it's in there now

  • 46. Linda  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:50 am

    The NOMbies' ultimate goal is Fundie Theocracy; but until then they'll settle for Mob Rule.

  • 47. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:51 am

    Good Christian women do as their husband's tell them…if hubby says don't vote well than you don't vote. It's God's way ya know….at least THEIR God (certainly NOT mine)

  • 48. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:51 am

    Nightshayde, I like it – they can live happily in denial, while same-sex couples get their civil rights! Win-win!

  • 49. Wade@MacMorrighan.Ne  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:51 am

    >>>And to Louis, marriage is between a man and a woman because that’s the way it always has been.<<<

    Adam, don't forget that in almost every culture marriage has always been rather undefined! Specifically, there have been, and currently are, numerous religious and cultures that allow two men or two women to legally marry. But, NOM is ignoring this fact. And, sadly, to some NOMbies, those marriages don't count as 'real marriages', because these cultures are, they say, "uncivilized"!

    Of course, most of them don't think my standing as a High Priest within my religion, or any marriages even performed within my religion are "valid", either!

  • 50. Timothy Kincaid  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:53 am

    The main civil right is the right to vote on other people's marriages.

    Except in Massachusetts. Or New York. Or New Jersey. There the main civil right is the religious freedom to define marriage like God says.

    But other than in places where gay people have support, and the "God definition" is not popular, the main civil right is to vote.

  • 51. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:56 am

    Stand O sweetie!!!

  • 52. Wade@MacMorrighan.Ne  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:56 am

    Good point! My uncle and his now wife were Common Law for several years! 'Course, when they *did* get married, they only told her side of the family and flew them all in to Vegas to attend, while everyone else had to sit at home watching it on the internet?

    BTW, considering Vegas's drive-through wedding policy, why DOESN'T the state allow Gay marriage, exactly? ;o)

  • 53. Biff  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:57 am

    I wonder…has anyone asked Brian, (or Louis for that matter), If, he's under the impression that our community is asking that our government force churches to marry same-sex couples? In many of his statements that appears to be his greatest fear. I was not under the impression that this was what, we as a community, are after….Louis states that a piece of paper does not make us "married", and yet it does, everywhere but within HIS church. I for one am perfectly fine with THAT, as long as Myself and my partner are granted all the rights that hetero-couple are. I as an American tax payer, have to admit I'm completely confused by "their" motivations…..I thought there was a seperation of church and state?

  • 54. fiona64  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Scientific theory is not the same as a hypothesis or hunch. It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence and verification (e.g., theory of relativity, quantum theory). You *start* with the question, develop a hypothesis, which must be testable, and then determine whether or not your hypothesis is proven or disproven. Outcomes must be reproducible in order for theory (or law) to apply under scientific method.

    Things proven beyond any doubt are referred to in scientific method as laws (e.g., law of gravity).

    /nitpick

    Love,
    Fiona (who has to explain this rather more frequently than she thinks should be necessary)

  • 55. Owen  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:57 am

    He certainly sounds like he's a friend of Dorothy. You can see his pearls just falling out everywhere when he opens his mouth to speak.

  • 56. fiona64  |  August 2, 2010 at 7:58 am

    Just adding Metropolitan Community Church to the list of denominations which agree with real marriage equality (and not the bogus/disingenuous mess that Louis [hi, Louis!] is trying to pretend already exists in his latest blog post).

    And yes, I wholeheartedly concur. NOM is trying to insert its religious doctrine into law — and by doing so, they step on the religious freedoms of other denominations.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 57. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Actually, the one time I actually listened to one of his monologues on video, I heard silk Gucci purses with every syllable.

  • 58. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:03 am

    PhillyKarl,

    That's not quite true, since some of the anti-equality folks belong to religions that do not deny evolution (Catholics, and to some extent Mormons, although they can get wishy-washy about human evolution). I think the reverse is almost always true, however: creationists, being Biblical literalists, overwhelmingly oppose LGBT rights.

    This is why my jaw dropped reading Mark M.'s comment – I'm a biologist and I've published papers that deal with evolutionary biology, so I know full well that evolution is reality. Maybe it's some perceived philosophical aspect of something Darwin wrote that you disagree with? All life on the planet shared a common origin, descending with modification over billions of years to our current state of biodiversity. The nature of a higher power is a matter of personal belief.

  • 59. Ronnie  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:05 am

    ROFL…..<3…Ronnie

  • 60. Biff  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:05 am

    BTW, louis and brian, the bible was written by men who were convinced the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around IT…just something to ponder, you-betcha!

  • 61. Bob Barnes  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Folks, have we reached the tipping point? Has NOM jumped the shark? I'm starting to think so

    Louis is off, messaging for NOM on his own and in his own very special way. And if you visit his Facebook page, <a> he ties his hate page and himself back into the NOM clan quite well. Guess the disclaimers aren't sticky as well as Maggie would like.

    Then you have speaker Danny Carroll, who basically said that Loving v. Virginia was wrong or in his words, the [state] supreme court had forced [same-sex] marriage on the people [of Iowa], despite widespread objection. Interracial marriage was at a much higher disapproval rate in `67 then Marriage equality is today.

    And then they have Tamara Scott of the Iowa Concerned Women for America, saying that gay marriage is the cause for the economic collapse.

    NOM has all three rings going and the clowns performing put Barnum and Bailey to shame.

  • 62. Randy  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:07 am

    LMAO!

  • 63. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:08 am

    ooops
    Ofcourse i menat
    'Standing O' ;-)

  • 64. Ronnie  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:10 am

    "That’s his business- and that’s as it should be. The rest of us seek the freedom to marry under civil law. Live and let live, Louis."

    I concur….

    I posted the link to his blog yesterday on this matter on the "NOM: Marriage equality=slave trade" thread..I still stand by my comments….He Louis Humpty Dumpty MaryNelly does not deserve respect because he does nothing but disrespect people he doesn't even know.

    <3…Ronnie

  • 65. AndrewPDX  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Yeah, that's the difference. A good NOMbie marriage proposal would be, "honey, look into your eyes and I see… Compatible breeding material. And those hips are perfect for producing many children, for whom we'll supply nourishment and a roof and clothes. Just don't ever use that 'L' word, because I am not capable of that emotion."

    Love (the real gay agenda),
    Andrew

  • 66. Marlene  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:20 am

    Yes they do, Sagasse…. they get dizzy when they bury their head in the bible too deeply and are starved for oxygen…

  • 67. adambink  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:20 am

    That's another great question for our Trackers to ask.

  • 68. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:25 am

    I never said I doubted evolution as having a basis in fact and in our world….the question was about Darwin. And I have researched his 'theories' for decades…he was wrong on many many of his findings.

    My question was do you 'know' for a fact that all of the NOMbies reject Darwin and evolution or are you just assuming so.
    Simple question….didn't need to have my beliefs attacked

  • 69. PhillyKarl  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:25 am

    In my discussions with the most vocal opponents of gay marriage, I have found it to be true – that's why I mention it here. I think it speaks to a mindset that endorses biblical literalism, a fear of change, and an attitude of arrogant superiority, even if its a bit off topic.

  • 70. Wade@MacMorrighan.Ne  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:27 am

    L. might choose to say what some NOMbies have, and declare that if a couple can procreate, and choose not to fulfill their "obligation", that he doesn't consider them to be "married", either!

    Though, while we both know they are discriminating against us, L. will probably parrot Gallagher's meme, "It's not discrimination when you treat different things differently!"

    BTW, I am so proud of you, that a hetero. woman would be so, well….so enlightened!

  • 71. nightshayde  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:27 am

    Hee hee — I understood the first time. =)

    How are you doing today? Did the funk you were in last week pass?

  • 72. Marlene  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:29 am

    Here's a question for our favourite stalker, Louis the lamebrain…

    Louis, to you agree with former President Bush that the Constitution is "just a piece of paper"?

    If so, then do you mind if the police pulled you over and held you without charge for a few years and in the meantime house you in a dungeon where you're fed inedible slop as food, and fetid water to drink, and use the same bucket as a toilet?

    Do you mind if your right to free speech was totally eliminated and your house of worship was torched and everyone inside burned alive?

    Do you mind if a squad of thugs rushed you at your next appearance, and you're refused treatment at the local ER because they refused to see either a whate male or a Christian?

    Do you mind if your phone's tapped without your knowledge by the government and anything recorded is used in your trial for treason for promoting the overthrow of the government, replacing it with a totalitarian theocracy?

  • 73. PhillyKarl  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:30 am

    Thank you for your comments – sorry to have dragged this thread in this direction. My bad…

  • 74. nightshayde  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:30 am

    Gee, thanks. =) There are quite a lot of us out here — I just happen to have the time to post here (but I would never dream of being distracted from work…. um… *giggle*).

    My parents were both in show-biz & I was constantly around GLBT people growing up. I'm sure this kind of thing is what the NOMbies fear — people who are taught tolerance/acceptance as children will fight for tolerance/acceptance when we grow up.

  • 75. Elsie  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:32 am

    How efficient of Mr. Marinelli, ignorance And arrogance spewed in the same post.

  • 76. jonelle  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Mr. Kincaid makes an excellent and very important point.

    Adam,
    Can we please add this in the original post in case others and Louis (hi Louis!) misses it from this comments thread? I'm sure, even if he's reading ours "religiously", the number and length of comments here must be incomparable and overwhelming compared to his pathetic blog.

  • 77. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:37 am

    1. Was President Obama born in the United States?

    2. Does his birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health documenting his birth in Honolulu make him a American?

    3. Do the birth announcements in Hawaii newspapers mean Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, or that he is a time-traveling ninja spy who went back to 1961 and tampered with the original copy?

    Sorry. ;-D

  • 78. Matt  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:38 am

    A question I have for Louie Louie (although I suspect I know the answer already) is, what does he make of other faith traditions that DO solemnize same-sex couples, and what extent should those traditions be able to set public policy?

  • 79. Dave P.  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:40 am

    They can even close their eyes reeeeeeeal tight and stick their fingers in their ears and shout "no no no no no!" if it will help them to keep believing that these people are not really married. Fine with me. Especially if we can post a video of it.

  • 80. StraightForEquality  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:44 am

    Subscribe

  • 81. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Thanks! Yes it passed…took a couple days. It just gets to me now and than. Dealing with so much hatred from all sides can be a tad bit overwhelming.
    Thanks for asking though :-)

  • 82. fiona64  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Kirille, I want you and Felyx to have your mockery papers, too.

    I guess that, since neither my first husband nor my current husband and I had/will have kids, I have had two different sets of mockery papers. After all, according to Louis (hi, Louis!) it's all about getting together to have kids — and we didn't do that. Instead, we got married because we loved each other.

    How silly of us.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 83. Linda  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Hey, are Common Law marriages restricted to OS couples?

  • 84. l8r_g8r  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Scrumdiddlyumptiousing.

  • 85. Anonygrl  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:52 am

    How about if someone goes the extra mile and asks Louis out on a date?

  • 86. Linda  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:52 am

    @Dave–
    That's very similar to what BS Brown was doing in his latest interview. Ha! Check out his body language.

  • 87. fiona64  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Well, there is a first time for everything …

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 88. nightshayde  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Well – clutch my pearls and gasp! My comment got posted!

  • 89. Roger  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:55 am

    I guess by his logic of "marriage is only between one man and one woman" Louis Marinelli can't be married either because a man (the real kind) is secure enough not to worry about what other people call their relationship, backtrack on what they did (attack the nice couple and then say he isn't attacking them) and doesn't lie nor hang out with liars (self delusion is no excuse)

  • 90. Anonygrl  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Beautiful, Nightshayde, just beautiful!

    Thank you!

  • 91. Dave in Maine  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:55 am

    I should add that my eyes were rolling when I type that…!

    Dave

  • 92. AndrewPDX  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:55 am

    As the Mormon church (you know, the £D$ that gives so much money to NOM) currently blocks non-Mormon heterosexual couples from marrying in their Temples, this fear that we would 'force' them to have to perform SSM is rediculous and unfounded.

    Besides, why do they believe we would even want to have them at the reception, let alone officiate? Are they really that conceited?

    Love,
    Andrew

  • 93. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:57 am

    So since New Hampshire and Iowa are two of the states that recognize common law marriages…does that hold true for same sex couples as well?
    Be interesting to see how many couples not intending to be married (for whatever their reasons might be) are now common law spouses.
    hehehehehehehe

  • 94. Ann S.  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:57 am

    Hmmm, we've had over 30 years of marriage and only one kid. I'll bet there is some sort of minimum requirement, like one kid for every two years of marriage. Not sure <del>Brian</del> Tweedledee or <del>Louis</del> Tweedledum would approve of ours.

  • 95. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 2, 2010 at 8:57 am

    Could that be why MG doesn't wear her wedding ring? She knows that since she and her husband could not get married in the Catholic church, and since her child was born out of wedlock, her marriage is a sham? Is that why she never brings her husband with her? Or does she realize deep down that the arguments she and the rest of the NOMbies are using against us will soon be turned against her, as they were in the years leading up to and shortly after Loving v. Virginia?

  • 96. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:01 am

    There are many things I would take on the chin for the cause. However, the only way I would ask Louis out on a date is if he were to soak in Lysol for six months, followed by a six-month alcohol bath. After all, I don't want to be infected with bigotry and self-loathing.

  • 97. fiona64  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:07 am

    Was it our little Joey troll who said that I had "embraced the gay agenda" (without ever having a single sexual encounter with a woman) because I had sex for pleasure instead of procreation and "sex is NOT for pleasure"?

    I'm betting you just channeled his marriage proposal, LOL.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 98. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:09 am

    nightshayde, I can only say one thing about this post–YOU ROCK!!!!!

  • 99. AndrewPDX  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Agreed, Mark; just as with many other characteristics, there are those on both sides who are Darwinists, and some who are not. Just like we have Christians on both sides, and Jews, and probably athiests, etc. Just like we have Republicans, Democrats, non-affiliated on both sides.
    It's just that most that support NOM are fundamentalist creationist white male christians, while the equality side is full of more darwinian anti-religious liberals.
    However, by making the assumption that all NOMers are anti-Darwin, or thatall equality believers are non-religious, we only fall into the same stereotyping pitfalls that our adversaries do.

    We must remember to do what they cannot: see the diversity of the human condition as a gift to be embraced, not a disease to be stamped out.

    Personally, I came to my Christian faith expressly because I first understood why evolution is so popular. I asked my mom why do sone people dismiss evolution so quickly. She asked me "when was the Bible written?" A long time ago. "and what was technology like wmaaay back then?" stone age. "now, try telling the story of evolution in that context."
    I realized that Creation and Evolution are both telling the sane story — and realitively similar stories I believe. And with any retelling of any story, each version got some things right and each version got some things wrong. Bur ultimately, they are the same story. You have to have both (and many others too) to get the fill picture.
    – that's my belief, at any rate.

    Ain't it great to live in a society where different beliefs can coexist? Now, quick: take a snapshot before the NOMbies take that right away :)

    Love,
    Andrew

  • 100. l8r_g8r  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Usually a requirement for common law marriage to take effect includes holding oneself out to the public as married. Meaning that the couple actually has to act like they're married to the public.

    Although it isn't really possible to have an accidental common law marriage, I suppose a same-sex couple who had a religious or familial ceremony before their marriage was legally recognized by the State of Iowa who continues to hold themselves out as married and cohabitates would be able to form a common law marriage without having to get a piece of paper. That common law marriage would then be recognized in other states (well, a few other states. Like Mass and NY). You see, once a common law marriage is formed, it is valid in all states unless, of course, that common law marriage is between spouses of the same sex.

  • 101. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:23 am

    Not sure I could even be paid to do that!
    Not enough money in the world for that.
    LOL

  • 102. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:25 am

    @ Andrew: Based on the LD$ folks here in Cumberland County, NC, the answer is a resounding yes! or as Gretchen Wilson says in "Redneck Woman"–H**L YEAH!

  • 103. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:28 am

    Thanks! I sort of assumed as much. :-)

  • 104. Dave in Maine  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Do we get a toaster oven if we do?

    Dave

  • 105. AndrewPDX  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:37 am

    @Fiona… Icky. I'm glad I got that out of my system.

    If I can ever find my Mr.Right, I imagine proposing ulna much more romantic way. Tho, I feel more like Snow White, singing "someday, my prince will come…" but when?

    Love,
    Andrew

  • 106. JonT  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Ronnie: 'I posted the link to his blog yesterday on this matter on the “NOM: Marriage equality=slave trade” thread..'

    Indeed you did – ande I thought it was an 'outlier' – ie: LM's argument that a marriage license does not a marriage make. I thought that was very weird.

    Now, it seems BB is actually pushing this idea – a marriage is only a marriage if a religious entity sanctions it. Huh?

    That seems to be a new argument to me.

    Which then brings up another question: Which religious organizations are allowed to 'sanction' a marriage, and therefore make it 'valid'? And what are the requirements that such an organization must meet? A certain number of followers…? Money? Power?

    Is there some state/federal laws that now need to be drafted in order to determine which religious organizations are allowed to 'define' real marriage? What would be the minimum requirements of such an organization?

    How does that jibe with that pesky old First Amendment thingy?

    Inquiring minds want to know…

    It makes no sense, and I find it a little incredulous that this is the tack they now seem to be heading toward. It's such a flawed concept on so many levels, as all of you are continuing to point out. It's simply ignoring reality.

  • 107. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:39 am

    @ Fiona–I also have to wonder what Louis, Brian, Maggie et al. would say about a girl I went to school with and her marriage, since she and her husband have had to use IVF for their biological children due to a medical anomaly where she was born with ovaries and a uterus, but no fallopian tubes? Would they want her marriage invalidated?

  • 108. JonT  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Agreed – I'd love to see BB's answer to that question.

  • 109. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Forget a toaster oven–I want the whole house, furniture, china, flatware, glassware, decor and all. Nothing too extravagant, just the one that Aaron Spelling's widow has on the market.

  • 110. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 2, 2010 at 9:57 am

    Well – clutch my pearls and gasp!

    nightshayde are you sure your not a gay man posing as a straight woman with that comment? I think you have just been outed! LOL I'm just kidding! I could not let that that one go- you left yourself wide open.
    Seriously I loved the comment that you were able to get posted but I don't see looser louis reading the whole thing. Hopefully one of his sheep will though.
    I do thank you for taking the time to fight for us!!

  • 111. sheryl  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Just wanted to add that there are many Mormon heterosexual couples that are not married in the temple. Being Mormon does not automatically qualify you for temple marriage (unless, of course, you lie when you go for the temple recommend interview).

    I'll also, once again, state that there are many of us members (even those of us with temple marriages) who believe in equality and feel that our leadership is way off base on this issue. Some have left the church over this issue; others, like myself, feel that the change needs to come from within, from members stating how they feel.

    And if you are a gay Mormon, you just might want to have your bishop officiate at your marriage ceremony. There really are gay Mormons who have not left the church. Wonder if there are any bishops (Mormon term for the local leader) who have performed same-sex ceremonies in states where it is legal (of course, the ceremony wouldn't be held in the church building, but then lots of marriages are not held in the church building). Would be interesting to know that but have no idea how one would find that out.

    Sheryl, Mormon mother with a wonderful son who just happens to be gay

  • 112. Joel  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:17 am

    I think Louis is also a troll on the topix forum boards. I can't remember the screen name, but there is one troll who consistently insists that Mark and I are not married, despite having a valid and legal marriage license from the State of California, and having been married in a traditional Jewish ceremony to boot.

    This same troll also insists that my mother and father are actually NOT my mother and father, because I was adopted. I truly wish that he would say that in front of my Mom and Dad. He would surely wish that he hadn't.

    Louis and this troll (whether they are same person or not) literally make me nauseous with their sanctimonious views. I try to feel sympathy for them/him, but I just can't muster any feeling past disgust.

  • 113. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:18 am

    Sheryl, I wish you were here in Cumberland County. then there would be at least one Mormon at the local ward who has some sense.

  • 114. Ann S.  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:19 am

    Sheryl, thank you so much for being here.

  • 115. Anonygrl  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:23 am

    Thank you Sheryl, for sharing that with us. Good to know that you and others are working from the inside to make things better!

    Thank you, thank you, thank you!

  • 116. Linda  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Sheryl,
    I can only imagine the thought and prayer you undertook when your son came out to you. I am so happy for your son that you have accepted him, rather than the stereo-type about him. My mother told me she would rather I had told her I had cancer.

    Do you realize the significance of your acceptance and advocacy?

  • 117. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:30 am

    @ Mark M (Seattle)
    Please forgive this silly question as Seattle is a huge city, but hey, you never know! The gay community is a small portion of it. Do know a Deb Cooper (straight alley) or Ron Bryan aka "Edith" or Peter Ruplinger ?

  • 118. Ann S.  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:32 am

    A write-up in The Advocate: http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Washington_D_C_/

  • 119. Felyx  |  August 2, 2010 at 11:04 am

    Any religious ceremony (even pagan or santanic) performed for any heterosexual pair will do just fine. I think NOM is very clear on this point.

    Felyx

  • 120. JonT  |  August 2, 2010 at 11:17 am

    :) Nice!

  • 121. Felyx  |  August 2, 2010 at 11:18 am

    I will explain this to you again, NOM is very clear on this… any religious marriage ceremony, even Pagan, Wiccan, Buddist, Satanic or Atheist, performed for two heterosexuals is perfectly valid regardless of documentation. All NOM wants is that the sacred certification of legal civil marriage be withheld from Faggots and Dykes who spit on the face of the Almighty the most holy, all loving punisher of sinners by flaunting their sexuality in the face of NOM supporters… unless they are closeted and choose to channel themselves into a life of unfulfilling procreative instrumentality. (Love and commitment are not required.)

    Are we clear now?

    Felyx

  • 122. RebeccaRGB  |  August 2, 2010 at 11:46 am

    There's a difference?

  • 123. Mark M  |  August 2, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    None of the names ring a bell Tim…but doesn't mean I don't know them by face. I know several Rons and Peters…no Debs sadly

  • 124. Sagesse  |  August 2, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    Good summary article. Worth your time.

  • 125. Chris in Lathrop  |  August 2, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    I have a question: in Louis' rant, I notice they're looking for 2 million Americans to sign up for their campaign of hate, and are at about 750k (*if* he's not lying. again.). How many members do we boast?

  • 126. Kathleen  |  August 2, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    I question what that number of 750K represents. Is that the number of people signed up for email notices? Number of individual donations they've received? Number of unique donors? Without knowing what that number represents, I question their claims.

  • 127. Sheryl  |  August 2, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    First, thank you everyone for your comments.

    Richard, I would imagine that there are "closet liberals" in the wards there. We are few and far between, but we do exist. Problem is, we are too quiet. It wasn't until I found the Mormons for Marriage website that I found the courage to speak up. Only wish I would have found that site sooner.

    Linda, no it didn't take me a lot of thought and prayer to accept my son as he is. I don't understand parents who don't love their kids unconditionally. I think that as long as he is a law-abiding person, he's entitled to live life the way that is right for him not the way someone else thinks is right. I spent about a little time wondering "where did I go wrong;" however, that was quickly quelled as I compared his upbringing to his cousins (who is also gay). My son, single mother household; his cousin, very involved mother and and father; my son, didn't care for sports as a participant; his cousin, always on softball teams (as were his sisters). Since they had such opposite upbringing, I quickly let go of the blame and went on with enjoying my son for who he is. If I recall, your mother is not being supportive and my heart goes out to you for that struggle in your life.

    Yes, my son knows how lucky he is to have a supportive family and friends. Funny story, he came out to me about 1 year before he did to his dad. When he did come out to this dad and that side of the family, he told me that they were then worried about how I would react.

    I'll quite my rambling. But I did want to respond and let you all know how touched I am by your comments.

  • 128. Sheryl  |  August 2, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    Not only all of your points, Richard, but how about people who do not want a religious ceremony, they can't get married even if it is a heterosexual couple?

    I personally think that by stating the a marriage license a marriage does not make thinking is an insult to every married coupled because without that little insignificant piece of paper, they would not be married. Hey, maybe their real agenda is to start a church where living together and having children is not considered a sin but the right way to live. Why deal with that insignificant piece of paper. wonder what they would say to that. Sure fits in with their line of reasoning.

    Also, wonder why they are so worried about polygamy since they want to base everything on the bible?

  • 129. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 2, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    Yes. under Mob Rule, the Mob has better firearms.

  • 130. Anonygrl  |  August 2, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    Total number of every person they drove past en route to each stop, times the number of people who actually attended their rallies.

    Squared.

  • 131. Anonygrl  |  August 2, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    Oops… I posted this in the wrong thread…. here is where I meant to put it…

    Last night on the NOM bus… part two.

    Brian: (on the phone) No, I can’t get him to listen to me. YOU talk to him. (He pushes the phone toward Louis, who refuses to take it. They glare at each other. Finally, Louis takes the phone. We hear Maggie’s voice on the other end)

    Maggie’s voice: Louis?

    Louis: I am not going to restrict my blog again. No one at all read it when I did!

    Maggie’s voice: Yes, but Louis… remember… helping us out? Remember how this is not doing it?

    Louis: But I keep telling them I don’t speak for NOM, just myself.

    Maggie’s voice: You drive our bus. You have been very visible at every stop. YOU were the one who suggested we TAKE this trip.

    Louis: So?

    Maggie’s voice: So you have got to stop saying such crazy things! They are picking you to pieces about every word you publish! Saying those two women aren’t married? They do have a marriage license, we KNOW that. We are just trying to get things turned around so we can make that license invalid! But you can’t deny they HAVE one. And claiming gay NJ Governor Jim McGreevy’s failed marriage to his wife is proof that we stand for marriage equality? You have got to stop saying such off the wall wacky stuff!!

    Louis: (getting more and more agitated) ME? Oh COME ON! Tamara Scott told our supporters today that gays are hip and cool and they drive Toyotas with bad brakes and eat contaminated peanut butter! She then blamed the national debt on the breakup of gay marriages, and gay marriage isn’t even LEGAL in most of the country! For gay marriage to wrack up such a huge debt, each gay divorce would have to cost the taxpayers 73 billion dollars!!!

    Maggie’s voice: Stop exaggerating Louis. You KNOW you can’t count… it would only be… (we hear calculator keys clicking).. oh. Wait. (she sighs) You are right.

    Fade to black.

  • 132. Felyx  |  August 2, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    @TK

    Finally! Someone who gets it!

    (Of course if you really did get it then you should stay away from the rest of us so that we don't catch it!)

  • 133. Felyx  |  August 2, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    Correction Dave,

    The woman may have documentation and be the real mother but she is clearly not genuine!

    Felyx ;`P

  • 134. Felyx  |  August 2, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    At the rate of less than 200 persons per stop on a less that 50 stop tour, and counting all the NOM staffers each time individually at each stop, it is clear that NOM will not achieve even 760K by way of this ridiculous meander-busing. (That is assuming that 750K was the number at the start of the tour and not the number halfway through.)

    Good luck with you next 1.24 million!

    Felyx – Who knows how to use math… and logic. ;`P

  • 135. Felyx  |  August 2, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    Dearest Kathleen,

    Out of curiosity, were there any NOM claims that you don't question?

    (BTW, you cannot question Mag-Hag's claim that she is married. She has not actually claimed that.)

    Your devoted Felyx ;D

  • 136. Felyx  |  August 2, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    @Anonygrl

    You forgot to open the scene with the part where the phone is ringing and Louis pops his head out of Brian's lap and says, 'Well? Are you going to answer that?'

    Felyx :`P

  • 137. Kathleen  |  August 2, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    hehe. I realized after I posted that I should have added that even if I DID know what the number represented, I'd question the claim.

    You seem in fine spirits for so late at night — do they give you some of the good stuff? xoxo

  • 138. Felyx  |  August 2, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    If laughter is the best medicine then who needs the good stuff when this stuff is so freakin' funny?… !

    Felyx

    (I only use the good stuff when absolutely necessary… I have some saved for when the NOMbies stop by! ;`)

  • 139. Michael  |  August 2, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    Radical anti-gay activist Marinelli is simply trying desperately to justify his sin of homophobia. Instead of trying to make something sinful (homophobia) into something good and wholesome, he needs to repent.

  • 140. Franck  |  August 2, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    Anonygrl, I think we should keep a copy of those posts of yours somewhere in case anyone feels like making a comic/a play/a show out of them. And put in Felyx's addition here – it'll make it all the more funny!

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1138 days, as of today.

    (if Alan E. was right, that's one day away from him for each federal right denied to us… Does that make this day a kind of anniversary then?)

  • 141. Sheryl  |  August 2, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    Love your imagination. Needed that laugh.

  • 142. Sagesse  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    Kathleen, if I recall, they had 770K members at the time they announced their 2M4M (sic) goal. If they are like most advocacy organizations, they count everyone who has ever given, and probably everyone on their mailing list, even tho they have since unsubscribed?

    And they number their membership with even numbers only, which explains how their counts of turnout end up being double.

  • 143. Fred  |  August 3, 2010 at 1:33 am

    Hi to all from LA. I've been (supportively) lurking around since the beginning of the trial and couldn't help but make a connection after reading this post.

    Does anyone remember the movie Troop Beverly Hills from about 20 years ago? Hokey, but cute.

    At the end, the "bad" troop leader storms off shouting, "You're not even real Wilderness Girls! None of you! I'm the only REAL Wilderness Girl!"

    Anyway, thanks so much to Courage Campaign for your ongoing coverage of the tour, and thanks to all the brave individuals at every tour stop willing to stand up for marriage equality!

  • 144. Rob Tisinai  |  August 3, 2010 at 1:44 am

    HELP! There’s a clip of Maggie Gallagher at these rallies saying that legalizing same sex marriage would be legislating a lie. Can anyone direct me to that?

    I’m making a new video and I could really use that bit.

  • 145. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 3, 2010 at 5:36 am

    Not to mention people like myself. I have subscribed as a trolling spy on their site so I am one of those 750k. And who know's how many of you have as well.

  • 146. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 3, 2010 at 5:43 am

    It's from a press release in April 2009

    Over the next two years, we will be organizing two million marriage activists from every state in the nation to form an online army of marriage activists willing to stand up for marriage on a moment's notice, sending emails and making phone calls to legislators whenever marriage is threatened.
    http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/

    So, perhaps they will be hitting the west coast during the winter of 2010…???

  • 147. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 3, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Hello Fred! And welcome,sort of ? Can hardly say welcome when you have been lurking for so long.Have you seen louis or Brian? LOL
    I have not seen that movie but can understand where the connection comes in.
    Thank You for the comment. Its nice to know you are here! The more that join the party the better.

  • 148. Kathleen  |  August 3, 2010 at 5:50 am

    "they number their membership with even numbers only, which explains how their counts of turnout end up being double"

    Ha!

  • 149. Elsie  |  August 3, 2010 at 6:09 am

    Heehee. I was wondering when you'd be writing the next installment.

  • 150. Biff  |  August 3, 2010 at 10:40 am

    it's so sad that Maggie hasn't paraded her spouse…..maybe he's not "white" enough?….Doesn't fit with the all white, man on woman, disturbing ( he is a little brown, and ….they are working from the same premise as "the whites shouldn't marry races beneath them"…it muddies the races,blah blah blah…It might get some "gunfire" from the very people who are paying HER bills……So much for "one man one woman"!

  • 151. Sioux City: NOM goes for &hellip  |  August 3, 2010 at 10:41 am

    [...] to the piece, five churches in Sioux City perform same-sex marriages. Or what Louis (hi, Louis!) might call MINO’s (Marriages In Name [...]

  • 152. truthspew  |  August 3, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    He reads this? Good. While I'm at it let us also not forget that in the early days of the Republic it wasn't just that you had to be white, but you had to be a land/property owner if you wanted to vote.

    As a fellow Italian American myself I want to tell Marinelli that some of us don't take too kindly to his trying to equate us as sub-human.

  • 153. Felyx  |  August 3, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    Wait a second… if they had 770K then and have 750K now and they are not lying about numbers then does that mean they are actually losing supporters?

    Can't keep up with the spin!

    Felyx

  • 154. StraightForEquality  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:01 am

    That's beautiful. It does a great job of making the points.

  • 155. StraightForEquality  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:04 am

    Have you noticed that, while various races are pictured among the families on the NOM bus, each family is a single race? I agree that they have not accepted the mixing of races at all.

  • 156. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 4:57 am

    They haven't even accepted interfaith marriages. If they had they would never have given their podium to a state level officer of an organization that has had too much time to analyze Chelsea Clinton's marriage to Marc Mezvinsky and to condemn that marriage because Chelsea is a Methodist and Marc is a Jew. I don't know if anybody else has seen the pictures, but when I saw them, all I saw was a young couple who look deeply in love. And anyone who would condemn that really needs to have their heads examined. For myself, I hope Chelsea and Marc have many decades of happiness together. I hope all of us get the legal opportunity to marry the one we love and spend many decades of happiness together.

  • 157. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 8, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    I hate to inform Mr. Marinelli of this, but the ONLY thing that makes one married in the United States IS a civilly issued marriage certificate…if one wants to exercise the legal rights that are granted by marriage, that is. If one reads the excellent history of Western marriage by Marilyn Yalom ("A History of the Wife") he will discover that, in fact, civil marriages have ALWAYS been considered the more binding in Western society, and religious blessings of marriages only became "mandatory" later in the game. Marriage is the last portion of the civil code that is dictated by a religious sensibility, and as Walker noted in his decision, "That time has passed." And they know it. That's why they're fighting so hard…it's religion's last stand in our civil code.

    So try flashing your religious wedding pictures instead of a certified marriage certificate at the IRS or a hospital admin when you want your marriage-based tax reductions or the right to speak for your significant other in a medical emergency. Pretty pictures and pretty words–and NOM's opinion of sacramental religious marriages as the only marriages there are–DON'T COUNT in the Big World. Sorry. That piece of paper DOES.

    But hey–NOMers can easily prove how unimportant civil marriage is next to their religious ones: all those who are civilly married can get a civil divorce, since their church marriages are the only ones that matter, right? Watch them run to the divorce court to witness their spiritual righteousness!!…NOT. Here it is in a nutshell: they know a good thing when they see it, civil marriage is a good thing, and they want to keep it all for themselves. Fortunately the courts are starting to see through their sanctimoniousness and disinformation.

    Long live civil law, and love. And may they support each other.

  • 158. More from #NOMTurnoutFAIL&hellip  |  August 8, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    [...] This echoes Louis’ argument of “you can have a marriage certificate, but it ain’t a marriage unless I say i…. [...]

  • 159. Adoption now official: NO&hellip  |  September 28, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    [...] 28, 2010 This is also the same Louis Marinelli who wrote on his blog “A piece of paper gives you access to a series of benefits afforded to married [...]

  • 160. Adoption now official: NO&hellip  |  September 29, 2010 at 8:36 am

    [...] is also the same Louis Marinelli who wrote on his blog “A piece of paper gives you access to a series of benefits afforded to married [...]

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!