Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

VIDEO: Exposing NOM/”Iowa For Freedom” anti-equality team’s failure in court

NOM Exposed Right-wing Videos

(Cross-posted at Good As You. Also, read Jeremy’s post yesterday here on NOM sinking $235,000 into a TV ad buy targeting the Iowa Supreme Court)

By Jeremy Hooper

We keep hearing the well-funded NOM/Iowa For Freedom coalition talk about how the state Supreme Court supposedly decided the marriage case inappropriately, and the judges should therefore be removed from their jobs. But nobody on the anti-LGBT wants to actually show people what went down in that court room and let them make up their own minds about how and why the justices arrived at their opinion. So we will.

Here now, six clips — three from pro-equality attorney Dennis Johnson and three from Roger Kuhle, an attorney who attempted to defend marriage bias. Take a look back:

Johnson kept his cool, relying on the state’s current policies and his plaintiffs’ demonstrated merit:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-723ns_tRhY&fs=1&hl=en_US&color1=0×006699&color2=0x54abd6]

And

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fubKq8GBeTQ&fs=1&hl=en_US&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b]

Our verdict: Just like in the much more extensive Prop 8 federal trial, the anti-equality side lost because they simply have no reasonable foundation for their views. It’s the whole “you can’t polish a turd” thing. Their biggest argument is based on the idea that creating babies, something that is a 100% non-requirement of the civil marriage contract, is actually what the marriage institution is all about, and gay couples (who often parent themselves) will somehow ruin that for current and future generations. Honestly, they should save face by thanking their own parents for birthing them into this time, because the reality is that this kind of reasoning will someday not only be rejected in court — it will be unapologetically laughed out of the same!

***

**SEE ALSO: The 2009 decision that quite ably details

Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has

been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding

plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on

sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the

fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution.

This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection

analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative

classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective.

Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil

marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the

remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner

allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil

marriage.

VI. Conclusion.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiffs.

Iowa Code section 595.2 violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa

Constitution. Our decision becomes effective upon issuance of

procedendo.
33

AFFIRMED.

All justices concur.

Tags:

95 Comments

  • 1. Dpeck  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:24 am

    …. Stroopwafels are large thin cookies with a layer of sugary goo in the middle. You place them on a cup of cofee to warm them, then eat them while drinking the coffee. Caution – highly addictive!
    http://www.dutchsweets.com/product_info.php?cPath

  • 2. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:25 am

    Why aren't these people laughed out of court NOW? Why do we keep giving them any attention at all???? This is like taking taking seriously the "testimony" of rocks.

  • 3. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:25 am

    PS — My apologies to rocks.

  • 4. Alan E.  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:30 am

    Where in the city can I find these?! I might have to bring some in for people at work (as my excuse).

  • 5. Ronnie  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:34 am

    AHHHHHHHH!!!….cover it back up…NOM exposed…what a horrible site….their insides are disgusting…completely black & dark….no light what-so-ever…..so sad….. : ( ….Ronnie

  • 6. Straight Grandmother  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:35 am

    Good article, thanks for bringing it to us. It sure makes me feel even worse that cameras were not allowed in the Prop 8 Trial.

    Invitation to those of you who mostly lurk to join in here int he discussion. The more the merroer. We are interested in your point of view and hope you join in.

  • 7. Alan E.  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:35 am

    Good for Iowa Public Television! I might just pass a few dollars their way. I wish we had something like this for the Prop 8 trial, but marriagetrial.com is as close as we are going to get. Hopefully, we will be able to have video at the next stage (if there is a next stage).

    On another unrelated note, I wanted to share the topics of conversation I overheard on the bus today. All of these were high school kids on their way to school on a very crowded bus. I can't wait for summer to start again so I can have more breathing room. Here is a list of today's topics:

    1) the best way to graffiti the bus with critiques of each other's handiwork
    2) Skipping class
    3) smoking, drinking, and popping pills during school
    4) who is getting laid this weekend
    5) the Asian kids randomly calling each other nigger

  • 8. Dpeck  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:36 am

    Hi Alan!

    You can find mediocre stroopwafels at some Cost Plus Imports stores. You can order the better ones from the link.

  • 9. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:41 am

    The rocks take no umbrage.

  • 10. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:42 am

    Whew — I'm glad to hear that, Ann!

  • 11. Sagesse  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:45 am

    More weekend homework. And for comic relief the D-I's file their brief with the 9th Circuit today. Subscribin', just 'cause I can.

  • 12. Joe  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:02 am

    Seven out of seven state supreme court justices agree!

  • 13. Lightning Baltimore  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:03 am

    I love it! Denying sex offenders the right to marry would set a terrible precedent (since they can still make babies with the opposite sex.) Yet granting same-gender couples the right to marry would set a terrible precedent ('cause they can't make babies independent of outside help).

    If is imperative that children have the right to be raised
    by their biological parents, why do we allow adoption?

    Why do we allow sperm and egg donation?

    Why do we allow divorce when children are present?

    Why do we allow re-marriage when children are present?

    All of the above prevent children from being raised by their biological parents, and should, therefore, be illegal, by their reasoning.

  • 14. AndrewPDX  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:05 am

    LOL… good one :)

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 15. Lightning Baltimore  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:10 am

    The more I think about it, the more it strikes me that their core argument is about adoption, not marriage. Adoption is not good for children, being said argument.

    It's disgusting. ! I'm not giving up my little sister, just 'cause she was adopted.

  • 16. Rebecca  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:12 am

    My favorite part of this decision?

    "All justices concur."

    The conservative-leaning ones too! Just like Olson, they recognize that the anti-equality movement doesn't jive with our Constitution.

    NOM can pour tons of money into the campaign against the liberal judges, but that doesn't mean they'll be furthering their wacko agenda. The right-leaning and moderate judges who concurred on this decision will still be there, and none too keen to overturn something they voted for.

    NOM, how about you stop wasting your money and donate it to a worthwhile cause! I can suggest several good animal shelters if you need suggestions.

  • 17. Chuck S  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:13 am

    My partner and I live in Missouri, have adopted 2 children (yes, we are both on the birth certificates), are in the process of adopting another, and are currently fostering 3 other children. We have actually fostered a total of 12 children in the last 8 years (and we get calls weekly asking us to take more). I find it amazing that people actually believe the stuff the opponents are putting out about how gay couples can't effectively parent children. Do they not realize that practically 100% of the kids in the foster care system are there because their straight parents are unable to raise them?? It sure isn't the gay couples that are causing the problem.

    For 3 years, we fought an activist judge (he was also a baptist lay minister) that refused to allow us to adopt our 2 kids but was okay with us fostering them… he just wasn't willing to give our relationship an "official stamp of approval" while at the same time admitting he legally could not refuse the adoption so he just kept delaying it. We finally got the case out of his courtroom and the adoption was done in a matter of minutes. (Our boys were teenagers at the time, and were so upset and frustrated by the process they had to be put on anti-depressants because we couldn't adopt them).

    If only people could see that the real harm to children comes not from what gender the parents are, but how effective the parents are.

    We're considering trying to get married here in MO and starting up the appeals ladder here but with 6 kids, we can't afford the attorney fees, etc. that would require.

    Oh well, I guess we will just keep on raising our kids as unmarried sodomites ;-)

  • 18. Sheryl Carver  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:19 am

    Cameras in the courtroom article – saw this on the 365Gay site a couple days ago:
    http://www.365gay.com/news/after-prop-8-trial-jud

    I still think it's ridiculous that the OJ trial was televised (Bread & Circuses, anyone?) but a huge civil rights trial was not. Of course, the OJ trial may be the reason Judge Walker was overruled on the camera issue.

  • 19. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Chuck, good for you two, being such a marvelous presence in the lives of so many young people.

    Someday you'll be allowed to marry, and I hope it will be soon!

  • 20. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:32 am

    The AP article included in that 365gay site neglects to mention that the 9th circuit already has a pilot program in place: http://info.courtroomview.com/Blog/bid/24268/9th-

    Those who like to lambaste Judge Walker for proposing to allow cameras in the Perry trial also like to ignore that it wasn't just a whim of his, it was in accordance with an existing program of the 9th Circuit.

  • 21. Alan E.  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:44 am

    And unfortunately, many people probably don't even realize this when they are making these arguments!

  • 22. Chuck S  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:45 am

    sub

  • 23. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:45 am

    Will be back shortly. have a run to the Post Office to mail out a Stanley order and some catalogs.

  • 24. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:47 am

    helps to click the button.

  • 25. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:47 am

    try this again

  • 26. Cat  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:47 am

    Aah, stroopwafels! IMNSHO the best ones are from a town called Gouda (you know, from the cheese). You can also get stroopwafels at Wholefoods, but the spices aren't quite the same as I remember them…

    I'd say for our get-togethers here we serve them with warm MILK.

  • 27. Alan E.  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:47 am

    Chuck, as far as the process to try and get married, you might want to wait until the Prop 8 trial is finished, then try to turn to AFER, Lambda Legal, ACLU, or one of the other advocacy groups for assistance. Every trial needs a face, and you might just be able to be that person. You would also have to consider the toll on your family at the same time. It would be a huge decision to make that involves all of your family members, especially your kids after going through that process before.

  • 28. Sheryl Carver  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:51 am

    @Chuck:

    Your kids are very lucky to have you & your husband. You may not be married according to the state & country, but you clearly have more commitment to each other than the 50% of hetero people whose marriages end in divorce.

    We will get full equality! May it be soon, especially for folks like you!

  • 29. fiona64  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:52 am

    I hate to sound like some old lady in a rocking chair, but I swear to *god,* the kids are far less respectful of people around them than when I was in school. (That, and we had school buses, as opposed to being on the city bus.)

    Ugh.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 30. AndrewPDX  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:53 am

    Welcome to the party, Chuck! Here, have a cookie and a big glass of MILK.

    I'm glad you and your husband — 'partner' just sounds too clinical and doesn't correctly describe the commitment you must have to be able to handle that many kids :) — got the adoption stuff taken care of.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 31. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:54 am

    Amazing Chuck! Thank you for being such a loving couple/parents to so many kids in need. You are an inspiration!!

  • 32. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:55 am

    OT: What is the world coming to? Some guy walks into Denny's and asks a waiter if he is gay…the waiter responded 'yes' and then the guy stabs the waiter in the neck…Sick people out there that you are grooming NOM

    Denny’s employee stabbed in alleged hate crime

    Quote: A Santa Maria man was arrested early Thursday morning on charges of attempted murder and committing a hate crime after an employee at a Denny’s Restaurant was stabbed in the neck and throat.

    Police responding to the call of battery at 3:28 a.m. found the victim, an adult man in his 30s, outside the restaurant at 1019 E. Main St. with a laceration to the side of his throat. He also had been stabbed in the side of his neck. The man was specifically targeted by 24-year-old Curtis Martin because of his perceived sexual orientation, police said.

    Read More: http://www.santamariatimes.com/news/local/crime-a

  • 33. Alan E.  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:02 am

    This is the real threat, and evidence has shown this with the increase in hate crimes against LGBT citizens after the passage of Prop 8. People seem to lash out at the mere thought of gay people being normal.

  • 34. Trish  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:05 am

    Sorry, I have to say this — gays and lesbians do not parent "themselves" — that would be impossible. They may be parents, but they do not parent themselves.

    Other than that oh so minor nit, thank you for the detailed analysis of their arguments.

  • 35. AndrewPDX  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:06 am

    OT, but…
    HAPPY BIRTHDAY US CONSTITUTION

    The US Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 36. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:11 am

    And what a splendid idea that was, too.

  • 37. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:12 am

    This should be fun to watch develope!
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100917/en_

  • 38. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:12 am

    SHIT!!
    There are some seriously crazy people in this world.
    UGH!!!

  • 39. Alan E.  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:17 am

    At least something stuck after the first few tries at a government failed. I'm glad that it was one that embodied equality and (eventually) discourage discrimination.

  • 40. Ronnie  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:18 am

    Thankfully the injuries were not life threatening…never the less…it still falls under: his blood in on NOM's, FRC, FOF, etc hands….they should be held accountable for the part they play in enabling sociopaths like this repugnant "person".

    >I ….Ronnie

  • 41. Alan E.  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Anyone have a recording of last night's conference call? I imagine that a transcript is not available yet.

  • 42. elliom  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Hey all:

    Fmr SC Justice Bryer is taking calls this morning on KQED's Forum (88.5 FM or http://www.kqed.org/radio/programs/forum/index.js

  • 43. elliom  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:37 am

    Oops…that Breyer.

  • 44. Alan E.  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:39 am

    I'll have to download it later. All of the episodes are available on itunes or from the website for free. I once called in to ask a question on Forum, and my dad heard it across the country because it's available on satellite radio. It's a fantastic program!

  • 45. elliom  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:42 am

    Oh, I'm definately an NPR junkie! :>

  • 46. Don in Texas  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:58 am

    This little essay that I sent to my email friends today is rather lengthy and for that I apologize in advance:

    Constitution Day, 2010

    Today, by act of Congress, Americans observe Constitution and Citizenship Day.

    On September 17, 1787, forty-two statesmen gathered in Independence Hall in Philadelphia to adopt a charter to govern the new United States of America. Drawing on the teachings of the leading lights of the Enlightenment — John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Baron De Montesquieu, among others — delegates to the Constitutional Convention crafted a blueprint for government that divided and limited power, established a system of checks and balances and prescribed the manner in which elected officials were to conduct the business of the people.

    Thirty-nine of the original 55 delegates present in Philadelphia on that day signed the document– but three refused to do so because it contained no Bill of Rights.

    The dissenters included Eldridge Gerry of Massachusetts for whom the term “gerrymander” later would be coined. Gerry went on to serve as Vice President of the United States. Another was Edmond Randolph who, as governor of Virginia, presented James Madison’s Virginia Plan – the blueprint for the eventual Constitution – to the Convention. President Washington named Randolph as the first Attorney General of the United States. The third, Colonel George Mason, principal author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, thundered that he would sooner “cut off my good right hand and leave it in the fair city of Philadelphia before I affix my signature to this document without a Bill of Rights.” Of course, Mason didn’t cut off his hand — but he didn’t sign the Constitution, either. He retired from public life and spent the remainder of his days on his plantation in his beloved Virginia.

    As the price for ratification of the Constitution, James Madison promised the enactment of a Bill of Rights as one of the first orders of business of the new government created by the document. True to his word, Madison set about that enactment during the first term of Congress, in the spring of 1789. At various state ratifying conventions, at least 112 proposals for inclusion in a Bill of Rights were proposed. The House of Representatives refined that number to just 18, passed them and sent them to the Senate. There, the 18 proposed amendments were reduced to 12 and returned to the House, which approved them and sent them to the States for ratification.

    The first proposed amendment, which dealt with the ratio of representation in the House, was never ratified. The second, which required that an election of the House must intervene between enactment of a Congressional pay raise and its effectuation, required 203 years to be ratified and eventually became the 27th and last amendment to the Constitution in 1992. The remaining 10 amendments were speedily ratified by the States and on December 15, 1791, became what we now call the Bill of Rights.

    The Constitution is the sovereign act – final and unrepealable – of the people of the United States to “ordain and establish” a government to act in their best interests. The Preamble clearly states the purposes for which the Constitution was created: to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for all Americans, present and future. By its own declaration, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. It defines and limits the government, but does not limit the rights of the people.

    Writing for the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan, [71 U.S. 2 (4 Wall.) 1866] Mr. Justice Davis cited the Framers when he said, “Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future.

    “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false, for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.”

    For 223 years, the United States Constitution has served as the instrument by which Americans govern themselves. This living document is testament to the bedrock principle that all political power inheres in the people and that government exists to serve the people. It guarantees that all of us will remain free so long as the rule of law under the Constitution – not the rule of men – prevails in the United States of America.

    – Don in Texas, September 17, 2010

  • 47. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:02 am

    Fiona, you can join Ann and me here a-rockin' on my deck. We'll pull up another rocker for you.

  • 48. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Yes, indeed! C'mon and join us in rocking and yelling, "you kids get offa my lawn!!"

  • 49. RAJ  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Is there a time deadline for the D-I's to file? Could it come at anytime today? or not until late in the afternoon/evening?

  • 50. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:06 am

    Thought I would share this bit of news that I just got from Gay Marriage Watch. Bozeman, MT is joining the fight for marriage equality with a resolution in support of seven same sex couples who are suing for marriage.
    http://purpleunions.com/blog/2010/09/mt-bozeman-t

  • 51. Alan E.  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Riding the bus has made me feel older by complaining about them damn kids. It was so nice over the summer when they didn't flood the system. The tourists may not know what they are doing or where they are going, but they are at least more tolerable than the kids.

  • 52. Don in Texas  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Justice Stephen Breyer's brother, Charles R. Breyer, sits on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

  • 53. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:09 am

    No one seems to know for sure. All I know now for certain is that it wasn't at 9:00 am, as that has passed. So the next possible deadlines appear to be 5:00 pm and midnight.

  • 54. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:11 am

    And what are 'they" planning to do about all those fetuses they don't want aborted but whose bio-parents don't want them either if "they" are against adoption? Sounds to me like an argument for the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

  • 55. RAJ  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Thank you Kate.

  • 56. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:12 am

    This is exactly what all of the unfounded preaching from NOM, FotF, FRC, Lou Engle, Christine O'Donnell, Mike Huckabee, Fred Phelps, and all of those like them leads to. This is exactly why we need to mobilize more and not only get out on the streets, but get into the voting booth and into the court system.

  • 57. Alan E.  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:13 am

    Don, I am posting this at work today. We are having a Park(ing) Day where we are taking over a section of the parking lot to create a mini park. There are smores and enjoyment. This will make a nice addition to the party to know what else we should be celebrating!

  • 58. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:15 am

    I feel as though I've psychologically parented myself, although I agree that I haven't biologically self-parented.

  • 59. Straight Grandmother  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:36 am

    Elliom, I went tot he website but the show is not yet available to hear (download) I hope I remeber to check back as I would really enjoy hearing from a Supreme Court Justice.

  • 60. Straight Grandmother  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:38 am

    I don't think he should be fired either. He has First Amendment rights to free speech when he is not on the clock.

  • 61. Evelyn J. Brooks  |  September 17, 2010 at 5:12 am

    That's a point that I've been trying to make for a while now. Proponents of Marriage Inequality make arguments that not only diminish the validity of same sex couples, but any and every kind of couple but one.

    This means that the couple that adopts are hurting the institution of marriage by "denying children their biological mother and father" – older citizens who join in unions of marriage do not fully live up to the purpose of the institution because they cannot have biological children, and any couple with the inability to have children face the exact same scrutiny. It's a piss poor argument that actually invalidates more straight couples than same sex couples.

  • 62. Straight Grandmother  |  September 17, 2010 at 5:37 am

    You r right, they are not consistant in their message. Why? Bigotry, that's why.

  • 63. Dave P.  |  September 17, 2010 at 5:53 am

    "If only people could see that the real harm to children comes not from what gender the parents are, but how effective the parents are."

    - the way I see it, the REAL harm to children comes from ignorant hateful bigots outside of the family who seek to harm same sex couples (like that judge who kept stalling your adoptions) and who don't give a damn that they are also hurting the children in the process. These people should be charged with any number of crimes involving child endangering. ESPECIALLY if they are a judge.

  • 64. JonT  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:20 am

    الاشتراك

  • 65. JonT  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:51 am

    Wow, those videos were really telling :)

    They simply do not have any legitimate arguments against marriage equality.

    The last video was interesting, in which the anti-SSM lawyer was asked (paraphrasing): "Could we make it illegal for a convicted sex offender to get married?"

    The lawyer's answer: no.

    Huh. So a sex offender, even a child molester-type sex offender, has a greater right to get married (and procreate and raise children of course) than LGBT people.

    Yeah, that logic makes total sense :)

    PS: Like others, I so wish the prop8 trial was televised. Maybe the video recording that was made might be released someday.

  • 66. JonT  |  September 17, 2010 at 7:13 am

    'Do they not realize that practically 100% of the kids in the foster care system are there because their straight parents are unable to raise them?'

    Apparently that nuance eludes them. I spent most of my childhood in foster homes, groups home, receiving centers and once, very briefly, in a juvenile detention center.

    The fact that I had two biological parents didn't help much :)

    'If only people could see that the real harm to children comes not from what gender the parents are, but how effective the parents are.'

    Exactly! If only…

    My thanks to you and your partner Chuck, I owe a lot to some of the house parents/foster parents I lived with, I'm sure your kids will remember you guys fondly as well.

  • 67. JonT  |  September 17, 2010 at 7:21 am

    I hope the turn-out dwarfs beck's and nom's rallies combined :)

    That would send a nice message.

  • 68. Paul in Minneapolis  |  September 17, 2010 at 7:42 am

    Their outsides are disgusting, too….

  • 69. Dpeck  |  September 17, 2010 at 8:16 am

    First again??
    OK, today we get dutch STROOPWAFFELS!

  • 70. Alan E.  |  September 17, 2010 at 10:44 am

    OMG the world must be coming close to an end. OnenewsNow actually quoted someone from ACLU in a positive manner that added substance to one of their articles!

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1169844

  • 71. Rhie  |  September 17, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    just watching

  • 72. Phillip R  |  September 17, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Hi Chuck,

    Sorry to derail…but your first few sentences caught my eye. My partner and I also live in Missouri and have been looking into surrogacy options. How did you manage to get both of your names on the birth certificate? I was under the impression that MO wasn't exactly accommodating on that front.

    Don't have to drag it all out here but if you've got some time to talk about it, I'd love to know how you handled the legalities of your adoption. Just throw me an email: prkoons1@cougars.ccis.edu

    Thanks!

  • 73. Steven  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    Any word on Pro Protectmarriage's briefs yet????? its 8:04 pm

  • 74. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:44 pm

    Nada. Zip. Zilch.

    Not yet.

  • 75. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    What happens if they don't get them in on time?

  • 76. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    Don't you have any questions about office leases? I can answer those easily.

    My best guess is that the court could fine them or penalize them or even throw the case out (as to the party failing to file), unless they can show some sort of hardship or some good reason, and they can show the other side isn't harmed.

    In short, I think the court has some discretion to give them leeway, or not.

    It's never a good idea to tick off the court by missing deadlines, of course. I'm surprised they haven't filed yet. I wouldn't want to cut it this close if I were them, but that's yet another reason I negotiate leases rather than doing litigation.

  • 77. Lightning Baltimore  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    Brian Brown has to have sex with James Dobson, and Maggie Gallagher has to do it with Phyllis Schlafly.

  • 78. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    LOL!

  • 79. Rhie  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    You are truly wonderful people. That judge is a sick, sick man, and we ought to feel sorry for him.

    I hope your boys are doing better.

  • 80. Rhie  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    Wonderful! Thanks for the reminder!

  • 81. Rhie  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    I thought there wasn't going to be a transcript? If no one else wants to do it, I don't mind writing it from the recording as soon as it is posted.

  • 82. Steven  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    LMAO…………………… i have a better idea!!!!!!!!!!!! they have to take questions from US…….. no lies, no half truth. just their TRUE feelings about LGBT…………..

    IF THEY LIE…….. they have to donate all of their $$$$$ to last cents to A LGBT cause..and adopt a GAY child……..

  • 83. Lightning Baltimore  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    What a horrible thing to do to a gay child!

    I say they have to sacrifice one of their own, like Jepthath sacrificed his daughter to God.

    NOTE: of course, I'm joking!

  • 84. Lora  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    And murderers on death row can still marry even with the restriction of no conjugal visits…ever, but that's ok…wouldn't want to step on their civil rights!! Sickening!

  • 85. Lora  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    If only it was on the west coast!
    What do we get in Sacramento??? TheCall. Damn it!

  • 86. Chuck S  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    They are doing much better…the adoption was completed in December of 2007. They are now 17 & 21. We actually hired our 21 year old to work as a 'nanny' (or manny as he calls himself) assisting us with our younger kids.

  • 87. Rhie  |  September 17, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    Glad to hear it. That's so cute about your 21 year old "manny". :)

  • 88. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 18, 2010 at 2:08 am

    And they have to borrow a line from Senator Jenrette's playbook of romance and do it on the Capitol steps!

  • 89. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 18, 2010 at 2:22 am

    I also found out that yesterday was the birthday of the US Air Force!

  • 90. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 18, 2010 at 2:34 am

    Exactly! Why is it that Charles Manson can get married, but I can't?

  • 91. Lora  |  September 18, 2010 at 6:56 am

    …and then this news out of Montana today:

    Montana GOP policy – Make homosexuality illegal.

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

  • 92. Ann S.  |  September 18, 2010 at 7:23 am

    Tell us again about that "big tent", GOP.

  • 93. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 19, 2010 at 7:33 am

    Defenders of Iowa court system warn against partisan crusade

    “It’s likely to prompt Iowa judges in future campaign cycles to form campaign committees, which they’re entitled to do, and solicit contributions to those committees. It will certainly attract or compel interested parties, particularly businesses, business associations, trial attorneys and labor to contribute money to campaigns in future Iowa retention campaigns,” he said.

    “We should be deeply concerned about the precedent this might set for Iowa business,” Kaut said. “In those states (where judges are elected), businesses have a difficult time predicting the legal climate of a state which can swing with each election. Interested parties in those states feel compelled to contribute out of concern that the courts will become partial toward those parties that do contribute.”

    Full Article: http://qctimes.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/a

  • 94. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 19, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    More from Stop8.org

    NOM's back with more misleading ads, and http://Stop8.org is ready to take 'em on. NOM is pretending to be annoyed at Iowa judges for "ignoring the will of voters," but since when did voters get a say in trials?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzYRKpzg62Y

  • 95. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:36 am

    As they're now fond of telling us, adjudicative facts are different from legislative facts.

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