The Gay Thing: American Gay Haters Go Global

The National Organization for Marriage was once a titan of a hate group, causing all kinds of strife for marriage equality supporters. They formed out of the ooze to push Prop 8 in California, and they won. They had other victories, and--despite having very bad arguments--seemed like they were going to steam-roller gay marriage. Of course they got a big push from the like-minded who came before them, with the seemingly contagious anti-gay state constitutional amendments that swept the nation in the early part of the century.

Then a funny thing happened. The tide turned, SCOTUS gave us a couple of big wins, and suddenly, NOM couldn't catch a break. Their wins were mostly inconsequential in the scheme of things, and their losses piled up high like cordwood. Through it all, NOM bigwig Brian Brown would declare that he was not anti-gay, merely trying to "protect marriage." He never fought to end divorce, or stop

Asshole.

adultery, only to block or reverse wins for same-sex marriage. All the while, Brown (and presumably his compatriots) has collected a hefty paycheck, pockets lined by the dwindling supporters and a couple of very wealthy, secretive donors.

Barring something extremely unexpected, it is very likely that the Supreme Court will take up one or several of the cases that have worked their way through the court system, almost unanimously in favor of marriage equality. Given the legal contortions that would be required to reverse all of these decisions--and earlier  cases as prior indication--most people seem to think that nationwide marriage equality could be a realty by next summer. So, how will Brian Brown continue to turn his singular "talent" into cash? Go global, baby.

Brown, and other anti-gay religious zealots, has decided to turn to other countries, places where anti-gay legislation is an easier sell. Only rather than merely "protecting marriage" (an Orwellian phrase if ever there was one), he could be associated with legislation that actually imprisons or kills people. And we're supposed to think this is some noble, loving, "Christian" cause?

[Excerpt]

America's gay rights battle goes global

Starting in 2012, the leader of the most prominent American anti-gay marriage organization unexpectedly began adding a ton of stamps to his passport. As federal judges struck down gay marriage bans left and right at home, National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown appeared at meetings and marches for various anti-gay rights causes in France, Trinidad and Tobago, Russia and Australia — a surprising uptick in travel for the stateside activist. The result: In June, Brown’s group began discussing rebranding itself as the International Organization for Marriage, according to materials from a “March for Marriage” meeting in Washington, D.C. . .

Read more at: Yahoo!

The Gay Thing: NOM's Anti-gay Marriage March Goes Bust

What if you threw a rally, and nobody came? What if you spent a better part of the year on an image-making, national, relentlessly publicized event, and it blew up in your face? That's pretty much what happened to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) this past Thursday. The whole thing was so un-newsworthy, that even outlets like The Rachel Maddow Show and All in with Chris Hayes--which would ordinarily revel in NOM's failure--instead ignored it altogether.

Oh, but it was a failure. Even though NOM is wont to crop and Photoshop crowd pictures to give an illusion of success, and even though they claim "thousands" of participants attended, the truth is much more grim for them. News from on the ground was that a sizable chunk of the small crowd--likely closer to 500 than thousands, or even one thousand--were Spanish speaking tourists, there at the rally because they were given a free excursion to Washington DC, to see the sights.

The handwriting has been on the wall for a while that NOM is in decline. Their Twitter and Facebook pages have more gay supporters than NOM supporters. Their money begging emails and blog posts are becoming more and more desperate. And the rally is evidence that those appeals are falling on deaf ears. As the marriage equality movement continues to expand, and given the likelihood that nationwide same-sex marriage legality is on the horizon, how long can NOM stay in the game? How long can their leaders, notably Brian Brown, continue to draw enormous salaries? And how long can they continue to get name politicians to speak for them, even if they are punchlines like Rick

I've seen more people at a small, shopping center
carnival. Image from DailyKos

Santorum and Mike Huckabee?

[Excerpt]

NOM's Rally Crashed, Burned, Flopped, Failed, Fizzled, Disintegrated And Imploded All At Once

I will admit that before NOM's March for Straight Marriage yesterday, I was a little worried that it could do harm to our cause. I was worried that it might begin to roll back public opinion, possibly leading to a reluctance among judges to invalidate marriage discrimination laws. But the rally has not only invalidated my worries, it's actually made me more confident of winning than ever before. . .

Read more at: DailyKos


[Excerpt]

Inside NOM's Second Failed "March For Marriage"
 
On June 19, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) held its second March for Marriage - an event that proved to be largely a repeat of last year's march, with dismal attendance, bussed-in supporters, and examples of anti-gay animus on display. An estimated 2,000 attendees convened at the U.S. Capitol for a rally culminating in a march to the U.S. Supreme Court. As he did for last year's event, anti-equality State Sen. Ruben Diaz (D-NY) bussed in a large group of mostly Spanish-speaking evangelicals from the New York area, after promising rally-goers an expense-free trip to Washington to "visit the monuments." Equality Matters approached several attendees to ask about their reasons for attending the rally and their means of getting there, only to be told that they spoke little English. . .

Read more at: Media Matters

 

National Organization for Marrige Under Investigation in Iowa

This story makes me happy for a number of reasons, chief among them that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) might be in hot water. But there are many other reasons, among them:

- My husband is from Iowa
- We're legally married in the state of California, no thanks to NOM's efforts to undo that
- A sanctimonious Iowa preacher who is a former classmate, and his friend, a sanctimonious Iowa radio show host would hate for NOM to get into trouble or for them to have to disclose their donors

NOM's Brian Brown crying from a different loss. Let's
hope he does a whole lot more of this.
Image from ThinkProgress.

NOM is one of the leading anti-gay groups in the country, and is allied with most of the rest. It is curious why and how they are so powerful, when their actual following is so small. For instance, they are trying to get up to 10,000 followers on Twitter, and are only 3/4 of the way there. Consider that *I* follow them on Twitter, as do many other gay rights activists, and you can safely bet they're not even half-way to their goal, with actual supporters. That's a very, very small pool of people. On Facebook, they fare slightly better with about 36,000 followers. But the situation there is similar: many of the followers are actually just keeping tabs on them, again, like I do.

This is a tiny organization, that has had some major successes, mostly in the past. Their last big victory that wasn't already a forgone conclusion (as in North Carolina) was when they managed to recall three Iowa Supreme Court judges for acknowledging the right to same-sex marriage in the state. They were not successful on their next try, and have been steadily losing their mojo. But it would be interesting, nonetheless to see exactly who is funding these guys.

[Excerpt]

NOM slapped with ethics investigation in Iowa

The National Organization for Marriage is being investigated by an Iowa ethics committee, amid allegations that the group violated state law when it did not disclose its donors in a campaign to oust state Supreme Court justices. . .

Read more at: Salon

Ender's Game Movie Faces Boycott Over Author's Anti-gay Rhetoric

An image of a movie I will never pay to see (Harrison
Ford or not), from source, NBC News

I'm not usually one for boycotts, as I think they often just provide more attention for whatever is being boycotted. But in the case of Ender's Game, a forthcoming sci-fi movie, that's not really a problem. It is a genre movie based on a popular genre book. It only got made because it has a built-in audience. This particular boycott aims to trim that audience. There may be a "Chick-fil-A" effect, where otherwise disinterested anti-gay folks decide to support the film, but I doubt it is as large a group as gay sci-fi fans and their allies. I guess we'll find out.

So, I'm all for this one. Orson Scott Card isn't just a man with an opinion I disagree with. He sits on the board of The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the group responsible for the five-year battle in California to return the right to marriage equality. He's advocated the overthrow of the United States government should they legalize gay marriage! So, this is both personal for me (as half of a married-in-California gay couple), and a principled stand against a hateful author.

It is interesting, however, that Card seems to think NOM's mission is now futile. That gains him a small measure of a smile from me. NOM has to hate that.

[Excerpt]

'Ender's Game' author Orson Scott Card responds to calls to boycott film

 Author Orson Scott Card is finally speaking out after calls to boycott the film "Ender's Game," based on his award-winning novel of the same title, because of his anti-gay marriage views. . .

Read more at: NBC News

The Gay Thing: California, Here We Come!

We planned, long ago, to "return to the scene of the crime," and revisit Palm Springs on our fifth wedding anniversary. We got married a couple of weeks after same-sex marriage was legalized in June 2008. In November of that year, Proposition 8--sponsored largely by outside monies gathered in conjunction with the Catholic and Mormon Churches--passed on the same night Barack Obama was elected President. That was a paradoxical occurrence, one seemingly perfectly timed. The Prop 8 backers couldn't have known it, but that year was likely the very last time they could muster a majority vote against gay marriage in California.

Five long years have passed since that brief sunny period when same-sex couples could marry in California. At first, we were thrown into legal limbo. After some legal procedures we found out that stay that way, not that the Prop 8ers didn't try to annul us--they did. Next, there was a lawsuit against the state which resulted in throwing out Prop 8 as un-Constitutional, but wait! Can't let them just repeal it, no-no. A stay was placed, and appeal filed. . . and then an appeals court that concurred. . .then another stay. . .and then THE SUPREMES!

See, religious objectors? Not married in church, but at this
awesome city hall in Palm Springs. No Jesus, no "holy
matrimony." So, chill out.

Prop 8 had been legally drafted and voted upon (there had been procedural questions), and the 18,000 couples who had already married got to

For people like me who followed all of this, it was a long, aggravating slog. At all points along the way, and in internet message boards, Twitter, Facebook and elsewhere, we were subjected to homophobic idiots, all spewing the same loads of crap that failed in court. Worse, most "pro-traditional marriage" types seemed to have very little understanding of what the case entailed, though they think they know everything about "the homosexual lifestyle." Following that stuff is just a hideous, awful, viper's nest.

A lot of that is gloriously, fantastically over with. Of course, haters go'n hate, and there will still be spewing of nonsense. But it will be easier to let that stuff just roll off now.  California marriage equality will resume after a pointless, expensive interlude. I take great pleasure in knowing that the combined homophobic forces like National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and their affiliates spent millions and millions of dollars, and got nothing. This is my message to all of these busybody, Gladys Kravitzes. . .

So what does the death of Proposition 8, and the gutting of the badly named Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) mean for gay people? Well, it's not all 100% clear yet.  If you're legally married and reside within a state that recognizes it, you're good as gold, as married as married can be to all relevant government bodies and entities. If you're like me, and were married in a state that does recognize it, but live in one that doesn't, it's less clear, though it seems like we'll be able to have federal recognition, but not state.

I'm willing to bet that very, very soon, there will be several lawsuits over this very issue, and will very likely be won under the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. The question is this: will it have to be done in each of the 37 states that don't recognize it, or with SCOTUS step in again?

At this point, I don't care about all of that. We got a huge win in this, regardless of whatever spin you hear. NOM lost; straight up lost. And that makes me very happy.

Rick Santorum and NOM Under Ethics Investigation

Image from source.

If I were going to dream up some people to be investigated for wrongdoing, I could hardly do better than Rick (don't Google me) Santorum and the National Organization for Marriage. Throwing in the unshakably creepy Bob Vander Plaats is just icing on the cake Go git 'em Fred!

[Excerpt]

Rick Santorum And NOM Subjects Of New Federal Ethics Complaints Filings

Rick Santorum, the National Organization For Marriage (NOM) and Iowa anti-gay activist Bob Vander Plaats are reportedly about to become the subjects of ethics and election violations complaints which will be filed by Republican Fred Karger. Karger is charging NOM has been “money laundering” in Iowa elections and engaged in a “pay to play” scandal. . .

Read more at: The New Civil Rights Movement

NOM's Brian Brown: Gay Marriage Worse Than Death of Parent, Divorce

The oh-so-heterosexual Brian Brown.
Image from source, Raw Story

No. The head of the badly named National Organization for Marriage didn't really say that did he? Yeah, he really kind of did. Or rather, that is the logical conclusion to draw from his badly thought out, illogical argument that same-sex marriage somehow deprives a child of a parent.* One thing I'm really enjoying though, is watching these guys--this guy--start to lose. And lose it, apparently.

[Excerpt]

Brian Brown: Same sex marriage worse than death or divorce

Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, on Wednesday compared same-sex marriage to the death of a parent. In a prepared statement, Brown lashed out at the Rhode Island legislature for approving a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

*If it is not immediately obvious why this is such a bad argument, realize that gay parents already exist. We're not talking about the legality of gay people having children, or gay people adopting. We're talking about civil marriage equality. The kids of gay parents aren't going to suddenly lose or gain a parent should same-sex marriage be legalized. It's a very stupid arguement, but it seems to be NOM's "all-in" gambit.

We'll Have a Gay Old Time: Marriage News by the Truckload

Image from Huffington Post

"Truckload" might sound like the wrong metaphor, but you're forgetting about the lesbians, aren't you? Heh. Anyway, there has been a lot of marriage equality news. I know I swore I'd get away from "the gay," and I really thought that the subject would fade until June's big Supreme Court decisions. But truly, the love that dare not speak its name is really tired of being kept quiet, it would seem!

We're only to Wednesday, and already three states have jumped some hurdles on the way to passing marriage equality legislation, Nevada, Rhode Island and Delaware. If they are successful (and they still have a ways to go), they will join 9 states and Washington DC in allowing same-sex marriage, putting the percentage to over 25%. . .and that's pretty amazing, given that the first push against it really didn't hit until the late 90s.

More significant, at least in its immediacy is the decision of France to legalize same-sex marriage. It's sparked some violent overreaction from conservatives in the country, which is somewhat surprising. Supposedly, Europeans were supposed to be much more indifferent to the notion, we've been lead to believe. And you have to wonder how much of that has been the direct result of American meddling by the (badly named) National Organization for Marriage, which seems to be in the process of rebranding itself as international. Though they've uttered some perfunctory words of condemnation of the violence in France, they've been fanning the flames for weeks.

My bet is, that overworked, overblown reaction will peter out, and "gay marriage" will just become an ordinary thing, as it largely has in those countries and US states where it has already been passed. Now, it would be wonderful if this was NOM (IOM?)'s last gasp, and that the marriage equality wave would finally just crest over the civilized world. Then I could maybe really change the subject around here! But even with the swiftness of this movement, it still has a long way to go. Even so, the constant flurry of activity is very exciting to see.

[Excerpt]

France Legalizes Gay Marriage After Harsh Debate, Violent Protests

France legalized gay marriage on Tuesday after a wrenching national debate that exposed deep conservatism in the nation's heartland and triggered huge demonstrations that tapped into intense discontent with the Socialist government. Within hours, fiery clashes broke out between protesters and riot police. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Openly Gay NV State Senator, Kevin Atkinson
Image from ABC News

[Excerpt]

Gay Senator Comes Out As State Approves Same-Sex Marriage

While the country waits for rulings from the Supreme Court on the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8, states are rushing ahead to reform their own regulations on marriage. Several states have bills coming up on their legislative dockets that would allow gay couples to legally marry in their states. Rhode Island’s Senate Judiciary Committee and Delaware’s House are both set to vote on same-sex marriage bills today. Minnesota and Illinois are also engaged in fights over whether to open up marriage to gay couples. . .

Read more at: ABC News

SCOTUS to Take Up DOMA and Prop 8

Image from source, Towleroad

Starting today, and through tomorrow, the Supreme Court will be discussing two of the biggest gay rights cases ever before them. This is a time of jangled nerves for many gay rights activists (and just ordinary gay people), because you never know what SCOTUS is going to do. Will they rule on the merits of the case, or will they bend like a legal pretzel in order to arrive at the decision they want to deliver? Honestly, it could go either way. But I believe that if they actually rule on the merits, we're in good shape.

One good sign is that the pro-marriage equality side has some of the best legal minds around arguing for it, and they are from both the left and the right side of the aisle. Meanwhile, it would seem that the badly named "protect marriage" side has a second-stringer running things. Not sure what that's about, but there you go. And much like their really pathetic case in the original Proposition 8 case, their arguments are really, really bad.

Legally "gay married" for 5 years. No kids.
What does this argument have to do with me?

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and their affiliated  groups have been all over the place with their arguments since all of this started, sometimes distancing themselves from true homophobia, and other times dripping with it. But they've recently thrown all of their eggs into one basket, and have pinned all of their hopes on one argument: that marriage is for the conception, rearing and development of children, period. According to this argument, gay people should not be allowed to get married, because they can't create children exclusively within their relationship. Also, according to this argument, letting gay people marry deprives children of either their mother or their father.

I know, it's a head-scratcher. First of all, it's a straw man, since nobody anywhere has claimed that gay couples can produce biological children without outside help. But there are just so many problems with the argument on so many different levels, it's difficult to get them all out. But I'm going to try:

• Infertile and older couples are allowed to marry.
• Many married couples have no intention of having children.
• People can have children without getting married.
• Many gay couples have no intention of having children.
• Many straight couples adopt children, or use in vitro, just as gay couples do.
• Not allowing same-sex couples to marry won't stop them from being couples.
• Not allowing same-sex couples to marry won't stop them from sometimes raising children.
• Not allowing same-sex couples to marry won't magically make those with children suddenly have opposite sex parents in the picture.
• Stopping gay marriages won't give all children two opposite sex parents.
• "Protecting marriage" from gay people does nothing to strengthen heterosexual marriages, prevent divorces, or do anything whatsoever for straight peoples' children.
• Same sex marriages are not some imaginary hypothetical. There already thousands of legally married gay couples in America. What harm have they done?

There are other problems with the argument, such as the fact that it is insulting to adoptive parents. It is also counter-intuitive that they make such a strong argument that marriage is good for children, while depriving the children of gay parents the same thing. It's a twisty, goofy argument, and I find it hard to believe they've put all of their stock into it. It is also an argument that failed already in California. Even their best experts--such as they were-couldn't sell it.

So, I'm hoping that the Supremes are not too beholden to Antonin Scalia or Samuel Alito, or rather, that maybe those guys aren't as party line as we expect them to be. Because the Defense of Marriage Act is so clearly unconstitutional, and Prop 8 was too. And there has to date been no logical or reasonable argument for either. The fact that we're down to "kids need a mommy and daddy" when the argument isn't even a good fit? It just seems desperate, and it would be appalling if it worked.

[Excerpt]

Supreme Court Preview: Roberts, Kennedy, and their Court - Some Final Thoughts on Impacts and Outcomes

On Tuesday and Wednesday, March 26 and 27, the Supreme Court will hear more than 3 hours of arguments in the challenges to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry) and the Defense of Marriage Act (Windsor v. United States). In a series of short posts, I will preview and summarize the legal issues that will be raised. In this post, some general questions to consider. . .

Read more: Towleroad

UPDATE: If the internets are to be believed, the likely date of the Supreme Court's decision on Prop 8 and DOMA will be on June 27, 2013. That, coincidentally, is my fifth wedding anniversary. How bizarre is that?

Tuesday Was a Big Gay Day!

The gay rights victories have been piling up of late. This is--I'm sure--much to the consternation of groups like National Organization for Marriage and Pope Palpatine.  Screw 'em, we've been kicked around long enough!

[Excerpt]

Gay marriage clears first hurdle in Illinois Senate

Gay couples would be allowed to marry in Illinois under legislation that cleared a first hurdle Tuesday, setting up a key state Senate vote supporters say they want on or before Valentine's Day. . .

Read more at: Chicago Tribune

[Excerpt]

U.K. Takes Big Step to Legalize Gay Unions, as Some Tories Rebel 

British lawmakers voted in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry, taking a major step Tuesday toward adding the U.K. to a growing list of jurisdictions around the globe legalizing the practice, while highlighting the divisions in the Conservative Party. . .

Read more at: Wall Street Journal

John Boehner Spends $500K to Defend DOMA

Half a mil would buy a lot of bourbon, Boehner!
Image from source, Addicting Info.

You know, it's difficult to take John Boner Boehner seriously for a number of reasons. He's orange. He cries a lot. He says things that are obviously untrue, and acts unserious and immature given his position and stature. He almost always sounds like a drunk trying so hard to not sound drunk. And then there is something like this. Mr. "We Have to Reign in Spending™!!!" is spending a further $500,000 to defend the indefensible, the Defense of Marriage Act.

DOMA is an anachronistic, badly named, obviously unconstitutional law. It was signed by Bill Clinton, who'd been painted into a corner by conservatives over his support for gay rights. Along with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), it was an uncomfortable compromise in the early nineties. Clinton has denounced and regrets both policies. DADT is now history. DOMA should be--and so obviously, one day, will be--history too.

Today, the "protect marriage" crowd clings to DOMA, knowing that's all that stops marriage equality from spreading to all 50 states. If the Supreme Court strikes it down (as I hope) in June of next year, you can be sure the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) will be on the warpath for a Constitutional amendment to "protect marriage," a smokescreen that means "prevent gay people from having equal rights." But NOM is showing their true colors lately. It is very clear that protecting the word "marriage" or even the concept is not their aim. More and more, they're bringing out their hyper religiosity and their homophobia into the light of day. And their only real tactic is delay, delay, delay. I'm convinced they know they'll lose. But their business model is to stretch it out as long as possible. What else could it be? Meanwhile, Boehner throws good money after bad.

[Excerpt]

House Republicans Secretly Approve $500,000 Increase In Funds To Defend DOMA

Roll Call is reporting that in September, soon to be former Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA) secretly approved a $500,000 increase in a contract with a private law firm to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This is the second increase in funding allocated to Bancroft PLLC and former Solicitor General, Republican Paul Clement, to spend up to $2 million to defend the law in federal court. The contract was originally set at $500,000 and was raised on September 29, 2011 to $1.5 million and again on September 28, 2012 to its current level. . .

Read more at: Addicting Info

In Case You Missed It: "Washington Bears" Get Married--For Real

Both pictures of Larry Duncan and Randell Shepherd from source, MaddowBlog, and (obviously),
Meryl Schenker Photography.

The picture of the two lumberjack-looking dudes getting their marriage license in Washington state was a viral internet sensation (including here). Well, in case you missed it, they actually did get married. Legally. Which is great because, hey, good for them. And it's great because they show the world at once how not everyone fits a preconceived notion, and how harmless their marriage is to society. The "protect marriage" crowd has created a straw man, a false threat. Pack it in, NOM.

[Excerpt]

Way past wonderful gets more wonderful still

Last week, we ran photojournalist Meryl Schenker's great picture of two guys in Washington state getting a marriage license in the first hours of marriage equality there. . .

Source: MaddowBlog

Dan Savage vs. Brian Brown on The Bible and Gay Marriage

I got little blogging done on Wednesday night for Thursday morning for two reasons: 1) life sometimes gets in the way and, 2) I watched the hour long video below.

A little background: Dan Savage is an outspoken gay rights activist and sex advice columnist. He was asked to give a speech at a school (the school knowing who he was, and the subject matter involved), and he irritated a small segment of them by calling some of the things in the bible "bullshit." Brian Brown is the head of the "National Organization for Marriage" (NOM), the badly named group that wants to prevent or reverse same-sex marriage everywhere across America.  Brian challenged Savage to a bible debate after the school event, and the result is here:

My review of the piece will be brief, because the piece above is so long. First, Savage acquits himself well, sounding calm, prepared, logical and well-reasoned. I wish he would have steered the talk early to say: religion has nothing to do with CIVIL marriage unless the participants WANT it to. So, the Bible argument is largely irrelevant to the subject of marriage equality. But Dan makes his points well, speaks for his 15 minutes, and then somehow sits for 15 minutes through Brown's bit.

To his credit, Brown sat through Dan's time without interrupting too. Through Brown's portion though, I just kept returning to the thought, "irrelevant" to all the bible talk about marriage. Nobody is talking about changing holy matrimony in churches. I'm a gay-married atheist. This is all just piffle to me. But alas, a "Bible debate" was what was entered into. Moving on. . .

NOM created a whole page, and several blog posts about this event, before its release. The framing is decidedly
negative, at least toward Savage, and somewhat triumphant toward Brown.

Dan got some rebuttal time, and again acquitted himself well, but again didn't hammer home that civil marriage isn't about religion. He did point out that Brown's religion shouldn't dictate Savage's marriage, which was good, and that civil marriages don't have to be sanctified by any church. I just wish that point was the centerpiece. I really think it's the key to the whole argument.

Dan gets into a little trouble, being unable to restrain himself in Brown's rebuttal. But it doesn't come off rude, and as I said, I don't know how he managed to be so quiet for so long. Brown gets in too deep with the "marriage = children" business, which has far too many exceptions to be taken seriously. Brown fails on his explanation for why Leviticus is important with the gay stuff, but nothing else. Even the moderator couldn't pull it out of him. But, Brian Brown loses his entire argument when he says,

“Because you believe something is wrong, doesn’t mean you make it illegal.” — Brian Brown @ 47:55

And then, when he starts saying that gay marriage "can not exist," and gets into cats and dogs, he's just ridiculous. I was tempted to just stop there, but thought. . .I can push through this. As I continued to watch, I was struck by how well Savage--essentially on the defensive--comes off very strong, but not belligerent.Well, until a little later, where he gets more interrupty (I would have too!). Brian Brown by then end is on defense, and seems inflexible and frankly starts talking in circles.

Ultimately, Savage is dealing more in the fact-based world, and Brown is dealing in faith and conjecture (what might happen), which was bound to happen in this sort of debate. There were probably few fence-sitters swayed, unless they were already predisposed one way or the other. But they proved it can be done. If I had to score it, I'd give the edge to Savage, and it wouldn't even be close, except for demerits for his interrupting late in the debate. But I soooo understand. . .

Henry Rollins on Gay Marriage

It's great to have celebrity supporters and defenders of marriage equality. Even though the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has a token celebrity or two on board. It would, however, be safe to say that--to paraphrase Ann Coulter--Our celebrities are better than their celebrities. Of this, there is no doubt. For every Kirk Cameron, I can give you George Clooney, and five or ten celebrities from the A, B and C lists, and probably many more times that. And while I don't know if Chuck Norris has joined the anti-marriage equality bandwagon, even if he is, we've got a bigger bad ass. Henry Rollins. He trumps everyone.

National Organization for Marriage Recruits Kirk Cameran as Spokesman

Still cute. But sooo dumb! Image from Salon.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a typically badly-named arch conservative group that more accurately is against marriage equality.  They could even more accurately be described as anti-gay period, more than just anti-gay marriage, if their NOMBlog.com posts and commentary are to be believed. And, they are a hate group, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

They've been behind several successful state ballot issues to ban same-sex marriage. The people behind NOM are a little more difficult to figure out, and they continue to flout election laws about that, but that's not the point of this post. They are also quite ham-handed as an organization, electoral victories or not. For instance, a while back they got busted for hatching a plan to exploit and foster a rift between the LGBT and the black communities.  And after they got busted, they followed through with the plan undeterred, regularly posting divisive, race vs. sexuality articles. They also now feature people of color in their various stock photos pictures of happy NOM members.

They also were discovered to be seeking a spokesperson (or spokespeople) for NOM, to combat all of the high-profile celebrities who are on board for gay marriage. But remember when I said ham-handed? Here was their description of what they wanted:

"Hollywood with its cultural biases is far bigger than we can hope to be. We recognize this. But we also recognize the opportunity - the disproportionate potential impact of proactively seeking to gather and connect a community of artists, athletes, writers, beauty queens and other glamorous non-cognitive elites across national boundaries. (This is applying the Witherspoon and IAV model to non-intellectual elites.)"

(emphasis added)              [Source: GLAAD]

Non-cognitive! Which I can only interpret as "non-thinking," "unintelligent," "gullible" or "stupid." And the really, really funny part? They got somebody! And I'll grant them, Kirk Cameron--onetime teen heartthrob and costar of Growing Pains--fits the description. I don't know about "glamorous" or "elite" but he's still cute. And he's starred in all of those hilarious terrible Left Behind movies!

I'm guessing the gay stuff all somehow
links back to this picture. Image from
StayOnFountain.

Ever since Growing Pains, Cameron has been something of a church fart. He got involved in the dogma-heavy, thinking-light kind of Christianity that actually believes in the Tim LaHaye/Jerry Jenkins Armageddon nonsense. He thinks bananas are obviously divinely designed, because they fit in your hand and mouth so perfectly. Ahem. And he doesn't like gay people very much.

Which is perfect for NOM, because though they like to claim that they have nothing against "the gay," per se, they very clearly do. I can only hope that Kirk Cameron is one day discovered grabbing a banana in Griffith Park. . .while he's still employed by NOM!


[Excerpt]


Hey, Kirk Cameron, learn your Bible

Today in things you hadn’t heard about for a few months, we bring you a double-header: Kirk Cameron and the National Organization for Marriage. .  .


Read more at (with video!): Salon

Gay Parenting Study Not All it's Cracked Up to Be

Back when California's Proposition 8 case was in court, the defense had a terrible time with their case, chiefly, studies of gay parents vs. straight parents, and the fact that no study said one was worse or better than the other. Now, the very fact that parenting was even part of a marriage equality case shows you that anti-gay activists love to go off on tangents, especially "oh, won't someone please think of the children?"

As anyone with a working brain knows, having children is not a prerequisite of marriage, and unmarried people pop them out all the time. It's a red herring. But it's a red herring they are deeply attached to. So, it apparently became very important to prove that gay parents are somehow worse than a heterosexual mom and pop are. And so they did. Here's a hint for why your antennae should go up: the first two publications to tout this new study were The Washington Times (Rev. Moon's arch conservative paper) and Deseret News, a Mormon paper. Mormons--if you didn't know--are one of the main powers behind the scenes in restricting marriage equality.

So, that seemed like a tipoff. And I was right. There's a ton wrong with this study. But again: what does any of that have to do with marriage? If same-sex marriage were ended and prohibited all over the world, there are still going to be gay parents.

[Excerpt]


ABC's Carrie Gann sugarcoats anti-gay study paid for by anti-gay activists

. . .Not only does ABC bury the fact that the "study" was funded by anti-gay conservatives, but ABC's reporter Carrie Gann goes on to exonerate the conservatives and their study from any perception of bias (because, somehow, she knows it's really a good study). . .


Read more at: AmericaBlog

Listen Up, North Carolina!

Image from TPM.

This is an open letter to the voters of North Carolina. I have a lot to say, but I want this to be easy to read, so I'm resorting to bullet points. So, let's get right to it.

North Carolina, as you vote on Amendment 1, I want you to consider a few things:

• It is unusual to vote on citizens' rights in America. In fact, it's downright un-American (so vote no).
• "Gay marriage" is already prohibited in North Carolina. Putting it in your constitution is redundant (so vote no).
• The amendment is mean-spirited, going much further than merely "protecting" "traditional marriage" (so vote no).
• When same-sex marriage is eventually legal across the country (it's just a matter of time), these types of amendments are going to be embarrassing (so vote no).
• The busy-bodies who put these things on ballots are uniformly odious people. Nasty, despicable people. Look them up, Maggie Gallagher? Brian Brown? Tony Perkins? Who would want to be on their side (so vote no)?
• For those with religious objections, this is the most important part: We're not talking about "holy matrimony," we're talking about civil marriage. If civil marriage had anything to do with religion, interfaith couples and atheists couldn't get married (so vote no).

All that said, I fully expect North Carolina to vote this ugly amendment in. I'm shocked and appalled that this sort of thing can still happen at this late date. I'm disgusted and insulted to have my life and my relationship--gay married in Palm Springs in 2008--used as a political pawn. Especially when most of the "pro" side has used lies, fear, distortions, slander and insults. This thing will likely pass, but I'm hopeful that this movement is on the wane, and this is one of its last gasps.

[Excerpt]


Moderate NC weighs constitutional gay marriage ban

North Carolina has long prided itself on its moderate politics dating to the civil rights era, as well as its place as a New South leader and a hub for high-tech, banking and higher education. . .

Read more at: News-Sentinel.com

Gay Marriage Shouldn't be Allowed Because There Aren't Enough of Them?

A few points:

- Where same-sex marriages are legal, there has been no measurable effect on any other marriage.
- The number of people affected by civil rights laws should have no bearing on the legality of their rights. Whether it's .001% or 10%, their rights are important.
- Civil rights should never be up to public vote.
- Stock photos of happy hetero families prove nothing.
- Census measurements of gay people are never going to be conclusive, as long as some gay people feel the need to hide their identities.
- And on and on. . .

Found at: Joe.My.God.

Hate and Lies in North Carolina Anti-Gay Marriage Ad

Attention National Organization for Marriage (NOM), offshoot groups like the one who produced this ad, and anyone else who supports them:

- Voting on other people's rights is shockingly un-American.
- If gay people get married, it doesn't make opposite-sex marriages weaker.
- Voting against marriage equality doesn't make opposite-sex marriages stronger.
- Voting against marriage equality won't have affect poverty.
- Marriage isn't an entity that can be damaged by letting more people get married. Every marriage is individual, it isn't a zero-sum game.
- Gay people have been getting married in various states for many years now. Unless there is measureable damage from that, STFU.
- If your chief reason for opposing marriage equality is because "God says so," you are confusing civil marriage with "holy matrimony." No one should ever  be bound by law to follow anybody's religion.



Now, here is the disgraceful, factually incorrect ad. 

Tea Baggers Aren't the Only Ones With Offensive Signs

Image from source, Courage Campaign

When the NAACP sent out its tepid denunciation of the Tea Partiers' seeming condoning of racism in its ranks, it set off a firestorm that played out most notably in the Shirley Sherrod story.  FOX "News", Andrew Breitbart and others have tried to deny that racism exists among tea baggers by claiming reverse racism in the NAACP. In right-wing world, this logic flies, somehow.  But having followed the tea bagging phenomenon since it started, it doesn't convince me.  Not all the signs and ranting at the rallies is overtly racist, but some of it is. And that's all the NAACP was saying.  But it isn't only tea baggers waving highly inappropriate signs.

I've been following the National Organization for Marriage (NOM)'s "One Man, One Woman" bus tour, and mostly I've been amused.  At town after town, the tour has barely managed to scrape together enough fans to outnumber their own staff. And at almost every stop, counter-protesters have outnumbered, out organized and just outdone NOM.  Up til now, the only real noise that NOM has been able to generate is to whine about the counter-protesters, and over-inflating whatever "threat" they may pose.

I think that most of NOM's message, and most of their followers' signs are offensive in principle. But for someone familiar with the Rev. Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church, my offense meter isn't very sensitive. That said, this particular sign is particularly disgusting. Maybe ol' Fred might have himself a convert.

[Excerpt]

NOM supporter’s “solution to gay marriage”: Lynching gay couples

The National Organization for Marriage’s “One Man, One Woman” bus tour hit Indianapolis today and the LGBT community came out to greet them.


Since we’re hospitable Hoosiers, of course, our welcome wagon outnumbered the small dog and pony show put on by NOM and local religious right groups.


Over 250 LGBT and allied folks protested the rally, but only 40 fundies showed up. At least 10 of the anti-marriage equality crowd were NOM staff or local speakers; the rest of the group were older Caucasians and skewed slightly female. . .

Read more (with video) at: Courage Campaign