Comments on: Liveblogging Day 1: Daily Summary

By: Lessons from SCOTUS Anti-Camera Ruling

Lessons from SCOTUS Anti-Camera Ruling — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 03:15:01 +0000

[...] journalists are present, the case is being reported daily, it’s being live-blogged by the Courage Campaign and FireDogLake. There’s a complete record that will go up on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. [...]

By: Super Colon Cleanse

Super Colon Cleanse — Wed, 11 May 2011 14:33:12 +0000

Colon Cleanse Reviews…

[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]…

By: CBS rejects ManCrunch.com Superbowl ad... - Page 2 - TideFans.com

CBS rejects ManCrunch.com Superbowl ad... - Page 2 - TideFans.com — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:18:18 +0000

[...] Day 1: Opening statements and how Prop 8 was viewed by teh gheys Day 2: Domestic partnerships ≠ marriage and a history of discrimination Day 3: Homo marriage and its impact on hetero marriage Day 4: Gary marriage is good for economy, denial causes emotional harm Day 5: Gay parenting Day 6: Revisiting previous arguments on economics and predicted impact on hetero marriage Day 7: The BS that is "conversion therapy," minority vulnerability to popular opinion, and the religious funding of Prop 8 ads Day 8: Demonstration of ignorant vitriol against gays from (subpoenaed) Prop 8 leaders: a primer in logical fallacies Day 9: Is homo a choice? Day 10: Defense expert witness admits that DOMA and DADT are legislated discrimination, plus vile evidence dump Day 11: Gay marriage harms children and other fun assertions without proof Part I Day 12: Gay marriage harms children and other fun assertions without proof Part II [...]

By: Marriage, Civil Rights, and Personal Liberty | swirlspice

Marriage, Civil Rights, and Personal Liberty | swirlspice — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:09:31 +0000

[...] social meaning of marriage, as paraphrased by Courage Campaign Institute Chair Rick Jacobs while liveblogging Perry vs Schwarzenegger, aka the Prop 8 Trial: The ability to marry, to say I do, is a civil right. It demonstrates liberty. This can be seen in [...]

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:23:40 +0000

Thank you so much, it must be hard to type all this down as it plays out? We all appreciate the effort

By: Adrian T

Adrian T — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:12:30 +0000

Great effort and thank you. Shame that recording of the proceedings are not allow on the internet. To better spread this message reaching more people (for all purposes of news, knowledge and education), maybe enacting this blog into an "audio blog" can prove worthwhile. That way, it can be posted on youtube and other forms of social media. Just an idea.

By: Prup (aka Jim Benton

Prup (aka Jim Benton — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:14:31 +0000

Bea: Sadly, your comments are truer than you think. There have been repeated attempts to force schools to 'teach creationism' (or Intelligent Design, its twin that doesn't wear its clerical robes in public) and when the Dover decision stopped this, the effort switched to preventing schools from teaching evolution as well -- not a new thing, look at any HS biology textbook from the time of Scopes to Sputnik, or after Reagan.) In fact, when they were asked the question whether they believed in giving creationism equal time, or whether they themselves believed in Creationism, not one candidate for the Republican Nomination in 2008 was willing to answer NO, though some tap-danced around it. As for your racial point, the current battle in the Texas State Board of Education -- which sets the tone for textbooks throughout the country because of their purchasing power and because California's budgetary problems keeps it from being, as in the past, a counterweight to Texas -- in fact has involved several members seeking to have Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez removeed from, or downplayed in textbooks and be replaced by 'true American heroes' like Joe McCarthy. (See The Texas Freedom Network for the SBOE controversy, and PFAW's Right Wing Watch for the opinions of the leaders of our opponents on other issues.) Our battle is not just for our own rights, it IS a battle against (Fundamentalist) religious-based ignorance and malignity on many fronts. I celebrate the religious leaders who back us, but wish they would also fight against those who profess the same religions they do but use those religions as vehicles for hatreds of many kinds.

By: Bea M

Bea M — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:12:57 +0000

There's one thing I'm surprised no one's mentioned. Those against SSM say they are against it because they don't want their children taught about gay relationships because they think gay relationships are wrong. But there are a lot of things children are taught in school that their parents might not believe in. For instance, kids are taught about fossils and dinosaurs and the history of the world in school. Many Christians, who believe the Bible as written, think those things are blatantly false. But many still send their children to public school and there is no real battle about whether or not children should be taught about dinosaurs, because the parents have the right to tell their children, at home, that all that stuff is evil lies made up by the non-believers. Kids are also taught in school that all people are created equal and that blacks are just as good as whites, but racist parents can teach their kids as much prejudice as they want in the privacy of their own homes. Why can't they do the same thing with homosexuality? Why is there a proposition to protect children from gays, but not from any other controversial group of people or ideas? There is just no logic in the Prop 8 side's arguments.

By: Jesus V

Jesus V — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:03:27 +0000

Thank you for posting a very detail account of the day.

It brings me great joy to see this case being argued in court, for it becomes a recorded part of history.

"Until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunters. "

By: Prup (aka Jim Benton

Prup (aka Jim Benton — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:52:00 +0000

At first I was merely going to apologize to you, and admit that I had, in a way, misspoke, that what I should have made plain is that I knew of no leader or prominent spokesman in the fight against SSM who has expressed any sympathy for this position.

But then I thought harder and realized that I have seen no blog posts or comments supporting this from 'your side.' More importantly, I have seen no person on your side make the following statement, which I challenge you to do (realizing that I know neither your civil or religious marital status nor, given the ambiguity of your name, even your gender)

"I support the use of the term 'civil unions' for all non-religious aspects of marriage, and because I do so, renounce the use of the term 'marriage' — as far as it relates to any governmental aspects — for any relationship I am currently in, planning to join or may join in the future, and shall refuse any benefits conferred on such relationship by the federal government or my state that go beryond what such government grants to same sex couples who are in civil unions."

Do that, publicly, and get those people you know 'on your side' and I will accept your sincerity. Until then, I can see no argument you make that goes beyond 'I believe in separate but equal, but, of course, I believe the black schools should be improved so they are truly equal.' (An argument which was frequently made by people who were at the same time, refusing the increases in taxation needed to bring it about were they sincere..)