Leave a Comment Kathleen
VIDEOS: Brian Brown spins like a top as NOM turns police into nightclub bouncers enforcing an imaginary guest list
August 7, 2010
[tweetmeme source="CourageCampaign"]
(Arisha Hatch, Anthony Ash and Phyllis Lozano are on the ground in Atlanta for NOM’s next tour stop today at 2 p.m. EST. Arisha wrote this piece on Friday, but we had to bump it after the news came down that Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed motions against a stay in the Prop 8 case. You’ll definitely want to read Arisha’s thoughtful reflection piece below about what happened in Missouri a few days ago, including videos of our team being denied access as well as Brian Brown spinning like a top. The plot is thickening. — Eden James)
By Arisha Michelle Hatch
I’m sitting on the balcony of our Atlanta hotel and all I can think about is our experience at the NOM rally in Missouri on Thursday.
As many of you have read, one day after Judge Vaughn Walker’s landmark decision on Prop 8, NOM hosted a closed event in a public space in Clayton, Missouri, on Thursday. And yet again, NOM was far outnumbered by equality supporters, even on an evening in which one would assume turnout would be much higher.
The Courage Campaign Institute’s NOMTourTracker.com was not on the guest list, a similar scenario to the event in Annapolis NOM event when Jethro Rothe-Kushel, our videographer, was threatened with arrest for merely trying to film the event.
Watch this video that Anthony Ash shot and edited, showing his attempts to gain entry to the Missouri event, the response to his requests by police and NOM attendees, as well as Steve Houldworth and Graham Matthews, two men who were denied entry simply for holding hands:
I’m
As we approached the Memorial Park courtyard after the rally had ended, Brown walked quickly towards us – meeting us in the middle.
“I don’t want you to get – We should probably go over here in case the police decide they’re going to enforce” the permit.
Notice the phraseology: “in case the police decide.”
Based on what we observed, this statement couldn’t be farther from the truth.
It was clear that NOM had the final say on all guests. Officers were told to stop and question everyone, any “questionable” (or questioning) guests were told to wait by the blockade as the officer walked into the NOM rally to ask a staffer if the person could come in. The NOM staffer would either approve or disapprove their presence and the officer would come back and relay the message.
To say that the police officers had a decision in all of this – to throw them under the bus in that way – is, at minimum disingenuous.
But I suppose I shouldn’t expect anything less from Brown at this point.
I’m still baffled by what happended on Thursday. I just don’t understand NOM’s media strategy. On a day where message is so important; on the only day that all eyes were on NOM, they choose to block media access.
Why? What are they hiding? It just doesn’t make sense.
When I asked Brown why we weren’t permitted to come in, he gave us his typical song and dance. “You’re harassers . . . people didn’t want their children filmed.”
Ok, but what about FOX news Brian? Do they have special, non-child filming cameras that we don’t know about?
Once we made it out to the sidewalk, I asked Brown about Maggie Gallagher’s insinuation that Judge Walker’s sexual orientation impacted his decision.
“Maggie Gallagher said yesterday that being gay makes Judge Walker a prejudicial jurist on matters of marriage equality. Do you agree?”
He objected to how I paraphrased her position, but he knew what I was asking.
“The fact that Judge Walker was openly gay, clearly he was biased.”
Thanks for re-paraphrasing that one, Brian?
Based on Brown’s answer, an African-American judge should be precluded from determining whether African-Americans should be protected by the 14th Amendment; a woman jurist couldn’t decide a gender discrimination claim.
And although I consider myself fairly post-racial — believing more and more that class, not race, should be the dominant paradigm through which we analyze social trends and behavior –- I view Brown and Gallagher’s statements about Judge Walker as coded language that seeks to perpetuate a system of white, heterosexual, patriarchal dominance. Under Brown and Gallagher’s thinking, only representatives of a privileged class are not biased -– the oppressed can only be judged by the oppressor; the slave cannot judge the slaveholder.
I asked Brown about the Loving v. Virginia decision and how historical scholars say that the Supreme Court was ahead of public opinion when it held that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. I quoted the polling at somewhere between 70-80% being against interracial marriage at the time of the decision.
“What polling are you basing that on?” Brown shot back.
I didn’t have the specific numbers on hand, but I can now report that it was a 1968 Gallup poll on interracial marriage, showing 73% of Americans against it a year after the Loving v. Virginia decision. See that poll and the trend lines going back to 1958 for yourself in this screen shot of Gallup’s web site:
Amazingly, it wasn’t until the 1990s that more than half of Americans said they approved of marriage between blacks and whites.
So, what’s your answer to that, Mr. Brown?
Perhaps I’ll find out today in Atlanta at NOM’s next tour event in which Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., will be speaking at the rally in support of NOM.
It should be an interesting day. Stay tuned.
Filed under: NOM Tour Tracker,Right-wing
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
104 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Dave in ME | August 7, 2010 at 12:12 am
The hits keep coming!
Dave
2.
Sagesse | August 7, 2010 at 12:16 am
Still catching up on video, but the inbox is empty. Have at it, folks.
3.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 12:33 am
No wonder Brian can't wash his hair or put on a clean suit. He is too dizzy from all the spinning. I haven't seen tops spin this much.
4.
Johan de Vries | August 7, 2010 at 12:33 am
I find it rather fascinating how smoothly he thinks can manage to talk him out of certain questions. First denying the majority opposition to interracial marriages, but…… juuuust in case he might be wrong (which unsurprisingly he was), he manages to spin it around to fit their bill anyway. I'll give him credit for ingenuity…
(eleborate way to say I'm subscribing…
)
5.
Ķĭŗîļĺę& | August 7, 2010 at 12:35 am
Facebook sharing link in the beginning of the article doesn't work correctly.
6.
Anonygrl | August 7, 2010 at 12:42 am
Someone on the ground in Atlanta should make up a sign that says
"A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"
which is the "motto" listed on the A.D. King Foundation Website.
A.D. King, like his brother, was a mover and shaker in the civil rights movement. Someone might want to just remind his daughter what "civil rights" means.
7.
Sagesse | August 7, 2010 at 12:46 am
Arisha,
Too bad you don't have Brian's e-mail address. You and he are buds now, right? Then you could e-mail him things like the Gallup poll results, and ask him again next time you meet
.
8.
Anonygrl | August 7, 2010 at 12:46 am
It was ABSURD to even HOLD the trial, Brian????
Someone needs to smack that man with a tree branch.
9.
Linda | August 7, 2010 at 12:51 am
It would be soooooooooooo nice to hear BS and Maggie refer to something that actually took place DURING the trial–testimony, perhaps? Evidence presented, perhaps?–to defend their 'circus' trial claims. Wouldn't it? Gosh, can you imagine how refreshing it would be to actually hear factual aguments come out of their mouths?
Is their a limit to the number of lies and misquotes an organization can make before they ar stripped of their tax-exempt status?
I want to know: which arguments from the defense were ignored by Judge Walker, and which Facts (in that 136 page document) were unfounded–legally. I don't want to hear their spin or their wild accusations.
What evidence, presented at trial, was over-looked, Brian? Maggie? What Facts were unsubstantiated?
10.
Anonygrl | August 7, 2010 at 12:52 am
He IS spinning. And he sounds defensive, and more scared than he has EVER sounded. Wow!
Arisha! You are a FABULOUS! You totally did exactly what you set out to do! You did GREAT! And you offered him a shovel and let him dig his own hole!!
Well done! Keep it up!!
11.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 12:58 am
May I have that honor?
12.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 7, 2010 at 1:04 am
I'm fightin' you for that tree branch, Richard!
13.
Anonygrl | August 7, 2010 at 1:06 am
Auditions for the role of Maggie will be announced…
14.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 7, 2010 at 1:07 am
If I don't get Saggie, can I be Humpty?
15.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 1:08 am
Anonygrl, the shovel Arisha handed BB was superfluous, as he has been using a backhoe to dig that hole for some time now.
16.
Johan de Vries | August 7, 2010 at 1:12 am
Honestly, those are the exact questions I would so like to see answered. I would ask them on their blog, but I can't. If anyone could get an answer out of Brian that deals with these question that would be fantastic.
If he sputters, make sure to remind him that both the plaintiffs and the defense agreed to Walker being the judge, despite him being gay. And that the defense was just worthless to be honest. That oughta make him squirm.
17.
Ronnie | August 7, 2010 at 1:29 am
"Brian Brown spins like a top as NOM turns police into nightclub bouncers enforcing an imaginary guest list"
That was a great headline to wake up…I laughed so hard I couldn't breathe…..Brain Brown Suit is filled with so much FAIL…..<3…Ronnie
18.
Mark | August 7, 2010 at 1:37 am
On the subject of bias, given prop 8 supporters' arguments that straight marriage is somehow damaged by same sex marriage, woudn't that mean a straight judge who is or might ever become married would also be biased?
19.
Carling McManus | August 7, 2010 at 1:40 am
After watching so many frustrating videos, I thought you all at TrialTracker deserved a fun one. Enjoy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn4K1zjJ1qk&fe…
20.
MJFargo | August 7, 2010 at 1:41 am
NOM are always the "I'm like rubber your're like glue" kids, they behave in the very way they are accusing others. So much so that it is clearly calculation and not pathology (although it doesn't exempt them from other forms of that). How many times did Anderson Cooper have to ask Gallagher, "Why do you think Judge Walker is biased?" before she stopped yammering and said, "Why is he biased? I don't know." They're closing their rallies because they don't want anyone to ask them a specific question and then point out that they didn't answer it.
21.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 1:46 am
The one I have in mind (from my own back yard, mind you!) is big enough that it may take you, your husband, BZ and me working together. Of course, I could always let you have the tree branch while I use my favorite attitude adjuster–the handy, dandy, all-purpose cast iron skillet. Works better than a taser and never needs to be recharged.
22.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 7, 2010 at 1:48 am
I love group efforts; I'm in!
23.
Mark M | August 7, 2010 at 1:50 am
Me Me Me!!!!
Pick Me!!!
24.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 1:52 am
Actually, what BB needs to be reminded of is that it is still only speculation based on hearsay that Judge Walker IS gay. I myself will not believe one way or the other until I hear Judge Walker make the statement about his orientation. That is the only way to know for sure whether he is gay or just a happily celibate heterosexual male with good critical thinking skills and the ability to consider the facts for what they are.
25.
Linda | August 7, 2010 at 1:53 am
I think they're closing the rallies, because they need to get more specific in their hate talk, and they don't want that video-taped. Really, the stuff they're spewing about Judge Walker could be grounds for a slander suit.
Interesting, though–they go on and on about the right of religious folk to speak their views in the 'public square'; what they didn't say was that coupled with that right, they want the right to make that 'public square' a private one with entrance granted by invitation only. Can you imagine our side trying that same trick?! And wasn't it amazing to see the looks of disbelief when Arisha talked to the attendees and told them she had been denied entrance. They assumed she was lying; that's why that lady took her and questioned the officers; she was calling Arisha's bluff. She sure left in a hurry when she found out Arisha wasn't lying. And did you notice the look that other 'gentleman' gave Arisha when he figured out 'who' she was? Ha! All I have to say is, Arisha, you rock! You have willingly walked in our shoes for mile after mile after mile with nary a disclaimer. Thanks!
26.
Alan E. | August 7, 2010 at 1:54 am
Subscribing.
27.
Linda | August 7, 2010 at 1:55 am
Oh, come now Richard–he lives in San Francisco! What more proof do you need???
28.
Lori | August 7, 2010 at 2:01 am
My question for Brian Brown: Have you actually taken the time to read all 136 pages of Walker's decision?
29.
Alan E. | August 7, 2010 at 2:02 am
I just got this message from my brother. He's in Richmond, VA:
30.
Alan E. | August 7, 2010 at 2:06 am
I love how Anthony says "tour"
31.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 2:08 am
I need to hear it from Judge Walker's mouth. Yes, I read the sarcasm in your comment. That sarcasm is there because none of us are like BB, MG, LJM, or any of their ilk. We here all have functioning minds and know how to use them. We rely on facts, not hearsay and other speculation. There is also the fact that I know lots of people who live in San Francisco who are very heterosexual, many of whom are married with children. And they have all told me the same thing I have heard here and in other places both online and off line. They will feel even more married when BZ and I can get legally married and not have to carry two tons of paperwork with us everywhere we go, even here in NC, where we live, to prove our relationship.
Thank you for helping me get this off my chest, LInda. But then, that just proves that you. like the rest of the lovely folks I have met here, are part of the P8TT mispocah (for those who have not yet seen this, that's Yiddish for family. We also use the abbreviation MOT (Member of the Tribe).).
32.
Sagesse | August 7, 2010 at 2:12 am
They don't read the facts, they just read the conclusions, and assume the judge made up the parts they disagree with out of thin air. That all judges go into a trial with a point of view, and use the bench as their tool to just 'put it out there'.
33.
Johan de Vries | August 7, 2010 at 2:23 am
Richard, my apologies. It was my understanding him being gay was confirmed and unchallenged. Lesson learned for me.
34.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 2:24 am
WAY TO GO, ALAN!!!!! We have friends in Richmond. When we head up to DC on each of our wedding related trips, I'll PM you with dates and such.
35.
Spectral shift | August 7, 2010 at 2:25 am
I really have to wonder how those Clayton police officers felt about being employed and supervised as screeners and bouncers by someone who isn't their boss.
I also wonder how the law feels about that.
The English teacher in me suggests a couple changes:
– "FOX" should be "Fox." It's not an acronym like "NOM." The name ultimately goes back to someone named William Fox. It's like writing "BREITBART" or "BLOOMBERG." Fox might appreciate the puffery and aggrandizement, and its commercial value, but it would be more just if such proppings up were withheld.
– "Brian could care less" probably ought to be "Brian couldn't care less." "Couldn't care less" is direct, while "could care less" is complicatedly sarcastic. "Couldn't care less" is cleaner and clearer in my opinion.
36.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 2:30 am
Apology accepted. But then, that has been one of the things I have often said keeps me coming back to P8TT. Each and every one of us here learns something every day from everyone else here. Are you on FB, by any chance? If so, feel free to send a friend request. The best way to find me is to go to the Prop 8 Trial Trackers group. You will find me there. Profile pic shows me in a suit, as it is a picture taken for professional reasons.
37.
Anonygrl | August 7, 2010 at 2:32 am
I'd play Maggie myself, but at 5'11" I am about 2' taller than she is.
38.
Steve | August 7, 2010 at 2:39 am
They should have had a same-sex couple in there
39.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 2:43 am
You also are nowhere near as mean, and you are a lot smaller. I have seen your FB picture, and you are an average size woman of a healthy weight. Maggie is not.
Besides, I don't think there is enough theatrical makeup to convert you into anything that ugly.
40.
Anonygrl | August 7, 2010 at 2:47 am
Pictures can be deceiving… I am a large woman… but I will grant you the thing about the makeup, and thank you.
41.
5639 | August 7, 2010 at 2:48 am
Another day that Brian Brown refuses to talk about a hypothetical (when posed to him as a question), yet rambles on and on about his own hypothetical poppycock.
42.
Anonygrl | August 7, 2010 at 2:50 am
Does anyone have an uncle with a barn?
43.
Ann S. | August 7, 2010 at 3:01 am
More mail, please.
Good morning, Brian.
44.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 3:03 am
No, but our son has one in his backyard. Rather rural area, too.
45.
Soleil | August 7, 2010 at 3:07 am
Thank you for doing this- all of you.
You are all my heros. <3
46.
Colin | August 7, 2010 at 3:13 am
Thanks for posting this link to the poll.
I often reference the opinions of the majority about interracial marriage at the time in which it "was an issue" when rebutting the claims made by NOM-types that a majority opinion is absolute in its authority.
As expected, either they don't believe the statistic, or if they do, they always scoff at the idea that gay rights (which they don't even recognize) can be compared in any way to "Loving" or any civil rights movement that was based on race or gender.
But this point is instrumental in highlighting two things:
1. not so much that the discrimination tailored to gays is the same as past examples towards blacks, but that it is based on the same sort of false stereotyping and fear-mongering. I think it is interesting to note that there is more of an acceptance of gay marriage and homosexuality in general today than there was of interracial marriage, desegregation, women's rights to vote, etc, in decades past. That said, I would expect poll numbers like this to trend toward the direction of overwhelming acceptance of gay marriage over time to the point where it beomes the non-issue that it should be.
Moreover, the real purpose of the same-sex marriage issue is to destroy, in the long run, the false stereotypes and accusations made about homosexuals – which are not fact based. This MUST be done through the enforcing of statutes and case law, since that process is based on a rational investigation of facts.
NOM's actions of preventing Pro-Equality protester's from filming for the reason that they "don't want their children filmed," is a classic example of this type of negative stereotyping, that is, associating, or making a parallel between homosexuality and pedophilia. The insinuation is unmistakable, and it is insulting, false, and irresponsibly dangerous in its ignorance.
2. This point is also important in highlighting the well established precedent that the majority of a population in the US does NOT have absolute authority in determining and recognizing rights. If they did, well, I'm sure it is safe to say we would be well behind the rest of the civilized world where equality and justice are measured.
Perhaps Alveda King would like to comment on Corretta Scott Kings open endorsement of gay rights as fitting firmly within the mold of civil rights? Who better to know MLK's vision of civil justice than her?
Here is her quote:
"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said. "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages." http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-24-ki…
-Colin
47.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 3:18 am
I firmly believe that Alveda's aunt and uncle are both spinning in their graves knowing that their niece is abusing their memory and her father's memory by appearing on the NOM speaker's platform. And she is no doubt well aware of how her aunt felt. Apparently, since she also has close ties to Glenn Beck, she chooses to ignore those views and instead accept the lies that others have spouted.
48.
AndrewPDX | August 7, 2010 at 3:23 am
Agreed… a couple of same-sex prom-goers mixed in would have made the point much better.
Love,
Andrew
49.
Wolfinlv | August 7, 2010 at 3:26 am
Maybe ask him this…
I ask a simple question… If God created marriage to be 1 man and 1 woman… God created one man, one woman and they had two sons one who killed the other… Um where did the rest of us come from. Abraham the father of three faiths married his sister who then asked him to KNOW hagar to have a child. If a man rap…es an unmarried virgin the punishment is to marry her. Or if you can't find a virgin bride Judges 21: 7-23 says to go to the neighboring village, kill all males, and non-virgins and take the virgins as your bride.. King David in the bible had many wives and many concubines. What about King Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines? So please explain how GOD CREATED marriage to be 1 man and 1 woman…
That's a question I asked on the wall of a group called "GOD created marriage to be between 1 man + 1 woman. PERIOD. on Facebook. I asked that question about 24hrs ago and there has been NO reply. Of course I signed it as I was ordained which probably threw them off. Surprisingly I've not been kicked yet. LOL
50.
AndrewPDX | August 7, 2010 at 3:27 am
I posted this yesterday, but I really believe we need to ask these two questions of Alveda (the first one, Colin mentions just above here):
1) Coretta Scott King, the widow of your uncle Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is quoted as saying “I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.” — How to you reconcile her message with your own message on LGBT rights?
2) You are listed as ‘a Senior Fellow at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution’ (sourced from Wikipedia). Are you familiar with Alexis de Tocqueville’s term “the tyranny of the majority” about how the people’s right to vote should not be allowed to “place that majority’s interests so far above a dissenting individual’s interest that the individual would be actively oppressed, just like the oppression by tyrants and despots”? How does that relate to the National Organization for Marriage’s statement that people should be allowed to vote whether the LGBT minority is allowed to marry or not?
LUCY, YOU’VE GOT SOME ‘SPLAININ’ TO DO!!!
Love,
Andrew
51.
Rich | August 7, 2010 at 3:33 am
Brian said that some people were not comfortable with their children being on camera – I was inside the rally – there were ZERO children inside the plaza. The only children I saw were the beautiful children on the sidewalk supporting the recognition of their family.
52.
Dave in CA | August 7, 2010 at 3:45 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…
Washington Post article; Judge Walker's ruling and SSM not likely to be a big issue this campaign season.
Best part is from the conclusion — and we seem to be seeing this already in NOM's sad and dwindling turnouts:
"…More significant for the future is the deep generational divide…. That's the more telling reason why Republicans are now conflicted about how to handle the issue…. Privately many say they can see where the issue is heading and fear they will be on the losing side of public opinion at some point in the future…"
53.
Sheryl | August 7, 2010 at 3:49 am
Good questions everyone. I really would like to have someone from NOM answer the questions about polygamy. If God created marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, then why all of the polygamists (who were in favor with God) throughout The Holy Bible?
As for the Adam and Eve and their 2 sons, they had more children (at least the belief in my religion) and some of those were girls. So, the belief that if same-sex marriage is allowed then brothers will want to marry sisters, well that must be in The Holy Bible because, as Christians believe, we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. I think all of those Christians need to do a little deep thinking about these issues.
Looking forward to the report from Atlanta.
Sheryl, Mormon mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay.
54.
truthspew | August 7, 2010 at 3:51 am
Ostensibly the park in question is a PUBLIC park. That is the part that irks me about all these NOM Bigot Cavalcades.
They encamp on state or city property and then proceed to use state or city police to act as buffers.
We ALL have a right to the public square or park, or city hall, or State House. ALL of US!
55.
Wolfinlv | August 7, 2010 at 4:01 am
Well most of these folk go by the KJV of the Bible which only says Cain and Able… No sisters… and if they had other children that means that Cain slept with his sisters or if there were both then they slept with each other… LOL
56.
Wolfinlv | August 7, 2010 at 4:06 am
Unless you get a permit to hold a private event there. Just like pride here in Vegas is in a public area but is a "private" event and they can charge if they want and they do for access to the event. Pride in San Jose, CA was the same way. They fenced off a public park, charge money to get in and therefore could deny access and did deny access to some.
57.
rick | August 7, 2010 at 4:11 am
i think you're missing the point guys… it's a satire about the protect marriage campaign from 2008.
58.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 4:24 am
Not in their eyes. Remember, they have tried to keep us away at every stop.
59.
AndrewPDX | August 7, 2010 at 4:25 am
Right… and they are also the type that take the English translations literally — they don't even take into account that the Bible is a few centuries older than English. Maybe there was a mistranslation or twelve along the way? Or a book or three that were left out by the old churches as being too … uncomfortable?
Personally, I have a hard enough time trying to make a two-person relationship work, I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to exponentially complicate things with polygamy. But that's just me.
Love,
Andrew
60.
Deacon Maccubbin | August 7, 2010 at 4:26 am
Okay, they've pulled this same "it's my party" stunt twice now, so they'll probably try to pull it again on future stops. Be prepared for it…
1) Print up a small flyer (similar in size and style to religious tracks) that invites attendees to follow the NOM tour as it goes from city to city by logging in to prop8trialtracker.com (or into nationalorganizationformarriage.com which you have cleverly redirected here – bravo). That flyer should also speak briefly about NOM's attempts to prevent people from observing their rallies.
2) Print out the NOM's own invitation to the rally and be sure you have copies for each protestor so they can show the police their invitation.
3) Have one or more attorneys from the ACLU or the National Lawyer's Guild on site or standing by ready to enforce public access if necessary through court order.
4) Have large signs that inform rally attendees about the attempt to keep the public out of the rallies ("What are they hiding?", etc.).
61.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 4:27 am
Yes, and the KJV that most of them are using is not even the "original" KJV, but the revision of it that was done in 1789. I found that out from a bookseller called CBD that actually sells both the KJV and the 1611 edition.
62.
AndrewPDX | August 7, 2010 at 4:28 am
Can we confirm if they really were able to get a permit to hold a private event in a public space?
For their sake, I sincerely hope so — they can't be that stupid, can they?
I know they've proven over and over again to be untrustworthy and unscrupulous and just plain stupid, but it's kinda insulting that this group of idiots have this much political power over us. It'd be easier to handle if they were competent adversaries.
Love,
Andrew
63.
AndrewPDX | August 7, 2010 at 4:31 am
I get the satire… but by excluding their LBGT classmates, they seem to also be endorsing that Proms are for straight high-school seniors only.
Love,
Andrew
64.
Steve | August 7, 2010 at 4:33 am
I know what it is. And I think it would have been even funnier for a same-sex couple to say that. Sort of using the same arguments that are brought against them.
65.
Anonygrl | August 7, 2010 at 4:36 am
Gonna be interesting to see how they try to keep people away in Washington DC as the stand "on the steps of the Capitol Building".
I wonder if they have a permit for that?
66.
AndrewPDX | August 7, 2010 at 4:39 am
Whoa! Did I miss an update someplace? when did we take http://www.nationalorganizationformarriage.com and make it redirect here? Was that someone from CC? It seems somewhat… sneaky… I dunno if I really like it.
I like the idea of the 'What are they hiding' signs. Since most NOMers are Christians, I'd also make a few of those signs with the passages that l8r_g8r quoted in the comments on the St.Louis stop:
Mat 10:26-27 (NIV) “There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the housetops.”
Mark 4:22 (Jer) “For there is nothing hidden but it must be disclosed, nothing kept secret except to be brought to light.”
Love,
Andrew
67.
Kathleen | August 7, 2010 at 4:41 am
No idea why I'm subscribing – I'm NEVER going to catch up with all these emails, but I'll do it anyway. Getting caught up is beginning to feel as unattainable as getting un-'grounded' as a teen. By the time I left home, I think I calculated I was grounded until I was at least 45.
68.
Ronnie | August 7, 2010 at 4:43 am
If they do I'll sue…I'm going to the D.C. stop…..That land is paid for by the people…ALL the people including LGBT's..you're damn right D.C. is gonna be interesting…..<3…Ronnie
69.
Ann S. | August 7, 2010 at 4:48 am
LOL — no, we'll never catch up. It's like the Red Queen — "it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place".
70.
Lora | August 7, 2010 at 4:49 am
I concur! Thank you too EVERYONE who works on this site, in the office and out in the field! It's much appreciated!!
Thanks also to all of you on here…posting, answering questions, supporting and just plain being good, nice, helpful human beings…gay and/or straight! <3
71.
Marlene | August 7, 2010 at 4:54 am
Need further proof? Here's America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers to explain it to you!
[youtube
72.
Kathleen | August 7, 2010 at 4:58 am
And I'm going to make the strategic error of stepping away from my computer for most of the afternoon.
If anyone is trying to reach me by email, don't assume I'm ignoring you. I'll find your message eventually!
73.
Kathleen | August 7, 2010 at 5:00 am
Frankly, I probably look the part. (which, by the way, my dear fellow Trial Trackers, makes it a tad painful to keep reading all the comments about her weight).
74.
Kathleen | August 7, 2010 at 5:06 am
SO COOL Alan. I'm proud to be your online friend. I can only imagine how your brother feels. xoxox
75.
Straight Grandmother | August 7, 2010 at 5:37 am
@Linda- You said, "I think they’re closing the rallies, because they need to get more specific in their hate talk, and they don’t want that video-taped"
I think you are exactly right! We did have an ally get into the event and report back to us. He could only stand it abut 6 minutes and left. I think we should be better at this. Have supporters enter incognito and make a more serious effort to take notes and report back. This is what it is about NOM Tracker. If we cna't get our cameras in then we need to do the next best thing. We are supposed to be tracking them, so if plan A doesn't work go to plan B.
76.
Straight Grandmother | August 7, 2010 at 5:45 am
As to all if the people who post that they apprecite this site I have a suggestion for you, make a donation. Buy some gasoline for the team. Hey pop for a full tank!
77.
Straight Grandmother | August 7, 2010 at 5:47 am
Stupid nonessential point. In Wisconsin we always said turning in thier graves, not spinning. But with the headline to this article I suppose you are more correct.
78.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 6:12 am
@ AndrewPDX. It is also very ironic that they DO have this much political power over us after their claims during the Prop H8 trial that WE are the ones with all the political power.
79.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 6:25 am
I can't even keep in the same place. Each one I read, I close to find that ten more have taken it's place.
80.
Straight Grandmother | August 7, 2010 at 6:28 am
Thank you Rich for this first person account,
81.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 6:37 am
Yes, and you have once again proven one of the best things about this site. You knew what I was talking about even though the term I learned growing up in West Virginia was slightly different from the term you learned in Wisconsin. Still looking forward to meeting you and your wonderful family.
82.
jc | August 7, 2010 at 6:44 am
i was thinking we could paint a little makeup on my dog's rear end…hmmm, wait…still too pretty for the role…
83.
l8r_g8r | August 7, 2010 at 6:51 am
Hmm… BSB turns my stomach.
"A gay judge determined that he himself was a member of a suspect class…"
Well, as Kathleen and I discussed a few days ago, we're somewhat of the opinion that the determination that gays and lesbians are members of a suspect class was dicta, meaning not instrumental to the judge's ultimate determination that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.
More specifically, Judge Walker determined that Proposition 8 passed because the evidence showed that persons in favor of excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage believe that marriage is special and should be reserved for opposite sex couples. By using logic (I know, BB, it's difficult for you…) that means that opposite sex couples were considered to be MORE WORTHY (synonym: Better, Superior, Chosen by God…) to enter into a marital relationship. By definition, that means that same sex couples were considered LESS WORTHY (synonym: Worse, inferior, From the DEVIL! [insert church-lady voice here]).
Such a belief is not legally prohibited. It is, however, a belief that cannot be codified into law because mere animus (aka, a belief that someone else is inferior) cannot be a basis for a law.
Now, if your side had presented even a scintilla of evidence that same-sex couples are not considered inferior, then perhaps, just perhaps, you would have a leg to stand on.
84.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 7:22 am
BS Brown is also taking speculation and hearsay and running with it. After all, the only "proof" we have that Judge Walker might be gay is a newspaper article quoting some folks who claimed it was an open secret. Has anyone ever actually heard Judge Vaughan R. Walker himself say one word about his sexual orientation? No. At least, I have not heard it from Judge Walker, not even in any soundbites. And believe me, the way Faux News is about the LGBTQQI community and the Prop H8 case, they would have been the very first ones to air that one. Someone really needs to call BSB out on that one and ask him why he is assuming Judge Walker is gay unless Judge Walker has made a pronouncement about it. And we also need to ask BSB why he is so hung up on only one part of our lives–the sex? Is he really that curious as to what it feels like? Or does he already know and he is trying to keep his friends from finding out so that they don't drop a weight on his chest if he ever decides to go to the gym and get in shape?
whose actions will shatter his closet door first:
1) Brian Brown
2) Louis J. Marinelli
3) Scott Lively
The voting is now open.
85.
Josiah | August 7, 2010 at 7:42 am
For reasons known only to Fox's branding executives, they prefer to be referred to as "FOX" rather than "Fox", probably so that they're in line with the older networks, ABC, CBS and NBC (whose names are, of course, all initials). However, I agree that there's no reason why we should go along with their corporate branding.
86.
Josiah | August 7, 2010 at 7:48 am
Ti-i-i-ime
Is on our side,
Yes it is!
I say Ti-i-i-ime
Is on our side,
Yes it is!
87.
Regan DuCasse | August 7, 2010 at 8:05 am
What a LOAD!
If it's a RALLY, and NOM invites MEDIA, openly PUBLICIZES the event in a PUBLIC PLACE, and the public that's invited KNOWS that, then how do you all of a sudden don't want 'some' media there because you don't want your children filmed?!
Uh, don't bring your children!
So much for 'their' 1st amendment rights.
It's NOM that's decided to have a tour, make a media issue out of it and bring attention to themselves.
They kill me with what whiny bitches they turn into, and squeamish pussies about exposure in the media, when their big faces are ALL over it.
How much more duplicitous can anyone get?!
88.
JonT | August 7, 2010 at 8:31 am
Please do me the honor of filling my inbox.
89.
Mark M | August 7, 2010 at 9:15 am
It really ticked me off when Bry Bry commented that the camera man was being better behaved than the last one.
The one young man whom you tried to have arrested for doing nothing more than attempt to film a public event?
Whose being badly behaved here? Hmmmmm????
I really wonder what color the sky is in his world…can bet it ain't pink LOL
90.
fiona64 | August 7, 2010 at 9:29 am
LOL, Andrew. Someone on SacBee the other day said something to the effect of "I don't need on homo priest to tell me what the Bible says. It's written in plain English, just like God intended."
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry while I posted that scripture was written in Hebrew, Aramic or koine Greek … and asked how his understanding of those languages ran.
Love,
Fiona
91.
fiona64 | August 7, 2010 at 9:31 am
There's another scripture that tells believers not to make a public show of their piety: Matthew 6:6, IIRC.
Love,
Fiona
92.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 9:45 am
Storm cloud gray, Mark. Storm cloud gray.
93. In Atlanta, a two-faced N&hellip | August 7, 2010 at 12:11 pm
[...] in Atlanta curious about what direction NOM would go today. Our arrival came on the heels of NOM refusing to allow us or openly affectionate same-sex couples into their rally in St. Louis, MO- having the police act as bouncers forced to make value judgments about the “right kind of [...]
94.
Anonygrl | August 7, 2010 at 12:18 pm
I look forward to seeing you there Ronnie!
95.
funkifried | August 7, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Add to the list that white judges should not decde white perp cases; wealthy judges / wealthy cases; those who have ever had a drink of water and perps who have ever had a drink of water; cat owning judges and cat owning perps…
Had the judge not followed the Constitution and voted against us, they would gloat in one of our own turning against us so spin, spin sugar would have obvously happened regardless.
96.
mike | August 7, 2010 at 4:09 pm
nobody talks about when judges might have a bias for the anti gay marriage side. ugh whatever people
97.
Michael | August 7, 2010 at 7:28 pm
So based on strident anti-gay activist Brown's logic, a heterosexual would not be able to judge Prop. 8 either since he/she would automatically be for it. Makes no sense. Who can judge it then, an asexual?
98.
Papa Foma | August 7, 2010 at 11:21 pm
To Kathleen,
It is not Maggie's weight that offends us so. Many of us are plump and hold a bit of extra 'love'. It is the fact that she throws it around so much and uses it to crush people. But mostly we are turned off by her over-bloated ego.
We love you Kathleen. You will fit right in with our family and never feel the least bit unwelcome!
99.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 8, 2010 at 8:31 am
Also, there has never been any substantiation of the claim that Judge Vaughan R. Walker is gay. Has anyone heard him make a public declaration of his orientation? No. So all of this hoorah and hoorang about Judge Walker being gay is nothing but speculation. Until Judge Walker HIMSELF makes the declaration that he is gay, then nobody can conclusively prove one way or the other. However, Brian and the rest at NOM, especially LOUIS, will use any form of slander, character assassination, and libelous comments and innuendo they can to attempt to win in the court of public opinion. Let us not feed them this line until and unless it can be conclusively proven.
100.
Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 9:42 am
@Richard, I agree. I think there was one report in the SF Chronicle, I forget what it was based on, and suddenly everyone in the media is calling him "openly gay" when he's never said so.
But really the better answer is, "so what if he is??"
101.
Ronnie | August 8, 2010 at 3:16 pm
I look forward to meeting you too, Anoyngrl…<3…Ronnie
102. More from #NOMturnoutFAIL&hellip | August 8, 2010 at 7:26 pm
[...] VIDEOS: Brian Brown spins like a top as NOM turns police into nightclub bouncers enforcing an imagin… [...]
103. In Atlanta, a two-faced N&hellip | September 28, 2010 at 7:33 am
[...] in Atlanta curious about what direction NOM would go today. Our arrival came on the heels of NOM refusing to allow us or openly affectionate same-sex couples into their rally in St. Louis, MO- having the police act as bouncers forced to make value judgments about the “right kind of [...]
104. car repair estimates&hellip | May 11, 2011 at 7:31 am
Car Insurance…
[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]…
Leave a Comment
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.