Leave a Comment Sagesse
NOM’s bizarre “San Francisco Values” ad deconstucted: A point-by-point video takedown
September 2, 2010
(Matt Baume, who blogs at Stop8.org produced a video response to NOM’s radio ad released a few days ago, inspired partially by the work of Prop 8 Trial Tracker contibutor Rob Tisinai. We liked it so much, we asked him to write this guest post for the Prop 8 Trial Tracker community. — Eden James)
By Matt Baume
As a journalist, it drives me nuts when someone tries to manipulate the truth. When I catch someone telling a lie, I can’t resist unraveling it. And I’m really glad to be able to unravel lies as big as the National Organization for Marriage’s, and to share that unravelling with the Prop 8 Trial Tracker community.
From the moment I heard it, NOM’s new radio ad drove me so crazy: it wasn’t just misleading, it was simply untrue. I mean, just look at what they’re claiming: Judge Walker ruled that heterosexual marriage is unconstitutional? No, of course he didn’t! That would be ridiculous. I mean, come on.
As
I know videos like these won’t change nearly as many minds as one-on-one conversations will. When I attended Camp Courage in Oakland last year, we learned all about the value of personally sharing our stories. But my hope is that videos like these can help folks keep our focus on the facts about marriage equality, rather than getting pulled into NOM’s bizarre distorted universe.
Like a lot of folks, I didn’t start really paying attention to marriage until 2008. Back then, all of San Francisco was jubilant over the California Supreme Court finally allowing gay couples to get married. But I saw Proposition 8 steamrollering through the celebration, and a sputtering campaign that just wasn’t up to the task of pushing back.
At the time, everyone wanted to contribute as best they could, and for me, that meant picking up a camera. I’ve been making short films and videos for years, and I knew I could help get the word out about why marriage equality matters.
I started by interviewing couples affected by marriage equality. I met Michael and Tom, who wanted be married for the sake of their child. Leah and Barb fondly recalled the happiest day of their lives. And Cynthia and Eva weren’t married yet, but were hopeful that they’d be allowed to when the time came. I set up Stop8.org to tell stories like theirs.
After Prop 8 passed, Stop8.org became something new: a clearinghouse for news about the ban, and the fight to overturn it. Over the last two years, I’ve watched the news every single day, and compiled weekly reports about how peoples’ lives have changed since Prop 8′s passage.
In the aftermath, I saw a surge in grassroots power, bitter fighting over which year to return to the ballot, and a resolve to continue pushing forward. Especially in the last few months, that resolve has been buoyed by court victories and a rapidly turning tide of public opinion.
I’ll keep reporting the facts about marriage equality, whether it’s through news reports or in videos. And I could always use a hand — if you’d like to help me to produce more videos like this, or just to help spread the word, drop me a line at contact@stop8.org.
And you can always just go ahead and make your own. It’s easy. After all, I’m just one guy with a camera, an iMac, a few hours to spare, and a husband to lend his support.
Next time NOM or their allies release factually incorrect information — and they’re pretty much guaranteed to do so — let’s all be ready to fight back with the truth.
Filed under: NOM Exposed,Right-wing
116 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
fiona64 | September 2, 2010 at 1:40 am
Here's a little something that describes my values, "San Francisco" or otherwise. I re-read Anna Sewell's Black Beauty recently (it was one of my favorites as a kid), and I found a whole different overarching theme as an adult than I did back when I first read it. On the surface, it's about being kind to animals; dig a little deeper and it's about compassion overall.
One of the minor characters, Mr. Wright, says this:
My doctrine is this, that if we see cruelty or wrong that we have the power to stop, and do nothing, we make ourselves sharers in the guilt.
I believe in doing everything I can to promote equality. To say nothing when others work to do harm to fellow human beings? I couldn't live with myself.
Love,
Fiona
2.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 1:53 am
Subscribing
3.
Chris in Lathrop | September 2, 2010 at 1:54 am
An excellent video, Matt! I think I'll email it off to everyone I know. I like Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)'s idea of teaming up with Rob Tisinai. Keep up the amazing work!
@fiona64: what a wonderful doctrine to adopt and share!
4.
Brian D | September 2, 2010 at 1:56 am
Good Lord!
I think it's the height of irresponsibility for people to purposefully lie and twist facts the way that NOM does. What's worse is that had it not been for the P8TT, I wouldn't know ANY of this.
And I thought the media was supposed to catch this crap.
What's worse is that I just ended a psychotherapy session (yay, I'm in my last year of Child Psychiatry training) and it was with a young man who's dealing with coming out. It's tough being gay and watching him struggle with the very same things I dealt with before I came out. He was raised in a very religious background (just like myself) but he hasn't been able to break the vicious self-loathing cycle that religious doctrine dictates.
I lent him my copy of "for the Bible tells me so" and we're gonna talk about it in therapy next week. Let's all hope and pray it goes well.
Thanks to everyone for such wonderful posts! This is my first time delurking in months (work got a little hectic). TTYL!
5.
Kevin S. | September 2, 2010 at 2:01 am
Matt, you're not going to convince any of them how wrong their ad was if you keep using logic!
Seriously though, great work. My blood boils a lot less when their propaganda is interspersed with facts.
6.
RAJ | September 2, 2010 at 2:03 am
I really like this approach, a thoughtful, penetrating deconstruction of NOM's output. (Paired with the emotional appeal Rob Tisiani talks about, you have a winning combination). It does make you crazy when you first hear the calculated and incendiary treatment NOM gives anything having to do with marriage equality. Their messaging is always designed to hit focus-grouped talking points with lots of insinuation (for maximum effectiveness) and only a casual nod to the truth.
I also agree that NOM seems to be visibly moving further to the fringe. About the time of the prop 8 decision, I checked in at their site fairly regularly and I even had several comments published over there. I have since made the decision that I would no longer attempt any response at NOM's weblog. Remember, they control completely what goes up and while I had several simple, fairly low-key comments published, my more critical comments were never published. Why give them ANY counter arguments anymore in that forum? If you haven't noticed, its really quite a ghost town over there. One, maybe two, and only occasionally more comments per post. By contrast, this site and others are teaming with activity. Let's consider helping them die a natural death by leaving them (the few still around) to talk only to themselves.
7.
Sheryl Carver | September 2, 2010 at 2:07 am
A great video, Matt!
Lies have a way of being accepted as truths when they are not refuted. Seems that lies always spread more quickly than the truth, probably because the truth is usually not nearly as sensational. With the internet, the spreading happens more quickly than ever.
I just looked at the "view count" of NOM's & your videos. As of 9:06 AM PDT, it's
NOM: 7,628
**** Matt: 8,278 ****
You've made a huge contribution in the name of TRUTH!
8.
Sheryl Carver | September 2, 2010 at 2:09 am
I mean the "view count" on YouTube.com, for clarity.
9.
Mike | September 2, 2010 at 2:10 am
Its nice to see all the articles and videos posted here, but we here don't need convincing. Are these also being pushed for publication in major papers and on radio stations where NOM is pushing their's?
10.
DazedWheels | September 2, 2010 at 2:34 am
I really enjoyed your video, Matt. Thank you.
11.
Ķĭŗîļĺę& | September 2, 2010 at 2:36 am
Sign me down.
12.
Ķĭŗîļĺę& | September 2, 2010 at 2:38 am
Sign me down.
(Very bad internet connection: damn those rains in Russia!)
13.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 2, 2010 at 2:39 am
Great video Matt! When I watched it a couple days back I was so very impressed with your style. Utter perfection!!
Keep up the great work!!
Furry Bear Hugs
Mark (and Robert)
14.
Carpool Cookie | September 2, 2010 at 2:46 am
Interesting. The character's quote is basically saying, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
15.
Trish | September 2, 2010 at 2:46 am
Brian, thanks for telling us about this young man that you're helping through his coming out. And thank you for helping him… for giving him hope.
16.
Trish | September 2, 2010 at 2:47 am
I enjoyed the video and even posted it on my facebook page. Thanks for the work that you do.
17.
Carpool Cookie | September 2, 2010 at 2:48 am
Welcome back, Brian : ) Congrats on wrapping up your training!
18.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 2, 2010 at 2:50 am
Some day I may remember to check the subscribe box
UGH!!
19.
AndrewPDX | September 2, 2010 at 2:53 am
@Fiona,
Awesome quote, and sentiment!
@Matt,
Awesome video, and welcome to the party! Have a freshly baked cookie.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
20.
fiona64 | September 2, 2010 at 2:58 am
That sums it up pretty well, actually.
There is another brilliant quote from the book about religion: “There is no religion without love, and people may talk as much as they like about their religion, but if it does not teach them to be good and kind to man and beast, it is all a sham.”
Love,
Fiona (who concurs with Anna Sewell's philosophies about a great many things)
21.
MJFargo | September 2, 2010 at 2:59 am
Thank you, Matt Baume. I remember David Boise when speaking at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco challenged us when hearing criticism of Judge Walker's ruling to ask specifically, "Where in his ruling did he say…?" That was in anticipation of the distortions that indeed have followed.
It's up to us to follow through with Boise's challenge and you have done a wonderful job, Matt Baume. NOM can only do what NOM does and that's distort the facts. But their side couldn't get away with it before a judge and the devasting cross-examinations of the plaintiffs' legal team. We need to honor them by doing just as you have done.
22.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 3:03 am
Yes! We should all carry a copy of Walker's decision with us so we can say, "Show me where it says that." But of course, none of these brainless cult-followers have ever read. Or is capable of even understanding it.
23.
Sagesse | September 2, 2010 at 3:17 am
More mail please.
24.
Dpeck | September 2, 2010 at 3:21 am
Rains? Does that mean the air is getting better after the fires?
25.
Johan de Vries | September 2, 2010 at 3:22 am
I'm not sure any comment of mine has been published at NOM's site, whether the comment was factual and neutrally written or very critical written. NOM doesn't like critics, no matter how mildly you might put it. I actually responded to the NOM post, but it was removed from moderation and not published.
On the upside, the more NOM keeps lying, the more likely it would appear to me that media aren't interested anymore in inviting them for discussions or segments. Or is that just wishful thinking on my end?
26.
Jack | September 2, 2010 at 3:26 am
Excellent video! Thanks for all your hard work at deconstructing this crud.
27.
Don in Texas | September 2, 2010 at 3:29 am
I have been meaning to offer this comment and I hope you will endorse it.
Judge Walker's opinion was sweeping, eloquent and immensely detailed. While there is no doubt that he is an outstanding jurist, there also is no doubt that he did not research and write that opinion by himself.
So, I offer my gratitude and congratulations to Judge Walker's clerks and court staff for an amazing job very, very well done. They deserve great credit for their work in this case.
28.
Dpeck | September 2, 2010 at 3:30 am
I think this is a very important point and perhaps worthy of itr's own discussion thread. There are more and more really great videos and editorials and events cropping up and I think we ought to be doing all we can to give them more mainstream exposure. How do we get all this great stuff out there so the people in the 'moveable middle' can see it and hear it? We gort quite a bit of good mainstream media coverage during the NOM FAIL tour but that's over now. What do we do now to get our message out there?
29.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 3:32 am
A wonderful point — our thanks to those unsung heroes.
30.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 3:34 am
Hear, hear!
31.
Chris | September 2, 2010 at 3:40 am
I still find that the biggest obstacle when it comes to changing minds is that often people don't wants to be told that their wrong. Sometimes when shown all of th evidence its easier for some people to justify their point of view in the most illogical ways just for their own sake. When its not their fault that they don't have the facts and that they've been lied to for most of their lives, its difficult to tell people that without them feeling guilty and/or getting defensive.
32.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 2, 2010 at 3:45 am
I dearly love the word 'crud'…so descriptive!
33.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 3:46 am
Does the rain in the Ukraine fall mainly on the plain?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I do hope this means the air is getting better for you all there!
34.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 2, 2010 at 3:46 am
Excellent point!
Thank you to ALL of Judge Walker's staff!!!!
35.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 3:52 am
Excellent point, and yes, thanks to all the backstage people without whom this sort of thing would be impossible! Great work!!
36.
Don in Texas | September 2, 2010 at 3:53 am
I posted this on an earlier thread, but it bears reposting because of its truth, especially in light of your comment:
37.
Jeff | September 2, 2010 at 3:54 am
Great point-by-point video. What always irks me is how the anti-gay folks pit same-sex marriage against "traditional" marriage, as if society can only have one or the other. Well, guess what, I'm all for straight marriage! (Some of my best friends are straight, LOL!) As a marriage-equality supporter and a gay man who wants to marry his partner, I'm not going to impede, dilute, or tear apart anyone's "traditional" marriage. I'm for marriage equality and that means marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples also.
38.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 3:58 am
I keep waiting for them to lose this battle over lgbt rights so they can go back to fighting with each other. Remember when we could count on the Mormons, Catholics, Southern Baptists and various right wing fundies to keep themselves busy fighting with each other over who carries the real message of the one true god?
39.
Josiah | September 2, 2010 at 4:00 am
Do we know yet where the NOM ad is playing? I'd guess that it's probably on so-called "Christian" radio stations, which sadly aren't likely to be amenable to hearing the logical counter-argument… but if it's airing on any more mainstream media sources, we might want to consider sending this to the stations' advertising directors, just to make them consider whether they really want to be broadcasting factually inaccurate ads. If Courage Campaign and AFER have the funds, it might even be worth abridging Matt's great ad into a counter-ad to air on these stations.
40.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 2, 2010 at 4:07 am
As I posted on my blog yesterday;
I do feel pity for many of the followers of these hate filled discriminatory organizations. They follow because they truly believe it’s the right thing to do. They follow because they have faith in their leaders…
”Why would a man/woman of God lie?”
“Not possible!”
“They only have my and the countries best interests at heart.”
These people must be pitied…..Grammy always taught me to pity the mentally challenged.
I mean REALLY! Do these poor misguided people not have a frickin working brain cell?
Can they not see the disconnect in what they are being told and what is actually right before their very eyes? All they need do is ask one simple question of their ‘leaders’…. ”Why?”
With this simple question, this one word, they could open a whole new world of possibilities for themselves and the rest of the world. When one questions one learns, and when one learns one grows.
“WHY do our beliefs matter more than those of others?”
“WHY would their marriage affect mine?”
“WHY is this issue so important to the church?”
“WHY is the church spending so much time and money on this issue, when so much more could be done with these resources to help those in need.”
These are just a few of the many questions that come to mind.
41.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 2, 2010 at 4:08 am
tx fiona – I'll revisit BB. Been avoiding it for years as was rather traumatic for me to read in elementary school. I just couldn't wrap my 9-year mind around the injustices done against the beautiful horse
42.
Don in Texas | September 2, 2010 at 4:13 am
The El Paso, Texas, City Council recently passed an ordinance providing health care benefits to unmarried gay and straight partners of city employees. Local religious groups spearheaded by Tom Brown, pastor of the “Word of Life” megachurch and Barney Fields of El Paso for Jesus gathered sufficient signatures to place an initiative on the November ballot to overturn this ordinance, ala Prop8. Here is a letter of support for that effort which appeared in today’s El Paso Times.
The priest of a small local Catholic Church has railed against homosexuality in the Times. Here is a letter opposing Fr. Michael Rodriguez’ views which appeared today:
43.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 4:14 am
You're absolutely right. I am extremely grateful to all the people in Walker's sphere who had a hand in this.
44.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 4:17 am
Wow, the cognitive dissonance of the writers of the first letter must be making their heads spin.
45.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 2, 2010 at 4:25 am
Great idea if can be done! However, its amazing how strongly these traditional ideas over-ride any logic or reason…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egucbj67WSY
46.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 2, 2010 at 4:25 am
"Who do they think they are to impose their “politically correct” ideology on the rest of us?"
I would ask who this young couple thinks they are to force their religious beliefs on others who may or may not share in them.
These types of people always seem to forget the other side of the coin…………..
47.
nightshayde | September 2, 2010 at 4:27 am
We want everyone to be treated equally and fairly — but we don't want "them" to have the same rights we enjoy.
I'm quite sure they don't see the problem with that thought process.
48.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 4:31 am
UPDATE: This just in from the California Appellate Court:
Writ of mandamus DENIED. Case Complete
49.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 2, 2010 at 4:33 am
That is good news right?! :/
this all becomes confusing.
50.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 4:34 am
It's good news. The opinion doesn't seem as though it will be available until 5:00 p.m., if I'm reading this right.
51.
Don in Texas | September 2, 2010 at 4:34 am
Ann:
You're right, of course.
On another matter, I failed to respond to your comment several days (weeks?) ago to my post which praised Judge Walker's cleverness in including Scalia's comment in Lawrence v. Texas about procreation in marriage. You said, if I remember correctly, that such comments in dissent have little weight.
I must agree. Such dicta often survive to become the view of a majority of the Court. For example, the first Justice Harlan's dissenting comment in Plessey v. Ferguson became the law of the land in Brown v. Board of Education. Justice Harlan declared, "Our Constitution is colorblind." And so it is.
Justice Stevens' scathing dissent in Bush v. Gore included this:
"Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
I could offer several other examples of comments in dissent which, in time, became the majority view including Justice Bradeis' dissent in Olmstead v. New York and others. But I believe the point is made that dissenting opinions can be given great weight subsequent to their original utterance.
52.
Jen Mussari | September 2, 2010 at 4:34 am
Fantastic video! That NOM ad is absolutely bewildering!
53.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 2, 2010 at 4:36 am
tx 4 confirmation. Look 4ward to reading more later
54.
Don in Texas | September 2, 2010 at 4:36 am
OOps. I meant to say "I must DISagree" in my earlier post.
I regret the error.
55.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 4:37 am
Don, I don't disagree that this sometimes happens. I believe my comment was more along the lines of "pigs will fly before Scalia votes for marriage equality".
56.
Don in Texas | September 2, 2010 at 4:38 am
Yes, it is very good news. It means the Appellate Court refuses to order Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown to defend Prop8 in the appeals process.
57.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 4:38 am
I understood you.
58.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 4:39 am
WONDERFUL!!!! Our legal eagles were, as usual, correct! Thank you Ann S., Kathleen, Trish. And thank you all who may not be lawyers or lawyer-types but who still have good legal sense; Anonygrl, I'm thinking of you here. Can hardly wait to read the decision — I hope the court goes into the various points of denial this time; I want to see "them" cut down to size in a legal document.
59.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 4:41 am
And Fiona, too; natch. You all have helped me see those blue flakes weren't what I feared they were……..
60.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 4:41 am
It is really tough when you are dealing with someone who has strong religious leanings.
A lot of these folk don't know any other way of defining themselves except by their religion. So when we come along and present facts that shake those beliefs, it has the effect of making them cling even tighter to what WE consider delusion, but what THEY consider to be who they are. With people who have had that mindset their entire lives, when you say "You are wrong, here are the facts!" they DO feel attacked. They don't think that they have been lied to, and in a way, they have not. They have been indoctrinated to one set of beliefs, certainly, and those beliefs are not necessarily the same as ours, but when you are dealing with belief, my belief that invisible unicorns are pink is just as valid as your belief that they are green.
Of course, when either of our beliefs is counter to the LAW, we must learn to hold that belief in our heart and not try to impress it on others, but the belief itself is still just as valid as any other.
The hard thing to work with is that their religion (for all that it IS a choice, and homosexuality is not) seems to them what our sexuality is to us. They don't see it as separate, or something they can choose, it is who and what they are. And when what they are comes into direct opposition to what we are, conflict that is sometimes insurmountable can arise.
61.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 4:42 am
Kate, I'm not sure there will be much to read. They haven't had much time to work on this and may not have written much. I'm puzzled because IF I'm reading the website correctly the opinion should have been posted yesterday afternoon, and it isn't (or I can't find it).
Kathleen has superior sleuthing skills to me, perhaps she'll find more.
62.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 4:43 am
Ann, is that specific legalese???? Pigs flying…..
63.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 4:44 am
How do y'all suppose "they" will spin this one???
64.
James Sweet | September 2, 2010 at 4:44 am
They are disputing that (at least some) "religious beliefs harm gays and lesbians"? Really??!?? I mean uh… that should be plainly obvious, shouldn't it?
65.
Cat | September 2, 2010 at 4:48 am
Great! Thanks for keeping us in the loop, Kathleen. I hope the order becomes available soon… as always I'm curious.
66.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 2, 2010 at 4:48 am
That rocks, Don. Thanks for reposting it, I didn't see it before. Good ol'd "Monkeywrench" Eddie always did have a way with words.
67.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 4:51 am
(passes Kate the broom, so she can sweep the little blue flakes away)
68.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 4:53 am
YAY! One step closer to the D-I's not having standing…
69.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 2, 2010 at 4:54 am
Excellent!
It really couldn't have gone any other way
70.
Trish | September 2, 2010 at 4:55 am
There is so much that we need to do and sometimes I feel overwhelmed. I am so glad that we have groups like the Courage Campaign that are studying the best ways to change hearts and minds, but I personally feel like I am unable to do it.
I have a godfather who is my first cousin once removed. When his mother and father died, my maternal grandmother (his paternal aunt) took care of him as if he were her own.
He has been avoiding family functions because of me and my wife. He did not come to my grandmother's birthday party (her 70th) because he did not want his children to be exposed to me and my wife. He still refuses to recognize that she is my wife.
And what did I do? I blocked him from Facebook because he refused to talk about the "why's". I was certain if we just talked about it, I could get him to say something that I would be able to counter, to at least get him to think.
I don't personally know how to counter the lies that have been ingrained in my own family. That's what is frustrating, because countering the lies actually seems to do more harm than good.
71.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 4:57 am
@Kate, no, the legalese is "pigs will fly out of my butt before Scalia will vote for marriage equality".
72.
Cat | September 2, 2010 at 5:00 am
It's funny how that works, isn't it. They religiously believe (pun intended) all the bad stuff people say about gays, but they can't fathom that when somebody says something bad about them, it might actually be true.
Imposing religious doctrine on others: not a right.
But my god said so: immaterial in the eyes of the law
Refusing to acknowledge positive facts about gays and gay families: bigotry.
Preventing gays from getting married: discrimination.
73.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 5:00 am
Trish, that is sad but it is his loss.
74.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 5:04 am
hee hee hee. But you know me, Anonygrl, I'll be seeing them again before this is all over.
75.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 5:06 am
Trust me, Trish; you don't need him in your life. Why invite such an ugly person into your world?
76.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 5:07 am
Here is my suggestion. Try going the other direction entirely.
Instead of trying to convince him of your position, do the emotional end run.
"I miss you. We all miss you. I am sad that this comes between us, and I wish we could find a way to get around it because I love you and your family and would like to see you at our family events. Please, lets figure out how we can just get together and hang out and not preach at each other, just love each other like family should."
It might not work the first time, but if you do it sincerely enough times, maybe you can soften his heart some, and who knows what might happen? You are not apologizing for anything, you are not attacking anyone, just opening the door to BEING together, which is a step.
Good luck!
77.
AndrewPDX | September 2, 2010 at 5:09 am
I can tell from your posts here that it is, indeed as Ann S mentions, 'his loss'.. you are truly a valued individual in this community, and any woman you choose to marry has to be the cream of the crop.
Thanks for sharing your story, and have another cookie… won't make everything alright, but I hope it'll help some
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
78.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 5:10 am
It's possible this is a one page order, giving no opinion or reason for the denial. Either way, Trish is looking into getting a copy for us.
As soon as I get anything, it will go up on Scribd and I'll let everyone here know about it.
79.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 5:11 am
That is so sad for your grandmother that he boycotted her 70th b-day party.
His fear is causing him to do hurtful things, to you and to your grandmother (is this your grandmother who raised him???)
80.
LD | September 2, 2010 at 5:16 am
Great video, Matt
81.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 5:21 am
Of course they are. According to them, it's not the religious beliefs that harm people; the harm comes from people choosing the gay lifestyle. According to them, their beliefs are all about bringing love to people who have lost their way. See how that works?
82.
Trish | September 2, 2010 at 5:33 am
Thanks, all. The thing is, my godfather is a good man, but he is fearful. He believes the lies about his children being exposed to "teh gheys" and possibly "choosing" that lifestyle. He simply doesn't understand. And he never will understand. He thinks I'm a good person, he loves me, he just doesn't want his children exposed, and it is more important to him to protect his children than to spend time with his family. I'm the one who insisted on having the conversation about the issue, and he refused to talk about it. I simply thought I deserved at least to be told why he asked me to be his Facebook friend when he still had "Support Prop 8" on his page.
83.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 2, 2010 at 5:47 am
I am grateful not only to all the people in Judge Walkers' sphere, but also to everyone at the firms so ably represented by Ted Olson and David Boies. All of these folks deserve a Standing O!!!!
84.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 2, 2010 at 6:06 am
That's okay, Kate. They are just pieces of the cotton candy my unicorn makes that have this lovely effect of calming whoever eats them.
85.
Carpool Cookie | September 2, 2010 at 6:20 am
I've never got why people think we need religion to "teach us to be good and kind."
It seems to me, people are basically either @ssholes or not (a combination of nature and nurture that takes place WAY before anyone becomes a churchgoer.)
86.
Apricot | September 2, 2010 at 6:34 am
NOM's radio advertisement didn't just feature one or two mistruths here and there. It seems that every single solitary sentence in the transcript in this ad was an unmerciful plethora of complete fabrications. That's incomprehensible!
I think what angers me most about NOM is their pathology. Think about it – If you knew your side of the argument was the logical and righteous side then why would such a critical part of your strategy involve such lengths to include complete outright falsehoods?
Here's my theory. NOM, FOTF, and their ilk – I do not believe they are that stupid. They know damn well who they are and what they're doing. They know their argument is full of inconsistencies inspired by irrational motivations that can't be defended logically. They know they're the ones working every day to remove civil liberties from a class of people. They know this debate does not, never has, and never will involve straight couples, their children, or their legal rights or liberties. They know they are the aggressors, not the victims. They know this has everything to do with the Gay man and what they think of him.
That's why they stray as FAR away from the actual subject matter as humanly possible and completely change the argument liberally whenever they open their mouths. It's about "protecting" straight couples and their children – it's about the government imposing its will on the people – it's about what the children will learn in schools – Anything else besides the core question "why a gay man shouldn't be allow to share the benefits of marriage with his partner in the privacy of his own family."
And whatever you do, lets keep this as far away from the courts – away from justice system as possible! We don't want that pesky 14th amendment foiling our plans!
87.
Cat | September 2, 2010 at 6:42 am
Hear hear.
BTW, there is a word that I would like to never hear again in this whole debate: lifestyle. It's a perfect hijack by our opponents, I must admit. Living in a golf resort? Sure, that could be called a lifestyle. Driving a big muddy 4WD and going rock climbing every weekend? I guess. Owning an expensive penthouse in the city with a fantastic kitchen, and always dining out? Yeah.
But 'gay lifestyle' is even more ridiculous than 'religious lifestyle' and just as discriminatory as 'white lifestyle', 'black lifestyle' or 'single-parent family lifestyle'.
88.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 6:44 am
Hear, hear, Cat. So true.
89.
Ķĭŗîļĺę& | September 2, 2010 at 6:49 am
For the inquiring minds: the extremely hot weather in Russia has been off for a couple of weeks now, fires are eliminated, the air is completely clear; now we're having somewhat cold weather (a bit colder than usually at this time of year — around 45°F after 95-107°F just a few weeks before), go figure…
90.
AndrewPDX | September 2, 2010 at 7:16 am
@Cat… I totally agree. I never got my copy of the Gay Agenda Handbook, which is where I believe the Gay Lifestyle Do's and Don't's are posted.
But, from what the NOMzies seem to say, it sounds like the Gay Lifestyle is full of promiscuous and unsafe sex, illegal drugs, designer clothes, alcoholic binges every night at glitzy clubs, and all those other fantasies from those closeted and uptight morons.
In fact, I'll bet nobody here lives the Gay Lifestyle that FotF et al claim.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
91.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 2, 2010 at 7:21 am
BZ and I don't that's for sure. In fact, the only bar we go to is the buffet bar at Golden Corral.
92.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 7:22 am
@Andrew, I think a few FotF folks might. I mean, how do they know so much about it?
93.
Chris in Lathrop | September 2, 2010 at 7:26 am
I agree completely. Sounds so much like all the post hoc re-justifying of the bloody war in Iraq. Oops! No WMDs? We were really just trying to give them democracy, anyways.
94.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 2, 2010 at 8:18 am
WOOT, but which they coulda decided the standing thingy just as quickly *mope in spite of good news*
95.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 2, 2010 at 8:19 am
"wish" rather, not which. Caffeine deficiency disorder, sorry.
96.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 2, 2010 at 8:21 am
Yeah, and they INVENTED "luggage lifting."
97.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 8:22 am
Different court, Elizabeth. This is the California Appeals court dealing with PJI's load o' crazy.
98.
Freddy | September 2, 2010 at 8:30 am
Sign me up!
99.
JonT | September 2, 2010 at 8:32 am
I'll take the left and lay down some grazing fire.
(late sub).
100.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | September 2, 2010 at 8:37 am
Thanks, Matt! Love the video, by the way. Wonder what would happen if you and Rob were to team up on some videos? I think that between the two of you, there could be even more fireworks!
101.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | September 2, 2010 at 8:38 am
Note to self: Click subscribe button first!
102.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 2, 2010 at 8:39 am
I don't get how your godfather can maintain that you are a "good person" but your "lifestyle" is somehow bad (and contagious.) If he really thought you were a good person he wouldn't have a problem "exposing" his kids to you, would he? He'd be grateful for the good example you set, right? It's this double-bind use of language that I find so frustrating–someone can say they "love" you, but if they treat you like a leper that puts the lie to those words. I believe you have to look at what people do, not what they say. What he's doing does not affirm any positive regard for you.
That being said, his strategy is an old and universal one, one of the ways that people who believe unreasonable things protect their ability to control other people's thinking. This is why ecumenism in extreme conservative circles–whether religious or political–is the ultimate crime, a blasphemy, because exposing a mind to outside ideas might enlighten that mind, and then your influence will be lost. He doesn't want his control over his children's minds re: teh gayzez–or anything else–to be undermined by the fact that you are a wonderful person.
I think the best thing to do is to continue being the good person you are and keep showing up at family events. Everyone will see that you are cool and that he's the unreasonable one. And when the kids are old enough, friend them on Facebook and subvert these vicious lies. Good luck.
103.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 2, 2010 at 8:40 am
@ Kathleen–yeah yeah, I know, but even so *I'm still moping*
104.
fiona64 | September 2, 2010 at 8:46 am
Cookie, I understand completely what you are saying — and I agree.
There are plenty of people who think their religion gives them the right to act like an ass to other people, though — and that is what Anna Sewell was talking about. If you aren't being good and kind, and your religion is your excuse, your religion is a sham.
Love,
Fiona
105.
fiona64 | September 2, 2010 at 8:48 am
Gregory, I cried more than once during my re-read. I hadn't read the book in nearly 30 years and had forgotten a great many things about it. There was a real overarching theme about love, compassion and kindness throughout the whole thing, though. The last chapter? Tears of joy.
Love,
Fiona
106.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 8:48 am
Thank you, Matt, loved the video!
107.
fiona64 | September 2, 2010 at 8:51 am
Every time someone says "I disagree with the lifestyle," I ask them to tell me what they mean. In specifics.
I never get an answer — because they don't have one.
Love,
Fiona
108.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 2, 2010 at 9:28 am
I totally agree…which is why many faith based people find it so hard to question thier leaders…they see it as almost blaspheme to show what to most amounts to disrespect.
109.
Sagesse | September 2, 2010 at 10:11 am
This is great. I was expecting the governor and the AG would at least have to respond before the court ruled. Oh wise ones (you know who you are), can you explain how this works… or wprked, past tense?
110.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 10:21 am
Hopefully, someone with more information will answer this.
My GUESS is that unlike a complaint, where a party is asking the court to rule on a conflict between itself and another party, this is a petition for a writ of mandamus. That is, it is a party asking the court to compel an entity (in this case, state officials) to do something. I imagine the court could have requested Schwarzenegger and Brown to weigh in, but I don't think it's required.
I just saw pgbach show up on the board. Maybe he can explain the typical procedure.
111.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 10:33 am
I was thinking about this, and it seems to me that a court could probably even dismiss a complaint without asking for an answerl. For example, a court could read a complaint and decide there is no cause of action stated, or the court lacks jurisdiction for the cause, etc. So, it could be that the court felt it could make this decision w/out getting input from the officials in question.
Gawd, I wish I knew something, ANYTHING about procedure. Sigh…
112.
Dpeck | September 2, 2010 at 10:35 am
Hmm. No takers? Maybe if I ask a couple more questions that I have been thinking about lately:
1. Does anyone know – Is NOM actually getting these videos and audio clips broadcast as TV ads and radio spots? I mean, are they getting presented to the general public? Or really just via NOM's site and other internet avenues that will really only attract NOM diehard fans (and 'spies' from our side)?
2. If they are, what are we doing (or what SHOULD we be doing) to counter this? Shouldn't we be stepping up our game and getting our own ads on the air and in front of the 'moveable middle'?
3. If so, what's stopping us? Money? Organization?
Your thoughts?
113.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 10:41 am
I have no idea where these are being aired. Just wanted you to know I'm paying attention. I'd like to know, too.
114.
Sagesse | September 2, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Kathleen, perhaps there is a legal term for 'completely ridiculous – next'?
115.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 2, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Sagesse, I don't know about a legal term for it, but I do know what the military term is for what Presiding Judge Scotland told them: TSNC, which means Tough S**t, Next Case! BTW, the first two words are whispered, the last two are screamed.
116.
Ronnie | November 6, 2010 at 7:54 am
Me to….another thread I missed…..Thank you to Judge Walker's staff…..Thank you Don for pointing that out….7 thank you Matt for dissecting NOM's crazy… <3…Ronnie
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.