Fake People Tell Fake Stories About The Threat Of Gay Marriage

Baratunde’s Posterous posted this unwonderful video produced by The National Organization for Marriage, describing it as "Fake People Tell Fake Stories About The Threat Of Gay Marriage."

I don't know if the people are fake or not [UPDATE: They are actors], but they are assholes. One woman whines plaintively, "My freedom will be taken away," if gays are allowed to marry. What -- her freedom to be intolerant?

UPDATE: Here are the audition tapes that show these people are actors.


  1. Someones needs to lay a new soundtrack for that video with them talking about black people or something else to show the descrimination for what it is.

    “I’m scared they will teach my son about black people marrying white people in schools”

    “They want to force my church to marry black people”

    etc etc

    This is just the new descrimination. I’m going to start putting up signs in pews in churches and on water fountains that read ‘STRAIGHTS ONLY’

  2. omg.
    The national organization for marriage.
    And its run by Maggie Gallagher.
    Who loved marriage so much that she had a kid
    out of wedlock (fact).
    I went to school with Gallagher (yale) and my
    God she was among the looniest of the loons
    in yale’s political union: the neo-ist of the
    neocons, foxnews-like before foxnews existed.
    and now she has this vile organization.

  3. “we won’t have a choice”

    They make it sound like they will be forced into marrying somebody of the same sex against their will.

    A very strange argument in general.

  4. Ironic how at the end, Damon says they have a “rainbow coalition” of people of every creed and color to fight gay marriage…

    Well I can think I 1 large group that would be discluded from this “loving” group.

  5. Well, we do have compulsory gay-marriage here in Canada. It took some getting used to, but he really gets along well with my mum and I must say my apartment has never been tidier.

  6. There are outtakes from this commercial that proves that these are simply paid actors with no morals. I think I saw this also on Metafilter, along with the outtakes.
    This kind of stuff makes me sick.

  7. All the gay-marriage bills in the world could pass, and she could still be intolerant to her cold, shriveled heart’s content.

  8. I think we could use a unicorn chaser.
    Better make it a double.

    Also, soap and a stiff brush; I feel dirty.

  9. @8:

    Shh! These people hate Canadians almost as much as gay people. You’re only helping their point!

  10. This HAS to be a joke. They’re just coincidentally part of an organization called NOM? And affiliated with MEH? No way is it real.

  11. “coming together in love to protect marriage”
    In LOVE? O RLY?

    Actually, I keep playing “the clouds are dark, and the winds are strong” over and over, and laughing.

  12. I’m guessing they get this “we won’t have our freedom” logic from the fact that gays have always been forced to act straight, think straight, bone straight, marry straight.

    Now that the tables could be turning, the bigots are freaking out.

  13. omg! these people are still hypnotized by the Bush retoric of family values…PEOPLE it was just a ploy so they could steal your money and land. Makes you wonder what these people are trying to get away with.

  14. “I’m going to start putting up signs in pews in churches and on water fountains that read ‘STRAIGHTS ONLY’

    Great idea! Or maybe “Heterosexuals Only”

  15. A couple of the auditions do seem to be of the “amateur men’s chorus” persuasion, and I think at least one may have enjoyed a fish taco or two in her day.

  16. @Icky Bob I like fish sticks. Am I going to be forced into a same sex marriage? With a fisherman? I’m confused, but curious. Is easting fish a choice? Oh man. I can’t afford a fish wedding.

  17. What’s this about “I don’t know if these people are fake or not”? It says right at the bottom of the screen at one point that they’re actors. I doubt most of the actors even have any fears or concerns about gays- they’re just apathetic and immoral enough to spew ignorant hatred for a buck. Still, there are likely plenty of real people who would say the same thing… any guesses as to why they’re not showing them?

  18. Dont laugh, it’s true! Years ago, i was just a lonely homo preying on my straight, drunk fratb…er friends. And then I got teh married. Now my husband & I go out on nightly raids, hunting Catholics with out non-american imported automobile. We also have child slave porn & are considering inviting a pagan goat into out relationship. I’ve alsio introduced a bill into the Massachusetts state legislature that would require churches to display banners depicting Anton LaVey’s gleaming head. And we drink blood. Exclusively.

  19. It smells of some kind of satirical trolling but thats partially because I live in the UK where these people are either allied with the BNP (neo-fachists) or are underground.

    Never mind gay people taking away freedoms, these people are taking away my freedom to go about my daily life without having the urge to strangle bigots.

  20. But it’s all true! I was in Massachusetts for all of an hour before my wife and I started fighting and I began staring at guys’ asses! Obviously it’s the gay marriage.

  21. All that lightning in the (chroma key) sky!

    Dudes, that proves that gay peoples make God angry!

  22. These people all seem to be standing in purgatory for this commercial. Maybe they will all be getting a role on “Lost”.

  23. zzzzz *wakes up abruptly* Wait… What? Oh. I was dreaming of a time when people would actually stop bitching about stuff they don’t understand.

    Seriously… what’s the big deal? I just don’t understand when people bitch about things they can’t grasp. As someone famous once said, “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.” (I forgot who actually said it. Sorry. I’m sure someone will tell me once I post this. lol)

  24. There is a storm coming?…. Damn right there is… just ask the weather girls in this amazing remix video hee hee


  25. these people are all actors. (there are audition tapes up on youtube) my favorite is the ‘doctor’ whining about how she can’t deny gays the right to healthcare. like seriously? is that something a rightwing org wants to use as a tool to get other bigots to follow their lead?

  26. Oh and thanks to KINT for the counterpoint. Nothing like some nice rationality to clear the head.

    It’s funny that deep down this question has a lot of similarities with the terror billboard issue from a few posts down. Maybe we need bus signs that say “if you stop worrying about what your neighbors are up to and try to treat people better, your own life will probably improve.”

    I think I read that in a book somewhere.

  27. They should work on protecting straight marriages from…you know, STRAIGHT people before they start worrying about teh gays.

  28. What — her freedom to be intolerant?

    As stupid as NOM is, it’s pretty ridiculous to casually imply that freedom to be intolerant isn’t valuable.

  29. One interesting thing to note is also how much deception is going on in the claimed statements. For example, the New Jersey case they refer to had to do with a New Jersey church which was renting out land on church property for marriages. The issue was whether they could continue to get a tax exemption even as they did so and discriminated against same sex couples. They lost the tax exemption.

    Most of the other claims are similar distortions.

  30. I’m a gay Californian that’s been married to my partner of the past 7 years since last October (so glad we got in and did it while we could before November 2008) and I have yet to see how our union has either threatened or, really, affected the marriages of any heterosexuals whatsoever. How fragile, tenuous and shaky must the marriages of these panicked, frightened straight couples be that our tying the knot is some sort of attack/threat/affront to their relationships? Maybe these people need to spend more time at the marriage counselor (and/or therapist) working on their relationships instead of worrying about mine.

  31. @2: Andrew Sullivan posted this quote today:

    “Twenty-five, thirty years ago, the barometer of human rights in the United States were black people. That is no longer true. The barometer for judging the character of people in regard to human rights is now those who consider themselves gay, homosexual, or lesbian,” – Bayard Rustin, close associate of Martin Luther King, Jr. and organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, 1986.

  32. Yes, yes, ridiculous bigots.

    Anyway, I’ll suggest what I always do in gay marriage discussions. Instead of expanding who’s allowed to get legally married, let’s just end the whole concept of “legally married.” There’s really no reason for government to be involved in this, right? Just allow provision for people, any people, to enter into contracts granting one another the same legal rights as married couples, and let them call it whatever the hell they want. This should appeal to all sides, right? For proponents of SSM, they get what most of them are really after: equality is achieved, both in name and practice. For people for whom marriage is a primarily religious idea (mainly opponents of SSM), their religious institution doesn’t need to be sanctioned by the government, which should appeal to them unless they’re trying for a theocracy (which I realize some of them are).

    I predict something like that is going to eventually happen anyway, but not before a whole lot more unnecessary culture wars. Legally sanctioned gay marriage will eventually win out everywhere after great struggle, and a generation or two later nobody will care, and the law itself will be obsolete. Or maybe that’s just wishful thinking.

  33. NoahPoah: Of course people have a right to be intolerant. What I meant was that her right to be intolerant won’t be abolished if gays are allowed to marry. She can continue to wallow in the stink of her intolerance no matter what happens.

  34. I am way more scared of Christians than gays. Oh yeah, NOM – there’s a storm coming… an Internet sh*t storm that may surprise you and your narrow minded, supernatural believing supporters!!!

  35. God permits you to claim joint salary and insurance, but only between a man and a woman.

  36. Then lets do it…

    I may have suggested it but I encourage all of you to do it. Go out, create signs, post them on buses, in church pews, on drinking fountains. Make the bigotry VISIBLE and in PLAIN SIGHT!!

    Use MAKE and create resources for OTHER people if you have artistic resources.

    You must make this bigotry visble. As visible as it once was with those signs that read ‘WHITES ONLY’ except show the bigotry of the times with ‘HETEROSEXUALS ONLY”.

    If we don’t make the bigotry visible, it stays in the shadows where they want it to stay.

  37. My favorite is the guy who intones very solemnly: “I am afraid.” Terrorism, economic catastrophe, eroded civil liberties? Nope, it’s two gay people getting married that really puts the fear into him. So much for “culture warriors.”

  38. A key point to these wacky anti-gay marriage arguments I don’t think gets stripped down enough:

    It’s a presumption, in this ad and when you talk to the kind of folks the believe it, that somehow if something becomes legal you have to be okay with it. As if, when gay marriage does become legal, teachers will stand in front of classrooms and say “Kiddos, gay people have this right so you cannot express your opposition to it.” Is there a single political issue that this has ever been the case for?

    Abortion is legal. Guns, capital punishment, and the KKK are legal. Last I checked people have very strong opinions on those topics regardless of what rights protect them.

    (PS – Boingboing, the “leave a comment” tool has been buggy all day)

  39. Registered ‘heterosexualsonly.com’ and hope to have a site up and running by monday with representative contacts, resources and whatever else I can provide.

    Anyone who may want to help, please feel free to contact me at orubel(at)gmail(dot)com

    Have a LAMP server and tons of tech resources but could always use those of the artistic persuasion.

  40. Hey guys, here’s an alternative version of the public signs idea. Since some of those who are so against this are under the impression that it’s a ‘choice’ or a ‘lifestyle’ to be gay, how about signs that say “Republicans Only” Or “Democrats Only” or even “No Baptists Served Here” or “Catholics Need Not Apply”.

  41. What are the mysterious rights that are being trampled here? They are the “right” of a doctor not to treat all patients equally (what? for those who took the Hypocritic Oath?), the right to receive government subsidies for discriminating, and the right to stop schools from teaching anything you don’t yourself believe. I suppose the 15% of Americans who think the sun revolves around the earth should stop the rest of us from learning about the Copernican revolution too :P. Seriously, schools have taught my kid tons of things I think are stupid and/or wrong–which is why I participate in educating her myself. Counterspeech not censorship. . . Anyway, people have the right to believe whatever they like, but to insist that they have the right to force others to share their prejudices is untenable.

    And #45, thank you for that unicornchaser counterpost.

  42. I certainly hope that is required by SAG or whatever Union they belong to that this “performance” be listed. I would like to get a list of those names. Any idea where these commercials are airing, or what network/channels are carrying them?

  43. I’m totally going to lobby my state for more gay marriage. And then I’m going to lobby so I can marry my bike.

  44. I went over to Youtube to watch the Iowa Sentator’s impassioned plea. Of course, right on cue — relegoid shows up in the comments and says — well, it’s not about human rights — it’s JUDICIAL TYRANNY! Which confuses me, because usually the right hates it when judges make us go to school with black people, but claim it’s not that per say they have a problem with — it’s really ACTIVIST JUDGES! Or THE RULE OF LAW! But I thought this one in Iowa would be LEGISLATIVE TYRANNY! Because the right is confident they can get the flock out to vote and when on gay marriage referndums, so the people are being counter-acted by the legislature. I love how the message machine focuses in a key phrases and then teached all the sheep to bleat it …

  45. So, Osprey101, what you’re saying is that two people wanting legal parity with their neighbours when it comes to marriage is exactly equivalent to you wanting to do something stupid and ridiculous with an inanimate object?

    Is that correct or did I miss something?

  46. NOM explicitly deploys the “cultural definition” as a weapon. On their website, by clicking on the “Get Informed” link at the top, and then the “Marriage Talking Points” option, you will see this blatant use of what amounts to market research…

    “Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is: ‘Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
    they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.'”

    This allows them to set up marriage as having a specific definition that seems objective or independent of us capricious humans (with our shifting moral inclinations). Now they can be viewed as rational people arguing about facts, and not as bigots, which they fear being viewed as so much that they devote pages and pages to explaining how their followers should defend themselves against such charges. Progressives shouldn’t let them monopolize this framing tactic.

    On what basis do they claim that people don’t have the right to redefine the institutions that shape their lives? This is the key to subverting their message. HELL YES people have the right to redefine institutions. How else could history ever unfold? So don’t let their slickster marketing techniques control the battlefield. Even their name, the National Organization for Marriage, makes them sound upright and pro-marriage even as their explicit purpose is to prevent people from marrying. Some pro-same-sex-marriage group ought to form specifically to counter NOM, and they should be called the American Organization for Marriage, or the National Marriage Organization.

  47. NOM NOM NOM!!!

    I wonder if these actors really believe the tripe they’re pushing, or if they just needed the gig to pay their rent? I really can’t imagine anyone with half a mind babbling such nonsense without feeling at least a few pangs of humiliation.

  48. “Marry Me?”

    How gay can you get?

    Religion is all about a bunch of guys loving another guy. Call one guy Jesus and the other one Marry and you have holly wedlock?

    Let us try and decodify marriage.

    When spiritual mumbo jumbo is removed from the marketplace of ideals, commen sense will rekindle humanity.

  49. @37:

    To clarify further on the New Jersey case: The land was beachfront and boardwalk property purchased by an association of church members as a fundraising effort. It’s miles away from their actual church, and not technically owned by the church itself. Their agreement with the state government was that they could enjoy the profits of renting it out without paying property taxes as long as it was open for rental by the general public. People have been renting the property to hold weddings for years.

    In the midst of booking a wedding, they discovered that it was actually a civil union ceremony for a lesbian couple. They suddenly remembered that their bylaws didn’t allow for wedding or civil union ceremonies of any kind.

    State Supreme Court rules: You don’t pay taxes as long as you rent to the general public. Gay couples are part of the general public. So if you won’t rent to them, no tax break for you. The group stuck to their guns, and the tax break was revoked.

    The tax burden they can’t stop crying about totals about $195 a year, according to the local municipal tax assessor. That seems a small price to pay to uphold your own principles, yet they won’t stop crying about how unfair it is or misrepresenting the facts to whoever will listen.

  50. far more worrying than that one video is their website:
    including “talking points”, a pre-prepared 3*5 cheat sheet and pdfs aimed at different religions.
    In particular, instructing them to “avoid the phrase ‘ban gay marriage’ at all costs” is very, very telling.

    We are dealing with PR people for seriously dangerous religious madmen & women.
    This site demonstrates that their target audience is those who are, at the very least, simply uncomfortable with homosexuals and homosexuality but need a civilised sounding way to say it.
    Some people aren’t capable of articulating their feelings in a way that persuades others, so need these religious maniacs to help them.

    It’s pretty obvious what is going on here.
    These people are *terrified* that homosexuality is being more and more normalised, and they are using misinformation, outright lies and the occasional quarter-truth in their desperate fight to stop it.
    (Before I get leapt on for the word “normalised”, in the above paragraph I am empathising with the enemy)

  51. The obvious solution?
    from DonRocko on Pharyngula

    “Really, there’s a simple counter-argument to all of this. Make all official marriages “civil unions,” and if you want to get “married” then find a church or organization to do it. Legalize such secular “civil unions” for any adult couple, give all of them equal rights.
    That way the religious nuts can have their “sacred institutions” any way they want them, and from a legal standpoint everyone will have equal rights.”
    Thanks for putting it so beautifully, DonRocko.

    It would seem to be the only solution for the US that follows “the separation of church and state”. Maybe some USians can offer more insights there. I’m not from there.

  52. It would seem to be the only solution for the US that follows “the separation of church and state”. Maybe some USians can offer more insights there. I’m not from there.

    I myself am convinced that this is exactly what will end up happening; Christianity and Islam are not dying out any time soon, and most people who follow those religions do not like homosexuality.

    (To say one small thing in NOM’s favour, they do say in the small print that it’s actors *portraying* real stories)

  53. National Organization for Marriage?! What a caconym.

    They should be called the National Organization for Bearing False Witness Against Thy Neighbor.

  54. “[UPDATE: They are actors], but they are assholes.”

    Mark, that wins you Quote of the Dayâ„¢!!!

  55. This is absolutely disgusting.

    Marriage is about proving your love to someone. Are gays not allowed to love? Is gay love any less real than strait? No.

    Marriage is not about two different sex people becoming locked together for eternity because God says so. Its about love. How can people object to that?

  56. everyone with a youtube account should do this:

    basically, try to be as dramatic and absurd as possible (just like the real commercial.) crying is encouraged.

  57. Oh, look. Narrow-minded little people jealously trying to govern how others live.

    I’m not too concerned about them; the internet gives a voice to all kinds of freaks and monsters, many of whom are worse than these. These people are most likely just a bunch of doughy, uptight, churchy hypocrites. Kick down their doors and check their hiding places. You’ll find all kinds of alt porn in such people’s houses.

    They aren’t really worth our attention unless they start trying to get involved in politics. Otherwise, they’re just another little knot of outspoken weirdos.

  58. Over half of all heteromarriages end in divorce, but the important fight is to prevent an unpopular minority from getting married. I’m reminded of the biblical tale involving a splinter and a log.

  59. Anyone else tired of hearing from people who are just scared that they are now in the minority now that Bush is out of Office. We had to put up with this stupid crap for almost a decade and whenever we said anything to contradict them we got the whole, “You hate America,” bit. Well, now that we have a president who isn’t burnt in effigy whenever he leaves the country, their wild claims that we are heading down the road to tyranny and that the gays are coming for all “good” hearted Americans to ruin their marriage and turn them into homosexuals and when that happens, human kind will cease to be.

    The sad thing is that they can actually rationalize a future where that can happen.

  60. After watching this, I feel ashamed to be a happily married heterosexual. Seriously.

  61. This isn’t about marriage at all, it’s about homosexuality. They couch it in the cloak of “protecting marriage” because they will appear intolerant (and correctly so) if they come right out and say they are opposed to homosexuality (“they” meaning the actual people these actors represent).

    Their own marriages will not be annulled, they will not be prohibited from worshiping in the church of their choice, nor will they be forcibly stopped from teaching their children whatever they want at home.

    I went to their website and tried to find out the back-stories they were presenting (as suggested in the video), and could not find any details. Instead I found a list of talking points to counter charges of bigotry. They keep saying “marriage is threatened” but they don’t really detail HOW; it seems only their definition of marriage is threatened, not their actual legal unions.

    I want to know how this guy in NJ was “punished” by the government for not supporting same-sex marriage. It sounds remarkably similar to Glenn Beck’s claim that we are now living in a totalitarian state (in

  62. They all look so… sad!

    I still don’t understand how extending rights to another citizen will make my life poorer.

  63. this is absolutely crazy, i mean really me marrying my partner impacts these freaks, desperation…

  64. The audition tapes appear to have been removed from YouTube. This is the message I get when I click on them: “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by National Organization for Marriage.”

  65. Ah, anti-same-sex marriage people. How nostalgic.

    They’ve never made any sense, and they never will.

  66. “There’s a storm coming. . . ”

    Yeah, from YOU GUYS mainly.

    The hyperbole of “there’s a storm coming” reminds me of the hyperbole we used to hear about sex-education: “it starts with teaching kids about sex in public school, and it ends with strangers raping our kids in public and forcing us to watch!” (I really did hear fundamentalist Christians use this exact argument back in the 80’s.)

  67. I am a Christian, I am not threatened by gay marriage nor is my marriage threatened. My church is not threatened, we would gladly accept anyone in our church. While we feel homosexuality is a sin our task is saving souls, not angering them or repelling them, we are all sinners.
    Marriage, for eons, has been a religious institution, it was originally designed by religion and should remain unchanged. #79, you’re exactly right, it’s the definition that’s threatened.
    My idea is to leave marriage to churches and create a new institution under law to cover the rights two people joined under that institution that even married people would have to join in to to have those same rights, a true separation of church and state.

  68. What you’re witnessing is a reactive kick from the nerve stimulated by a religious doctrine being questioned by a population that doesn’t necessarily believe in the sky god. Stuff like this I file under “crazy religious people doing crazy stuff to protect their own craziness.” Remember how hundreds of years ago it was illegal to translate a bible? Or risk execution for claiming the world was round?

    More recently, remember how it was illegal in some US states for a black person to marry a white person? Yeah… it’s like that, although I’ve seen some bible-thumping black people take exception to the analogy. Yes, it’s the same folks. It hits a little close to home for me because my parents are an interracial couple.

    As for the actors, I feel like this production mirrors the famous experiment where people are dropped into a lab research project and told to administer shocks to unseen people who aren’t answering questions correctly. Except in this case, the participants aren’t being prodded by lab-coated authority figures. The director is waving their checks behind the camera. Act! Act for your money, whores!!

  69. @#98 & Everyone-

    ATTENTION- Here’s a realtime example of DCMA being used for evil- all the audition tapes I’ve checked are ALREADY (this post up less than a day!) taken down by YouTube “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by National Organization for Marriage”

    They obviously have been monitoring for criticism, because boy, they must have KNOWN they’d get called out for their shit, and hiring asshole actors to shill for their bigot lunacy.

    Find these audition tapes, find them NOW, and post them ALL OVER Youtube, and the internet. Flood the internet with mirrors of this bigoted filth, so any google search for them shows up as the truth- that they’re actors. Without these opinions.

    If bigots can use broken laws like the DMCA to keep a populace uninformed and stifle dissent, we can sure as hell fight back, and use the power of the entire internet, and every sane person on it, to FORCE the truth to be shown, and banish these people back to the filth they crawled from.

  70. nahh, as usual it’s all just about money. Religious profits are down all around since people are too busy and getting smarter about forking money and time over to a largely parasitic priest class. Church franchises closing everywhere, they are panicking. Dragging out the gay boogie man is one way to get the cash flow up again with fearful little haters contributing their pennies to buy bullets to kill gays. The gross goes up, the priestly rake-off goes up, it may be killing people but it’s a living for some.

  71. Oh humans!

    Only one thing to do…. Re-hire the EXACT same actors and do a pro-gay marriage ad. Edit it in the same way.

  72. Audition vid is up on Vimeo:

    For the record, I’m against all marriage and pretty much any institution sanctified by both the State and religion. Not really a great strategy for liberation. But, meh, marriage is an okay excuse for a party and getting tax breaks, if that’s what you’re into.

  73. The most ironic thing about this video is that the “rainbow coalition” sounds much more gay than it actually is.

  74. Wow. I didn’t read the description under the video clearly before I watched it, and I was sure it was a parody. Certain. After I realized it wasn’t, I watched it again, and wondered how anyone could watch that video and take it seriously. Incredible.

  75. Anonymous “Marriage, for eons, has been a religious institution, it was originally designed by religion and should remain unchanged.”
    Actually, it was a contract between two families for the control of property (side note: the wife being part of that property). Stepping in post hoc, codifying, then denying that anything came before is not the same as designing it.

  76. Until I read below I didn’t realize you guys were serious, I thought this was surely a video showing how BIGOTED and RIDICULOUS this kind of thing is. Also, the point made about replacing “gay” with “black” in the video is perfect.

  77. @ #102 posted by Anonymous:

    Marriage, for eons, has been a religious institution, it was originally designed by religion and should remain unchanged. #79, you’re exactly right, it’s the definition that’s threatened.

    Atheists get married every day but I don’t see churches protesting that practice.

  78. I don’t get it “Its not enough for same sex couples to marry, they have to infringe on my lifestyle” – what? – how? I just don’t understand?!?

    Are we _sure_ this isn’t a joke? ‘coz it feels like a badly executed parody…

  79. A sign package containing



    “We cater to hetero trade only”



    Also included the source .svg files (google “inkscape” for awesome software to modify the files) so you can change and improve on them.

    Graphics are based on what wikipedia spit up for me.

  80. I don’t the government should recognize gay marraige.

    /Ducks head

    On the other hand, I don’t think the government should recognize straight marriage either. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why the government should be involved in any way in the whole affair.

    Yes, I realize that it is an important issue, that the laws are such that may rights and privledges are conferred to the married (tax laws, etc.). Maybe, just maybe, it is time to start questioning even that. It seems to be that unless we go we’re playing on the “government has the right to control whatever they want” playing field, and as such, civil rights will always loose.

  81. Dontcha love how they say “a RAINBOW coalition of people are coming together”. Um, okay buddy. Love how you take the colors of the gay community and try to roll that into your schpeel.

    A-to the-HOLES.

  82. Because it’s made from corn, and has the same calories as sugar, and it’s OK in moderation??? LOL

  83. I’m disappointed that people who read boingboing are so obviously stupid.

    Can’t you see?

    If we let gays get married I lose my right NOT to marry a gay person. It’s obvious. Once they pass laws like this then the next thing you know *black* people and *white* people might start getting married to one another. Then I’ll have to marry a black gay person.

    After that it will be the Asians and I’ll have to marry some black Asian gay person. Before you know it, people in Europe and Australia will have to marry people in the USA and I’ll have to marry a black Asian gay citizen of the USA.

    Eventually atheists will be able to marry non-atheists and I’ll be forced to marry someone I don’t want to because gays want to get married.

    It so obvious…I don’t understand why people can’t see it?

    Why can’t people understand that if gays are allowed to get married I’ll lose everything: my house, my children, my job, my wife and especially my right NOT to marry a black Asian gay Christian citizen of the United States of America…at least I THINK this is what they mean…isn’t it? Or maybe I’ve misunderstood something here???

  84. “The National Organization for Marriage?” NOM?

    I thought that was an organization dedicated to fighting cookie addiction.

  85. Does anyone remember what it was like before youtube?

    Just a few years ago, someone would host a video clip in a file, and pretty soon, people would post links to mirrors in the comments, and someone would make a torrent of it.

    I think it’s pathetic that we’ve all become so dependent on services like youtube.
    Did anyone even think to mirror the flv file?
    Or is it just forever now?

    This is how we’re going to lose — we move everything into the cloud.

  86. The audition video is here:

    But I like Rachel Maddow’s commentary the best (thanks, John C.):

    I’ve gotta say, I was worried when I saw that there were 128 comments on this. Turns out Boingers just had that much ridicule and derision in them for this nonsense.

  87. Dequeued: That’s why I back up everything on punchcards. Punchcards. The Future. Punchcards.

  88. Walk softly through the
    desert sands
    Careful where you tread
    Underfoot are the visions lost
    Sleeping not yet dead
    Hang on – Winds starting to howl
    Hang on – The beast is on the prowl
    Hang on – Can you hear the
    strange cry
    Winds of change are blowing by
    Mountains crumble and cities fall
    Don’t come to an end
    Just lie scattered on the
    desert floor
    Waiting for the wind
    You got your life planned carefully
    But you left out one detail
    The hidden hand deals just one round
    And the winds of change prevail
    Walk softly through the desert sand
    Old dreams lead the way
    Nothing new in the sands of time
    Just changes every day
    Hang on – It’s starting again
    Hang on – There’s no shelter from
    the wind
    Hang on – Like a fire from the sky
    Winds of change are blowing by

    Jefferson Starship Winds Of Change lyrics

  89. anyway, Anonymous in #5, dish already on Maggie Gallagher! What did she do in school she would prefer forgotten?

  90. 2M4M = two men for men? Oh…two men for marriage… So, two gay guys want to get married, right? Some rugged farmer guy and his twink bf….

    Um…I think they need to polish their message a little.

  91. it really is all about their “freedom” to deny the rights of others:

    “They point to what they say are ominous recent examples:

    – A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney’s costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony.

    – A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.

    – Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.
    – A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.

    “It really is all about religious liberty for us,” said Scott Hoffman, ”

  92. @#115 posted by Brainspore,

    “Atheists get married every day but I don’t see churches protesting that practice.”


  93. Homophobes crack me up up.

    I posted on youtube, a few months ago, a wee video that I took of the West End Festival parade in Glasgow. I didn’t expect it to get a load of views, and it didn’t. Earlier on this year, though, this guy decided to post “disgusting” (I’d put “Mardi Gras” in the title.) I probed a little further and it transpired, amongst other things, that this chap used to believe he was gay until he’d been “shown the light” by the church. He seemed to believe that there is some kind of conspiracy to “make” everybody gay. It was completely mental.

  94. I find the consensus on calling out the National Organization for Marriage for using actors farcical following the seemingly rabid hunt-down of proposution 8 supporters after that passed. Not to mention the layer cake of abandoned logic, ridiculing, various deceptions baked up and thrown in people’s faces to get them to change their mind.
    The fact is, no matter how you try to joke it off, over half of the country disagrees with the idea of the redefinition of marriage. Which would make at least half of the country homophobic.* And the way *that* term is thrown around, it is apparent to me that many people want to throw the homophobes in jail for their “thought crimes”. I expect a frothing forth of posts offering up the same tired counterpoints that I have seen across the internet, so save your keystrokes, I’m not buying it. While I believe in the right to privacy, I believe in the preserving the primary freedoms of assembly, speech, and religion. Yes I know all too well how Boing Boing readers hates the fundies – funny how you’re not allowed to be a homophobe but it’s ok to be a fundiphobe.

    *considering that 29 states have passed constitutional amendments protecting marriage. This is not a statistically insignificant number.

  95. a grumpy marriage-free girl grouses –

    civil partnerships here in the UK – great, wonderful … except now I’m having to shell out even more money for wedding presents and my mother’s expectations have been raised even higher. She has just upped her “why can’t you meet a nice man and get married” to “why can’t you meet a nice person and get married”.

  96. @Eclectro

    I don’t know that anybody wishes to throw people into jail for “thought crimes” (hasn’t that got a little tired now?) Surely the objection here is to the idiotic idea that allowing gay people to marry in any way restricts upon anybody elses freedom.


    *thinks more*

    Nope; still can’t see it. Whereas it is clear that restricting the right of homosexuals to marry is, well, a restriction!

    The thing is, one would respect the views aired in that video if it wasn’t blatant scaremongering backed with, at best, spin and, at worst, downright lies. Live and let live, I say.

  97. @1
    i want to give him a hug and a high five

    i really dig the idea of the signs although two things: first, not everyone’s gonna get it and it would suck to see either some frat kids cheering as they drive by or a closeted gay kid get driven farther into the closet. so be careful. also i think the people in this thread have approached it well but it’s worth noting that there’s still tons of race and gender discrimination, it’s just less institutional. which is really the point of the signs, of course, but i can see it being taken too far, you know?

    you are a smart poster

  98. “… living as they wish.”
    “Those advocates want to change the way I live.”
    “I will have no choice.”

    How does allowing others to do what they want affect you?

    Ummmm. People have to much time on their hands. And their hands where they shouldn’t

  99. Eclectro said:

    The fact is, no matter how you try to joke it off, over half of the country disagrees with the idea of the redefinition of marriage. Which would make at least half of the country homophobic.

    Not necessarily homophobic, they may simply have never considered the issue properly outside the general conservative position which is that same-sex marriage is always wrong. It should be noted that this is the conservative position in America and it’s first and foremost an argument driven by religion, not by any secular political philosophy. Here in the UK the Conservative Party has gay members of Parliament and fully supports gay rights. (We have civil unions but not marriage yet; that’s something for the future.)

    The majority in the US may still hold this position but the trend is towards giving gay people the same freedom as their neighbours. Nate Silver has facts and figures at polling site 538:


    As he says there:

    Support for gay marriage, however, is strongly generational. In a CBS news poll conducted last month, 64 percent of voters aged 18-45 supported either gay marriage or civil unions, but only 45 percent of voters aged 65 and up did. Civil unions have already achieved the support of an outright majority of Americans, and as those older voters are replaced by younger ones, the smart money is that gay marriage will reach majority status too at some point in the 2010’s.

    Being openly gay in the US and UK was completely unacceptable in the 1960s. Gay sex was actually illegal in England until 1967 and even then the decriminalisation was a grudging thing which gave limited rights to gay men (lesbians were okay). The Stonewall Riots against police harassment in NYC took place in 1969. Gay liberation as a movement only got going properly in the 1970s. People tend to forget that we’re still living through a major civil rights revolution. Ads such as this one from NOM are the last twitches of a dying beast.

  100. gay people are still being murdered every day by homophobic morons. Just google “gay bashing” in google news and you’ll find an incident close to where you live. Go ahead, look.

  101. @Eclectro:
    Now you are just assuming the beliefs of all pro-marriage people, just the way you seem to hate the way some people assume all anti-gay marriage people are homophobic. You must remember, the majority of people who support same-sex marriage just want people in same-sex relationships to have the same rights as people in heterosexual relationships. That’s it, nothing more. They don’t want to take away people’s right to religion or speech or anything like that. Just because it is becoming less socially acceptable to be against same-sex marriage doesn’t mean that everyone wants to throw gay marriage opponents or even homophobic people (as long as they aren’t hurting anyone) in jail. The points the commercial is making are misleading. The doctor in California wanted to deny health care to a lesbian couple — do you honestly think that should be allowed? A doctor allowed to deny health care to someone because she doesn’t agree with their private life? Would she deny healthcare to an adulterer or a Hindu who is not worshiping her God? And the New Jersey faith group was receiving tax breaks for providing a space to the public. When they found out their space was being used for a lesbian wedding ceremony, they denied the couple the space. So, since they stopped providing a service to the ENTIRE public, they lost their tax break, which was a total of about $190 a year. It’s simple, if they had denied that space to an atheist marriage, the same result would have happened. It had nothing to do with denying their religious beliefs and everything to do with the fact that the group was no longer allowing everyone from the public to use their services.

    Please, just remember, I’m a lesbian, I’m an LGBTQAI activist, I know a whole lot of others just like me, and no one wants to take your rights away, we just want our rights to be recognized.

    Also @John Coulthart, you were dead on.

  102. But Takuan, that’s okay, because they’re an unpopular minority. In America’s Melting Pot, the unpopular soup on the bottom gets burned.

  103. why does freedom of speech protect hate-talkers like these fundie murderers when they would all be clapped in jail if the word “gay” was changed for “black”?

  104. The fact is, no matter how you try to joke it off, over half of the country disagrees with the idea of the redefinition of marriage. Which would make at least half of the country homophobic.

    Engaging Godwin engine

    Do I even need to point out that you could have said that about anti-Semtitism in Third Reich Germany? Slavery in the antebellum South? Stoning adulteresses in Saudi Arabia? I don’t think that you quite get the fact that the US Constitution is set up to subvert the tyranny of the majority, not enforce it. Perhaps an eighth-grade Civics class would be in order.

  105. Eclectro 143: I find the consensus on calling out the National Organization for Marriage for using actors farcical following the seemingly rabid hunt-down of proposution 8 supporters after that passed.

    What? How is claiming to be a doctor in California (as opposed to an actor portraying same) in any way equivalent to calling out Proposition h8 supporters and exposing what they really did and said? I see; for us to tell the truth makes it OK for your side to lie, is that it?

    Not to mention the layer cake of abandoned logic, ridiculing, various deceptions baked up and thrown in people’s faces to get them to change their mind.

    Coming from the side that spent millions bearing false witness against their neighbors in the Prop h8 election, this is, to use your word, farcical. Also hypocritical.

    The fact is, no matter how you try to joke it off, over half of the country disagrees with the idea of the redefinition of marriage.

    Only to you anti-equality boneheads is marriage being redefined. And as you know (you say you’ve already heard this) when you ask people about gay marriage, a slight majority is against, but if you ask people about what rights same-sex couples should have, a large majority believes they should have all the rights that marriage provides—and that only marriage can provide.

    I expect a frothing forth of posts offering up the same tired counterpoints that I have seen across the internet, so save your keystrokes, I’m not buying it.

    Shorter Eclectro: “LA LA LA I’M NOT LISTENING.” Why should anyone listen to an output-only person like you?

    I believe in the preserving the primary freedoms of assembly, speech, and religion.

    Liar. You don’t believe in freedom of religion at all. My religion has no problem with same-sex marriage, and performs lots of them; they have no legal status, because people like YOU keep privileging right-wing Christianity.

    Antinous 156: That’s one of those counterarguments that Eclectro has sweepingly pronounced he’s already heard. Note that he has infinite knowledge of all the arguments that can be made.

  106. Hate may be getting better and better at creating rationalizations … but they provide it no more cover than it always had.

    Amusing that the people who’d willingly drag us back into the 1800s and restrict or destroy science education are so willing to harness the products of that which they hate to serve their oppressive causes.

  107. Btw, Eclectro, I don’t think you should be locked up for the views you express, not one bit. Laughed at, yes. Defeated, yes. Ridiculed and called out for being a hatemonger, yes.

    But locked up? Never. That would violate the principle of Freedom of Speech.

    Besides, if we locked up everyone *I* think is an asshole, there’d be an awful lot of people in prison. (Actually there ARE an awful lot of people in prison, but I mean even more.)

  108. @Anon

    the majority of people who support same-sex marriage just want people in same-sex relationships to have the same rights as people in heterosexual relationships. That’s it, nothing more.

    I agree with that entirely. It’s the “nothing more” part that is the stickler. Because when the government is involved at the federal level, it effects *everyone* and becomes “something more”. For an instance, Catholic Charities in Massachusetts had to close its doors, because Catholics as you know think homosexuality is wrong and won’t adopt out children to same sex couples. Even though their continued operation would have helped children that need families, the state said that they could not discriminate against same sex couples. Catholics who are doctors also will not perform abortions, and many will not hand out birth control. Backwards maybe, but I (and others) see these things as various forms of religious freedoms that need to be defended.

    I am quite sure for these reasons that Catholics (or other Christians) will not want to perform services for gay weddings (e.g. photographers or bakers).

    Saying that if gay marriage is legal and that such lawsuits against service providers would not happen is in fact a bald-faced lie and perhaps is part of “the storm” that this video is referring to.

  109. I would have thought the tsunami of revelations about sexual abuse of children in catholic organizations would have been cause enough to close any catholic “charity” aimed at children. Especially since catholics were principal authors in the pedophilia slanders long used to burn gay people at the stake.

    If lawsuits follow, they can only prevail if they are just. If they are just, then something WAS wrong in the first place with the anti-gay practices of the defendants.

    The fundy gay-haters don’t have to DO anything. They just have to STOP DOING evil.

  110. @ #155 posted by Takuan:

    why does freedom of speech protect hate-talkers like these fundie murderers when they would all be clapped in jail if the word “gay” was changed for “black”?

    Last I checked it was just as legal to be a racist asshole as it is to be a homophobic asshole. Being a card-carrying member of the KKK isn’t enough to get you thrown in jail (though I suspect it might be enough to get your video taken off YouTube).

    I love freedom of speech. I just don’t care for how these guys are using it.

  111. eclectro “For an instance, Catholic Charities in Massachusetts had to close its doors, because Catholics as you know think homosexuality is wrong and won’t adopt out children to same sex couples. Even though their continued operation would have helped children that need families, the state said that they could not discriminate against same sex couples.”
    You do know that they were placing kids (something like 20 or 70, if memory serves) with gay couples before, right? It was only when they were told to that it became a problem (and if they were in tax-subsidized, then it ”is” a problem. Tax money can’t discriminate. Private money, however, is fairly free to be an asshole. Damn private money…it thinks it’s so great…grumble…).

    “Catholics who are doctors also will not perform abortions…”
    Even health-based (rather than life-style based), with that one, tiny, “tubal” exception (and even that only comes into effect when the tube has already burst). That’s not a doctor.

    “…and many will not hand out birth control.”
    Even to women who use them for reasons ”other” than birth control. Again, that’s not a doctor.

    “Backwards maybe, but I (and others) see these things as various forms of religious freedoms that need to be defended.”
    If religious freedom is the freedom to not do your job, then it’s a freedom that comes only at the expense of others. That’s the kind of freedom that needs to go away.

  112. Eclectro, if you discriminate for no good reason, you can be sued (assuming the law is just, which is of course the change you’re objecting to).

    If you think homosexuality or being in a same-sex couple is a good reason, you are a homophobe.

    Religions can be homophobic. They can also be racist, but that’s not a good reason for keeping anti-racist laws off the books.

  113. I’ve been searching for the last few minutes, and I can’t find any evidence that a “New Mexico Civil Rights Commission” exists.

  114. I like how the religious spent the previous …forever demonising the gay community for being promiscuous filth mongers.

    And now reject the idea of the fidelity of monogamous marriage for the self same libertines.

    The God-Botherers really need to cut the crap and just scream the thought that boils at the front of their minds


    That is all that is going on here, hate intolerance and bigotry dressed up in the cardboard wings of faux divinity.

    I only asterisked there to avoid getting the post hung up in limbo while it is vetted.

    It’ll still probably happen though.

  115. error404 “The God-Botherers really need to cut the crap and just scream the thought that boils at the front of their minds”
    “hot-anal-oral-sexy-man-on-man-throbbing-mansex”? If so, that would explain why so many of the Christian Right eventually get caught with their pants down…in compromising positions…wide stance…sexy text messages to young men/boys…etc…(now, anyway. They used to get caught with hookers. Lady hookers. I know, right? It sounds crazy!).

  116. To the moderator that deleted my post, thank you for proving my point about the narrow mindesses of people that claim to be liberal and progressive thinkers.

    1. arnold78,

      Please read the Moderation Policy. You tried to yank the thread to an unrelated and controversial subject.

  117. So pointing out the hypocrisy of people in this thread calling others intolerant, close minded and bigotted; while at the same time ridiculing other religious beliefs is wrong?

  118. Arnold78: are you sure that your post wasn’t really about hot, wet rodeo clown-on rodeo clown action? I think we both know that it was.

  119. how is ridiculing religious beliefs incompatible with pointing out the hypocritical intolerance, closed mindedness and bigotry that accompanies said religious beliefs? Though I find the idea of the Reformed Orthodox Church of the Hot, Wet Rodeo Clown vaguely appealing.

  120. See these great responses that tell the whole truth that NOM is hiding…

    What the National Organization for Marriage isn’t telling you in their “Gathering Storm

    Entertaining Response to the Lies told in “NOM – Gathering Storm” ad

Comments are closed.